Background

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. II), notice is hereby given that the Secretary of Agriculture intends to establish the charter of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Advisory Committee (Committee). The purpose of the Committee is to evaluate, and provide recommendations on, the selection of collaborative forest landscape restoration proposals to the Secretary of Agriculture for approval as provided in Title IV, Section 4003(e) of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-11).

The purpose of this title is to encourage the collaborative, science-based ecosystem restoration of priority forest landscapes through a process that:

1. Encourages ecological, economic, and social sustainability;

2. Leverages local resources with national and private resources;

3. Facilitates the reduction of wildfire management costs, including through reestablishing natural fire regimes and reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire; and

4. Demonstrates the degree to which:

a. Various ecological restoration techniques;

(1) Achieve ecological and watershed health objectives; and

(2) Affect wildfire activity and management costs; and

b. The use of forest restoration byproducts can offset treatment costs while benefiting local rural economies and improving forest health.

The Committee is being established in accordance with Section 4003(e) of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-11). The Secretary has determined that the work of the Committee is in the public interest and relevant to the duties of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The Committee will meet on an annual basis or as needed; determined by the Committee, and its primary duties will include:

1. Evaluating Collaborative Forest landscape Restoration project proposals with special consideration given to:

a. The strength of the proposal and strategy;

b. The strength of the ecological case of the proposal and the proposed ecological restoration strategies;

c. The strength of the collaborative process and the likelihood of successful collaboration throughout implementation;

d. Whether the proposal is likely to achieve reductions in long-term wildfire management costs:

e. Whether the proposal would reduce the relative costs of carrying out ecological restoration treatments as a result of the use of woody biomass and small-diameter trees; and

f. Whether an appropriate level of non-Federal investment would be leveraged in carrying out the proposal.

2. Provide recommendations on each proposal to the Secretary of Agriculture through the Chief of the Forest Service.

The Committee shall be comprised of no more than 15 members and fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented. The Committee shall include experts in:

1. Ecological Restoration,

2. Fire Ecology,

3. Fire Management,

4. Rural Economic Development,

5. Strategies for Ecological Adaptation to Climate Change,

6. Fish and Wildlife Ecology, and

7. Woody Biomass and Small-Diameter Tree Utilization.

Committee members will be appointed by the Secretary to 2-year terms. Vacancies will be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was made.

The appointment of members to the Committee will be made by the Secretary of Agriculture. Any individual or organization may nominate one or more qualified persons to represent the vacancies listed above to serve on the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Advisory Committee. To be considered for membership, nominees must:

1. Identify what expertise they would represent and how they are qualified to represent that skill;

2. State why they want to serve on the committee and what they can contribute;

3. Show their past experience in working successfully as part of a coordinating group; and

4. Complete form AD-755, Advisory Committee Membership Background Information.

Letters of recommendation are welcome. Individuals may also nominate themselves. Form AD-755 may be obtained from Forest Service contact persons or from the following Web site: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/ad755.pdf. All nominations will be vetted by the Agency. The Secretary of Agriculture shall appoint committee members to the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Advisory Committee from the list of qualified applicants. Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit nominations via overnight mail or delivery to ensure timely receipt by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Non-Federal members of the Committee shall serve without pay as special government employees (SGEs), but will be reimbursed for reasonable costs incurred while performing duties on behalf of the Committee. SGEs will be subject to appropriate conflict of interest statutes and standards of ethical conduct. All SGE nominees who are selected must complete the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) 450 Confidential Financial Disclosure Report before rendering any advice or prior to their first meeting. All members will be reviewed for conflict of interest pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 208 in relation to specific Committee work charges. Financial disclosure updates will be required annually. Members must report any changes in financial holdings requiring additional disclosure. OGE 450 forms are available on-line at: http://www.usoge.gov/forms/form_450.aspx.

Equal opportunity practices, in line with USDA policies, will be followed in all appointments to the Committee. To ensure that the recommendation of the Committee has taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department, membership includes, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and senior citizens.

The Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure that fair practices are used in trade.

The CCGP deals with rules and procedures referred to it by the Codex including the establishment of principles which define the purpose and scope of the Codex and the nature of Codex standards. The development of mechanisms to address any economic impact statements is also the responsibility of the CCGP.

The CCGP is hosted by France.

The following items on the agenda for the 26th Session of the CCGP will be discussed during the public meeting:

• Draft Revised Code of Ethics for International Trade in Foods

• Proposal to amend the Guidelines to Chairpersons of Codex Committees and ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Forces

• Review of the Risk Analysis Policies of Codex Committees

• Definition of the Term “Competent Authority”

• Proposed Amendment to the Terms of Reference of the Committee

• Discussion Paper on the Development of Joint Codex and World Organization for Animal Health Standards

• Discussion Paper on Co-Hosting of Codex Sessions

• Distribution of Documents and Length and Content of Reports

• Structure and Presentation of the Procedural Manual

Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat prior to the meeting. Members of the public may access copies of these documents (see ADDRESSES ).

At the March 23, 2010, public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to U.S. Delegate, Karen Stuck for the 26th Session of the CCGP (see ADDRESSES ). Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the 26th Session of the CCGP.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it online through the FSIS Web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations/2010_Notices_Index/.

FSIS will also 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 constituents and stakeholders. The Update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade groups, consumer interest groups, health professionals, and other individuals who have asked to be included. The Update is also available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Listserv and Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader and more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an electronic mail 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_and_events/e-mail_subscription/. Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

Background

Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure that fair practices are used in trade.

The CCCF establishes and endorses permitted maximum levels (MLs) for contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed; prepares a priority list of contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants for risk assessment by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA); considers methods of analysis and sampling for the determination of contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed; considers and elaborates standards or codes of practice for related subjects; and considers other matters assigned to it by the Commission in relation to contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed.

The Committee is chaired by the Netherlands.

The following items on the agenda for the 4th Session of the CCCF will be discussed during the public meeting:

• Matters Referred to the CCCF by Codex and other Codex Committees and Task Forces

• Matters of Interest Arising from FAO and WHO (including JECFA)

• Matters of Interest Arising from other International Organizations—International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

• Proposed Draft Code of Practice for the Reduction of Ethyl Carbamate in Stone Fruit Distillates

• Proposed Draft Maximum Levels for Melamine in Food and Feed

• Proposed Draft Maximum Levels for Total Aflatoxins in Brazil Nuts

• Proposed Draft Revision of the Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Aflatoxin in Tree Nuts (Additional Measures for Brazil Nuts)

• Proposed Draft Maximum Levels for Fumonisins in Maize and Maize Products and Associated Sampling Plans

• Discussion Paper on Mycotoxins in Sorghum

• Priority List of Contaminants and Naturally Occurring Toxicants Proposed for Evaluation by JECFA

Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat prior to the meeting. Members of the public may access copies of these documents (see ADDRESSES ).

At the March 29, 2010, public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to Dr. Henry Kim for the 4th Session of the CCCF (see ADDRESSES ). Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the 4th Session of the CCCF.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it online through the FSIS Web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Regulations_&_Policies/2010_Notices_Index/index.asp. FSIS will also 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 constituents and stakeholders. The Update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade groups, consumer interest groups, health professionals, and other individuals who have asked to be included. The Update is also available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Listserv and Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader and more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an electronic mail 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_and_events/email_subscription/. Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has previously sought emergency clearance from OMB and has received it.

OMB No.: OMB 0412-New.

Form No.: N/A.

Title: Disaster and Emergency Relief Information.

Type of Review: New Information Collection.

Purpose: The purpose of this Information Collection is to enable the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to collect information from members of the public as it relates to in-kind donations or expressions of interest to volunteer in response to an international disaster or emergency where USAID has been tasked with relief or recovery responsibilities.

Annual Reporting Burden:

Respondents: 2,000.

Total annual responses: 2,000.

Total annual hours requested: 500 hours.

On September 24, 2009, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate (CTL plate) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) and intent to rescind the administrative review in part. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind Administrative Review in Part , 74 FR 48716 (September 24, 2009), as corrected in Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea: Correction to the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind Administrative Review in Part , 74 FR 51834 (October 8, 2009) (collectively Preliminary Results ).

We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results . On October 26, 2009, we received a case brief from Hyosung Corporation (Hyosung). On November 2, 2009, we received a rebuttal brief from Nucor Corporation (Nucor). Because Hyosung's case brief contained untimely filed new factual information and Nucor's rebuttal brief cited the untimely filed new factual information Hyosung included in its case brief, we rejected and returned Hyosung's case brief and Nucor's rebuttal brief on January 6, 2010, and requested that Hyosung and Nucor resubmit their case and rebuttal briefs by January 13, 2010, and January 19, 2010, respectively.

On January 8, 2010, Hyosung submitted its revised case brief. In its January 8, 2010, case brief, Hyosung removed most of the new factual information we had rejected but the brief still contained new factual information. On January 19, 2010, Nucor submitted its revised rebuttal brief. In its revised rebuttal brief, Nucor identified several of Hyosung's statements in the revised case brief as new factual information and requested that the Department reject Hyosung's case brief.

On January 26, 2010, we rejected and returned the revised case and rebuttal briefs for Hyosung and Nucor, respectively, because the case brief contained the new factual information and the rebuttal brief addressed the new factual information. We allowed Hyosung and Nucor to resubmit their revised case and rebuttal briefs which did not include the new factual information by the close of business on January 28, 2010. Hyosung and Nucor resubmitted their revised case and rebuttal briefs, respectively, within the specified due date omitting the new factual information we identified in our January 26, 2010, rejection letters. These resubmitted briefs are the final case and rebuttal briefs Hyosung and Nucor submitted respectively for this administrative review. No other parties submitted either a case brief or a rebuttal brief.

On January 14, 2010, we extended the due date for the final results of this administrative review to February 22, 2010. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea: Extension of the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 75 FR 2107 (January 14, 2010). As explained in the memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, we have exercised our discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from February 5 through February 12, 2010. Thus, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by seven days. The revised deadline for the final results of this administrative review is now March 1, 2010. See Memorandum to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import Administration, regarding “Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During the Recent Snowstorm,” dated February 12, 2010.

The products covered by the antidumping duty order are certain hot-rolled carbon-quality steel: (1) Universal mill plates ( i.e. , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominal or actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to length (not in coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy quality steel; and (2) flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not in coils). Steel products included in the scope of the order are of rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and of rectangular or non-rectangular cross section where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( i.e. , products which have been “worked after rolling”)—for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel products that meet the noted physical characteristics that are painted, varnished, or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances are included within the scope. Also, specifically included in the scope of the order are high strength, low alloy (HSLA) steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Steel products included in the scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions, are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements, (2) the carbon content is two percent or less, by weight, and (3) none of the elements listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent zirconium. All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not equal or exceed any one of the levels listed above, are within the scope of the order unless otherwise specifically excluded. The following products are specifically excluded from the order: (1) Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances; (2) SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of series 2300 and above; (3) products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary equivalents; (4) abrasion-resistant steels ( i.e. , USS AR 400, USS AR 500); (5) products made to ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade S, or their proprietary equivalents; (6) ball bearing steels; (7) tool steels; and (8) silicon manganese steel or silicon electric steel.

Imports of steel plate are currently classified in the HTSUS under subheadings 7208.40.30.30, 7208.40.30.60, 7208.51.00.30, 7208.51.00.45, 7208.51.00.60, 7208.52.00.00, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.13.00.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7211.14.00.45, 7211.90.00.00, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, 7212.50.00.00, 7225.40.30.50, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.50.60.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the merchandise covered by the order is dispositive.

In the Preliminary Results , we preliminarily found that the claim by Daewoo International Corporation (Daewoo) that it made no shipments of subject merchandise during the period of review was consistent with import data provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and we stated our intent to rescind the administrative review with respect to this company. See Preliminary Results , 74 FR at 48717. We have received no comment concerning our intent to rescind. We continue to find that Daewoo had no shipments of CTL plate from Korea for the final results of this review and we are rescinding the review with respect to Daewoo.

All issues raised in Hyosung's case brief and Nucor's rebuttal brief are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memo) from Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary Edward C. Yang to Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary Carole A. Showers dated concurrently with this notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded is in the Decision Memo and attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Decision Memo, which is a public document, is on file in the Central Records Unit of the main Department of Commerce building, Room 1117, and is accessible on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

The Department found in the Preliminary Results that Hyosung, Hyundai Mipo Dockyard Co., Ltd. (Hyundai Mipo), and JeongWoo Industrial Machine Co., Ltd. (JeongWoo), failed to cooperate to the best of their ability in responding to the Department's requests for information and thereby impeded the Department's proceeding. See Preliminary Results , 74 FR at 48717. Therefore, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.308(c), the Department preliminarily selected 32.70 percent as the adverse facts-available dumping margin. This rate is the rate we assigned as adverse facts available to Tae Chang Steel Co., Ltd., which failed to submit its response to our antidumping questionnaire in the administrative review of this proceeding for the period February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind Administrative Review in Part , 72 FR 65701, 65702-03 (November 23, 2007), unchanged in Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Administrative Review in Part , 73 FR 15132, 15133 (March 21, 2008).

The Department received comments regarding its preliminary application of the adverse facts-available dumping margin to Hyosung. The Department did not receive any comments regarding its preliminary application of the adverse facts-available dumping margin to Hyundai Mipo and JeongWoo. For the final results, the Department has not altered its analysis or decision to apply the adverse facts-available dumping margin to Hyosung, Hyundai Mipo, and JeongWoo. See the Decision Memo for the issues parties raised and the Department's positions concerning those issues.

As a result of our review, we determine that the weighted-average dumping margins for CTL plate from Korea for the period February 1, 2008, through January 31, 2009, are as follows:

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because we are relying on total adverse facts available to establish the dumping margins for Hyosung, Hyundai Mipo, and JeongWoo, we will instruct CBP to apply a dumping margin of 32.70 percent to CTL plate from Korea that was produced and/or exported by Hyosung, Hyundai Mipo, and JeongWoo and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period of review. We will issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of review.

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of CTL plate from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rates for Hyosung, Hyundai Mipo, and JeongWoo will be 32.70 percent; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be 0.98 percent, 1 the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation, adjusted for the export-subsidy rate in the companion countervailing duty investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO as explained in the APO itself. See 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

These final results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

Through Market Development Cooperator Program (MDCP) cooperative agreements, the Department provides technical and financial assistance to trade associations, state departments of trade, and other non-profit industry organizations to help to underwrite the start-up costs of new ventures that organizations are often reluctant to undertake without federal government support. These organizations are particularly effective in reaching small- and medium-size enterprises (SMEs). The mission goals of the MDCP strengthens the competitiveness of U.S. industry by fostering projects that result in increased exports and/or market share for non-agricultural goods and services produced in the United States. As an active partner, ITA will, as appropriate, guide and assist organizations in achieving project objectives.

ITA publishes this notice to solicit applications for MDCP funds. ITA encourages organizations to propose projects that: (1) Best strengthen their industry through market development; and (2) leverage the partnership between the organization and ITA.

Several definitions are provided in section VIII. Other Information of the Federal Funding Opportunity announcement (see Electronic Access).

Applicants should propose market development activities tailored to strengthen the competitiveness of a U.S. industry. Examples from prior years are set forth below and, in greater detail, at trade.gov/mdcp. These are provided only for illustration: Promotion of standards that ensure market access for U.S. products; helping business leaders to leverage free trade agreements to the advantage of U.S. industry; demonstration of U.S. products abroad; development of a shared Internet-based distribution system in a target market; establishment of technical servicing of U.S. products abroad; joint promotion of U.S. products with foreign partners; establishment of a trade association office in a target market; education of foreign users of U.S. technology concerning intellectual property rights; training foreign staff for after-sale service of U.S. products in target markets; increasing trust in U.S. products in foreign markets by safeguarding non-U.S. elements of the supply chain with an ingredient testing system; publication of product brochures and company directories; and development of product quality standards and designations along with target-market promotion of same.

Electronic Access: The full text of the Federal funding opportunity (FFO) announcement for this program can be accessed via the Grants.gov Web site at http://www.grants.gov. The FFO announcement will also be available by contacting the program officials identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Applicants must comply with all requirements contained in the FFO announcement.

Statutory Authority: MDCP is provided for in 15 U.S.C. 4723. The program strengthens U.S. industry's competitiveness by developing, maintaining, and expanding foreign markets for non-agricultural goods and services produced in the United States.

CFDA: 11.112, Market Development Cooperator Program

Funding Availability: Approximately $1,500,000 is expected to be available through this announcement for fiscal year 2010. The total number of awards made will depend on the amounts requested by top-scoring applicants and the availability of funds. No award will exceed $500,000. The Department anticipates concluding three to thirty cooperative agreements.

ITA seeks to promote trade and strengthen the global competitiveness of U.S. industry. MDCP projects should be designed to meet this objective. The primary measurements of effectiveness of MDCP projects in meeting this objective are exports and U.S. jobs created or sustained by these exports. Listed below are more specific priorities that help ITA to achieve this objective. Applicants should demonstrate how their proposed projects are compatible with or complementary to these ITA priorities. An applicant does not need to focus on a specific number of these priorities to qualify for an award. Strong compatibility or complementarity on one priority can be sufficient for an application to score high enough to be funded. The Department is interested in receiving proposals that include but are not limited to projects that:

1. Create or sustain U.S. jobs by increasing or maintaining exports;

2. Address impediments to innovation and reduce the cost of doing business in foreign countries;

3. Address standards, intellectual property rights, and other non-tariff barriers, especially in large markets like China, India, and Brazil;

4. Help U.S. industry to capitalize on effective global supply chain management strategies;

5. Increase U.S. market share in China's clean energy sector and improve the business environment for U.S. companies in China;

6. Facilitate ease of travel to the United States and promote U.S. higher education and training opportunities to non-U.S. entities;

7. Increase overall export awareness and awareness of ITA programs and services among U.S. companies, by making SMEs export-ready or by facilitating deal-making; and

8. Expand exports of U.S. emerging technologies.

Eligibility: Trade associations, state departments of trade and their regional associations, and non-profit industry organizations, including organizations such as World Trade Centers, centers for international trade development and small business development centers are eligible to apply for an MDCP award. Private industry firms or groups of firms may be eligible to apply for an MDCP award in cases where an entity listed above does not exist to represent the industry. Such private industry firms or groups of firms must provide in their applications, documentation demonstrating that a trade association, non-profit industry organization, or state department of trade or their regional association does not exist to represent the industry.

Definitions of each eligible entity are provided below:

1. Trade Association: A fee-based organization consisting of member firms in the same industry, or in related industries, or which share common commercial concerns. The purpose of the trade association is to further the commercial interests of its members through the exchange of information, legislative activities, and other forms of representation.

a. A non-profit small business development center operating under agreement with the Small Business Administration; or

b. A non-profit World Trade Center chartered or recognized by the non-profit World Trade Centers Association; or

c. An organization granted status as a non-profit organization under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3), (4), (5), or (6), which operates as one of the following: (1) Chamber of commerce; (2) Board of trade; (3) Business, export or trade council/interest group; (4) Visitors bureau or tourism promotion group; (5) Economic development group; (6) Small business development center; or (7) Port authority. Organizations with 501(c)(4) status that engage in lobbying are not eligible.

a. Department of a state government tasked with promoting trade, tourism, or other types of economic development; or

b. Associations of the departments of trade (as defined above) of two or more states; or

c. Entities within a state or within a region that are associated with a state department of trade, tourism, or other types of economic development including non-profit, non-private, non-commercial entities which are at least partially funded by, directed by, or tasked by a state government to promote trade, tourism, or other types of economic development.

Educational institutions, such as schools, colleges, and universities, are generally not eligible. However, organizations that are part of or affiliated with an educational institution for administrative, accounting, financial, legal, or logistical reasons may be eligible. Such organizations that are not independent legal entities—for example, an unincorporated organization—that otherwise may be classified as a trade association; non-profit industry association; or. state department of trade or their regional association are eligible. In such a case, the eligible entity will include in its application a signed letter from the educational institution stating that MDCP funds will be used only by the eligible entity for the purposes outlined in its application, and that no such funds will be used by or retained by the educational institution, even though the funds may need to go through the educational institution because of the eligible entity's lack of a separate accounting system or lack of status as a separate legal entity.

Cost Sharing Requirements: A cooperator must contribute at least two dollars for each Federal dollar received. The first dollar's-worth of contribution must be cash, the second can be either cash or in-kind contribution worth one dollar. See section VIII.B. Supplemental Explanation of Cost Share and Match of the FFO announcement for more information.

Evaluation and Selection Procedures: The general evaluation criteria and selection factors that apply to full applications to this funding opportunity are summarized below. Further information about the evaluation criteria and selection factors can be found in the FFO announcement.

Evaluation Criteria for Projects: The Department is interested in projects that demonstrate the possibility of both significant progress during the award period and lasting benefits extending beyond the award period. To that end, the selection panel reviews each application for financial assistance under MDCP based upon the evaluation criteria listed below.

1. Potential to Strengthen Competitiveness (20 points):

A project's potential to strengthen competitiveness is evaluated primarily on the likelihood that it will result in export initiatives by U.S. firms, particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises. Such initiatives are normally characterized by a significant expenditure of resources by the chief executive officer of a company in the active pursuit of export sales. As noted in the Examples of Project Activity, many different kinds of activity can strengthen the competitiveness of U.S. industry; however, an applicant can earn the maximum number of points under this criterion only by demonstrating how its proposed project is expected to result in increased export initiatives by individual U.S. firms and exports by those firms.

2. Performance Measurement (20 points):

Applicants must provide quantifiable estimates of projected export and market share increases and explain how they are derived. No application that lacks an estimate of exports can receive a performance measurement score that exceeds ten (10). Applicants must detail the methods they will use to gather and report performance information. The Department will evaluate each applicant's proposed performance measures and proposed performance goals to determine how reasonable they are and to determine the likelihood that the applicant will gather and report useful data.

3. Partnership and Priorities (20 points):

This criterion evaluates the degree to which the project initiates or enhances partnership with ITA and the degree to which the proposal furthers or is compatible with ITA's priorities stated under Program Priorities above.

4. Creativity and Capacity (20 points):

This criterion evaluates the creativity, innovation, and realism displayed by the work plan as well as the institutional capacity of the applicant to carry out the work plan.

a. Demonstrating Creativity: Applicants might propose ideas not previously tried to promote a particular industry in a market. Creativity can be demonstrated by the manner in which techniques are customized to meet the specific needs of certain client groups.

b. Table Comparing Proposal to Current or Past MDCP Projects: Applicants that have received an MDCP award in the past must submit a table comparing their current or past MDCP project(s) and their proposed project. The need for this table and the requested format are described below. MDCP awards are designed to help underwrite the start-up costs of new projects. Accordingly, current or past cooperators can be in a position to earn the maximum number of points under this criterion only if they propose projects that are entirely new. In order to determine whether a project is entirely new, the current or past cooperator must provide, as a separate appendix, a comparison between the elements of the proposed project and the elements of its current or past MDCP-funded projects. Current or past cooperators that propose projects that are not entirely new will receive fewer points under this criterion than they would receive otherwise. In determining the number of points under this criterion, the selection panel will consider the level to which a particular applicant has incorporated elements of its previously funded MDCP projects. To do this, current or past cooperators should submit a table wherein they approximate the amount of resources devoted to each project element. See VIII.C. Example Table Comparing Proposal to Current or Past MDCP Projects of the FFO announcement for more information.

c. Institutional Capacity: The Department measures institutional capacity by what each applicant submits. A current or past cooperator should not assume that success with a prior MDCP project will automatically be taken into account by the Department when reviewing its application. Each applicant must document its institutional capacity in its application.

5. Budget and Sustainability (20 points):

This criterion encompasses the reasonableness of the itemized budget for project activities, the amount of the cash match that is readily available at the beginning of the project, and the probability that the project can be continued on a self-sustained basis after the completion of the award. Current or past cooperators must show how the proposed project will achieve self-sustainability independent of any current or past MDCP projects. ITA does not assume that prior MDCP projects are self-sustaining. As noted in the section entitled Institutional Capacity, ITA assesses each application based on what each applicant chooses to include in its application. If an applicant wants ITA to consider the self-sustainability of a prior project when evaluating a new project proposal, it should include relevant information in its application.

Each of the above criteria is worth a maximum of 20 points. The five criteria together constitute the application score. At 20 points per criterion, the total possible score is 100.

Review and Selection Process: The applicant is responsible for submitting a complete application in a timely manner. Prior to selection, each complete application receives an evaluation as set forth below.

The MDCP staff of the Office of Planning, Coordination and Management (OPCM) in ITA's Manufacturing and Services (MAS), in consultation with the Department's Office of General Counsel, reviews all applications to determine the eligibility of each applicant.

All eligible applicants are forwarded to the relevant program areas, including ITA's MAS, Market Access and Compliance (MAC), and Commercial Service, for review. This allows experts in the industry sector or geographical region to assess applicant claims. These reviewers provide insights into both the potential benefits and the potential difficulties associated with the applications.

Representatives of OPCM will also review and comment on applications using the evaluation criteria identified above.

The MDCP Manager prepares for the selection panel a review packet including the applications and OPCM reviewer and program area reviewer comments. The OPCM reviewer and program area review comments afford the selection panel the insights and breadth of experience of Department professionals. Although their comments are made available to the selection panel, it is only the selection panel's scores that determine the top ranked applications that are forwarded to the Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and Services with the recommendation for selection as award recipients. The MDCP Manager forwards all of the eligible applications, along with all related materials, to the selection panel, which is comprised of at least three senior ITA managers, for review and selection recommendation. This panel is chaired by the OPCM Director and typically includes three other members, one each from MAS, MAC, and the Commercial Service. Panel members are office directors or higher.

Each selection panel member reviews each eligible application using the evaluation criteria and assigns a score for each of the five criteria stated above. Panel members have the discretion to take into consideration the OPCM staff and program area comments when assigning a score for each application. The scores of each selection panel member for each application reviewed are maintained in the files for three years. The individual criteria scores are averaged to determine the total score for each application. The evaluation criteria scores assigned by the panel determine which applications are recommended for funding.

Based on the scores assigned by selection panel members and deliberations by the selection panel, the selection panel ranks all applications based on scores and forwards the applications with the ten highest total scores (“top-ranked applications”) to the Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and Services, and recommends which of the top applications should receive funding. If the amount of funds requested by the top ten applicants is less than the funding available, the selection panel recommends additional applications for funding in rank order. The selection panel's recommendation will not deviate from the rank order. For example, the selection panel cannot recommend funding for the application ranked seventh without recommending funding for applicants ranked first through sixth. The selection panel recommendation includes the panel's written assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the top-ranked applications.

Selection Factors for Projects: From the top-ranked applications forwarded by the selection panel, the Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and Services selects those applications that will receive funding. In addition to the evaluation criteria, the Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and Services may consider the selection factors listed below:

1. The selection panel's written assessments;

2. Degree to which applications satisfy the ITA priorities established under Program Priorities;

3. Geographic distribution of the proposed awards;

4. Diversity of industry sectors and overseas markets covered by the proposed awards;

5. Diversity of project activities represented by the proposed awards;

6. Avoidance of redundancy and conflicts with the initiatives of other federal agencies; and

7. Availability of funds.

Intergovernmental Review: There are no intergovernmental review requirements beyond those already noted.

Limitation of Liability: In no event will NOAA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if these programs fail to receive funding or are cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds.

The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements: The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the Federal Register notice of February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7696), are applicable to this solicitation.

Paperwork Reduction Act: This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, and SF-LLL and CD-346 has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Executive Order 12866: This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act: Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for rules concerning public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements for the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA) amended the Moratorium Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1826d-k) to require actions be taken by the United States to strengthen international fishery management organizations and address IUU fishing and bycatch of PLMRs. Specifically, the Moratorium Protection Act requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to identify in a biennial report to Congress those nations whose fishing vessels are engaged, or have been engaged at any point during the preceding 2 years, in IUU fishing. In this context, IUU fishing is defined (16 U.S.C. 1826j; 50 CFR 300.200-201) as:

(1) Fishing activities that violate conservation and management measures required under an international fishery management agreement to which the United States is a party, including catch limits or quotas, capacity restrictions, and bycatch reduction requirements;

(2) Overfishing of fish stocks shared by the United States, for which there are no applicable international conservation or management measures or in areas with no applicable international fishery management organization or agreement, that has adverse impacts on such stocks; and

(3) Fishing activity that has an adverse impact on seamounts, hydrothermal vents, and cold water corals located beyond national jurisdiction, for which there are no applicable conservation or management measures or in areas with no applicable international fishery management organization or agreement.

Additionally, the Secretary must identify in the biennial report those nations whose fishing vessels are engaged, or have been engaged during the preceding calendar year, in fishing activities either (1) in waters beyond any national jurisdiction that result in bycatch of a PLMR, or (2) beyond the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) that result in bycatch of a PLMR shared by the United States. In this context, PLMRs are defined as non-target fish, sea turtles, or marine mammals that are protected under U.S. law or international agreement, including the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Shark Finning Prohibition Act, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna. PLMRs do not include species, except sharks, managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, or any international fishery management agreement. (A list of species considered as PLMRs for this purpose is available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/mrip.htm )

The first biennial report was submitted to Congress in January 2009 and is available online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/docs/msra_biennial_report_011309.pdf . The report identified six nations for IUU fishing.

The Moratorium Protection Act also requires the Secretary to establish procedures to certify whether each nation identified in the biennial report is taking appropriate corrective action to address IUU fishing and/or bycatch of PLMRs by fishing vessels of that nation. If a nation does not receive a positive certification by the Secretary, they could be subject to sanctions under the High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act (Enforcement Act)(16 U.S.C. 1826a). On January 14, 2009, NMFS published a proposed rule to implement both the identification and certification procedures. (That proposed rule is available online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/docs/iuu_bycatch_rule011409.pdf .)The rule provides information regarding the identification process and how the information solicited here will be used in that process.

In fulfillment of its requirements under the Moratorium Protection Act, NMFS is preparing the second biennial report to Congress, which will identify nations whose fishing vessels are engaged in IUU fishing, or fishing practices that result in bycatch of PLMRs. NMFS is soliciting information from the public that could assist in its identification of nations engaged in activities that meet one or more of the three criteria described above for IUU fishing or one or more of the two criteria described above for PLMR bycatch. Information that may prove useful to NMFS includes:

• Documentation (photographs, etc.) of IUU activity or PLMR bycatch;

• Fishing vessel records;

• Reports from off-loading facilities, port-side government officials, enforcement agents, military personnel, port inspectors, transshipment vessel workers and fish importers;

• Government vessel registries;

• IUU vessel lists from RFMOs;

• RFMO catch documents and statistical document programs;

• Appropriate certification programs; and

• Reports from governments, international organizations, or nongovernmental organizations.

NMFS will consider all available information, as appropriate, when making a determination whether or not to identify a particular nation in the biennial report to Congress. NMFS is particularly interested in information on IUU fishing activity and bycatch of PLMRs that occurred during 2009-2010. NMFS will consider several criteria when determining whether information is appropriate for use in making identifications, including but not limited to:

• Corroboration of information;

• Whether multiple sources have been able to provide information in support of an identification;

• The methodology used to collect the information;

• Specificity of the information provided;

• Susceptibility of the information to falsification and alteration; and

• Credibility of the individuals or organization providing the information.

Information should be as specific as possible as this will assist NMFS in its review.

The antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC was published on January 4, 2005. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China , 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005). On January 21, and 29, 2010, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(c), the Department received timely requests for new shipper reviews from Dongguan Huansheng Furniture Co., Ltd. (“Dongguan Huansheng”); Hangzhou Cadman Trading Co., Ltd. (“Cadman”); and Wanvog Furniture (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. (“Wanvog”). Dongguan Huansheng and Wanvog certified that they are each the exporter and producer of, and Cadman certified that it is the exporter of, the subject merchandise upon which their respective request for a new shipper review was based.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii)(A), Dongguan Huansheng, Cadman, and Wanvog certified that they did not export wooden bedroom furniture to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”). Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B), Haining Changbei Furniture Co., Ltd. (“Haining Changbei”), the producer of subject merchandise exported by Cadman, certified that it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. In addition, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Dongguan Huansheng, Cadman, and Wanvog certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, they have never been affiliated with any PRC exporter or producer who exported wooden bedroom furniture to the United States during the POI, including those not individually examined during the investigation. As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Dongguan Huansheng, Cadman, and Wanvog, also certified that their export activities were not controlled by the central government of the PRC.

In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Dongguan Huansheng, Cadman, and Wanvog submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) the date on which Dongguan Huansheng, Cadman, and Wanvog first shipped wooden bedroom furniture for export to the United States and the date on which the wooden bedroom furniture was first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption; (2) the volume of their first shipment; 1 and (3) the date of their first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.

The Department conducted U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) database queries and confirmed that shipments of subject merchandise from Dongguan Huansheng, Cadman, and Wanvog had entered the United States for consumption and that liquidation of such entries had been properly suspended for antidumping duties. The Department also confirmed by examining CBP data that Dongguan Huansheng, Cadman, and Wanvogs' entries were made during the POR as specified by the Department's regulations. See 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B). After examining CBP data, the Department requested additional information from Wanvog. See letter to Wanvog regarding, “Request for New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China,” dated February 18, 2010. On February 25, 2010, Wanvog submitted its response to the Department's request for additional information. See Wanvog's letter regarding, “New Shipper Review Request on Behalf of Wanvog Furniture (Kunshan) Co., Ltd.: Response to Supplemental Information Requests,” dated February 25, 2010. For a detailed discussion regarding Wanvog's CBP data, see Memorandum to the File through Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4: Initiation of AD New Shipper Review of Wanvog Furniture (Kunshan) Co., Ltd.: Wooden Bedroom from the People's Republic of China (“Wanvog Checklist”), dated concurrently with this notice.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), the Department will publish the notice of initiation of a new shipper review no later than the last day of the month following the anniversary month of the order. As explained in the memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from February 5, through February 12, 2010. Thus, the deadline for publishing this notice of initiation has been extended by seven days. The revised deadline for publishing this notice is March 8, 2010, which is the first business day after the extended deadline. See Memorandum to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import Administration, regarding “Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During the Recent Snowstorm,” dated February 12, 2010.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), the Department finds that Dongguan Huansheng, Cadman, and Wanvog meet the threshold requirements for initiation of new shipper reviews of their shipments of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. See Memorandum to the File through Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4: Initiation of AD New Shipper Review of Dongguan Huansheng Furniture Co., Ltd.: Wooden Bedroom from the People's Republic of China, dated concurrently with this notice; Memorandum to the File through Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4: Initiation of AD New Shipper Review of Hangzhou Cadman Trading Co., Ltd.: Wooden Bedroom from the People's Republic of China, dated concurrently with this notice; and Wanvog Checklist.

The POR for the new shipper reviews of Dongguan Huansheng, Cadman, and Wanvog is January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2009. See 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B). The Department intends to issue the preliminary results of these reviews no later than 180 days from the date of initiation, and the final results of these reviews no later than 270 days from the date of initiation. See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.

It is the Department's usual practice, in cases involving non-market economies, to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate provide evidence of de jure and de facto absence of government control over the company's export activities. Accordingly, we will issue questionnaires to Dongguan Huansheng, Cadman, and Wanvog, which will include a separate rate section. The review of each exporter will proceed if the response provides sufficient indication that the exporter is not subject to either de jure or de facto government control with respect to its exports of wooden bedroom furniture.

We will instruct CBP to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for certain entries of the subject merchandise from Dongguan Huansheng, Cadman, and Wanvog in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because Dongguan Huansheng, and Wanvog certified that they both produce and export the subject merchandise, the sales of which form the basis for their new shipper review requests, we will instruct CBP to permit the use of a bond only for entries of subject merchandise which the respondent both produced and exported. Because Cadman certified that it exported subject merchandise produced by Haining Changbei, the sales of which form the basis for Cadman's request for a new shipper review, we will instruct CBP to permit the use of a bond only for entries of the subject merchandise produced by Haining Changbei and exported by Cadman in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e).

Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in these new shipper reviews should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306.

This initiation and notice are published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i).

On September 25, 2009, notice was published in the Federal Register (74 FR 48909) that a request for an amendment to Permit No. 358-1787-02 to conduct research on harbor seals ( Phoca vitulina ), spotted seals ( P. largha ), ringed seals ( P. hispida ), ribbon seals ( P. fasciata ), and bearded seals ( Erignathus barbatus ) in Alaska had been submitted by the above-named applicant. The requested permit amendment has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

The amended permit allows an increase in the number of ringed, bearded, spotted, and ribbon seals that may be captured, from 50 per year to 100 per year, to allow for selection of animals of specific age, sex, and molt condition. The amendment also includes permission to (1) administer diazepam as needed to sedate seals acting aggressively during handling, (2) pull a whisker for stable isotope analyses of diet; and (3) use a dip net from a boat as an additional capture method. The amendment is valid for the duration of the permit, which expires on December 31, 2011.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), a final determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

On December 1, 2009, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 74 FR 62743 (December 1, 2009). On December 31, 2009, Mueller Comercial de México, S. De R.L. de C.V. (“Mueller”) and Southland Pipe Nipples Company, Inc. (“Southland”) requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Mueller's exports to the United States for the period December 1, 2008, through November 30, 2009. Pursuant to this request, the Department published a notice of the initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from the PRC. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 75 FR 4770 (January 29, 2010).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the requests within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. On January 12, 2010, Mueller and Southland timely withdrew their request that the Department conduct an administrative review of Mueller's entries of subject merchandise, and no other interested party requested a review of this company. Therefore, the Department is rescinding this administrative review of the antidumping duty order on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from the PRC covering the period December 1, 2008, through November 30, 2009, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.402(f)(3), failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and as explained in the APO itself. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

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

The workshop schedules, registration information, and a list of frequently asked questions regarding these workshops are posted on the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/workshops/ .

Since January 1, 2008, Atlantic shark dealers have been prohibited from receiving, purchasing, trading, or bartering for Atlantic sharks unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate is on the premises of each business listed under the shark dealer permit which first receives Atlantic sharks (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). Dealers who attend and successfully complete a workshop are issued a certificate for each place of business that is permitted to receive sharks. These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. Approximately 43 free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops have been conducted since January 2007.

Currently permitted dealers may send a proxy to an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop. However, if a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer must designate a proxy for each place of business covered by the dealer's permit which first receives Atlantic sharks. Only one certificate will be issued to each proxy. A proxy must be a person who: is currently employed by a place of business covered by the dealer's permit; is a primary participant in the identification, weighing, and/or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and fills out dealer reports. Atlantic shark dealers are prohibited from renewing a federal shark dealer permit unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate for each business location which first receives Atlantic sharks has been submitted with the permit renewal application. Additionally, trucks or other conveyances - which are extensions of a dealer's place of business -- must possess a copy of a valid dealer or proxy Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate.

1. April 8, 2010, 12 p.m. - 5 p.m., Florida Oceanographic Coastal Center, 890 NE Ocean Boulevard, Stuart, FL 34996.

2. May 20, 2010, 12 p.m. - 5 p.m., Boyden Library - Fuller Room, 10 Bird Street, Foxborough, MA 02035.

3. June 10, 2010, 12 p.m. - 5 p.m., Alvin Library, 105 South Gordon Street, Alvin, TX 77511.

To register for a scheduled Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, please contact Eric Sander at esander@peoplepc.com or at (386) 852-8588.

To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring specific items to the workshop:

• Atlantic shark dealer permit holders must bring proof that the attendee is an owner or agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable permit, and proof of identification.

• Atlantic shark dealer proxies must bring documentation from the permitted dealer acknowledging that the proxy is attending the workshop on behalf of the permitted Atlantic shark dealer for a specific business location, a copy of the appropriate valid permit, and proof of identification.

The shark identification workshops are designed to reduce the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks reported in the dealer reporting form and increase the accuracy of species-specific dealer-reported information. Reducing the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks will improve quota monitoring and the data used in stock assessments. These workshops will train shark dealer permit holders or their proxies to properly identify Atlantic shark carcasses.

Since January 1, 2007, shark limited-access and swordfish limited-access permit holders who fish with longline or gillnet gear have been required to submit a copy of their Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop certificate in order to renew either permit (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. As such, vessel owners who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel owners whose certificate(s) will expire prior to the next permit renewal, must attend a workshop to fish with, or renew, their swordfish and shark limited-access permits. Additionally, new shark and swordfish limited access permit applicants who intend to fish with longline or gillnet gear must attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and submit a copy of their workshop certificate before either of the permits will be issued. Approximately 82 free Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops have been conducted since 2006.

In addition to certifying vessel owners, at least one operator on board vessels issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit that uses longline or gillnet gear is required to attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and receive a certificate. Vessels that have been issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit and that use longline or gillnet gear may not fish unless both the vessel owner and operator have valid workshop certificates onboard at all times. The certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. As such, vessel operators who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel operators whose certificate(s) will expire prior to their next fishing trip, must attend a workshop to operate a vessel with swordfish and shark limited-access permits that uses with longline or gillnet gear.

1. April 7, 2010, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 137 Automall Circle, Daytona Beach, FL 32124.

2. April 28, 2010, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m., Hilton Hotel (at Louis Armstrong New Orleans airport), 901 Airline Drive, Kenner, LA 70062.

3. May 20, 2010, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 5353 Virginia Dare Trail, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949.

4. May 26, 2010, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn (at T. F. Green Providence airport), 1 Thurber Street, Warwick, RI 02886.

5. June 16, 2010, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m., Town & Country Inn, 2008 Savannah Highway, Charleston, SC 29407.

6. June 30, 2010, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 151 Route 72 East, Manahawkin, NJ 08050.

To register for a scheduled Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop, please contact Angler Conservation Education at (386) 290-8955.

To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring specific items with them to the workshop:

• Individual vessel owners must bring a copy of the appropriate swordfish and/or shark permit(s), a copy of the vessel registration or documentation, and proof of identification.

• Representatives of a business owned or co-owned vessel must bring proof that the individual is an agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable swordfish and/or shark permit(s), and proof of identification.

• Vessel operators must bring proof of identification.

The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops are designed to teach longline and gillnet fishermen the required techniques for the safe handling and release of entangled and/or hooked protected species, such as sea turtles, marine mammals, and smalltooth sawfish. The proper identification of protected species will also be taught at these workshops in an effort to improve reporting. Additionally, individuals attending these workshops will gain a better understanding of the requirements for participating in these fisheries. The overall goal of these workshops is to provide participants with the skills needed to reduce the mortality of protected species, which may prevent additional regulations on these fisheries in the future.

Participants in the industry-sponsored workshops on safe handling and release of sea turtles that were held in Orlando, FL (April 8, 2005), and in New Orleans, LA (June 27, 2005), were issued a NOAA workshop certificate in December 2006 that was valid for 3 years. These workshop certificates have expired.

Vessel owners and operators whose certificates expire prior to the next permit renewal or fishing trip must attend a workshop, successfully complete the course, and obtain a new certificate in order to fish with or renew their limited-access shark and limited-access swordfish permits. Failure to provide a valid NOAA workshop certificate could result in a permit denial.

Program Information: EDA's mission is to lead the federal economic development agenda by promoting innovation and competitiveness, preparing American regions for growth and success in the worldwide economy. EDA fulfills its mission by helping our partners across the nation create wealth and minimize poverty by promoting a favorable business environment to attract private capital investment and higher-skill, higher-wage jobs through capacity-building, planning, infrastructure, research grants and strategic initiatives. Institutions of higher education have many assets that can help address regional economic problems and opportunities, such as faculty, staff, students, libraries, laboratories, facilities, and computer systems. With funding from EDA, institutions of higher education and consortia of institutions of higher education establish and operate University Centers. These EDA-sponsored University Centers conduct applied research, provide technical assistance to public and private sector organizations, and conduct other activities with the goal of enhancing regional economic development.

EDA began administering the University Center Economic Development Program as a competitive multi-year program in FY 2004. Under this multi-year program designation, EDA holds University Center Economic Development Program competitions each fiscal year in two of its six regional offices. For example, in FY 2004 and 2007, EDA solicited applications under a competition held in the Austin and Denver regional offices, and in FY 2005 and 2008, EDA solicited applications in the Philadelphia and Chicago regional offices. In FY 2006 and 2009, EDA solicited applications in the Atlanta and Seattle regional offices. Pursuant to its fiscal year schedule, for FY 2010, EDA announces that it will hold the competition in the Austin and Denver regional offices.

EDA encourages the submission of applications that will significantly benefit regions with distressed economies. Distress may exist in a variety of forms, including high levels of unemployment, low income levels, large concentrations of low-income families, and significant declines in per capita income because of large numbers (or high rates) of business failures, sudden major layoffs or plant closures, military base closures, natural or other major disasters, depletion of natural resources or reduced tax bases, and substantial loss of population because of the lack of employment opportunities. Under the University Center Economic Development Program, EDA seeks to support university-based programs that provide for regional, Statewide or multi-State programs to help foster the creation and retention of higher-skill, higher-wage jobs; attract private capital investment to the region served by the proposed University Center; address regional economic development challenges and opportunities; and enhance long-term regional and national competitiveness in the worldwide marketplace. EDA encourages projects that will collaborate with, interact with, and benefit other EDA investment partners, recipients, and stakeholders, and create synergies with EDA's Public Works, Economic Adjustment, and Planning programs.

To obtain the maximum effect of available program funds, EDA will strive to fund a portfolio of University Centers that, as a group, offer the widest possible coverage in the Austin and Denver regional offices' geographic areas and offer a full range of services tailored appropriately to the region's needs and each sponsoring institution's (or consortium's) strengths. EDA will strive to avoid funding duplicative services wherever practicable.

EDA will not fund University Centers that operate in isolation from other resources at the institution of higher education (or consortium) receiving the award. University Center programs not focused on economic development activities that foster higher-skill, higher-wage job creation and private sector investments are encouraged to seek financial support from other sources.

Electronic Access: The FFO announcement for the FY 2010 University Center Economic Development Program competition is available at www.grants.gov and at http://www.eda.gov/InvestmentsGrants/FFON.xml.

Statutory Authority: EDA's authorizing statute is the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended (42 U.S.C. 3121 et seq. ) (PWEDA). The specific authority for the University Center Economic Development Program is section 207 of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3147), which authorizes EDA to make grants for the establishment of University Centers. EDA's regulations at 13 CFR parts 300-302 and subpart B of 13 CFR part 306 set out the general and specific regulatory requirements applicable to the University Center Economic Development Program.

EDA's regulations are codified at 13 CFR chapter III. The regulations and PWEDA are accessible on EDA's website at http://www.eda.gov/InvestmentsGrants/Lawsreg.xml.

Funding Availability: Funding appropriated under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117, 123 Stat. 3034 at 3114 (2009)) is available for the economic development assistance programs authorized by PWEDA and for the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq. ). Funds in the amount of $255,000,000 have been appropriated for FY 2010 and shall remain available until expended.

The funding periods and funding amounts referenced in this competitive solicitation are subject to the availability of funds at the time of award, as well as to Department of Commerce and EDA priorities at the time of award. The Department of Commerce and EDA will not be held responsible for application preparation costs if the University Center Economic Development Program fails to receive funding or is cancelled because of agency priorities. Publication of this competitive solicitation does not obligate the Department of Commerce or EDA to award any specific grant or cooperative agreement or to obligate all or any part of available funds.

In accordance with Congressional guidance, EDA hopes to be able to fund at least one University Center grant in each State. For FY 2010, EDA expects to allocate $7,437,408 to the University Center Economic Development Program. The amount of University Center funding available for competition in FY 2010 is expected to be $1,128,502 for the Austin regional office and $1,380,000 for the Denver regional office. The remaining FY 2010 University Center Economic Development Program funds will be used to continue to support current University Centers selected during the FY 2008 and 2009 competitions in EDA's other four regional offices. Annual awards for the University Centers selected in past years generally have been in the range of $80,000 to $200,000, although regional offices may choose to fund awards under this competition outside of these ranges. Subject to the availability of funding at the time of award, the funds allocated to the University Center Economic Development Program are anticipated to be available until expended.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 11.303, Economic Development—Technical Assistance.

Applicant Eligibility: An accredited institution of higher education, including a community college, or a consortium of accredited institutions of higher education is eligible to apply for and to receive funding under the University Center Economic Development Program. See section 3(12) of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3122(12)) and 13 CFR 300.3. A university-affiliated research foundation also is eligible to apply for and to receive funding under this competitive solicitation, provided it demonstrates that it maintains the full and integral support of the university with respect to its economic development activities, through a letter or other documentation from a university President or Chancellor. For applicants applying as a consortium, one accredited institution must be identified as the lead agent that would have lead responsibility to EDA and to the other members of the consortium for implementing an award. A non-profit organization, in good standing and participating in the institution's proposed project in connection with an application under this competitive solicitation, may partner with a consortium provided that the organization itself is affiliated with and directed by an accredited institution of higher education.

For FY 2010, the University Center Economic Development Program competition is open to eligible applicants in the geographic areas served by EDA's Austin and Denver regional offices. The Austin regional office serves Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. The Denver regional office serves Colorado, Iowa (excluding Muscatine and Scott counties), Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.

Project Period: The Austin and Denver regional offices will provide a three-year project period for each University Center selected for funding under the FY 2010 University Center Economic Development Program competition, with the initial award being made for the first year of the project period. The selected University Centers will not have to compete for the second and third years of funding. Funding beyond the initial year is dependent upon the availability of funds, satisfactory performance, and satisfactory progress in achieving milestones and program goals set forth in the three-year scope of work, as determined by EDA and expressed in written notice.

Current University Center operators in the service areas of EDA's Atlanta, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Seattle regional offices will not have to compete for continuation funding in FY 2010, subject to the availability of funds, satisfactory continuing performance, and satisfactory progress in achieving milestones and program goals set forth in the three-year scope of work, as determined by EDA and expressed in a written notice. EDA regional offices will contact current University Center operators in those service areas regarding the procedures for securing FY 2010 continuation funding.

Cost Sharing Requirement: Generally, the amount of the EDA grant may not exceed fifty percent of the total cost of the project. Projects may receive an additional amount that shall not exceed thirty percent, as determined by EDA, based on the relative needs of the region in which the project will be located. See section 204(a) of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3144) and 13 CFR 301.4(b)(1). The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development has the discretion to establish a maximum EDA investment rate of up to one-hundred percent where the project (i) merits and is not otherwise feasible without an increase to the EDA investment rate; or (ii) will be of no or only incidental benefit to the recipient. See section 204(c)(3) of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3144) and 13 CFR 301.4(b)(4).

In the application review process, EDA will consider the nature of the contribution (cash or in-kind) and the amount of the matching share funds. In-kind contributions, fairly evaluated by EDA, may provide the non-federal share of the total project cost. See section 204(b) of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3144) and section III.B of the FFO announcement for this request for applications. In-kind contributions, which may include assumptions of debt and contributions of space, equipment, and services, are eligible to be included as part of the non-federal share of eligible project costs if they meet applicable federal cost principles and uniform administrative requirements. Funds from other federal financial assistance awards are considered matching share funds only if authorized by statute, which may be determined by EDA's reasonable interpretation of the statute. See 13 CFR 300.3. The applicant must show that the matching share is committed to the project for the entire project period, will be available as needed, and is not conditioned or encumbered in any way that precludes its use consistent with the requirements of EDA investment assistance. See 13 CFR 301.5.

Intergovernmental Review: Applications for funding under the University Center Economic Development Program are subject to the State review requirements imposed by Executive Order 12372, “ Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” where applicable.

Evaluation and Selection Procedures: Staff in EDA's Austin or Denver regional office, as applicable, first will undertake a technical review of each application to ensure that all required forms, signatures, and documentation are present and that the application is in compliance with the requirements of this competitive solicitation. Applications failing to meet the technical requirements of this competitive solicitation will not be referred to the review panel for merit review.

Following the technical review, each regional office will convene a panel to review the merits of each application based on the criteria provided under “Evaluation Criteria” below. The review panel will consist of federal employees and may include others recommended by the Regional Director of the applicable regional office. At least three members of the review panel will be EDA staff members. The review panel will evaluate and rate and rank competitively all technically sufficient applications based on the evaluation criteria provided under “Evaluation Criteria” below.

The review panel's rating and ranking of the applications then will be presented to the regional office's Investment Review Committee (IRC). Applications deemed eligible and consistent with EDA's mission and funding priorities are referred to the IRC, which is comprised of EDA staff, to determine which applications for funding are recommended to the Regional Director. Under this notice and request for applications, after reviewing the panel's process and recommendations, the IRC may either (i) forward the panel's ranked list, unaltered and in its entirety, to the Selecting Official, who is the Regional Director of the applicable regional office; or (ii) identify any deficiencies in the review process and direct the review panel (or convene a new panel) to begin the process anew. If the IRC directs the panel to re-evaluate the applications, the review panel will undertake the process again and submit a revised rating and ranking of the applications to the IRC.

Evaluation Criteria: EDA will evaluate applications based on the following criteria. Each criterion is detailed below with an assigned weight.

1. Responsiveness to Objectives of Federal Funding Opportunity (35%). This section shall assess the extent to which the applicant is able to:

• Provide a wide geographic level of service. Priority will be given to applicants whose programs will offer the widest possible coverage in the Austin and Denver regional offices' geographic service areas.

• Leverage other university assets. Priority will be given to University Center applicants whose proposed activities outline specific information on how they will leverage other University assets (such as economic analysis divisions, GIS capabilities, planning specialists, etc.).

• Specifically articulate how the proposed activities of the University Center will address regional needs. Priority will be given to applications that clearly articulate the regional needs and propose activities which specifically address those needs.

2. Alignment with Key Funding Priorities (35%). In addition to meeting the requirements set out in this FFO, all EDA investments must satisfy at least one of the following key funding priorities. Applications that support more than one of the following funding priorities will receive higher priority.

• Support science and technology. Priority will be given to applications that propose to provide specific technical assistance to information technology industries (for example, high technology industries or investments in broadband and smart grid); scientific industries; healthcare industries; or environmental technologies, including technology commercialization.

• Address sudden economic dislocation. Priority will be given to proposed activities in which the University Center will engage to support investments in communities that experienced sudden or severe economic dislocation and job loss due to either auto-industry restructuring or natural disasters.

• Support small and medium-size businesses. Priority will be given to applications that propose specific activities that will support small and medium-size businesses ( e.g., ≤ 500 employees or ≤ $7 million in average annual sales).

• Encourage collaborative regional innovation. Priority will be given to proposed activities that will cultivate multi-jurisdictional solutions to regional needs; encourage regional collaboration among economic development organizations; and identify and implement programs that encourage regional stakeholders to link to and build upon unique assets of the region, such as the development and support of innovation clusters.

• Foster global competitiveness. Priority will be given to proposed activities that will help strengthen industry competitiveness through innovation, entrepreneurship, global trade, and rapid growth.

• Environmentally sustainable development. Priority will be given to proposed activities that will promote renewable energy; energy efficiency; or reuse, recycling, or natural resource restoration efforts across the region.

3. Provides High Return on Investment (20%). All applications will be evaluated to determine whether they represent a high return on investment, as measured by the:

• Extent to which the proposed University Center will leverage public-private partnerships. Priority will be given to proposed activities that will generate strong public-private support across the region and leverage private funds.

• Degree to which the proposed University Center and its activities build upon other local, State, regional, federal, and private sector development initiatives. Priority will be given to applications that clearly specify how the proposed activities will build upon the array of local, State, regional, federal, and private sector development efforts occurring in the region to more effectively meet regional needs.

4. Significantly Benefits Regions with Distressed Economies (10%). While all applicants must show how the proposed activities will benefit distressed regions within the service area, EDA will give additional consideration to those applicants that provide concrete evidence outlining how their proposed programs are especially well designed to significantly benefit distressed regions. As outlined in section I.B of the FFO announcement, distress may be defined by areas experiencing high levels of unemployment, low income levels, large concentrations of low-income families, or significant declines in per capita income because of large numbers (or high rates) of business failures, sudden major layoffs or plant closures, military base closures, natural or other major disasters, depletion of natural resources, reduced tax bases, or substantial loss of population because of the lack of employment opportunities.

Selection Factors: EDA expects to fund the highest ranking applications. The Selecting Official normally will follow the recommendations of the review panel. However, the Selecting Official may decide not to make a selection, or he may select an application out of rank order for several reasons, including: (i) A determination that the application better meets the overall objectives of sections 2 and 207 of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3121 and 3147); (ii) availability of program funding; (iii) geographic balance in distribution of program funds; (iv) balanced funding for a diverse group of institutions, to include smaller and rural institutions, which may form part of a broader consortium to serve diverse populations and areas within the regional office's territory; (v) the program objectives as provided in section I of the FFO announcement; (vi) the applicant's performance under previous federal financial assistance awards; or (vii) the overall mix of services, service areas, and target audiences in the regional office's University Center portfolio. If the Selecting Official makes a selection out of rank order, he will document the rationale for the decision in writing.

Informational Teleconferences: For prospective applicants, the Austin regional office will hold an informational teleconference on April 1, 2010, at 1 p.m. CST. The Denver regional office will hold its informational teleconference call on March 19, 2010, at 1 p.m. MST. These teleconferences will provide general program information and information regarding the preparation of applications for funding under this competitive solicitation. To ensure the integrity of this competition, EDA will not provide substantive information regarding the competition to prospective applicants outside of these scheduled teleconferences.

To ensure that enough incoming lines are available for each caller, the Austin regional office requires interested parties planning to participate on the teleconference to register no later than 5 p.m. CST on March 25, 2010; the Denver regional office requires interested parties planning to participate on the teleconference to register no later than 5 p.m. MST on March 16, 2010. To register, please send an email with “FY 2010 University Center Teleconference Registration” in the subject line to the designated contact person in the Austin or Denver regional office as provided above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . The telephone number and pass code for each teleconference will be provided upon registration.

Please be advised that the informational teleconferences may be audio-taped and the actual recordings or a transcript of the actual recording may be made available online or otherwise for the benefit of prospective applicants unable to participate. Prospective applicants who participate on the teleconferences are deemed to consent to the taping.

The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements: Administrative and national policy requirements for all Department of Commerce awards are applicable to this competitive solicitation. These requirements may be found in the Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements, which was published in the Federal Register on February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7696). This notice may be accessed by entering the Federal Register volume and page number provided in the previous sentence at the following Web site: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.

Paperwork Reduction Act: This document contains the following collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): (i) Form ED-900 (OMB Control No. 0610-0094); (ii) Form SF-424 (OMB Control No. 4040-0004); (iii) Form SF-424A (OMB Control No. 4040-0006); (iv) Form SF-424B (OMB Control No. 4040-0007); (v) Form SF-LLL (OMB Control No. 0348-0046). Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Executive Order 12866: This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act: Prior notice and an opportunity for public comments are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for rules concerning grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared.

Aboriginal subsistence whaling in the United States is governed by the Whaling Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 916 et seq. ). Regulations that implement the Act, found at 50 CFR 230.6, require the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to publish, at least annually, aboriginal subsistence whaling quotas and any other limitations on aboriginal subsistence whaling deriving from regulations of the IWC.

At the 59th Annual Meeting of the IWC, the Commission set catch limits for aboriginal subsistence use of bowhead whales from the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock. The bowhead catch limits were based on a joint request by the United States and the Russian Federation, accompanied by documentation concerning the needs of two Native groups: Alaska Eskimos and Chukotka Natives in the Russian Far East.

This action by the IWC thus authorized aboriginal subsistence whaling by the AEWC for bowhead whales. This aboriginal subsistence harvest is conducted in accordance with a cooperative agreement between NOAA and the AEWC.

The IWC set a 5-year block quota of 280 bowhead whales landed. For each of the years 2008 through 2012, the number of bowhead whales struck may not exceed 67, except that any unused portion of a strike quota from any year, including 15 unused strikes from the 2003 through 2007 quota, may be carried forward. No more than 15 strikes may be added to the strike quota for any one year. At the end of the 2009 harvest, there were 15 unused strikes available for carry-forward, so the combined strike quota for 2010 is 82 (67 + 15).

This arrangement ensures that the total quota of bowhead whales landed and struck in 2010 will not exceed the catch limits set by the IWC. Under an arrangement between the United States and the Russian Federation, the Russian natives may use no more than seven strikes, and the Alaska Eskimos may use no more than 75 strikes.

Through its cooperative agreement with the AEWC, NOAA has assigned 75 strikes to the Alaska Eskimos. The AEWC will allocate these strikes among the 11 villages whose cultural and subsistence needs have been documented, and will ensure that its hunters use no more than 75 strikes.

The IWC regulations, as well as the NOAA regulation at 50 CFR 230.4(c), forbid the taking of calves or any whale accompanied by a calf.

NOAA regulations (at 50 CFR 230.4) contain a number of other prohibitions relating to aboriginal subsistence whaling, some of which are summarized here. For example:

• Only licensed whaling captains or crew under the control of those captains may engage in whaling. They must follow the provisions of the relevant cooperative agreement between NOAA and a Native American whaling organization.

• The aboriginal hunters must have adequate crew, supplies, and equipment. They may not receive money for participating in the hunt.

• No person may sell or offer for sale whale products from whales taken in the hunt, except for authentic articles of Native handicrafts.

• Captains may not continue to whale after the relevant quota is taken, after the season has been closed, or if their licenses have been suspended. They may not engage in whaling in a wasteful manner.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.

2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following products and services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.

The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

The Corporation is particularly interested in comments that:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are expected 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 submissions of responses).

Background: These application instructions will be used by applicants for funding through AmeriCorps State and National Administrative, Program Development and Training, and Disability grants.

Current Action: The Corporation seeks to renew and revise the current AmeriCorps Administrative, Program Development and Training, and Disability Application Instructions. The Application Instructions are being revised for increased clarity and to align with new regulations. The Application Instructions will be used in the same manner as the existing Application Instructions. The Corporation also seeks to continue using the current Application Instructions until the revised Application Instructions are approved by OMB. The current ICRs are due to expire on May 31, 2010 (3045-0099).

Type of Review: Renewal.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: AmeriCorps Application Instructions: State Commissions; Administrative, Program Development and Training, and Disability.

OMB Number: 3045-0099.

Agency Numbe r: None.

Affected Public: Nonprofit organizations, State, Local and Tribal.

Total Respondents: 54.

Frequency: Annually.

Average Time Per Response: 25 hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,350 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

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

The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of facilities at the international border of the United States for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country is prohibited in the absence of a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 10485, as amended by EO 12038.

On January 27, 2010, CHPEI filed an application with the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability of the Department of Energy (DOE) for a Presidential permit. CHPEI is a joint venture of TDI-USA Holdings Corporation (TUHC), a Delaware corporation, and National Resources Energy, LLC (NRE). TUHC, the majority shareholder in CHPEI, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Transmission Developers Inc. (TDI), a Canadian Corporation. NRE is a wholly owned subsidiary of National RE/sources Group, a limited liability corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut.

CHPEI proposes to construct and operate a primarily underground and submarine high-voltage direct current (HVDC) electric transmission line that will originate at an HVDC converter station in Quebec, Canada, and ultimately terminate in Yonkers, New York, and Bridgeport, Connecticut.

The proposed CHPEI project (the “Project”) would be a 2,000-megawatt (MW) HVDC Voltage Source Converter (VSC) controllable transmission system, comprising two 1,000-MW HVDC bipoles, each of which would include two submarine or underground cables connected as a bipole pair. Each bipole will at all times utilize its partner in the bipole pair as a metallic return. The ground will never be used as a return. In total, four cables would be laid between Quebec and the converter stations in New York City, where two will be terminated. The remaining two would continue to Bridgeport, Connecticut.

From the U.S.-Canada border, the submarine transmission cables would be routed through Lake Champlain and travel south to the northern entrance of the Champlain Canal, near Whitehall, New York. To the extent practicable, the submerged cables would continue through the Champlain Canal to Fort Edward, where the canal joins the Hudson River. CHPEI expects that the transmission cables would exit the Champlain Canal near Lock C8, and the cables would be buried within a railroad ROW for a distance of approximately 69.9 miles (107.7 km). The cables would re-enter the Hudson River near the Town of Coeymans, downstream from the City of Albany, N.Y. South of Coeymans, the proposed alignment follows the Hudson River to the New York City metropolitan area.

Two cables (one bipole) would terminate approximately 318.7 miles (512.9 km) south of the U.S.-Canada border at an HVDC converter station near Wells Avenue in Yonkers, New York. The remaining two cables would continue along the Hudson River to the entrance of Spuyten Duyvil Creek, and then follow a 65.8-mile-long (105.9 km) route through Spuyten Duyvil Creek, the Harlem River, and the East River into Long Island Sound before terminating at a converter station near 1 W Avenue in Bridgeport, Connecticut.

Submarine or underground alternating current (AC) cables would transmit electricity from the converter stations to existing substations connected to the electrical grid. From the Yonkers converter station, 345-kV AC cables would re-enter the Hudson River and travel south along the East River, Spuyten Duyvil Creek, and the Harlem River for a distance of approximately 6.7 miles (10.8 km). The AC cables would terminate at the existing Consolidated Edison (ConEd) Sherman Creek/Academy substation, near the intersection of West 201st Street and 9th Street, in Manhattan.

From the Bridgeport converter station, 345-kV AC cables would extend for a distance of approximately 150 feet (45.7 m) to the existing Singer substation, owned and operated by the United Illuminating Company.

The applicant represents that the Project's precise final route would be subject to a number of factors, including resource issues, permitting, land acquisition, and stakeholder agreement. The 384.5-mile-long (618.8 km) portion of the Project located within the United States would be owned and operated by the applicant.

Since the restructuring of the electric industry began, resulting in the introduction of different types of competitive entities into the marketplace, DOE has consistently expressed its policy that cross-border trade in electric energy should be subject to the same principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination that apply to transmission in interstate commerce. DOE has stated that policy in export authorizations granted to entities requesting authority to export over international transmission facilities. Specifically, DOE expects transmitting utilities owning border facilities to provide access across the border in accordance with the principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination contained in the Federal Power Act and articulated in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order No. 888 (Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 (1996)), as amended. In furtherance of this policy, DOE invites comments on whether it would be appropriate to condition any Presidential permit issued in this proceeding on compliance with these open access principles.

Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding or to be heard by filing comments on, or protests to, this application should file a petition to intervene, comment, or protest at the address provided above in accordance with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of FERC's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with DOE on or before the date listed above.

Additional copies of such petitions to intervene, comments, or protests should also be filed directly with Mr. Donald Jessome, President, Transmission Developers Inc., Pieter Schuyler Building, 600 Broadway, Albany, New York 12207-2283.

Before a Presidential permit may be issued or amended, DOE must determine that the proposed action is in the public interest. In making that determination, DOE considers the environmental impacts of the proposed project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, determines the project's impact on electric reliability by ascertaining whether the proposed project would adversely affect the operation of the U.S. electric power supply system under normal and contingency conditions, and any other factors that DOE may also consider relevant to the public interest. Also, DOE must obtain the concurrences of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense before taking final action on a Presidential permit application.

Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at http://www.oe.energy.gov/permits_pending.htm, or by emailing Odessa Hopkins at Odessa.hopkins@hq.doe.gov.

Section 1605 of the Recovery Act requires that none of the appropriated funds may be used for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States, or unless a waiver is granted by the head of the Federal department or agency. A waiver may be granted if the head of the Federal department or agency determines that one of three listed exceptions applies: (1) The application of Section 1605 requirements would be inconsistent with the public interest; (2) the iron, steel, or relevant manufactured good is not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality; or (3) the cost of domestic iron, steel, or relevant manufactured goods will increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25 percent.

In accordance with Section 1605(c) of the Recovery Act and Section 176.80 of Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations, DOE hereby provides notice that, pursuant to a delegation of authority by the Secretary of Energy, dated November 10, 2009, the Assistant Secretary, EERE, has granted three nationwide categorical waivers of the requirements of Section 1605(b)(2) of the Recovery Act for LED traffic lights, arrows, and crosswalk signals (excluding the metal or plastic fixtures); fluorescent electronic lighting ballasts (with the exception of electronic dimming ballasts for fluorescent lamps that are capable of operating the lamps below 50 percent of their rated light output); and screw-base and pin-base compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) (with the exception of plug-in CFLs longer than 10 inches). The Assistant Secretary, EERE, has determined that these three categories of manufactured goods are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality. The Assistant Secretary, EERE, reserves the right to revisit and amend these nationwide categorical waivers based on new developments or changes in the domestic manufacturing capacity for these three technologies.

The domestic nonavailability determination for these three products is based on extensive market research and a thorough investigation of the domestic manufacturing landscape. This research revealed that these three products are manufactured almost exclusively in China and Mexico.

EERE corresponded with a wide range of lighting industry stakeholders, including the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, three major lighting companies (GE, Osram Sylvania, and Phillips), the IUE-CWA labor union, and many smaller lighting manufacturers, in establishing the domestic nonavailability determinations. The specific exceptions to these categorical waivers (for electronic dimming ballasts and 10-inch and longer CFLs) are evidence of the very detailed research effort undertaken to support the formulation of these nonavailability determinations.

The nonavailability determination was also informed by the large number of inquiries and petitions that EERE received from recipients of EERE Recovery Act funds (“grantees”), suppliers, and trade associations—all stating that their individual efforts to locate domestic manufacturers had been unsuccessful.

The purpose of the Recovery Act is to stimulate economic recovery in part by funding current infrastructure construction, not to delay projects that are “shovel ready,” or otherwise valid, by requiring grantees to revise their specifications or choose a different, more costly, or less energy efficient project. The absence of a waiver of section 1605 for these three categories of manufactured goods would result in unreasonable delay for the project and would directly conflict with a fundamental economic purpose of Recovery Act, which is to create or retain jobs.

The installation of LED traffic lights, arrows, and crosswalk signals, fluorescent electronic lighting ballasts, and CFLs is a proven strategy to achieve impressive energy savings, reduce energy expenditures, and to create immediate jobs in the building, construction, and electrical trades. All three of these attributes can support near-term economic recovery and long-term sustainability in diverse locations across the country. Hence, the installation of LED traffic lights, arrows, and crosswalk signals, fluorescent electronic lighting ballasts, and CFLs is a popular use of Recovery Act funds by EERE grantees, and any further delay in granting nationwide categorical waivers for these three technologies would unjustifiably impede the ability of these meritorious projects to move forward.

Finally, EERE is implementing a strategy that involves collaborating with multiple stakeholders in the manufacturing community to disseminate technical specifications for hard-to-find products to ascertain whether or not there are any domestic manufacturers for these products. This strategy will ensure that all future determinations of nonavailability are developed through a thorough, transparent, and expedited process. However, while this larger strategy is unfolding, it is critical to move forward with the nationwide categorical waivers for these three manufactured goods, where domestic nonavailability has been ascertained and is currently impeding the progress of numerous Recovery Act projects funded by EERE.

The specific products detailed below are excluded from the nationwide categorical waivers because some domestic manufacturing capacity does exist. If an EERE grantee believes that the excluded products are not available for its Recovery Act project in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities of a satisfactory quality in the timeframe required by their project, the grantee can submit a specific waiver request to EERE using the established channels and format outlined in 2 CFR 176.140(c) and 176.160(c); and summarized in guidance available on the EERE Buy American Web page: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/recovery/pdfs/eere_program_guidance_buy_american.pdf.

(1) Electronic dimming ballasts for fluorescent lamps.

Electronic dimming ballasts for fluorescent lamps that are capable of operating the lamps below 50 percent of their rated light output.

(2) Plug-In CFLs longer than 10 inches.

CFLs greater than 10 inches in length have a 4-pin base and are rated from 18 to 27 watts. They are available in a range of color temperatures and are used, for example, in facilities, offices, warehouses and display cases. Lengths range from 10.5 in (266.7 mm) to 22.5 in (571.5 mm). Rated life ranges from 10,000 to 20,000 hours.

(3) Traffic light fixtures (also referred to as the “housing” or “shell”).

The nationwide categorical waiver for LED traffic lights, arrows, and crosswalk signals covers the LED lights and any adjacent wires and electronic parts necessary for the functionality of the lights themselves; but excludes the metal or plastic fixtures (also referred to as the “housing” or “shell”).

Having established a proper justification based on domestic nonavailability, EERE hereby provides notice that on February 11, 2010, three nationwide categorical waivers of section 1605 of the Recovery Act were issued for LED traffic lights, arrows, and crosswalk signals; fluorescent electronic lighting ballasts (with the exception of electronic dimming ballasts for fluorescent lamps that are capable of operating the lamps below 50 percent of their rated light output); and screw-base and pin-base compact fluorescent lamps (with the exception of plug-in CFLs longer than 10 inches). This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 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 her responsibility. Consequently, this waiver applies to EERE projects carried out under the Recovery Act.

OMB Responses to Agency Clearance Requests OMB Approvals

EPA ICR Number 2014.04; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements of the HCFC Allowance System (Renewal); 40 CFR part 82, subpart A; was approved on 02/01/2010; OMB Number 2060-0498; expires on 02/28/2013; Approved with change.

EPA ICR Number 2335.02; Emission Guidelines for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators; 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce; was approved on 02/02/2010; OMB Number 2060-0628; expires on 02/28/2013; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 1062.12; NSPS for Coal Preparation and Processing Plants; 40 CFR part 60, subpart Y; was approved on 02/02/2010; OMB Number 2060-0122; expires on 02/28/2013; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 2193.02; Energy Star Program in the Residential Sector (Renewal); was approved on 02/02/2010; OMB Number 2060-0586; expires on 02/28/2013; Approved with change.

EPA ICR Number 2055.03; Data Submissions for the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP); 40 CFR part 790; was approved on 02/11/2010; OMB Number 2070-0165; expires on 02/28/2013; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 1487.10; Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions (Renewal); 40 CFR part 35, subpart O; was approved on 02/18/2010; OMB Number 2050-0179; expires on 02/28/2013; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 2334.02; NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries (Final Rule); 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC; was approved on 02/18/2010; OMB Number 2060-0619; expires on 02/28/2013; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 2323.02; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources (Final Rule); 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV; was approved on 02/18/2010; OMB Number 2060-0621; expires on 02/28/2013; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 1800.06; Information Requirements for Locomotives and Locomotive Engines (Renewal); 40 CFR parts 92.203, 92.208, 92.210, 92.215, 92.306, 92.308, 92.309, 92.309, 92.508, 92.509, 92.511-92.513, and 92.607; was approved on 02/19/2010; OMB Number 2060-0392; expires on 02/28/2013; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 1847.05; Emission Guidelines for Large Municipal Waste Combustors Constructed on or Before September 20, 1994; 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb; was approved on 02/19/2010; OMB Number 2060-0390; expires on 02/28/2013; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 2343.01; Focus Group Research for Fuel Economy Label Designs for Advanced Technology Vehicles (New Collection); was approved on 02/25/2010; OMB Number 2060-0632; expires on 05/31/2010; Approved with change.

EPA ICR Number 1573.12; Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications and Special Permits (Renewal); 40 CFR part 264 and 40 CFR part 270; was approved on 02/26/2010; OMB Number 2050-0009; expires on 02/28/2013; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 2348.02; NESHAP for Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Area Source Category; 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCCC; was approved on 02/26/2010; OMB Number 2060-0633; expires on 02/28/2013; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 2352.02; NESHAP for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing; 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAAAA; was approved on 02/26/2010; OMB Number 2060-0634; expires on 02/28/2013; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 2279.02; National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Aircraft Drinking Water Rule; 40 CFR part 141; was approved on 02/25/2010; OMB Number 2040-0277; expires on 02/28/2013; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 1969.04; NESHAP for Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing; 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF; was approved on 02/26/2010; OMB Number 2060-0533; expires on 02/28/2013; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 0783.56; Certification and In-use Testing of Motor Vehicles: Revisions to Reduce Emissions of Greenhouse Gasses (Proposed Rule); in 40 CFR parts 85 and 86, 40 CFR 86.412, 40 CFR 86.1845, 40 CFR 85.1901-1908, 40 CFR part 600,; OMB filed comment on 02/19/2010.

EPA ICR Number 2326.01; Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (Proposed Rule); in 40 CFR part 449; OMB filed comment on 02/25/2010. EPA ICR Number 1715.11; Opt-out and Recordkeeping Proposed Rule ICR Addendum; in 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, 40 CFR 745.225; OMB filed comment on 02/26/2010.

EPA ICR Number 1361.14; Withdrawing the Comparable Fuels Exclusion under RCRA (Proposed Rule); in 40 CFR 261.38; OMB filed comment on 02/26/2010.

EPA ICR Number 1363.20; Toxic Chemical Release Reporting (Form R); 40 CFR 372; OMB Number 2025-0009; expires on 07/31/2011; a short term extension of the expiration date was approved on 02/17/2010.

EPA ICR Number 1704.12; Toxic Chemical Release Reporting, Alternate Threshold for Low Annual Reportable Amounts (Form A); 40 CFR 372; OMB Number 2025-0010; expires on 07/31/2011; a short term extension of the expiration date was approved on 02/17/2010.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Submitting CBI . Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments . When submitting comments, remember to:

i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

3. Environmental justice . EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide(s) discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the Administrator, a Federal or State agency may be exempted from any provision of FIFRA if the Administrator determines that emergency conditions exist which require the exemption. The Oregon Department of Agriculture has requested the Administrator to issue a specific exemption for the use of kasugamycin on newly planted, non-bearing sweet or sour cherry orchards to control bacterial canker. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of this request and may be found in the docket for this notice.

As part of this request, the applicant asserts that kasugamycin is needed to control alternative chemical-resistant strains of Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae , the major causal pathogen of bacterial canker of young sweet and sour cherry trees. Bacterial canker is a risk to the establishment of new cherry orchards and has become resistant to the alternative chemical products. The applicant states that the use of kasugamycin “in 2,000 acres of newly planted, high density sweet cherry orchards could help growers avert economic losses of nearly $5.1 million due to bacterial canker.”

The Applicant proposes to make no more than two applications of Kasumin 2L (2.0% kasugamycin) on a maximum of 2,000 acres of newly planted, non-bearing sweet or sour cherry orchards between March 1, 2010 and November 30, 2010 in Benton, Clackamas, Lane, Linn, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, Washington, Yamhill, Hood River, Sherman, Wasco, Umatilla, and Union counties in Oregon. As currently proposed, the maximum amount of product to be applied would be 2,000 gallons. EPA has decided to open a shortened comment period and solicit input and comments from the public for 10 days. In general, the length of a comment period for an emergency exemption application is 15 days. However, EPA is shortening this comment period to 10 days due to the limited time available to consider this request with regard to the requested use season. Because of these factors, EPA determined that a 10-day comment period is appropriate.

This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the application itself. The regulations governing section 18 of FIFRA require publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a specific exemption proposing use of a new chemical (i.e., an active ingredient) which has not been registered by EPA.

The Agency will review and consider all comments received during the comment period in determining whether to issue the specific exemption requested by the Oregon Department of Agriculture.

Under section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator identifies and lists certain pollutants which “cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The EPA then issues air quality criteria for these listed pollutants, which are commonly referred to as “criteria pollutants.” The air quality criteria are to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air, in varying quantities.” Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA establishes primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for pollutants for which air quality criteria are issued. Section 109(d) of the CAA requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. The revised air quality criteria reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare. The EPA is also required to periodically review and revise the NAAQS, if appropriate, based on the revised criteria.

Presently, EPA is reviewing the air quality criteria and NAAQS for CO. The EPA's overall plan and schedule for this review is presented in the Plan for Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Carbon Monoxide. 1 A draft of this integrated review plan was released for public review and comment in March 2008 and was the subject of a consultation with the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) on April 8, 2008 (73 FR 12998). Comments received from that consultation and from the public were considered in finalizing the plan and in beginning the review of the air quality criteria.

As part of EPA's review of the primary (health-based) CO NAAQS, the Agency is conducting qualitative and quantitative assessments characterizing the health risks associated with exposure to ambient CO. The EPA's plans for conducting these assessments, including the proposed scope and methods of the analyses, were presented in a planning document titled, Carbon Monoxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Scope and Methods Plan for Health Risk and Exposure Assessment (Scope and Methods Plan). This planning document was released for public comment in April 2009 and was the subject of a consultation with the CASAC on May 13, 2009 (74 FR 15265).

The draft exposure and risk assessment document announced today conveys the approaches taken to assess exposures to ambient CO and to characterize associated health risks, as well as present the initial key results, observations, and related uncertainties associated with the quantitative analyses performed. An earlier draft of the exposure and risk assessment document was released for CASAC review and public comment in October 2009 (74 FR 55843; October 29, 2009), and was the subject of a CASAC review meeting on November 16 and 17, 2009 (74 FR 54042). This draft document will be available on or about February 22, 2010, through the Agency's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/co/s_co_index.html. This document may be accessed in the “Documents from Current Review” section under “Risk and Exposure Assessments.”

In addition, on or about March 1, 2010, EPA will make available a second draft document: Policy Assessment for the Review of the Carbon Monoxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards: External Review Draft. The development of this document is a result of recent changes to the NAAQS review process which included reinstating a policy assessment document that contains staff analyses of the scientific bases for alternative policy options for consideration by senior Agency management prior to rulemaking. This document, which builds upon the historical “Staff Paper,” will serve to “bridge the gap” between the scientific information and the judgments required of the Administrator in determining whether it is appropriate to retain or revise the standards. In conjunction with this change, EPA will no longer issue a policy assessment in the form of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). 2

The draft Policy Assessment (PA) builds upon information presented in the Integrated Science Assessment for Carbon Monoxide and the draft assessment document described above. This draft document will be available on or about March 1, 2010, through the Agency's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/co/s_co_index.html. This document may be accessed in the “Documents from Current Review” section under “Policy Assessments.”

The EPA is soliciting advice and recommendations from the CASAC by means of a review of both draft documents at an upcoming public meeting of the CASAC. Information about this public meeting, including the date and location, will be published as a separate notice in an upcoming edition of the Federal Register. Following the CASAC meeting, EPA will consider comments received from the CASAC and the public in preparing revisions to these documents.

The draft documents briefly described above do not represent and should not be construed to represent any final EPA policy, viewpoint, or determination. The EPA will consider any public comments submitted in response to this notice when revising the documents.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), FIFRA, and the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

When submitting comments, remember to:

1. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

2. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0125; in the subject line on the first page of your request.

1. Written comments . The Agency encourages that written comments be submitted, using the instructions in ADDRESSES , no later than April 12, 2010, to provide FIFRA SAP the time necessary to consider and review the written comments. Written comments are accepted until the date of the meeting, but anyone submitting written comments after April 12, 2010 should contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Anyone submitting written comments at the meeting should bring 30 copies for distribution to FIFRA SAP.

2. Oral comments . The Agency encourages that each individual or group wishing to make brief oral comments to FIFRA SAP submit their request to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than April 19, 2010, in order to be included on the meeting agenda. Requests to present oral comments will be accepted until the date of the meeting and, to the extent that time permits, the Chair of FIFRA SAP may permit the presentation of oral comments at the meeting by interested persons who have not previously requested time. The request should identify the name of the individual making the presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will represent, and any requirements for audiovisual equipment (e.g., overhead projector, 35 mm projector, chalkboard). Oral comments before FIFRA SAP are limited to approximately 5 minutes unless prior arrangements have been made. In addition, each speaker should bring 30 copies of his or her comments and presentation slides for distribution to the FIFRA SAP at the meeting.

3. Seating at the meeting . Seating at the meeting will be open and on a first-come basis.

4. Request for nominations to serve as ad hoc members of FIFRA SAP for this meeting . As part of a broader process for developing a pool of candidates for each meeting, FIFRA SAP staff routinely solicits the stakeholder community for nominations of prospective candidates for service as ad hoc members of FIFRA SAP. Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals to be considered as prospective candidates for a specific meeting. Individuals nominated for this meeting should have expertise in one or more of the following areas: Risk assessment, mode of action analysis (particularly those with MOA framework experience), frameworks to evaluate human relevance, pharmacokinetics, neuroendocrinology (hormone-mediated health effects), HPA axis (corticosterone), immuno- toxicology, epidemiology, reproductive/developmental biology and environmental sampling and statistical modeling. Nominees should be scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable of providing expert comments on the scientific issues for this meeting. Nominees should be identified by name, occupation, position, address, and telephone number. Nominations should be provided to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on or, before March 19, 2010. The Agency will consider all nominations of prospective candidates for this meeting that are received on or, before this date. However, final selection of ad hoc members for this meeting is a discretionary function of the Agency.

The selection of scientists to serve on FIFRA SAP is based on the function of the panel and the expertise needed to address the Agency's charge to the panel. No interested scientists shall be ineligible to serve by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to a Federal department or agency or, their employment by a Federal department or agency except the EPA. Other factors considered during the selection process include availability of the potential panel member to fully participate in the panel's reviews, absence of any conflicts of interest or appearance of lack of impartiality, independence with respect to the matters under review, and lack of bias. Although, financial conflicts of interest, the appearance of lack of impartiality, lack of independence, and bias may result in disqualification, the absence of such concerns does not assure that a candidate will be selected to serve on FIFRA SAP. Numerous qualified candidates are identified for each panel. Therefore, selection decisions involve carefully weighing a number of factors including the candidates' areas of expertise and professional qualifications and achieving an overall balance of different scientific perspectives on the panel. In order to have the collective breadth of experience needed to address the Agency's charge for this meeting, the Agency anticipates selecting approximately 15 ad hoc scientists.

FIFRA SAP members are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634, Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, as supplemented by the EPA in 5 CFR part 6401. In anticipation of this requirement, prospective candidates for service on the FIFRA SAP will be asked to submit confidential financial information which shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the candidate's employment, stocks and bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. The EPA will evaluate the candidates financial disclosure form to assess whether there are financial conflicts of interest, appearance of a lack of impartiality or any prior involvement with the development of the documents under consideration (including previous scientific peer review) before the candidate is considered further for service on FIFRA SAP. Those who are selected from the pool of prospective candidates will be asked to attend the public meetings and to participate in the discussion of key issues and assumptions at these meetings. In addition, they will be asked to review and to help finalize the meeting minutes. The list of FIFRA SAP members participating at this meeting will be posted on the FIFRA SAP website at http://epa.gov/scipoly/sap or may be obtained from the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at http://www.regulations.gov .

FIFRA SAP serves as the primary scientific peer review mechanism of EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) and is structured to provide scientific advice, information and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-related issues as to the impact of regulatory actions on health and the environment. FIFRA SAP is a Federal advisory committee established in 1975 under FIFRA that operates in accordance with requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. FIFRA SAP is composed of a permanent panel consisting of seven members who are appointed by the EPA Administrator from nominees provided by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. FIFRA, as amended by FQPA, established a Science Review Board consisting of at least 60 scientists who are available to the SAP on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews conducted by the SAP. As a peer review mechanism, FIFRA SAP provides comments, evaluations and recommendations to improve the effectiveness and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists. Members of FIFRA SAP are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to provide expert advice and recommendation to the Agency.

EPA is undertaking a re-evaluation of the human health effects of atrazine. The re-evaluation plan was presented to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) in November 2009 and involves three SAP meetings in 2010. The first was held in February 2010 where the Agency presented its preliminary reviews of several atrazine epidemiology studies on birth outcomes and described a project plan to evaluate atrazine epidemiology data from the Agricultural Health Study ( http://aghealth.nci.nih.gov/ ). The April 2010 SAP meeting will focus on:

1. A preliminary review of mammalian in vivo as well as in vitro studies on toxicological effects and modes of action.

2. Statistical approaches for evaluating monitoring frequency in community water systems (CWS).

For the April SAP meeting, the Agency’s scientific review of toxicology studies will focus on those studies used to support the reregistration of atrazine and new studies available up to January 30, 2010. Any studies that become available after January 30, 2010 will be integrated into the Agency’s weight-of-the-evidence (WOE) analysis scheduled for review by the FIFRA SAP in September 2010. This WOE analysis will integrate in vivo and in vitro laboratory studies along with epidemiologic data and other human information.

At the April meeting, the Agency plans to solicit comment from the SAP on the toxicological importance and human relevance of a variety of effects including findings on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, immune system, prostate, brain, and the enzyme, aromatase. In addition, the Agency plans to discuss the scientific issues associated with lifestage susceptibility and linking a chemically-induced activation of the HPA axis to other health outcomes and possible approaches to use key events in a mode of action in risk assessment. The Agency will not be proposing updated points of departure or a complete scientific analysis relevant to the FQPA Safety Factor for protection of infants and children at the April SAP meeting. The Agency will consider the advice of the April SAP, however, to help inform these issues which will be presented to the September SAP. Following the April SAP, the Agency will continue to review the scientific literature with particular emphasis on the potential for differential lifestage susceptibility and the temporal aspects of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic events. This temporality is an important scientific issue for the assessment of the health effects of atrazine because the duration of exposure leading to adverse effects is a critical aspect of determining the appropriate frequency of water monitoring in CWS, which will also, be discussed in September.

As a condition of reregistration of atrazine, EPA required the registrants to implement a monitoring program in selected CWS, generally in the corn and sorghum growing area of the midwest. In implementing a monitoring program, the frequency of sampling is closely linked to the health effects of concern. If the health effects of concern relate to long-term chronic exposures, a yearly average concentration is sufficient. Less frequent sampling may provide sufficient data for EPA to be reasonably confident that the results are representative of a yearly average concentration. However, for effects that can occur after shorter exposure durations, more frequent sampling may be needed in order to be confident that the sampling has not missed a high-end or peak exposure that could significantly affect the estimate of short term exposure. The Agency will be evaluating the temporality of toxic effects as it conducts this reevaluation of atrazine and at the April SAP will also discuss proposed statistical approaches to determine the appropriate monitoring frequency for different durations of interest.

The Agency will consider the advice and recommendations received from the SAP at the April 2010 meeting as it develops the WOE analysis integrating experimental toxicology and epidemiology studies with statistical analysis for determining the frequency of water monitoring scheduled for review by the SAP in September.

EPA's background paper, related supporting materials, charge/questions to FIFRA SAP, FIFRA SAP composition (i.e., members and ad hoc members for this meeting), and the meeting agenda will be available by mid-March. In addition, the Agency may provide additional background documents as the materials become available. You may obtain electronic copies of these documents, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, at http://www.regulations.gov and the FIFRA SAP homepage at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap .

FIFRA SAP will prepare meeting minutes summarizing its recommendations to the Agency approximately 90-days after the meeting. The meeting minutes will be posted on the FIFRA SAP website or may be obtained from the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at http://www.regulations.gov .

In accordance with ARRA Sections 1605(c) and 1605(b)(2), EPA hereby provides notice it is granting a project waiver of the requirements of Section 1605(a) of Public Law 111-5, Buy American requirements, to the IEUA for the acquisition of the ARV valves manufactured in Israel by A.R.I. The head of each federal agency is authorized to issue project waivers pursuant to Section 1605(b) of ARRA. Section 1605(a) of the ARRA requires that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by the ARRA may be used for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States. Pursuant to Section 1605(b), a waiver from this requirement may be provided if EPA determines: (1) Applying these requirements would be inconsistent with the public interest; (2) iron, steel, and the relevant manufactured goods are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality; or (3) inclusion of iron, steel, and the relevant manufactured goods produced in the United States will increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25 percent.

A Delegation of Authority Memorandum was issued by the EPA Administrator on March 31, 2009 which provided EPA Regional Administrators with the authority to issue waivers to Section 1605(a) of ARRA within the geographic boundaries of their respective regions and with respect to requests by individual recipients of ARRA financial assistance.

The IEUA operates to provide drinking water and waste water treatment services to municipalities in the Chino Basin. The IEUA is installing the ARV valves as the air relief structures for the 1630 E. Recycled Water Pipeline and the 1299 E. Recycled Water Pipeline (project #5176-110), which consists of approximately 13,000 linear feet of 36-inch diameter pipeline. The project specifications provided by the applicant state that acceptable products are A.R.I. Flow Control Accessories, Ltd. (Model D-060) or an approved equal. The functional justification for these specifications advanced by the IEUA was that the IEUA had, in years prior to the enactment of ARRA, made the ARI valves their standard air relief structures used within the regional pipeline system based on the IEUA's determination that these valves had a superior design, functionality, and ease of maintenance. Specifically:

• ARI combination valves (D-060's) have the air release on the top of the valve, whereas alternative valves have the air release on the side. A side release creates an internal air pocket on the valve, which allows the rubber seal for the vacuum component to dry out and leak over time.

• The 316SS float for the ARI vacuum component stops against a 316SS ring. The alternative valves have a float that stops against a flat rubber seal on the top of the valve, and constant pounding during closure tends to crack the seal and cause leaks.

• The ARI valves are half the weight and size of the alternative valves, which makes installation and maintenance easier. Also, as the valves are smaller, the enclosures for the valves are less expensive.

The consequences of finding the IEUA's specifications not justified would include the following:

• Additional design costs would be incurred to change all ARV valves, including re-calculating the size of the valves based on the competitor's design criteria, modifying valve and enclosure details, and modifying the pipeline profiles to accommodate larger valves. Alternative ARV valves that must be buried would require lowering the pipeline depth several feet on each side of the valves to accommodate a deeper valve vault.

• Construction costs would be higher due to the increase in valve sizes, larger enclosures, and a deeper pipeline. The pricing through the change order process would be significantly higher than prices for a competitive bid. The cost for the material and installation of the valves is approximately $198,708. If the ARI valves are replaced with alternative valves, the estimated cost for the material and installation would be approximately $100,000 more.

• IEUA staff would have to be trained on the different types of valves installed and additional spare parts would need to be ordered and stocked. Since the IEUA has moved forward with implementing the ARI valves as the standard air relief structure, all valves that do not meet this standard would need to be replaced.

Use of alternative valves that do not meet the IEUA's specifications would thus require a substantial redesign of, delay in, and higher costs for the project. Because of the IEUA's current, extensive installations of ARI valves, the use of alternative, incompatible valves would impose continuing high costs into the future to change spare parts and staff training in operations and maintenance, as well as in inferior performance of the alternative valves. Procurement of alternative valves would be inconsistent with basic principles of sustainable infrastructure and effective asset management that EPA has consistently promoted. For all these reasons, EPA finds that the IEUA's specifications for these ARV valves were justified.

EPA also evaluated the project specifications to assess the IEUA's claim there are no known American manufacturers who can provide ARV valves of satisfactory quality to meet its technical specifications. Five domestic manufacturers of ARV valves were identified by the applicant. EPA's national contractor contacted the domestic manufacturers and inquired as to whether their products could meet the IEUA's specifications. Four of the five manufacturers responded. All four manufacturers indicated that they could provide similar products, but could not meet all of the IEUA's specifications, particularly with regard to manufacturing materials and product design.

Based on these findings, EPA concludes the IEUA's claim that there are no known American manufacturers of ARV valves meeting the IEUA's specifications is supported by the available information.

The April 28, 2009 EPA Memorandum for implementation of the ARRA Buy American provisions of P.L. 111-5, states the quantity of iron, steel, or relevant manufactured good is “reasonably available” if it is available at the time and place needed, and in the proper form or specification as specified in the project plans and design. The IEUA's waiver request articulates a reasonable and appropriate basis for choosing the type of technology it chose for this project in environmental objectives and performance specifications. Further, it provides sufficient documentation to conclude the relevant manufactured goods are not produced in the United States of a satisfactory quality to meet its technical specifications. The IEUA has incorporated specific technical design specifications for the proposed project based on their needs and provided information to the EPA indicating there are currently no ARV valves manufactured in the United States that have equivalent product specifications. The IEUA has also provided certification indicating there are no systems of comparable quality available from a domestic manufacturer to meet its specifications. Based on additional inquiry by EPA's national contractor, there do not appear to be other ARV valves available to meet the IEUA's specifications.

Furthermore, the purpose of the ARRA is to stimulate economic recovery by funding current infrastructure construction, not to delay shovel ready projects by requiring entities, like the IEUA, to revise their design and potentially choose a more costly and less efficient project. The imposition of ARRA Buy American requirements on such projects eligible for CWSRF assistance would result in unreasonable delay and thus displace the “shovel ready” status for this project. Further delay of this project would contravene the most fundamental economic purposes of the ARRA: To create or preserve jobs in the United States.

The EPA Region 9 Water Division, Office of Regional Counsel, EPA's Buy American consultant, and EPA's Office of Administration and Resource Management have reviewed this waiver request and have determined the supporting documentation provided by the IEUA is sufficient to meet the criteria listed under ARRA Section 1605(b)(2) and the EPA April 28, 2009, memorandum for implementation of ARRA Buy American provisions of P.L. 111-5.

Having established both a proper basis to specify the particular good required for this project, and that this manufactured good was not available from a producer in the United States, the IEUA is hereby granted a waiver from the Buy American requirements of Sections 1605(a) of Public Law 111-5, for the purchase of the A.R.I. valves, specified in the IEUA's request of January 21, 2010. This supplementary information constitutes the detailed written justification required by Section 1605(c) for waivers based on a finding under Section 1605(b)(2).

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed at the end of the relevant registration application summary using the instructions provided under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Submitting CBI . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments . When submitting comments, remember to:

i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number). If you are commenting on a docket that addresses multiple products, please indicate to which Registration Number(s)/File Symbol(s) your comment applies.

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing previously registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c)(4) of FIFRA, EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on the applications.

1. Registration Numbers : 70051-17, 70051-19. Docket Number : EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0088. Company Name and Address : Certis USA LLC, 9145 Guilford Road, Suite 175, Columbia, MD 21046. Active Ingredient : Paecilomyces fumosoroseus var. Apopka strain 97. Proposed Uses : All food commodities. Contact : Shanaz Bacchus, (703) 308-8097, bacchus.shanaz@epa.gov .

2. Registration Number : 70051-44. Docket Number : EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0059. Company Name and Address : Certis USA LLC, 9145 Guilford Road, Suite 175, Columbia, MD 21046. Active Ingredient : Cydia pomonella granulovirus. Proposed Uses : Residential uses. Contact : Jeannine Kausch, (703) 347-8920, kausch.jeannine@epa.gov .

3. Registration Numbers : 70127-7, 70127-8, 70127-10. Docket Number : EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0081. Company Name and Address : Novozymes Biologicals Incorporated, 5400 Corporate Circle, Salem, VA 24153. Active Ingredient : Metarhizium anisopliae F52. Proposed Uses : All food commodities. Contact : Shanaz Bacchus, (703) 308-8097, bacchus.shanaz@epa.gov .

4. File Symbol : 73049-UTR. Docket Number : EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0091. Company Name and Address : Valent BioSciences Corporation, 870 Technology Way, Suite 100, Libertyville, IL 60048-6316. Active Ingredient : Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki strain ABTS-351. Proposed Uses : Ornamental fruit, nut, and citrus trees; forests, shade trees, and sugar maple. Contact : Kathleen Martin, (703) 308-2857, martin.kathleen@epa.gov .

5. File Symbol : 84418-E. Docket Number : EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0105. Company Name and Address : New Century Channel Group, d/b/a Pignx Incorporated, 1150 Connecticut Avenue NW., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20036. Active Ingredient : Capsaicin. Proposed Uses : Rodenticide. Contact : Cheryl Greene, (703) 308-0352, greene.cheryl@epa.gov .

6. File Symbol : 85004-G. Docket Number : EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0060. Company Name and Address : MacIntosh and Associates Incorporated, 1203 Hartford Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55116-1622 (on behalf of Pasteuria Bioscience Incorporated, 12085 Research Drive, Suite 185, Alachua, FL 32615). Active Ingredient : Pasteuria usgae . Proposed Uses : Strawberries. Contact : Jeannine Kausch, (703) 347-8920, kausch.jeannine@epa.gov .

OMB Control Number: 3060-0888.

Title: Section 76.7, Petition Procedures; Section 76.9, Confidentiality of Proprietary Information; Section 76.61, Dispute Concerning Carriage; Section 76.914, Revocation of Certification; Section 76.1001, Unfair Practices; Section 76.1003, Program Access Proceedings; Section 76.1302, Carriage Agreement Proceedings; Section 76.1513, Open Video Dispute Resolution.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 640 respondents; 640 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 4.1 to 61.4 hours.

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

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information is contained in Sections 4(i), 303(r) and 628 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 20,960 hours

Total Annual Cost: $393,600.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: A party that wishes to have confidentiality for proprietary information with respect to a submission it is making to the Commission must file a petition pursuant to the pleading requirements in Section 76.7 and use the method described in Sections 0.459 and 76.9 to demonstrate that confidentiality is warranted.

On January 20, 2010, the Commission adopted a First Report and Order In the Matter of Review of the Commission's Program Access Rules and Examination of Programming Tying Arrangements, MB Docket No. 07-198, FCC 10-17. In the First Report and Order, the Commission establishes rules, policies, and procedures for the consideration of complaints alleging unfair acts involving terrestrially delivered, cable-affiliated programming in violation of Section 628(b) of the Communications Act. The Commission also establishes procedures for the consideration of requests for a temporary standstill of the price, terms, and other conditions of an existing programming contract by a program access complainant seeking renewal of such a contract.

The following rule sections contain revised information collection requirements that the Commission is seeking approval for from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):

47 CFR Section 76.1001(b)(2) permits any multichannel video programming distributor to commence an adjudicatory proceeding by filing a complaint with the Commission alleging that a cable operator, a satellite cable programming vendor in which a cable operator has an attributable interest, or a satellite broadcast programming vendor, has engaged in an unfair act involving terrestrially delivered, cable-affiliated programming (which, as defined in this R&O, includes exclusive contracts, discrimination, and undue or improper influence), which must be filed and responded to in accordance with the procedures specified in Section 76.7, except to the extent such procedures are modified by Sections 76.1001(b)(2) and 76.1003. In program access cases involving terrestrially delivered, cable-affiliated programming, the defendant has 45 days from the date of service of the complaint to file an answer, unless otherwise directed by the Commission. A complainant shall have the burden of proof that the defendant's alleged conduct has the purpose or effect of hindering significantly or preventing the complainant from providing satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming to subscribers or consumers; an answer to such a complaint shall set forth the defendant's reasons to support a finding that the complainant has not carried this burden. In addition, a complainant alleging that a terrestrial cable programming vendor has engaged in discrimination shall have the burden of proof that the terrestrial cable programming vendor is wholly owned by, controlled by, or under common control with a cable operator or cable operators, satellite cable programming vendor or vendors in which a cable operator has an attributable interest, or satellite broadcast programming vendor or vendors; an answer to such a complaint shall set forth the defendant's reasons to support a finding that the complainant has not carried this burden. In addition, the R&O provides that a complainant that wants a currently pending complaint involving terrestrially delivered, cable-affiliated programming considered under the rules adopted in the R&O must submit a supplemental filing alleging that the defendant has engaged in an unfair act after the effective date of the rules. In such case, the complaint and supplement will be considered pursuant to the rules adopted in the R&O and the defendant will have an opportunity to answer the supplemental filing, as set forth in the rules.

47 CFR Section 76.1003(c)(3) requires a program access complaint to contain evidence that the complainant competes with the defendant cable operator, or with a multichannel video programming distributor that is a customer of the defendant satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming vendor or a terrestrial cable programming vendor alleged to have engaged in conduct described in Section 76.1001(b)(1).

47 CFR Section 76.1003(l) permits a program access complainant seeking renewal of an existing programming contract to file a petition along with its complaint requesting a temporary standstill of the price, terms, and other conditions of the existing programming contract pending resolution of the complaint, to which the defendant will have the opportunity to respond within 10 days of service of the petition, unless otherwise directed by the Commission.

The following rule sections are also covered in this information collection but do not require additional OMB approval since the requirements have not changed since last approved by OMB:

47 CFR Section 76.7. Pleadings seeking to initiate FCC action must adhere to the requirements of Section 76.6 (general pleading requirements) and Section 76.7 (initiating pleading requirements). Section 76.7 is used for numerous types of petitions and special relief petitions, including general petitions seeking special relief, waivers, enforcement, show cause, forfeiture and declaratory ruling procedures.

47 CFR Section 76.9. A party that wishes to have confidentiality for proprietary information with respect to a submission it is making to the FCC must file a petition pursuant to the pleading requirements in Section 76.7 and use the method described in Sections 0.459 and 76.9 to demonstrate that confidentiality is warranted. The petitions filed pursuant to this provision are contained in the existing information collection requirement and are not changed by the rule changes.

47 CFR Section 76.61(a) permits a local commercial television station or qualified low power television station that is denied carriage or channel positioning or repositioning in accordance with the must-carry rules by a cable operator to file a complaint with the FCC in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 76.7. Section 76.61(b) permits a qualified local noncommercial educational television station that believes a cable operator has failed to comply with the FCC's signal carriage or channel positioning requirements (Sections 76.56 through 76.57) to file a complaint with the FCC in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 76.7.

47 CFR Section 76.61(a)(1) states that whenever a local commercial television station or a qualified low power television station believes that a cable operator has failed to meet its carriage or channel positioning obligations, pursuant to Section 76.56, such station shall notify the operator, in writing, of the alleged failure and identify its reasons for believing that the cable operator is obligated to carry the signal of such station or position such signal on a particular channel.

47 CFR Section 76.61(a)(2) states that the cable operator shall, within 30 days of receipt of such written notification, respond in writing to such notification and either commence to carry the signal of such station in accordance with the terms requested or state its reasons for believing that it is not obligated to carry such signal or is in compliance with the channel positioning and repositioning and other requirements of the must-carry rules. If a refusal for carriage is based on the station's distance from the cable system's principal headend, the operator's response shall include the location of such headend. If a cable operator denies carriage on the basis of the failure of the station to deliver a good quality signal at the cable system's principal headend, the cable operator must provide a list of equipment used to make the measurements, the point of measurement and a list and detailed description of the reception and over-the-air signal processing equipment used, including sketches such as block diagrams and a description of the methodology used for processing the signal at issue, in its response.

47 CFR Section 76.914(c) permits a cable operator seeking revocation of a franchising authority's certification to file a petition with the FCC in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 76.7.

47 CFR Section 76.1003(a) permits any multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) aggrieved by conduct that it believes constitute a violation of the FCC's competitive access to cable programming rules to commence an adjudicatory proceeding at the FCC to obtain enforcement of the rules through the filing of a complaint, which must be filed and responded to in accordance with the procedures specified in Section 76.7, except to the extent such procedures are modified by Section 76.1003.

47 CFR Section 76.1003(b) requires any aggrieved MVPD intending to file a complaint under this section to first notify the potential defendant cable operator, and/or the potential defendant satellite cable programming vendor or satellite broadcast programming vendor, that it intends to file a complaint with the Commission based on actions alleged to violate one or more of the provisions contained in Sections 76.1001 or 76.1002 of this part. The notice must be sufficiently detailed so that its recipient(s) can determine the nature of the potential complaint. The potential complainant must allow a minimum of ten (10) days for the potential defendant(s) to respond before filing a complaint with the Commission.

47 CFR Section 76.1003(c) describes the required contents of a program access complaint, in addition to the requirements of Section 76.7 of this part.

47 CFR Section 76.1003(d) states that, in a case where recovery of damages is sought, the complaint shall contain a clear and unequivocal request for damages and appropriate allegations in support of such claim.

47 CFR Section 76.1003(e)(1) requires cable operators, satellite cable programming vendors, or satellite broadcast programming vendors whom expressly reference and rely upon a document in asserting a defense to a program access complaint filed or in responding to a material allegation in a program access complaint filed pursuant to Section 76.1003, to include such document or documents, such as contracts for carriage of programming referenced and relied on, as part of the answer. Except as otherwise provided or directed by the Commission, any cable operator, satellite cable programming vendor or satellite broadcast programming vendor upon which a program access complaint is served under this section shall answer within twenty (20) days of service of the complaint.

47 CFR Section 76.1003(e)(2) requires an answer to an exclusivity complaint to provide the defendant's reasons for refusing to sell the subject programming to the complainant. In addition, the defendant may submit its programming contracts covering the area specified in the complaint with its answer to refute allegations concerning the existence of an impermissible exclusive contract. If there are no contracts governing the specified area, the defendant shall so certify in its answer. Any contracts submitted pursuant to this provision may be protected as proprietary pursuant to Section 76.9 of this part.

47 CFR Section 76.1003(e)(3) requires an answer to a discrimination complaint to state the reasons for any differential in prices, terms or conditions between the complainant and its competitor, and to specify the particular justification set forth in Section 76.1002(b) of this part relied upon in support of the differential.

47 CFR Section 76.1003(e)(4) requires an answer to a complaint alleging an unreasonable refusal to sell programming to state the defendant's reasons for refusing to sell to the complainant, or for refusing to sell to the complainant on the same terms and conditions as complainant's competitor, and to specify why the defendant's actions are not discriminatory.

47 CFR Section 76.1003(f) provides that, within fifteen (15) days after service of an answer, unless otherwise directed by the Commission, the complainant may file and serve a reply which shall be responsive to matters contained in the answer and shall not contain new matters.

47 CFR Section 76.1003(g) states that any complaint filed pursuant to this subsection must be filed within one year of the date on which one of three specified events occurs.

47 CFR Section 76.1003(h) sets forth the remedies that are available for violations of the program access rules, which include the imposition of damages, and/or the establishment of prices, terms, and conditions for the sale of programming to the aggrieved multichannel video programming distributor, as well as sanctions available under title V or any other provision of the Communications Act.

47 CFR Section 76.1003(j) states in addition to the general pleading and discovery rules contained in Section 76.7 of this part, parties to a program access complaint may serve requests for discovery directly on opposing parties, and file a copy of the request with the Commission. The respondent shall have the opportunity to object to any request for documents that are not in its control or relevant to the dispute. Such request shall be heard, and determination made, by the Commission. Until the objection is ruled upon, the obligation to produce the disputed material is suspended. Any party who fails to timely provide discovery requested by the opposing party to which it has not raised an objection as described above, or who fails to respond to a Commission order for discovery material, may be deemed in default and an order may be entered in accordance with the allegations contained in the complaint, or the complaint may be dismissed with prejudice.

47 CFR Section 76.1302(a) states that any video programming vendor or multichannel video programming distributor aggrieved by conduct that it believes constitute a violation of the regulations set forth in this subpart may commence an adjudicatory proceeding at the Commission to obtain enforcement of the rules through the filing of a complaint.

47 CFR Section 76.1302(b) states that any aggrieved video programming vendor or multichannel video programming distributor intending to file a complaint under this section must first notify the potential defendant multichannel video programming distributor that it intends to file a complaint with the Commission based on actions alleged to violate one or more of the provisions contained in Section 76.1301 of this part. The notice must be sufficiently detailed so that its recipient(s) can determine the specific nature of the potential complaint. The potential complainant must allow a minimum of ten (10) days for the potential defendant(s) to respond before filing a complaint with the Commission.

47 CFR Section 76.1302(c) specifies the content of carriage agreement complaints.

47 CFR Section 76.1302(d) states that any multichannel video programming distributor upon which a carriage agreement complaint is served under this section shall answer within thirty (30) days of service of the complaint, unless otherwise directed by the Commission. The answer shall address the relief requested in the complaint, including legal and documentary support, for such response, and may include an alternative relief proposal without any prejudice to any denials or defenses raised.

47 CFR Section 76.1302(e) states that within twenty (20) days after service of an answer, unless otherwise directed by the Commission, the complainant may file and serve a reply which shall be responsive to matters contained in the answer and shall not contain new matters.

47 CFR Section 76.1302(f) states that any complaint filed pursuant to this subsection must be filed within one year of the date on which one of three events occurs.

47 CFR Section 76.1302(g)(1) states that upon completion of such adjudicatory proceeding, the Commission shall order appropriate remedies, including, if necessary, mandatory carriage of a video programming vendor's programming on defendant's video distribution system, or the establishment of prices, terms, and conditions for the carriage of a video programming vendor's programming.

47 CFR Section 76.1513(a) permits any party aggrieved by conduct that it believes constitute a violation of the FCC's regulations or in section 653 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 573) to commence an adjudicatory proceeding at the Commission to obtain enforcement of the rules through the filing of a complaint, which must be filed and responded to in accordance with the procedures specified in Section 76.7, except to the extent such procedures are modified by Section 76.1513.

47 CFR Section 76.1513(b) provides that an open video system operator may not provide in its carriage contracts with programming providers that any dispute must be submitted to arbitration, mediation, or any other alternative method for dispute resolution prior to submission of a complaint to the Commission.

47 CFR Section 76.1513(c) requires that any aggrieved party intending to file a complaint under this section must first notify the potential defendant open video system operator that it intends to file a complaint with the Commission based on actions alleged to violate one or more of the provisions contained in this part or in Section 653 of the Communications Act. The notice must be in writing and must be sufficiently detailed so that its recipient(s) can determine the specific nature of the potential complaint. The potential complainant must allow a minimum of ten (10) days for the potential defendant(s) to respond before filing a complaint with the Commission.

47 CFR Section 76.1513(d) describes the contents of an open video system complaint.

47 CFR Section 76.1513(e) addresses answers to open video system complaints.

47 CFR Section 76.1513(f) states within twenty (20) days after service of an answer, the complainant may file and serve a reply which shall be responsive to matters contained in the answer and shall not contain new matters.

47 CFR Section 76.1513(g) requires that any complaint filed pursuant to this subsection must be filed within one year of the date on which one of three events occurs.

47 CFR Section 76.1513(h) states that upon completion of the adjudicatory proceeding, the Commission shall order appropriate remedies, including, if necessary, the requiring carriage, awarding damages to any person denied carriage, or any combination of such sanctions. Such order shall set forth a timetable for compliance, and shall become effective upon release.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1034.

Title: Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems and their Impact on the Terrestrial Radio Broadcast Service; Digital Notification Form, FCC Form 335.

Form Number: FCC Form 335.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,310 respondents; 1,310 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1- 8 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Sections 154(i), 303, 310 and 533 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 1,780 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $606,500.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: On January 29, 2010, the Commission released the Order, Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems and Their Impact on the Terrestrial Radio Broadcast Service (“Order”), DA 10-208, MM Docket 99-325. The Order will allow:

(1) Eligible authorized FM stations to commence operation of FM digital facilities with operating power up to -14 dB upon notice to the Commission on either Form 335 (the licensee of a super-powered FM station must file an informal request for any increase in the station's FM Digital ERP).

(2) Licensees to submit an application to the Media Bureau, in the form of an informal request, for any increase in FM Digital ERP beyond 6 dB.

(3) Licensees submitting such a request must use a simplified method set forth in the Order to determine the proponent station's maximum permissible FM Digital ERP.

(4) In situations where the simplified method is not applicable due to unusual terrain or other environmental or technical considerations or when it produces anomalous FM Digital ERP results, the Bureau will accept applications for FM Digital ERP in excess of -14 dB on a case-by-case basis when accompanied by a detailed showing containing a complete explanation of the prediction methodology used as well as data, maps and sample calculations.

(5) Finally, the Order implements interference mitigation and remediation procedures to resolve promptly allegations of digital interference to an authorized FM analog facility resulting from an FM Digital ERP power increase undertaken pursuant to the procedures adopted in the Order. Pursuant to these procedures, the affected analog FM station may file an interference complaint with the Bureau. In order to be considered by the Bureau, the complaint must contain at least six reports of ongoing (rather than transitory) objectionable interference. For each report of interference, the affected FM licensee must submit a map showing the location of the reported interference and a detailed description of the nature and extent of the interference being experienced at that location. Interference reports at locations outside a station's protected analog contour will not be considered. The complaint must also contain a complete description of the tests and equipment used to identity the alleged interference and the scope of the unsuccessful efforts to resolve the interference.

The following rule sections contain information collection requirements that have been approved by OMB and do not require any additional OMB approval because they did not change since last approved by OMB:

47 CFR 73.404(b) states in situations where interference to other stations is anticipated or actually occurs, AM licensees may, upon notification to the Commission, reduce the power of the primary Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) sidebands by up to 6 dB. Any greater reduction of sideband power requires prior authority from the Commission via the filing of a request for special temporary authority or an informal letter request for modification of license.

47 CFR 73.404(e) states licensees (commercial and noncommercial AM and FM radio stations) must provide notification to the Commission in Washington, DC, within 10 days of commencing in-band, on channel (IBOC) digital operation. The notification must include the following information:

(1) Call sign and facility identification number of the station;

(2) Date on which IBOC operation commenced;

(3) Certification that the IBOC DAB facilities conform to permissible hybrid specifications;

(4) Name and telephone number of a technical representative the Commission can call in the event of interference;

(5) FM digital effective radiated power used and certification that the FM analog effective radiated power remains as authorized;

(6) Transmitter power output; if separate analog and digital transmitters are used, the power output for each transmitter;

(7) If applicable, any reduction in an AM station's primary digital carriers;

(8) If applicable, the geographic coordinates, elevation data, and license file number of the auxiliary antenna employed by an FM station as a separate digital antenna;

(9) If applicable, for FM systems employing interleaved antenna bays, a certification that adequate filtering and/or isolation equipment has been installed to prevent spurious emissions in excess of the limits specified in Section 73.317;

(10) A certification that the operation will not cause human exposure to levels of radio frequency radiation in excess of the limits specified in Section 1.1310 of the Commission's rules and is therefore categorically excluded from environmental processing pursuant to Section 1306(b). Any station that cannot certify compliance must submit an environmental assessment (”EA”) pursuant to Section 1.1311 and may not commence IBOC operation until such EA is ruled upon by the Commission.

A. Purpose

If it is in the best interest of the Government, the contracting officer may authorize cost-reimbursement contractors to obtain, for official purposes only, interagency motor pool vehicles and related services. Contractors' requests for vehicles must obtain two copies of the agency authorization, the number of vehicles and related services required and period of use, a list of employees who are authorized to request the vehicles, a listing of equipment authorized to be serviced, and billing instructions and address. A written statement that the contractor will assume, without the right of reimbursement from the Government, the cost or expense of any use of the motor pool vehicles and services not related to the performance of the contract is necessary before the contracting officer may authorize cost-reimbursement contractors to obtain interagency motor pool vehicles and related services.

The information is used by the Government to determine that it is in the Government's best interest to authorize a cost-reimbursement contractor to obtain, for official purposes only, interagency motor pool vehicles and related services, and to provide those vehicles.

Respondents: 70.

Responses per Respondent: 2.

Annual Responses: 140.

Hours per Response: .5.

Total Burden Hours: 70.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4041, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0032, Contractor Use of Interagency Motor Pool Vehicles, in all correspondence.

A. Purpose

The Audit and Records-Negotiation clause, 52.215-2; Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders—Commercial Items clause, 52.212-5(d); and Audit and Records-Sealed Bidding clause, 52.214-26, implement the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2313, 41 U.S.C. 254, and 10 U.S.C. 2306. The statutory requirements are that the Comptroller General and/or agency shall have access to, and the right to, examine certain books, documents and records of the contractor for a period of 3 years after final payment. The record retention periods required of the contractor in the clauses are for compliance with the aforementioned statutory requirements. The information must be retained so that audits necessary for contract surveillance, verification of contract pricing, and reimbursement of contractor costs can be performed.

Respondents: 19,142.

Responses per Respondent: 20.

Total Responses: 382,840.

Hours per Response: 0.167.

Total Burden Hours: 63,934.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4041, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control Number 9000-0034, Examination of Records by Comptroller General and Contract Audit, in all correspondence.