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 the food trade.

The CCFH is responsible for:

(a) Drafting basic provisions on food hygiene applicable to all food;

(b) Considering, amending if necessary, and endorsing provisions on hygiene prepared by Codex commodity committees and contained in Codex commodity standards;

(c) Considering, amending if necessary, and endorsing provisions on hygiene prepared by Codex commodity committees and contained in Codex codes of practice unless, in specific cases, Codex has decided otherwise;

(d) Drafting provisions on hygiene applicable to specific food items or food groups, whether coming within the terms of reference of a Codex commodity committee or not;

(e) Considering specific hygiene problems assigned to it by Codex;

(f) Suggesting and prioritizing areas where there is a need for microbiological risk assessment at the international level and to develop questions to be addressed by the risk assessors; and

(g) Considering microbiological risk management matters in relation to food hygiene, including food irradiation, and in relation to the risk assessment of FAO/WHO.

The CCFH is hosted by the United States.

The following items on the agenda for the 44th Session of the CCFH will be discussed during the public meeting:

• Matters Referred by Codex and/or Other Codex Committees and Task Forces to the Food Hygiene Committee

• Draft Regional Code of Practice for Street-Vended Foods (Near East)

• Matters Arising from the Work of FAO, WHO and Other International Intergovernmental Organizations

(a) Progress Report on the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Meetings on Microbiological Risk Assessment (JEMRA) and Related Matters

(b) Information from the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)

• Proposed Draft Revision of Principles for the Establishment and Application of Microbiological Criteria for Foods at Step 4

• Practical Examples on the Application and Establishment of Microbiological Criteria

• Proposed Draft Guidelines for Control of Specific Zoonotic Parasites in Meat: Trichinella spiralis and Cysticercus bovis at Step 4

• Proposed Draft Revision of the Code of Hygienic Practice for Spices and Dried Aromatic Plants at Step 4

• Proposed Draft Annex on Berries to the Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables at Step 4

• Discussion Paper on a Code of Hygienic Practice for Low Moisture Food

• Discussion Paper on New Work and Periodic Review/Revision of Codes of Hygienic Practice

• CCFH Work Priorities

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

At the October 23, 2012, 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 the U.S. Delegate for the 44th Session of the CCFH, Jenny Scott (see ADDRESSES ). Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the 44th Session of the CCFH.

FSIS will announce this notice online through the FSIS Web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/Federal_Register_Notices/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. 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_&_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.

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

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

Background

Since the preliminary results, the following events have taken place. Wheatland Tube Company, United States Steel Corporation, Pacific Pipe and Saha Thai submitted timely case briefs on July 16, 2012. Wheatland Tube Company, United States Steel Corporation, Allied Tube and Conduit and TMK IPSCO, Pacific Pipe, and Saha Thai filed timely rebuttal briefs on July 23, 2012.

The period of review (POR) is March 1, 2010, through February 28, 2011.

The products covered by the antidumping order are certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The subject merchandise has an outside diameter of 0.375 inches or more, but not exceeding 16 inches. These products, which are commonly referred to in the industry as “standard pipe” or “structural tubing” are hereinafter designated as “pipes and tubes.” The merchandise is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085 and 7306.30.5090. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive.

The issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this administrative review are addressed in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memorandum), dated October 3, 2012, and hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/ . The signed Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made adjustments to our margin calculations for Pacific Pipe and Saha Thai. For Pacific Pipe, with regard to the cost of production, we subtracted the cost of galvanizing in the instances where our methodology resulted in the selection of a galvanized product as the substitute for a non-galvanized product and added galvanizing where our methodology selected non-galvanized products as a substitute for galvanized products. See Memorandum to Neal Halper, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final Results—Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited,” dated October 3, 2012. For Pacific Pipe, we also revised coding in our margin program to correct an error in the Department's comparison market program related to determining cost for products sold, but not produced, during the POR. See Decision Memorandum at Comment 13.

For Saha Thai, we made the following adjustments for these final results. First, after reviewing the comments and examining all of the documentation on the record with respect to warehousing, we removed warehousing expenses and revenue from the calculation for these final results. See Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. Second, we corrected a clerical error in Saha Thai's U.S. margin calculation program which affects how we calculate the freight revenue cap. See Decision Memorandum at Comment 10. We have also made a number of corrections and adjustments to Saha Thai's cost response which are discussed in the Decision Memorandum at Comments 6, 7, 8 and 9, and in the Memorandum to Neal Halper, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final Results—Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd.,” dated October 3, 2012.

As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average margins exist for the period of March 1, 2010, through February 28, 2011:

The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, where the respondent reported the entered value for its sales, we calculated importer-specific (or customer-specific) ad valorem assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). However, where the respondent did not report the entered value for its sales, we have calculated importer-specific (or customer-specific) per-unit assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis ( i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, any entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

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

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act): (1) For the company covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above in the section “Final Results of Review”; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the most recent final results in which that producer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the producer of the merchandise in these final results of review or in the most recent final results in which that producer participated; and, (4) if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be 15.67 percent, the all-others rate established in the less than fair value investigation. 2 These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice is the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or 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 also 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 in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

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

The IBP was established in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-418, codified at 15 U.S.C. 4724) to bring international buyers together with U.S. firms by promoting leading U.S. trade shows in industries with high export potential. The IBP emphasizes cooperation between the DOC and trade show organizers to benefit U.S. firms exhibiting at selected events and provides practical, hands-on assistance such as export counseling and market analysis to U.S. companies interested in exporting. Shows selected for the IBP will provide a venue for U.S. companies interested in expanding their sales into international markets.

Through the IBP, the DOC selects trade shows that DOC determines to be leading international trade shows with participation by U.S. firms interested in exporting for promotion in overseas markets by U.S. Embassies and Consulates. DOC is authorized to provide successful applicants with assistance in the form of overseas promotion of the show; outreach to show participants about exporting; recruiting potential buyers to attend the events; and through physical staff assistance at the event through setting up international trade centers at the events. Worldwide promotion is executed through the offices of the DOC U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (hereinafter referred to as the Commercial Service) in more than 70 countries representing the United States' major trading partners, and also in U.S. Embassies in countries where the Commercial Service does not maintain offices.

The Commercial Service is accepting applications from trade show organizers for the IBP for trade events taking place between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014. Selection of a trade show is valid for one event, unless the applicant is selected to participate under the pilot initiative described below, i.e., a trade show organizer seeking selection for a recurring event must submit a new application for selection for each occurrence of the event. For events that occur more than once in a calendar year, the trade show organizer must submit a separate application for each event.

There is no fee required to submit an application. If accepted into the program for calendar year 2014, a participation fee of $9,800 for shows of five days or less is required. For trade shows more than five days in duration, or requiring more than one International Trade Center, a participation fee of $15,000 is required. For trade shows ten days or more in duration, and/or requiring more than two International Trade Centers, the participation fee will be determined by DOC and stated in the written notification of acceptance. In all cases, the fee is due within 45 days of written notification of acceptance into the program.

For this announcement cycle only, the Commercial Service is piloting a new initiative to preselect up to 20% of the shows that are selected for the 2014 IBP, to also participate in the IBP during calendar year 2015 (January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015), without having to reapply. The purpose of this pilot initiative is to maximize promotion to international buyers by allowing show organizers to engage in longer-term planning while reducing administrative burden on both the Commercial Service and the show organizers by avoiding the need to reapply for the second year. Eligibility for this pilot initiative is limited to annual trade events that participated in the IBP in calendar years 2011 or 2012. For events selected for both calendar years 2014 and 2015, the participation fee for the IBP program for calendar year 2015 event will be announced in the fall of 2013. Payment will be due within 45 days of written notification of the 2015 fee schedule.

For the IBP in calendar year 2014, the Commercial Service expects to select approximately 35 events from among the applicants. Applicants that have expressed interest in the application for preselection for the 2015 IBP cycle will be considered for the pilot initiative. Of these applicants, up to 20% of the events for 2014 will be preselected for the next IBP cycle during the January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 period.

The Commercial Service will select those events that are determined to most clearly meet the Commercial Service's statutory mandate in 15 U.S.C. 4721 to promote U.S. exports, especially those of small- and medium-sized enterprises, and that best meet the selection criteria articulated below. Successful applicants will be required to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the DOC, and must submit payment of the 2014 participation fee within 45 days of written notification of acceptance into the IBP. The MOA constitutes an agreement between the DOC and the show organizer specifying which responsibilities for international promotion of and export assistance services at the trade shows are to be undertaken by the DOC as part of the IBP and, in turn, which responsibilities are to be undertaken by the show organizer. Anyone requesting application information will be sent a sample copy of the MOA along with the application and a copy of this Federal Register Notice. Applicants are encouraged to review the MOA closely as IBP participants are required to comply with all terms, conditions, and obligations in the MOA. Trade show organizer obligations include, but are not limited to, the construction of an International Trade Center at the trade show, production of an export interest directory, and provision of complementary hotel accommodations for DOC staff as explained in the MOA. The responsibilities to be undertaken by the DOC will be carried out by the Commercial Service. Commercial Service responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the worldwide promotion of the trade show and, where feasible, recruitment of international buyers to that show, provision of on-site export assistance to U.S. exhibitors at the show, and the reporting of results to the show organizer.

Selection as an IBP partner does not constitute a guarantee by DOC of the show's success. IBP partnership status is not an endorsement of the show except as to its international buyer activities. Neither non-selection of an applicant for IBP partnership status nor selection for only one calendar year should be viewed as a determination that the event will not be successful in promoting U.S. exports.

Eligibility: All 2014 U.S. trade events, through the show organizer, are eligible to apply for IBP participation. However, only annual U.S. trade events to be held in 2014 and 2015 that were IBP participants in calendar years 2011 and/or 2012 are eligible to apply to the pilot initiative for selection for participation for two calendar years.

Exclusions: Trade shows that are either first-time or horizontal (non-industry specific) events generally will not be considered.

General Evaluation Criteria: The Commercial Service will evaluate shows to be International Buyer Program partners using the following criteria:

(a) Level of Intellectual Property Rights Protection: The trade show organizer includes in the terms and conditions of its exhibitor contracts provisions for the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR); has procedures in place at the trade show to address IPR infringement, which, at a minimum, provides information to help U.S. exhibitors procure legal representation during the trade show; and agrees to assist the DOC to reach and educate U.S. exhibitors on the Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP!), IPR protection measures available during the show, and the means to protect IPR in overseas markets, as well as in the United States.

(b) Export Potential: The trade show promotes products and services from U.S. industries that have high export potential, as determined by DOC sources, e.g., Commercial Service best prospects lists and U.S. export statistics (certain industries are rated as priorities by our domestic and international commercial officers in their Country Commercial Guides, available through the Web site, http://www.export.gov ).

(c) Level of International Interest: The trade show meets the needs of a significant number of overseas markets and corresponds to marketing opportunities as identified by the posts in their Country Commercial Guides (e.g., best prospect lists). Previous international attendance at the show may be used as an indicator.

(d) Scope of the Show: The event must offer a broad spectrum of U.S. made products and services for the subject industry. Trade shows with a majority of U.S. firms as exhibitors are given priority.

(e) U.S. Content of Show Exhibitors: Trade shows with exhibitors featuring a high percentage of products produced in the United States or products with a high degree of U.S. content will be preferred.

(f) Stature of the Show: The trade show is clearly recognized by the industry it covers as a leading event for the promotion of that industry's products and services both domestically and internationally, and as a showplace for the latest technology or services in that industry.

(g) Level of Exhibitor Interest: There is expressed interest on the part of U.S. exhibitors in receiving international business visitors during the trade show. A significant number of U.S. exhibitors should be new-to-export (NTE) or seeking to expand their sales into additional export markets.

(h) Level of Overseas Marketing: There has been a demonstrated effort by the applicant to market prior shows overseas. In addition, the applicant should describe in detail the international marketing program to be conducted for the event, and explain how efforts should increase individual and group international attendance. (Planned cooperation with Visit USA Committees overseas is desirable. For more information on Visit USA Committees go to: http://www.visitusa.com. )

(i) Logistics: The trade show site, facilities, transportation services, and availability of accommodations at the site of the exhibition must be capable of accommodating large numbers of attendees whose native language will not be English.

(j) Level of Cooperation: The applicant demonstrates a willingness to cooperate with the Commercial Service to fulfill the program's goals and adhere to the target dates set out in the MOA and in the event timetables, both of which are available from the program office (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above). Past experience in the IBP will be taken into account in evaluating the applications received.

(k) Delegation Incentives: Show organizers should offer a range of incentives to delegations and/or delegation leaders recruited by the Commercial Service overseas posts. Examples of incentives to international visitors and to organized delegations include, but are not limited to: Waived or reduced admission fees; special organized events, such as receptions, meetings with association executives, briefings, and site tours; and complimentary accommodations for delegation leaders. Waived or reduced admission fees are required for international attendees who are members of Commercial Service-recruited delegations under this program. Delegation leaders also must be provided complimentary admission to the event.

The Commercial Service will vet all applications received based on the criteria set out in this notice. Vetting will include soliciting input from Commercial Service domestic and international field offices, focusing primarily on the export potential, level of international interest, and stature of the show. In reviewing applications, the Commercial Service will also consider sector and calendar diversity in terms of the need to allocate resources to support selected events. In selecting events under the two-year pilot initiative, although all of the above factors will be considered, additional emphasis will be placed on past IBP success and cooperation respectively under factors (c) and (j) above. The Assistant Secretary for Trade Promotion and Director General of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service will make all selection decisions.

Application Requirements: Show organizers submitting applications for the 2014 or 2014-2015 IBP are requested to submit: (1) A narrative statement addressing each question in the application, Form ITA-4102P; (2) a signed statement that “The above information provided is correct and the applicant will abide by the terms set forth in this Call for Applications for the 2014 and 2015 International Buyer Program (January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2015);” and (3) two copies of the application, on company letterhead, and one electronic copy submitted on a CD-RW (preferably in Microsoft Word® format), on or before the deadline noted above. Applicants interested in participating in the pilot initiative for selection of one event for two successive calendar years should explicitly so indicate in their applications. There is no fee required to apply. The Commercial Service expects to issue the results of this process in April 2013.

Legal Authority: The statutory program authority for the Commercial Service to conduct the International Buyer Program is 15 U.S.C. 4724. The Commercial Service has the legal authority to enter into MOAs with show organizers (partners) under the provisions of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (MECEA), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)). MECEA allows the Commercial Service to accept contributions of funds and services from firms for the purposes of furthering its mission.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements of the application to this program (Form ITA-4102P) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (OMB Control No. 0625-0151). Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond 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 Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. For further information please contact: Gary Rand, Acting Director, International Buyer Program ( Gary.Rand@trade.gov ).

Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2009).

The Office of Competition and Economic Analysis is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the Federal Register . Under Section 305(a) of the Act and 15 CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by the Secretary's determination may, within 30 days of the date of this notice, bring an action in any appropriate district court of the United States to set aside the determination on the ground that the determination is erroneous.

ALCC's Export Trade Certificate of Review has been amended to:

1. Add the following company as a Member of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(l) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(l)): Glacier Bay Fisheries, LLC.

The effective date of the amended certificate is July 18, 2012, the date on which ALCC's application to amend the certificate was deemed submitted. A copy of the amended certificate will be kept in the International Trade Administration's Freedom of Information Records Inspection Facility, Room 4001, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the Federal Register identifying the applicant and summarizing its proposed export conduct.

Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether an amended Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked as privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential.

An original and five (5) copies, plus two (2) copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7025, Washington, DC 20230.

Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 84-23A12.”

The Northwest Fruit Exporters' (“NWF”) original Certificate was issued on June 11, 1984 (49 FR 24581, June 14, 1984), and last amended on August 12, 2011 (76 FR 55010). A summary of the current application for an amendment follows.

Applicant: Northwest Fruit Exporters, 105 South 18th Street, Suite 227, Yakima, WA 98901. Contact: James R. Archer, Manager, (509) 576-8004.

Application No.: 84-23A12.

Date Deemed Submitted: October 3, 2012.

Proposed Amendment: NWF seeks to amend its Certificate to:

1. Add the following companies as new Members of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(l) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(l)): Crown Packing, LLC (Wenatchee, WA); HoneyBear Growers, Inc. (Brewster, WA); and Jenks Bros Cold Storage & Packing (Royal City, WA); and

2. Remove the following companies as Members of NWF's Certificate: J & D Packing, LLC (Outlook, WA); Oregon Cherry Growers (Salem, OR); and Prentice Packing & Storage (Yakima, WA); and

3. Change the name of the following member: Conrad & Adams Fruit LLC of Grandview, WA is now Conrad & Adams Fruit L.L.C.

On June 11, 2012, notice was published in the Federal Register (77 FR 34349) that a request for a scientific research permit to take loggerhead, green, and olive ridley sea turtles had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

The SWFSC has been issued a 5-year permit to take sea turtles in San Diego Bay, California. The purpose of the work is to determine their abundance, size ranges, growth, sex ratio, health status, diving behavior, local movements, habitat use, and migration routes. Up to 50 green, five olive ridley, and five loggerhead sea turtles may be captured annually by entanglement or seine netting and have the following procedures performed before release: Photography/video; carapace marking; flipper tagging and passive integrated transponder tagging; ultrasound; morphometrics; tetracycline injection; fecal, scute, blood and tissue sampling; cloacal and oral swabbing; lavage; and attachment of up to two transmitters. Animals with transmitters may be tracked by vessel after release.

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

The DoN's proposed action is to construct and operate a live-fire training range complex, a main cantonment area, including family housing, and associated infrastructure in support of the Guam Military Relocation.

A ROD for the Final EIS was signed on September 20, 2010 (75 FR 60438, September 30, 2010). The ROD deferred a decision on the specific site for a live-fire training range complex. Regarding the establishment of the main cantonment area, the ROD selected an area utilizing Department of Defense (DoD)-owned lands at NCTS Finegayan and South Finegayan Navy Housing and acquiring land known as the former FAA parcel. The Final EIS identified this total area as the Preferred Alternative for establishment of the main cantonment area.

In the months following the issuance of the ROD, the DoN made adjustments with regards to the live-fire training range complex, including application of probabilistic modeling that shrank the overall footprint of the MPMG range. DoN also formally committed that if the Route 15 area was selected for the live-fire training range complex, DoN would provide for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week access to Pagat Village and Pagat Cave historical sites, to include the trail leading to both.

Faced with this new information, the DoN initially elected to prepare a SEIS limited solely to the evaluation of impacts associated with the location, construction, and operation of the live-fire training range complex. The DoN issued its Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the SEIS in February 2012 (77 FR 6787, February 9, 2012). In the NOI, the DoN preliminarily identified five alternatives for the range complex: Two were adjacent to Route 15 in northeastern Guam, and three were located at or immediately adjacent to the NAVMAG. Public scoping meetings were conducted for the SEIS in March 2012, and the public scoping comment period closed on April 6, 2012.

Shortly after the close of the public comment period, on April 27, 2012, the U.S.-Japan Security Consultative Committee (SCC) issued a joint statement announcing its decision to adjust the plans outlined in the May 2006 Realignment Roadmap. In accordance with the SCC's adjustments, the DoD adopted a new force posture in the Pacific providing for a materially smaller force on Guam. Specifically, the adjustments include reducing the originally planned relocation of approximately 8,600 Marines and 9,000 dependents to a force of approximately 5,000 Marines and approximately 1,300 dependents on Guam. That decision prompted the DoN's review of the major actions previously planned for Guam and approved in the September 2010 ROD. This review concluded that while some actions remain unchanged as a result of the smaller force size, others, such as the main cantonment and family housing areas, could significantly change as a result of the modified force. The DoN has opted to issue a new NOI and amend the scope of the ongoing SEIS to add those actions that may materially change as a result of the new force posture.

The proposed reduction in the size of the new force structure does not affect all of the decisions that were made in the September 2010 ROD. For example, the relocation of the Marine Corps Aviation Combat Element facilities to AAFB, the development of the North Gate and access road at AAFB, the establishment of training ranges on Tinian, Apra Harbor wharf improvements, and the non-live-fire training ranges on Andersen South remain unaffected by the changes in force structure resulting from the April 2012 Roadmap adjustments. These actions will occur no matter where on Guam the main cantonment and family housing areas and live-fire training range complex are situated. The potential environmental effects of these actions were fully and accurately considered and analyzed in the 2010 Final EIS. For those decisions that are not affected by the new force structure, the September 2010 ROD stands as the final agency action for those elements. The expanded scope of the SEIS does not include the transient aircraft carrier berthing in Apra Harbor and the Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force.

The reduction in the number of Marines and dependents to be relocated to Guam led to a reduction in the footprint for the main cantonment area, enabling development of new preliminary alternatives to be considered. The possibility of not establishing the main cantonment area at NCTS Finegayan opened that area up for consideration as a new preliminary alternative for the live-fire training range complex. Consideration of public input, refinement of range designs, and a reassessment of operational requirements, conflicts, and opportunities resulted in AAFB Northwest Field being added as a new preliminary range alternative. The number and size of the ranges comprising the live-fire training range complex are unaffected by the April 2012 adjustments to the Roadmap and will remain as described in the 2010 Final EIS. Similarly, the qualification standards have not changed.

The DoN has identified five (5) preliminary alternatives for establishment of the main cantonment/family housing area: AAFB, NCTS Finegayan, NCTS Finegayan (main cantonment)/South Finegayan Navy Housing (family housing), Navy and Air Force Barrigada, and Naval Base Guam.

The SEIS will also consider the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the DoN would continue to implement the September 2010 ROD. The decision to construct and operate the live-fire training range complex would remain deferred, and DoN would establish a main cantonment area for approximately 8,600 Marines and approximately 9,000 dependents on DoD-controlled lands at NCTS Finegayan and South Finegayan and by acquiring land known as the former FAA parcel. Although the No Action Alternative presumes the present course of action identified in the September 2010 ROD, for purposes of assessing the environmental impacts of the proposed alternatives in the SEIS, the DoN will compare the impacts of the proposed action to the baseline conditions identified in the July 2010 Final EIS. Baseline conditions will be updated in the SEIS, as appropriate, if new information is made available. The No Action Alternative is not a reasonable alternative. Foremost, it is inconsistent with the new force posture adopted by the DoD in accordance with the SCC's April 27, 2012 adjustments to the Roadmap, which provide for a materially smaller relocated force on Guam. Furthermore, the No Action Alternative neither satisfies the need for training requirements for the relocated Marines as mandated in Section 5063 of Title 10 the U.S. Code, nor the individual live-fire training requirements as described in the Final EIS and ROD.

The SEIS will evaluate environmental effects associated with: Geology and soils; water resources, which may include surface and ground water, floodplains, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers; terrestrial biology; threatened and endangered species and their designated critical habitat (if applicable); air quality; noise; airspace; cultural resources; socioeconomics; environmental justice (minority and low income populations and children); land use and coastal zone management federal consistency; utilities, transportation; hazardous materials/hazardous waste/installation restoration; public health and safety; and other environmental concerns as identified through scoping. The analysis will include an evaluation of direct and indirect impacts, and will account for cumulative impacts from other relevant activities in the area of Guam. Additionally, the DoN will undertake any consultations required by all applicable laws or regulations.

No decision will be made to implement any alternative until the SEIS process is completed and a ROD is signed by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Energy, Installations and Environment) or her/his designee.

By publishing this Notice, the DoN is initiating a scoping process to identify community concerns and issues that should be addressed in the SEIS. Federal, Territorial, and local agencies, and interested parties and persons are encouraged to provide comments on the proposed action that clearly describe specific issues or topics of environmental concern that the commenter believes the DoN should consider. Additional information will be posted on the project web site as it becomes available.

Comments may be submitted in writing at one of the public scoping meetings, through the project web site at: http://guambuildupeis.us, or may be mailed to: Joint Guam Program Office Forward, P.O. Box 153246, Santa Rita, Guam, 96915.

To ensure consideration, all written comments on the scope of the SEIS must be submitted or postmarked by December 10, 2012, ChST.

Background: In 2001 six Federal agencies began formal cooperation under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the research and development of multimedia (i.e. air, soil, water) environmental models. This MOU established the Federal Interagency Steering Committee on Multimedia Environmental Modeling (ISCMEM). The MOU was revised and renewed in 2006 and 2011. The MOU establishes a framework for facilitating cooperation and coordination among research organizations in the participating agencies. So far, six agencies have signed the current renewal of the MOU: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Engineer Research and Development Center); the U.S. Department of Energy (Office of Environmental Management); the U.S. Department of Interior (U.S. Geological Survey); the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Office of Research and Development); the U.S. National Science Foundation (Geosciences Directorate); and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research). Other agencies are still reviewing the revised MOU.

In ISCMEM, agencies work to cooperate and coordinate in the research and development of all aspects of multimedia environmental modeling. This includes development and enhancements of software, databases, and interoperability. It includes applications and assessment of site specific, generic, and process-oriented multimedia environmental models as they pertain to human and environmental health risk assessment. Multimedia environmental model development and simulation supports interagency interests in risk assessment, uncertainty analyses, and management of geologic, hydrologic, atmospheric, terrestrial, and ecological resources. The topics to be discussed this year focus on: (1) Development of frameworks and platforms; (2) subsurface biogeochemical studies; (3) cyber-water research program; and (4) integration modeling for national weather services, water resources management, and surface water and ecological systems.

Purpose of the Public Meeting: The annual public meeting provides an opportunity for the scientific community, ISCMEM members and other Federal and State agencies, and the public to discuss ISCMEM activities and their initiatives for the upcoming year, and to discuss technological advancements in multimedia environmental modeling.

Proposed Agenda: The ISCMEM Chair will open the meeting with a brief overview of the goals of the MOU and an update on current activities and future plans of ISCMEM. This introduction will be followed by a series of invited technical presentations for the remainder of the first day and for the entire second day, focusing on topics of mutual interest to ISCMEM participants. The steering committee will hold an open business session on the morning of the third day. A detailed agenda with presentation titles and speakers will be posted on the ISCMEM public Web site: http://iemhub.org/topics/iscmem. The agenda and instructions for registration will also be available through the list of public meetings on the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings.html.

Meeting Access: The meeting facility at the U.S. Geological Survey Headquarters is located at 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA, near the Washington Dulles International Airport. Directions to the U.S. Geological Survey Headquarters can be found on its Web site at http://www.usgs.gov/visitors/directions.asp. The most convenient transportation to the meeting venue is via automobile. There is free visitor parking at the U.S. Geological Survey facility. The meeting facility is wheel-chair accessible. Please allow time to register with building security and bring two photo ID's. Direct access to the meeting facility is available on the same level and near the visitor security check-in. Please pre-register through the Web site listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or via the agency contact information. Please follow signs for the ISCMEM public meeting.

This meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available). In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance. The matter to be considered at the meeting is:

• September 13, 2012

• Final Rule—Investment Management

• Final Rule—Farmer Mac Investment Management

• Bookletter—Providing Credit to Farmers and Ranchers Operating in Local/Regional Food Systems

NAFFA, located in Mesa, Arizona, is a Native non-profit organization whose mission is to strengthen Native Families by responsibly involving fathers in the lives of their children, families, and communities and partnering with mothers to provide happy and safe families.

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

Section 1701(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300u(a)(4)) authorizes FDA to conduct research relating to health information. Section 903(d)(2)(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(c)) authorizes FDA to conduct research relating to drugs and other FDA regulated products in carrying out the provisions of the FD&C Act.

The pharmaceutical industry spends millions of dollars a year promoting their products to American healthcare professionals and to consumers. FDA regulates the promotion of prescription drugs to both professionals and consumers. As such, FDA has an interest in determining the attitudes, perceptions, and opinions of healthcare professionals with prescribing authority regarding such promotion. Direct to consumer (DTC) advertising captures the most public attention, making it an important topic of interest to FDA, but the bulk of industry resources are spent in professional promotion, making this an equally important topic for investigation. The current research is designed to explore prescriber opinions of professional and DTC advertising and promotion as well as other aspects of prescriber experience that relate to the promotion of prescription drugs.

The rise of DTC drug advertising and prescription drug promotion has affected healthcare professionals in a number of ways. First, healthcare professionals regularly encounter patients who have been exposed to DTC ads. Second, healthcare professionals also see and hear such ads directly as mass media consumers themselves. Since clarification of the adequate provision requirement for prescription drug broadcast ads in 1997, FDA has faced numerous questions about the influence of DTC pharmaceutical marketing because such advertising directly engages consumers and potentially affects interactions between patients and their physicians (Refs. 1 and 2). Those questions have grown more urgent with the growth of DTC in recent years (Refs. 3 and 4). In 2002, FDA considered this form of promotion sufficiently important as a force in the physician-patient interaction that they surveyed both patients and physicians regarding their perceptions of DTC (Ref. 5). Now, nearly a decade later, there are critical reasons to return to the field to gather more evidence on the influence of DTC in the examination room and on the relationships between healthcare professionals and patients.

One of the most noteworthy aspects of the current healthcare environment in 2012 is the role now played by various physician extenders. Naylor and Kurtzman (Ref. 6) recently noted that nurses are the single largest group of healthcare professionals in the United States and they argue that nurse practitioners will play an increasingly vital role in primary care delivery. Similarly, physician assistants also bolster the ability of our healthcare system to offer some types of care at lower cost. The aforementioned 2002 FDA study did not include nurse practitioners or physician assistants in the sample; that study focused on general practitioners and specialists in several key areas targeted by DTC. Murray and colleagues (Ref. 7) also conducted a large-scale survey of U.S. physicians regarding their perceptions of DTC, but they also did not include nurse practitioners or physician assistants in their sample. Because DTC likely affects daily interactions between patients and nurse practitioners and physician assistants—similar to the 2002 FDA study that suggested the influence of advertising on physicians' work lives—including these groups in the new sample will further understanding of DTC in the healthcare system.

Another limitation of the 2002 FDA study was the extent to which the results were nationally representative. As FDA has acknowledged, the initial set of results as reported were applicable to survey respondents but were not weighted to reflect national statistics as to the age, sex, and racial composition of the healthcare professional population. Similar to many types of surveys that have struggled in recent decades with declines in cooperation rates (Ref. 8), surveys of healthcare professionals in general often can benefit from weighting to reduce nonresponse bias. The current survey will include weighted responses from respondents that will reflect national demographic patterns.

Over the past decade, researchers have been able to better assess how DTC has unfolded in the United States and determine the questions that warrant further survey work. For example, researchers have worried for a number of years that DTC might produce adverse outcomes, such as clinically inappropriate patient requests for drugs or patient overestimation of the efficacy of advertised medications (Refs. 5, 7, 9, and 10). At the same time, the 2002 FDA survey found that roughly as many physicians thought DTC had a positive effect on their practice as those who thought there had been a negative influence. Moreover, the 2002 FDA survey found that roughly a third of physicians surveyed thought that DTC had essentially no influence on their practice. The question of whether a similar pattern will emerge now, despite the growth of DTC, is a vital one.

In addition, with the proliferation of social media platforms, the emergence of online pharmaceutical marketing, and the evolution of office detailing practices (Refs. 11 and 12), FDA will benefit by knowing more about healthcare professionals' awareness of new and emerging drug promotion sites and practices. The proposed survey will address these issues.

We propose a nationally representative sample of healthcare professionals that will yield 2,000 responses from 500 general practitioners, 500 specialists, 500 nurse practitioners, and 500 physician assistants. Such a design will help to ensure our ability to discuss not only healthcare professional perceptions generally but also to assess potential variation between different types of healthcare professionals. The data will be weighted to the national population of physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants who have prescribing authority. We will develop weights to adjust for known unequal selection probabilities, for unequal response rates, and for any remaining deviations between the sample and population distributions. In the final step, we will use poststratification to calibrate the sample distribution to known population distribution to reduce the bias due to frame undercoverage. We believe that poststratification should reduce undercoverage bias to some extent for the same reasons that weighting adjustment reduces nonresponse bias. Population counts for use in poststratification will be obtained from the American Medical Association Master List and Medical Marketing Service lists for nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Available variables on which to weight include: State of practice and specialty for nurse practitioners and physician assistants. For physicians, these variables include: Age, gender, specialty, office based/hospital based; degree (MD or DO) and year of medical school graduation.

All parts of this study will be administered over the Internet. Participants will answer questions about their attitudes about DTC and professional prescription drug promotion, their perceptions of the Bad Ad program, and their usage of new technologies, including social media (for complete questionnaire contact Daniel Gittleson (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Demographic information will also be collected. The entire procedure is expected to last approximately 20 minutes. This will be a one-time (rather than annual) information collection.

In the Federal Register of January 17, 2012 (77 FR 2299), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. FDA received five public comment submissions which included over 50 comments embedded. In the following section, we outline the observations and suggestions raised in the comments and provide our responses:

(Comment 1) Two comments recommended surveying pharmacists in addition to the health care professionals described in the notice (i.e., general practitioners, specialists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants).

(Response) We respectfully acknowledge the large role played by pharmacists in the health care system. However, the purpose of our survey is to query health care professionals with prescribing privileges. One comment noted that pharmacists have some limited prescribing privileges in certain States. This is true; pharmacists have certain privileges in Florida, can prescribe controlled substances under Collaborative Drug Therapy Management agreements in seven States, and with specific advanced training can prescribe within the Veterans Administration system. This contrasts with the nearly universal prescribing privileges of nurse practitioners and physician assistants, with varying levels of physician supervision. To maximize our resources, we propose to maintain our current distribution of health care professionals. Given the variety of prescribing privilege rights among physician extenders in different states, however, we will add a screening question to ensure that our respondents do have prescribing privileges.

(Comment 2) One comment mentioned adding a variety of different types of prescribers to our sample, including dentists, doctors of osteopathy, and podiatrists.

(Response) The comment incorrectly notes that the 2002 survey did not include a variety of prescribers. Contrary to the comment, the 2002 survey did include a range of specialties, reflecting those therapeutic areas with the highest amount of DTC advertising at that time. The current survey will include specialists who practice in therapeutic areas for which DTC advertising is or has recently been active: Dermatologists; endocrinologists; allergists/pulmonologists, psychiatrists (all of whom were sampled in 2002); rheumatologists; cardiologists; ear, nose, and throat doctors; urologists; neurologists; and pain specialists.

(Comment 3) One comment recommended that demographic questions be added to the beginning of the survey to attain adequate representation, instead of occurring at the end.

(Response) The Internet panel from which this data will be collected already contains much of the demographic information we need to ensure that participants represent a balanced stratification of demographic variables. When relevant information is not available from the panel, screening questions will be asked prior to the questionnaire to obtain the desired information. We prefer to keep other demographic variables at the end of the survey to avoid distracting participants with questions about personal information before they have answered substantive survey questions. We also prefer to ask our most important questions first to avoid any respondent fatigue that may occur throughout the survey. We expect that respondents will have an easier time answering questions about themselves; therefore, these questions will be less subject to participant fatigue.

(Comment 4) One comment recommended adding open-ended questions in several locations in the survey.

(Response) We appreciate this suggestion and agree that open-ended questions could provide extra, unprompted information from respondents. However, given the current length of the survey, it is likely that adding many open-ended questions would increase respondent demand and, therefore, result in more respondents quitting before completion. Moreover, the addition of several open-ended questions would increase coding burden without adding a commensurate value to our data. Thus, we do not plan to incorporate additional open-ended questions. If we find data that we would like to pursue further, we can incorporate this approach into future studies.

(Comment 5) One comment recommended that we provide “don't know” and “it depends” responses for many questions.

(Response) We understand the value of providing such responses for items of a factual nature and for items to which health care professionals might not know the answer (our items fall into the second category). The drawback to providing such response options, however, is that we may lose information by allowing respondents to choose an easy response instead of giving the item some thought. Research by Krosnick et al. (Ref. 13) demonstrated that providing “no opinion” options likely results in the loss of data without any corresponding increase in the data quality. Thus, we prefer not to add these options to the survey. We plan to cognitively test the questionnaire before fielding the survey, so we will observe whether participants have particular difficulty with any of the questions.

(Comment 6) A comment recommended interpreting the results of this survey cautiously and in tandem with other ongoing research areas.

(Response) We agree that careful interpretation of the data is crucial. We plan to apply the most rigorous standards of analysis and to interpret the findings based on those analyses alone. When relevant, we will assimilate the findings from this project with other research projects we conduct.

(Comment 7) One comment suggested that Q2 (now Q1) be asked as a screening question.

(Response) We intend to screen based on percentage of time prescribers spend with patients. We do not believe additional screening based on the number of patients seen per week is necessary. We will ask only one of the three options provided in the draft questionnaire. Other comments have recommended asking respondents to recall the last week in time, so we will use that question to assess their patient volume.

(Comment 8) One comment recommended asking about “ health and lifestyle changes ” as an additional question in Q3 (now Q2).

(Response) We have added this item to the questionnaire.

(Comment 9) This comment recommended eliminating the “almost always” option from Q3 (now Q2) because it may confuse respondents in terms of exactly what we are asking.

(Response) We have removed this option and have changed the other responses so now the only responses are “never,” “rarely,” “sometimes,” and “often.” We believe this better represents the range of options available to answer this question and will make the question easier to answer.

(Comment 10) One comment recommended that we add a response option to Q4 for in-office programming that occurs in waiting rooms.

(Response) We have deleted this question entirely because of survey time constraints.

(Comment 11) Two comments stated that 1 week is a reasonable amount of time to ask prescribers to recall information in Q5 (now Q3).

(Response) As we have done in the screener and as suggested by these comments, we will use 1 week as the time period.

(Comment 12) This comment recommended that we use a more specific probe in Q6 (now Q4) to gather information on why prescribers feel positively or negatively about patients mentioning advertised prescription drugs.

(Response) We have added a followup probe (Q4a) to address why respondents chose their answer.

(Comment 13) This comment recommended asking prescribers how their patients reference advertisements, for example, whether they specifically mention the drug's name, the condition the drug treats, or some element in the ad such as a butterfly or bee (Q8; now Q5).

(Response) While this is a very interesting question, it is more relevant to marketers of these products and outside the scope of what FDA hopes to accomplish with this survey. Given the number of questions in the survey, we respectfully decline to add this question.

(Comment 14) This comment recommended shortening the timeframe in Q9 (now Q6) from 1 month to 1 week.

(Response) Given the feedback from this and other comments, we agree that 1 week is a reasonable amount of time to reference when answering these questions, and we have adjusted the questionnaire to reflect this change.

(Comment 15) One comment recommended wording changes to Q7.

(Response) Q7 has been deleted because of survey time constraints.

(Comment 16) This comment asked that the nature of the request also be added to Q10 (now Q7).

(Response) Although we agree that asking about the nature of the request would be interesting, additional questions would increase the burden on respondents, and we think that other areas of inquiry are more relevant at this time. Please note that we have altered the response option in this one question, which will yield additional information.

(Comment 17) One comment recommended specifying in Q10 (now Q7) that patients have requested a drug after seeing it advertised.

(Response) The purpose of the question is to assess the prescribing behavior of the prescriber, not the source of the patient's request, so we prefer to keep the question as is.

(Comment 18) This comment recommended a change in the response options in Q10 (now Q7) to further delineate the prescriber's behavior.

(Response) We agree that this is a useful change and have implemented this response format. We have made further changes based on peer review comments.

(Comment 19) Two comments indicated that it may be difficult for health care professionals to answer Q12 (now Q9) as written.

(Response) We agree that it might be difficult for prescribers to reliably assess the feelings and emotions of members of another group. We have changed the emphasis in this question from the patient's expectation to the health care professional's feeling of obligation, thus eliminating the issue over response options in the original item. We have altered the question to put the focus back on what prescribers feel rather than what their patients feel. Please note that we have also altered the response options for this question to make the question easier to answer.

(Comment 20) This comment recommended emphasizing the part of the stem of Q13 and Q14 (now Q11) that states, “As a result of discussion about advertised prescription drugs.”

(Response) Given the survey length, we have deleted original Q13, but this comment applies to current Q11. We have attempted to emphasize the appropriate part of the stem in this question and will be cognizant of this issue when working with the programmers of the actual survey. We will use bolding techniques and color as necessary to make sure that this part of the question is highlighted.

(Comment 21) One comment questioned the utility of asking prescribers about a variety of behaviors they engage in as a result of a conversation about advertised drugs (Q14; now Q11). Their argument is that the prescriber may respond “never” because the subject did not come up, not because they did not want to provide that action.

(Response) We agree that this is a possible interpretation of that response and will be careful to include that in interpretations of the data. Nevertheless, we are interested in obtaining information on the number of times these behaviors occur and believe this is a useful measure.

(Comment 22) One comment recommended changing Q14 (now Q11) from “provided a brochure for the drug” to “provided a patient education brochure for the drug.”

(Response) We respectfully decline to add this phrase because not all brochures may be considered patient education brochures, and the addition does not improve or clarify the question.

(Comment 23) One comment recommended making Q15 (now Q12) more specific.

(Response) The purpose of this question is to get a general reaction to DTC advertising. Although we cannot statistically compare the results of this survey to FDA's 2002 physician survey for a number of reasons, we plan to descriptively compare results from the new survey with data obtained in 2002; thus, we prefer to keep the question as is. Although we did not make the question more specific, we have altered the wording slightly to make it clearer.

(Comment 24) This comment recommended the addition of several questions about what happens in the prescriber-patient relationship when patients are exposed to advertised prescription drugs (Q16; now Q13).

(Response) We agree that these are useful questions and have revised the questionnaire accordingly.

(Comment 25) One comment suggested adding a question to Q16 (now Q13) about whether DTC advertising increases the likelihood of conversations that the prescriber would not have otherwise had with his or her patients.

(Response) We have included this suggestion in the revised questionnaire.

(Comment 26) This comment recommended that we add “the patient requests to be taken off the prescribed medicine” to Q17 (now Q10).

(Response) We agree this is a useful addition and have added it to the revised questionnaire.

(Comment 27) The comment agreed that the item in Q17 (now Q10) asking about patient recall of aspects of advertised drugs they discuss with their prescribers is valuable, but questions whether the item as worded will yield interpretable results.

(Response) We have revised the question and response options and will pay close attention to this when we conduct cognitive testing with nine participants prior to pretesting the instrument.

(Comment 28) The comment recommended removal of the series of questions in Q17 (now Q10) because many factors may enter into the responses to each question. Specifically, the comment refers to personal characteristics of a patient that may influence these answers.

(Response) We agree that patient characteristics may play a role, but we are interested in the overall responses of prescribers to these questions. Other surveys capture patient characteristics that may influence this question (Ref. 14). We have made minor improvements in the wording of these items based on peer review comments.

(Comment 29) Two comments recommended adding questions to Q18, one of which referred to the effect of DTC advertising on prescription drugs patients are already taking.

(Response) We have added questions on these topics to Q18 (now Q14).

(Comment 30) The comment recommended the addition of several items related to cost to Q21 (now Q17).

(Response) These questions are outside the scope of the current project because FDA does not have authority over the cost of prescription drugs. Given the current length of the survey, we have chosen not to include these recommendations.

(Comment 31) One comment recommended the addition of two questions to the question series for Q22.

(Response) We have included the recommendation in Q14 of the revised questionnaire.

(Comment 32) This comment encouraged FDA to cautiously interpret the results of Q22 (now Q14), which asks whether prescribers believe that DTC advertising caused their patients to think drugs work better than they actually do.

(Response) We agree that all responses should be interpreted cautiously and will take care to avoid overinterpreting beyond the data.

(Comment 33) The comment suggested removing the concept of “less expensive treatments” from Q22 (now Q15) about whether prescribers thought DTC advertising caused patients to want advertised drugs over others.

(Response) Although we have heard this complaint frequently in focus groups, we have modified this question so that instead of the comparator in the question being “less expensive treatments,” the comparator is “other recommended treatments.”

(Comment 34) This comment recommended deleting the question about the cost of prescription drugs (Q22).

(Response) We have deleted this question from the questionnaire.

(Comment 35) One comment suggested a change in wording to Q23 (now Q16).

(Response) We have replaced the word “diagnoses” with the word “treatment,” as suggested by the comment.

(Comment 36) This comment refers to Q23 (now Q18) and the questions following it that inquire about patients bringing coupons to their doctors for specific prescription drugs. Coupons and other incentives are frequently used in DTC promotion. This comment recommended rewording the question to assess whether patients are more likely to ask prescribers for drugs with coupons rather than those without.

(Response) We are unsure how prescribers would know this information because they are likely not current with the range of active advertising campaigns at any given time. We maintain that the currently worded question is a useful measure for assessing prescribers' general opinions about the use of incentives in DTC promotion.

(Comment 37) The comment expressed concern about Q23-25 (now Q18-20) because they believe that without clarification we may miss important nuances such as the possibility that a coupon may initiate a quality conversation about an illness.

(Response) As with all questions in this survey, we will carefully interpret the data, making sure not to draw conclusions not supported by the data. Nevertheless, we believe that if the presentation of a coupon resulted in a good doctor-patient conversation, the respondent would indeed select a positive answer to this question.

(Comment 38) Two comments stated that Q25 (now Q20) repeats Q24 (now Q19) in the questionnaire.

(Response) Q24 (now Q19), asked only of respondents who have encountered a patient with a coupon, asks how they did feel about that. Q25 (now Q20), asked only of respondents who have not encountered a patient with a coupon, asks how they would feel about that. Respondents will only see one of these two questions, depending on whether a patient has ever asked them about a prescription drug that has been advertised with a coupon. We like the suggested wording in one comment for Q24 (Q19) and have applied it to both questions.

(Comment 39) The comment suggested modifying Q26 to ask whether prescribers have ever had patients become concerned about their medication after seeing an ad for it.

(Response) We believe this would have been a good introductory question for the former Q26; however, because of survey time constraints, we were forced to limit the number of questions in this area. Based on peer review comments, we replaced these questions with a question that more directly asks whether prescribers have ever had a patient refuse to take or to stop taking their medication for these reasons (now Q21).

(Comment 40) One comment recommended adding a response of “depends on the condition” to the question of whether there should be more or less information about medical conditions in DTC advertising (Q27).

(Response) Because of survey time constraints, this question has been deleted.

(Comment 41) One comment recommended changing the order of Q28 and Q29.

(Response) Because of survey time constraints, all questions in this series have been deleted except Q29b (now Q22).

(Comment 42) This comment has taken a subsection of the questions about awareness of the Bad Ad program (Q31-37; now Q23-30) and claimed that FDA is using this forum as a way to inform prescribers about the Bad Ad program.

(Response) Looking at the entire set of questions, it is clear that the goal of this series is to assess whether prescribers have heard about the program and to explore their opinions about it. A description of the Bad Ad program is provided in current Q24 because we want to ask the subsequent questions of all respondents and can only do so if they know about the program. This survey provides a logical vehicle for assessing opinions about the Bad Ad program. Furthermore, because the Bad Ad program is directly related to prescription drug promotion, we believe it is clearly within the scope of the survey. We recognize, however, that we did not make this clear in the introductory section of the Federal Register notice, and we have included additional verbiage to remedy this omission. We note that no other comments expressed concern about these questions.

(Comment 43) One comment recommended wording changes to the followup open-ended item about the Bad Ad program (Q34a; now Q27).

(Response) We agree that the revised wording is preferable and have incorporated it into the questionnaire.

(Comment 44) One comment recommended wording changes to Q36/Q37 (now Q29/Q30).

(Response) We agree that changing the wording of these two questions may make them easier for respondents to understand and have done so in the questionnaire.

(Comment 45) This comment recommended deleting Q38-43 (now Q31-36) regarding social media membership and participation, citing the justification that the survey is about DTC advertising and these questions are irrelevant.

(Response) We reiterate that the purpose of the survey is to obtain opinions and responses from a variety of prescribers regarding prescription drug promotion. This topic encompasses both professional and DTC advertising and labeling and a variety of different media through which this promotion occurs. The Agency has an interest in determining the extent of promotion in emerging technologies such as social media, and various stakeholders have pressed the Agency to produce guidance related to new technologies. This survey provides an opportunity to explore prescribers' use of social media sites in order to assess whether future research is warranted regarding these emerging and potentially promotional venues. We have added language to the introduction section to clarify the scope of the survey.

(Comment 46) One comment recommended that we change the word “post” to “comment” in Q42/Q43 (now Q35/36).

(Response) We have made this change in these two questions. Please note that we have also added a time period to help respondents answer the questions more easily.

(Comment 47) One comment recommended the addition of Internet search engines to Q44 (now Q37a and 37b).

(Response) We have added search engines as an option for this question. We have also separated the question into two parts based on peer review comments to avoid a cognitively demanding ranking task.

(Comment 48) This comment expressed support for FDA's data collection from health care professionals regarding prescription drug promotion. One general issue raised by this comment was the exclusion and inclusion criteria for prescribers.

(Response) Prescribers must see patients at least 50 percent of the time in a non-hospital or non-inpatient setting. Primary care physicians will include internists, general practitioners, family practitioners, and obstetricians/gynecologists (all of whom were sampled in 2002). We will exclude pediatricians because relatively little DTC advertising is aimed at children or their parents. Specialists will include those who practice in therapeutic areas for which DTC advertising is or has recently been active: Dermatologists; endocrinologists; allergists/pulmonologists; psychiatrists (all of whom were sampled in 2002); rheumatologists; cardiologists; ear, nose, and throat doctors; urologists; neurologists; and pain specialists. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants must have prescribing privileges.

(Comment 49) One comment raised the issue of weighting.

(Response) Although we did not provide details on weighting in the 60-day Federal Register notice, we agree and have implemented all suggestions provided by this comment. For example, this comment noted that FDA did not explain at what level results will be reported (i.e., aggregate versus each group as a separate sample). Results will be reported both in aggregate and for each group separately, and weights will be adjusted to produce national-level estimates.

(Comment 50) This comment supported FDA's use of equal-sized samples of four different types of health care professionals (general practitioners, specialists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) although it suggests that the artificial nature of equal-sized samples may make it difficult to find population parameters and targets to use for weighting purposes.

(Response) We note that the target population is all health care professionals with prescribing authority in the United States. This is considered the inferential population, which is rarely achieved. The proposed sample will be selected from the “responding population.” The final survey weights will be constructed to reduce the coverage error and to compensate for nonresponse error and unequal probability of selection to represent the target population.

(Comment 51) This comment expressed skepticism that sample weighting can adjust or correct for noncoverage that results from inadequacies in sampling frames.

(Response) We agree that frame undercoverage cannot completely eliminate noncoverage bias in an estimator completely but will apply poststratification as the primary method for dealing with this undercoverage (Ref. 15). We believe that poststratification should reduce this bias to some extent for the same reasons that weighting adjustment reduces nonresponse bias. We will consider trimming extreme weights and redistributing them to avoid losses in precision.

(Comment 52) With regard to the questionnaire, this comment recommended adding specific questions about the prescriber's practice, including the size of the practice, whether it is part of a managed care organization, whether it is part of an integrated health system that involves hospitals, and whether the practice has a low- or no-access policy with regard to pharmaceutical sales representatives.

(Response) We agree that these may be relevant variables, and these questions are represented in the demographic section.

(Comment 53) One comment suggested adding a series of questions to assess the market dynamics that may affect prescribing decisions.

(Response) Although these are interesting questions, they are outside the scope of the current project. Many of the suggested questions deal with issues of cost and reimbursement, which FDA does not regulate.

(Comment 54) One comment recommended that we should ask particular questions of nurse practitioners and physician assistants to assess their characteristics.

(Response) We agree with the comment and have several questions in the questionnaire, asked of all respondents, that will address some of these questions. We have added a question to the screener to ensure that all respondents have at least some prescribing authority, and we have added a question to the questionnaire to delve further into how much authority respondents have. We will also ask all respondents how many prescriptions they write in 1 week.

(Comment 55) One comment suggested reexamining the questionnaire from the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion's online DTC promotion study (Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0230) in light of this survey to explore the possibility of comparing responses on similar questions.

(Response) We appreciate this suggestion and will examine the data from both studies to see if any descriptive comparisons can be made.

Please note that in response to all comments received, whether we have adapted the suggestions or not, we will specifically examine the items mentioned in cognitive testing. During this testing, nine respondents will participate in the survey while explaining why and how they have chosen their answers and which questions they find difficult to respond to or to understand.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (FDA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852 and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. FDA has verified the Web site addresses, but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal Register .

The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-295, codified at 46 U.S.C. 70101 et seq. ) (MTSA) provided the Coast Guard with statutory authorities and mandates to advance the Coast Guard's maritime security mission. Pursuant to its authority under MTSA, the Coast Guard promulgated regulations in 33 CFR part 105 that apply to certain maritime facilities listed in 33 CFR 105.105. Among the requirements in 33 CFR part 105, owners and operators of regulated facilities must designate a Facility Security Officer (FSO) (33 CFR 105.200). Coast Guard regulations also set forth FSO qualifications and responsibilities (33 CFR 105.205). Under current regulations, FSOs are not required to undergo a formal training and certification process.

Section 821 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-281) requires the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) to establish comprehensive FSO training requirements designed to provide full security training that would lead to certification of such officers. The Coast Guard is in the process of considering a rulemaking to implement this portion of section 821.

Section 821 also requires the Secretary to coordinate with the Maritime Administrator of the Department of Transportation in developing the FSO training curriculum. The Coast Guard and the Maritime Administrator believe that a public meeting would be beneficial at this stage in the process to engage the public and obtain comments on a draft model FSO training course as well as other aspects of the FSO training program. A draft model FSO training course will be available for viewing on the Coast Guard Homeport Web site ( https://homeport.uscg.mil/mtsa ) as well as in the online docket two weeks prior to the meeting. Topics to be discussed at the meeting include the following:

(1) Draft model FSO training course;

(2) Computer-based training and distance learning;

(3) Provisional FSO certification;

(4) FSO continuing education;

(5) FSO refresher course;

(6) Interim policy to provide curriculum guidelines for potential FSO training course providers; and

(7) Any additional topics of concern with respect to the FSO training program, certification, and the development and provision of training.

The Coast Guard believes that a public meeting would also benefit the impacted community by providing a forum to raise relevant issues. This will further enable the Coast Guard to craft policy that takes into account public concerns.

You may view the written comments and supporting documents (if any) in the online docket by going to http://www.regulations.gov and using “USCG-2012-0908” as your search term. Locate this notice among the search results and use the filters on the left side of the page to search for specific types of documents. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

We encourage you to participate by submitting comments either orally at the meeting or in writing. If you bring written comments to the meeting, you may submit them to Coast Guard personnel specified at the meeting to receive written comments. These comments will be submitted to our online public docket. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting, contact LTJG Lindsey Musselwhite at the telephone number or email address indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

The Coast Guard will hold a public meeting regarding the development of an FSO training program on Friday, November 9, 2012 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., at the Department of Transportation Headquarters, Oklahoma Room, 1200 New Jersey Ave SE., Washington, DC 20590. We will provide a written summary of the meeting and comments in the docket.

Section 416 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, (Stafford Act) (42 U.S.C. 5183) Public Law 93-288, as amended, authorizes the President to provide financial assistance to States, U.S. Territories, and Federally Recognized Tribes for professional counseling services to survivors of major disasters to relieve mental health problems caused by or aggravated by a major disaster or its aftermath. FEMA has codified Section 416 of the Stafford Act at section 44 CFR 206.171 entitled Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training. Under Section 416 of the Stafford Act and 44 CFR 206.171, the President has designated the Department of Health and Human Services—Center for Mental Health Services (HHS-CMHS) to coordinate with FEMA in administering the Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program (CCP). FEMA and HHS-CMHS signed an interagency agreement under which HHS-CMHS provides program oversight, technical assistance and training to States applying for CCP funding.

Title: Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program.

Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

OMB Number: 1660-0085.

FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 003-0-1, Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program, Immediate Services Program Application; FEMA Form 003-0-2, Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program, Regular Services Program Application.

Abstract: The CCP consists of two grant programs, the Immediate Services Program (ISP) and the Regular Services Program (RSP). The ISP and the RSP provide supplemental funding to States, U.S. Territories, and Federally Recognized Tribes following a Presidentially-declared disaster. Services include community outreach, public education and counseling techniques. State Disaster Mental Health Coordinators are required to submit an application that provides information on Needs Assessment, Plan of Service, Program Management, and an accompanying Budget.

Affected Public: State, local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents: 24 respondents.

Number of Responses: 57 responses.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,580 hours.

Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the hour burden is $142,674. There are no annual costs to respondents operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There is no annual start-up or capital cost. The cost to the Federal Government is $139,654.

Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption above. Comments are solicited to (a) Evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) 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; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of August 29, 2012.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of New Mexico is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of August 24, 2012.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Alabama is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 21, 2012.

Notice of this cancellation of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. Notice of this meeting was published in the September 17, 2012, issue of the Federal Register at 77 FR 57102.

The purpose of the Board is to review annually the programs of the National Fire Academy (Academy) and advise the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), through the United States Fire Administrator, regarding the operation of the Academy and any improvements therein that the Board deems appropriate.

This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposed: Housing Counseling Program.

OMB Approved Number: 2502-0261.

Form Numbers: SF-424, SF-424Supp, SF-424CB, SF-LLL, HUD-27300, HUD-2880, HUD-2990, HUD-2991, HUD-2994, HUD-96010, HUD-9902 and NOFA charts.

Description of the need for the information and its proposed use: Nonprofit Housing Counseling organizations submit information to HUD through Grants.gov when applying for grant funds to provide housing counseling assistance to eligible homebuyers to find and purchase affordable housing; Housing Counseling organizations also assist eligible homeowners to avoid foreclosures; The Housing Counseling organizations also use grant funds to assist renters to avoid evictions; help the homeless find temporary or permanent shelter; report fair housing and discrimination. Through the NOFA charts, HUD uses the information collected to evaluate applicants competitively and then select qualified organizations to receive funding that supports their housing counseling program. The NOFA charts include data fields covering agency knowledge and capacity, need for the service (target population), historical performance and projections, leveraging and program outcomes. Post-award collection, such as quarterly reports, will allow HUD to evaluate grantees' performance. This collection of information includes renewal of various HUD forms, including the HUD-9900 which is the Housing Counseling Approval Application, and form HUD-9902, Housing Counseling Agency Activity Report. Additionally, it covers the collection of client level activities, client financial leverage data, and agency profile information.

Total estimated burden hours: 37,213.

Status: Extension without change of currently approved collection.

This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposed: Generic Customer Satisfaction Surveys.

OMB Approval Number: 2535-0116.

Form Numbers: None.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Executive Order 12862, “Setting Customer Service Standards” requires that Federal agencies provide the highest quality service to our customers by identifying them and determining what they think about our services. The surveys covered in the request for a generic clearance will provide HUD a means to gather this data directly from our customers. HUD will conduct various customer satisfaction surveys to gather feedback and data directly from our customers to determine the kind and quality of services and products they want and expect to receive.

Total estimated burden hours: 13,229

Status: Reinstatement with change of a previously approved collection.

Pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953; Public Law 83-277, 67 Stat. 586, 18 U.S.C. 1161, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983), the Secretary of the Interior shall certify and publish in the Federal Register notice of adopted liquor ordinances for the purpose of regulating liquor transactions in Indian country. The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Business Council adopted the Liquor Ordinance to Allow for On-Sale Liquor Transactions, by Business Council Resolution No. 08-15-12-01, on August 15, 2012.

This notice is published in accordance with the authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. I certify that the Business Council duly adopted the Liquor Ordinance to Allow for On-Sale Liquor Transactions on August 15, 2012.

The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Liquor Ordinance to Allow for On-Sale Liquor Transactions shall read as follows:

This Ordinance shall be known as the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community On-Sale Liquor Ordinance. This Ordinance is intended to replace and supersede the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Resolution and Ordinance Providing for On-Sale Transactions of Intoxicating Beverages enacted by the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community General Council on September 21, 1983 and published in the Federal Register on April 10, 1984. It is enacted pursuant to Article V, § 1(h) of the Community Constitution.

The purpose is to authorize, regulate and control the sale and serving of on-sale alcoholic beverages within the territory of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community in accordance with federal law, the laws of the Tribe and the laws of the State of Minnesota.

A. “Business Council” shall mean the body composed of the members of the Tribe's Business Council, duly elected and serving in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Tribe.

B. “General Council” shall mean the governing body of the Tribe, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Tribe.

C. “License” shall mean permission to sell liquor for consumption at a Tribally-owned property located within the jurisdiction of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community regardless of Reservation status which is issued in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance.

D. “Licensed premises” shall mean: (1) Locations where Tribal gaming or gaming-related activity is authorized and where the Tribal Gaming Enterprise may be authorized to sell liquor if such sales have been authorized by the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Gaming Ordinance; (2) designated locations authorized by this Ordinance other than by subsection (1); or (3) gaming or non-gaming locations on other Tribally-owned property.

E. “Liquor” shall mean any alcoholic beverage.

F. “Non-gaming Location” shall mean those areas of the Reservation or under the jurisdiction of the Tribe where gaming is not authorized. A non-gaming location shall include areas within a Tribal Gaming Enterprise not designated by the Gaming Commission as gaming space within a Tribal Gaming Enterprise location.

G. “On-sale” shall mean the sale of liquor for consumption on licensed premises only.

H. “Tribe” shall mean the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, a federally recognized Indian Tribe organized under Section 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934.

I. “Tribal Gaming Enterprise” shall mean the Tribal department created by Tribal Ordinance and delegated the responsibility to operate and conduct bingo, the sale of pull tabs, gaming in general and the conduct of other games of chance, including but not limited to video games of chance, blackjack, card games, and any other lawful games of chance and to oversee the Tribe's gaming and gaming-related activity.

J. “Tribal Gaming Location” shall mean those areas operated and overseen by the Tribal Gaming Enterprise where gaming is authorized and conducted on the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Reservation.

A. The Business Council of the Tribe shall oversee liquor licensing, sales, and operations on Tribally-owned property located within the jurisdiction of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community regardless of Reservation status.

B. All on-sale liquor operations conducted by any Tribally authorized entity on Tribally-owned property within the jurisdiction of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community regardless of Reservation status shall report at least annually to the General Council on all on-sale liquor operations.

An annual license for on-sale liquor may be issued only to: (1) The Tribal Gaming Enterprise if it has received authorization as set forth in Section III(D)(1); or (2) a Tribal enterprise provided for in III(D)(3);

A. Any on-sale liquor operation authorized by this Ordinance, including authorization for the Tribal Gaming Enterprise, must apply on behalf of each individual location within the Tribe's jurisdiction for the on-sale liquor license and no sale shall be allowed unless the location has been duly licensed.

B. Licenses shall be for the term of one year, running from the date of issuance through December 31 of the calendar year.

C. Application procedure:

1. A Tribal enterprise including the Tribal Gaming Enterprise, if so authorized, shall complete an application form as provided by the Business Council. The application form shall require details, including but not limited to, the exact location or locations intended to become licensed premises.

2. The Business Council shall be authorized to issue a license for the sale of alcohol for consumption at the following locations: (a) The amphitheater; (b) the Meadows Golf Course; and (c) any areas not designated by the Gaming Commission as gaming space within a Gaming Enterprise location.

3. The Business Council may issue an on-sale liquor license if and when it is determined that all applicable Tribal and Federal requirements are satisfied.

A. A license issued hereunder shall authorize on-sale operations for the sale and consumption of liquor.

B. Plan of Operation:

1. Prior to any sale of liquor, an on-sale liquor operation, other than the Tribal Gaming Enterprise, and those locations identified in Section V (C)(2) above, must submit a specific and detailed plan of operation, including information required by Section V(C)(1) above, for approval by the General Council. No sales shall occur until the General Council has approved the plan. Any alteration of the plan of operation, including any changes regarding locations of alcohol sales and consumption, will require approval from the General Council.

2. If the Tribal Gaming Enterprise has been duly authorized to sell liquor, it shall submit the required plan to the Shakopee Gaming Enterprise Board of Directors for approval.

C. Pursuant to federal law requirements, any on-sale liquor operation must conform its operations to those applicable laws of the State of Minnesota relating to the sale or possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages as required by the applicable Minnesota Statutes Annotated.

D. Any and all on-sale transactions and consumption of liquor shall be confined to licensed premises.

E. All authorized on-sale and consumption liquor operations must keep complete and accurate records of inventory and sales, and provide such information in its report to the General Council.

F. The Business Council may suspend or revoke a license under this Ordinance for violation of any of the terms of this Ordinance; provided that an applicant shall be given notice and an opportunity to request a hearing before the Business Council prior to the suspension or revocation.

Nothing contained in this Ordinance is intended to nor does it in any way limit, alter, restrict, or waive the Tribe's sovereign immunity.

If any part of this Ordinance shall be found inoperable by operation of law, all surviving parts of this Ordinance shall remain in effect.

The Tribal Court of the Shakopee Mdewkanton Sioux Community shall have jurisdiction over disputes arising from this law. Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive to the Tribal Court of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community.

This law shall become effective when it is certified by the Secretary of Interior and published in the Federal Register .

Indian Affairs will conduct two informational sessions and four leader-to-leader sessions with Indian tribes to obtain oral and written comments concerning preparation of the 2013 American Indian Population and Labor Force Report.

Informational sessions. Two information sessions on this topic will be held to coincide with the Alaska Federation of Natives Conference and National Congress of American Indians Convention. In addition to an exchange of information, we welcome informal comments during the two informational sessions.

• Annual Alaska Federation of Natives Conference, Room #3, second floor at the Dena'ina Center, 600 W. 7th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska, Saturday, October 20, 2012, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon AKST (a teleconference line will be available for this informational session and can be accessed at (866) 723-7478, and with participant code #1572466.

• National Congress of American Indians 69th Annual Convention, in Room #305 at the Sacramento Convention Center, 1400 J Street, Sacramento, California, on Wednesday, October 24, 2012, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. PST.

Leader-to-leader consultation sessions. As part of our consultation efforts, we will be hosting four leader-to-leader sessions—three in-person sessions and one session via national conference. The four leader-to-leader sessions will build upon the informational sessions and focus on leader-to-leader dialogue. We will develop a transcript for the following leader-to-leader sessions.

• Monday, October 29, 2012, 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. CST—in the Hilton Garden Inn located at 801 South Meridian, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. You may contact the hotel at (405) 942-1400.

• Tuesday, October 30, 2012, 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. MST—at the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Western Regional office in the fourth floor Eagle and Buffalo Rooms located at 2600 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona. Signs will be posted in the lobby and on the fourth floor. The Regional Director's Office will validate parking for the garage located directly behind 2600 North Central Avenue.

• Thursday, November 1, 2012, 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. MST—Holiday Inn Rushmore Plaza 505 North 5th Street, Rapid City, South Dakota. The Holiday Inn will provide a block of rooms for a limited time. You may contact the hotel at (605) 348-4000.

• Friday, November 9, 2012, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. EST at (877) 716-4290, and with participant code 5074051. For any technical assistance during the national call, please contact (202) 208-7163.

Accurate information on the population and employment levels of tribes is critically important for understanding the social and economic circumstances that tribes face and identifying the best policies and strategies for promoting economic development in Indian Country. Congress recognized this importance in the Indian Employment, Training, and Related Services Demonstration Act of 1992, as amended, (Pub. L. 102-477, § 17), by requiring the Department of the Interior to publish, at least once every two years, the American Indian Population and Labor Force Report . The Act specifically requires:

The Department is expected to produce the next American Indian Population and Labor Force Report in 2013. In preparation, the Department would like tribes' input on the questions regarding how to define certain terms and how best to obtain the information required by the Act. In the past, Interior has obtained the Labor Force Report information required by the Act by surveying Tribes. Another option to obtain this data would be to acquire it from the U.S. Census Bureau. We are seeking Tribes' input on these options for collecting data, and other issues, including:

(1) To what extent do you have the above-listed population and employment information readily available to respond to a survey?

(2) Would you be willing to respond to such a survey?

(3) Is there other information, beyond that which is specifically required by the Act, that you would be willing to provide in a survey, if the information will help federal or Tribal programming?

(4) Should Interior use information from the Census Bureau to answer the questions for the report? If so, what kind of information should be acquired from the Census Bureau's published statistics? If not, is it a matter of the availability of the Census Bureau's statistics or a matter of their accuracy (or both)?

(5) If Interior can obtain all of the information needed for the report from the Census Bureau, should it still conduct a survey to ask Tribes for this or other information?

(6) Regardless of whether Interior uses a survey or Census Bureau data for future reports, Interior is considering using information from the Census Bureau, rather than a survey, for the 2013 report to meet the 2013 deadline. What are your views on this approach?

(7) Are there other options for obtaining this information that Interior should consider?

(8) How should “service population” by the “Tribal level” be defined for this report? For example:

(a) Should it include individuals in the Tribe's general location, or should it include individuals enrolled in the Tribe who may not be in the Tribe's location but may still be eligible for services?

(b) If people are in an area where they may receive services from more than one Tribe, should they be counted only as in the service population of the Tribe in which they are enrolled?

(c) Should service population be measured in terms of geography as opposed to Tribal enrollment?

The 10-member RAC advises the Secretary of Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in New Mexico.

Planned agenda items include BLM Application for Permit to Drill (APD) process, State Land Office APD process, Resource Management Plan update, Draft Secretary's Potash Order, Hunting unitization, and Public Land Access.

A half-hour public comment period during which the public may address the Council is scheduled to begin at 3 p.m. on November 13. All RAC meetings are open to the public. Depending on the number of individuals wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. The human remains were removed from three different locations in Pacific County, WA.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the state agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Shoalwater Bay Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Reservation, Washington, and the Chinook Nation, Washington (a non-Federally recognized Indian group). The Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, Washington, were contacted by mail and telephone but declined formal consultation unless neither of the aforementioned groups made a claim.

Sometime prior to 1958, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from a house in the town of Ilwaco, in Pacific County, WA. The human remains consist of a partial cranium. The Ralph Wilson family discovered the remains under their house and donated them to the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, at Fort Columbia State Park. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Sometime prior to 1958, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown site located in the town of Ilwaco, in Pacific County, WA. The human remains consist of a mandible and mandibular dentition. Dr. W. Iles discovered the remains and donated them to the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, at Fort Columbia State Park. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Sometime prior to 2001, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from a site believed to be located in or near Fort Columbia, in Pacific County, WA. The human remains consist of one nearly complete cranium. As the remains were located in the Fort Columbia State Park collections and were undocumented, they are believed to have originated either from Fort Columbia or from one of three nearby sites. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Following examination by a physical anthropologist, the human remains described above were determined to be consistent with Native American heritage based cranial and dental morphological characteristics. All of the remains were removed from locations near Fort Columbia State Park, in Chinook, Pacific County, WA. Fort Columbia was built as a U.S. military installation at Chinook Point beginning in 1896, was completed in 1904, and became a state park in 1950. During its construction, an undocumented number of Native American burials were discovered. Since that time, additional burials have been located in documented sites surrounding the park boundaries.

Fort Columbia State Park is located on the north bank of the Columbia River, along the eastern leg of Baker Bay, east of Chinook Point and at the base of Scarborough Hill. The lands around Baker Bay and along Chinook Point were the aboriginal lands of the lower-river Chinook Indians. Scarborough Hill, along with Chinook Point, has figured prominently in lower-river Chinook Indian legends and served as one of many burial grounds in the area for the Indians. Early explorers Captain Robert Gray (1792), Captain George Vancouver (1792), and Captains Meriwether Lewis and James Clark (1805) documented the lower-river Chinookan Indians, including their traditional habitation of the north bank of the Columbia River during spring and summer months. Throughout the next two centuries, additional documentation of the lower-river Chinook people was produced by explorers, pioneers, anthropologists, and visitors to the region. Based on the location of the remains, the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has determined that the Chinook Indians, a non-Federally recognized Indian group, maintains the closest cultural and ancestral connection to these By the end of the nineteenth century, lower-river Chinook society had been all but decimated, and by 1900, some of the remaining Chinook Indians merged with Indians to their north, in the Shoalwater Bay region (now named Willapa Bay). Based on this history, the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has determined that the Shoalwater Bay Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Reservation, Washington, is the Indian tribe having the closest shared group identity with the human remains.

Officials of the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Shoalwater Bay Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Reservation.

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Alicia Woods, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, P.O. Box 42650, Olympia, WA 98504-2650, telephone (360) 902-0939, before November 13, 2012. Repatriation of the human remains jointly to the Shoalwater Bay Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Reservation, Washington, and the Chinook Nation, a non-Federally recognized Indian group, may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.

The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission is responsible for notifying the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, Washington; the Shoalwater Bay Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Reservation, Washington; and the Chinook Nation, a non-Federally recognized Indian group, that this notice has been published.

Any member of the public may file written statements with the Council before, during, or up to 30 days after the meeting either in person or by mail. To the extent that time permits, the Council chairman will allow public presentation of oral comments at the meeting. To allow full consideration of information by Council members, written notice must be provided at least 5 days prior to the meeting. Any written comments received prior to the meeting will be provided to Council members at the meeting.

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the accomplishments of Federal agencies and make recommendations on future activities to control salinity. Council members will be briefed on the status of salinity control activities and receive input for drafting the Council's annual report. The Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and United States Geological Survey of the Department of the Interior; the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture; and the Environmental Protection Agency will each present a progress report and a schedule of activities on salinity control in the Colorado River Basin. The Council will discuss salinity control activities, the contents of the reports, and the Basin States Program created by Public Law 110-246, which amended the Act.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, please be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Notice of this meeting is required under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Title IX of the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 (VAWA 2005) requires the Attorney General to establish a Task Force to assist the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to develop and implement a program of research on violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women, including domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and murder. The program will evaluate the effectiveness of the Federal, state, and tribal response to violence against Indian women, and will propose recommendations to improve the government response. The Attorney General, acting through the Director of the Office on Violence Against Women, established the Task Force on March 31, 2008.

This meeting will include an update on NIJ's program of research, an overview of NIJ's Federal Response Study, an overview of the Center for Disease Control's 2010 General Population National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Surveillance Study (NISVS) and NIJ's American Indian and Alaska Native NISVS Oversample Study, an overview of NIJ's proposed sampling plan for a baseline study, and a presentation on refinement and field implementation of the Tribal Study of Public Safety and Public Health Issues Facing American Indian and Alaska Native Women as well as facilitated Task Force member discussion. In addition, the Task Force is also welcoming public oral comment at this meeting and has reserved an estimated 15 minutes on October 30 and 31 for this purpose. Members of the public wishing to address the Task Force must contact Lorraine Edmo, Deputy Tribal Director, Office on Violence Against Women, United States Department of Justice, 145 N Street NE., Suite 10W.121, Washington, DC 20530; by telephone at: (202) 514-8804; email: Lorraine.edmo@usdoj.gov; or fax: (202) 307-3911.

The meeting will take place on October 30 and 31, 2012 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and will include lunch breaks. Time will be reserved for public comment from 11:45 a.m. to 12 p.m. on October 30 and 31. See the section below for information on reserving time for public comment.

Access: This meeting will be open to the pubic but registration on a space available basis and for security reasons is required. All members of the public who wish to attend must register in advance of the meeting by October 23, 2012 by contacting Lorraine Edmo, Deputy Tribal Director, Office on Violence Against Women, United States Department of Justice, by email: Lorraine.edmo@usdoj.gov ; or fax: (202) 307-3911. All attendees will be required to sign in and be processed through Security at the Lobby Visitors Desk. Please bring photo identification and allow extra time prior to the start of the meeting.

All members of the press who wish to attend and/or record any part of the meeting must register in advance of the meeting by October 23, 2012 by contacting Lorraine Edmo as noted above. In addition to being processed through Security at the Lobby Visitors Desk, all members of the press are required to sign in at meeting registration and must present government-issued photo I.D. (such as a driver's license) as well as valid media credentials. Please allow extra time prior to the start of the meeting for registering.

The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Individuals who require special accommodation in order to attend the meeting should notify Lorraine Edmo no later than October 23, 2012.

Written Comments: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments by October 23, 2012 to Lorraine Edmo, Deputy Tribal Director, Office on Violence Against Women, United States Department of Justice, 145 N Street NE., Suite 10W.121, Washington, DC 20530 by mail; or by email: Lorraine.edmo@usdoj.gov; or by fax: (202) 307-3911.

Public Comment: Persons interested in participating during the public comment period of the meeting are requested to reserve time on the agenda by contacting Lorraine Edmo, Deputy Tribal Director, Office on Violence Against Women, United States Department of Justice, by email: Lorraine.edmo@usdoj.gov; or fax: (202) 307-3911 by October 23, 2012. Requests must include the participant's name, organization represented, if appropriate, and a brief description of the subject of the comments. Each participant will be permitted approximately 3 to 5 minutes to present comments, depending on the number of individuals reserving time on the agenda. Participants are also encouraged to submit written copies of their comments at the meeting. Comments that are submitted to Lorraine Edmo, Deputy Tribal Director, Office on Violence Against Women, United States Department of Justice, 145 N Street NE., Suite 10W.121, Washington, DC 20530 by mail; by email: Lorraine.edmo@usdoj.gov; or fax: (202) 307-3911 before October 23, 2012 will be circulated to Task Force members prior to the meeting.

Given the expected number of individuals interested in presenting comments at the meeting, reservations should be made as soon as possible. Persons unable to obtain reservations to speak during the meeting are encouraged to submit written comments, which will be accepted at the meeting location or may be mailed to the attention of Lorraine Edmo, Deputy Tribal Director, Office on Violence Against Women, United States Department of Justice, 145 N Street NE., Suite 10W.121, Washington, DC 20530.

An important aspect of the mission of the BLS is to disseminate to the public the maximum amount of information possible; however, not all data are publicly available, because of the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of BLS data. The BLS has opportunities available, on a limited basis, for eligible researchers to access confidential data for purposes of conducting valid statistical analyses that further the mission of the BLS, as permitted by the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA).

In order to provide access to confidential data, the BLS must determine that the researcher's project will be exclusively statistical in nature and that the researcher is eligible based on guidelines set out in the CIPSEA, OMB implementation guidance on the CIPSEA, and BLS policy. This information collection provides the vehicle through which the BLS will obtain the necessary details to ensure all researchers and projects comply with appropriate laws and policies. The BLS has made some clarifying revisions to forms in this collection.

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1220-0180. The current approval is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2012; however, it should be noted that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional information, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on May 17, 2012 (77 FR 29367).

Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1220-0180. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

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

• 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 to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Agency: DOL-BLS.

Title of Collection: Data Sharing Agreement Program.

OMB Control Number: 1220-0180.

Affected Public: Individuals and Households.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 172.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 172.

Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 633.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

The regulations implementing Executive Order 11246 permit Federal supply and service contractors to develop affirmative action programs (AAPs) that are based on business functions or business units rather than AAPs based on establishments. See 41 FR 60-2.1(d)(4). Functional affirmative action programs (FAAPs) are designed to provide contractors with the option of creating AAPs that better fit their business needs. To develop and implement a FAAP, a Federal contractor must receive written approval from the Director of the OFCCP. This ICR addresses the collection of information associated with the process for obtaining, modifying, updating, and renewing an agreement that allows a contractor to develop and use a FAAP.

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. For additional information, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2012 (77 FR 30327).

Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB ICR Reference Number 201205-1250-001. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

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

• 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 to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Agency: DOL-OFCCP.

Title of Collection: Agreement Approval Process for Use of Functional Affirmative Action Programs.

OMB Control Number: 201205-1250-001.

Affected Public: Private Sector—businesses or other for-profits, farms, and not-for-profit institutions.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 121.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 121.

Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 926.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $175.

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) section 609(a), 29 U.S.C. 1169(a), and regulations 29 CFR 2590.609-2 establish a National Medical Support Notice to provide group health benefits coverage pursuant to Qualified Medical Child Support Orders. Part B, Medical Support Notice to Plan Administrator, is a notice from an employer to a benefits plan administrator to implement coverage of children under ERISA covered group health plans.

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1210-0113. The current approval is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2012; however, it should be noted that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional information, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on June 25, 2012 (77 FR 37920).

Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1210-0113. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

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

• 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 to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Agency: DOL-EBSA.

Title of Collection: National Medical Support Notice—Part B.

OMB Control Number: 1210-0113.

Affected Public: Private Sector—businesses or other for-profits.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 492,000.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 12,400,000.

Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 1,000,000.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $6,800,000.

This ICR covers two follow-up surveys conducted 15 and 30 months after randomly assigning a sample of approximately 6,000 Workforce Investment Act (WIA) customers included in the WIA Evaluation into control or treatment groups; cost data collected on three forms—a program costs questionnaire, a staff activity log, and a resource room sign-in sheet—for use in estimating the costs of WIA services received by sample members for the benefit-cost analysis; and collection of veterans data—consisting of qualitative data on veterans served at the 28 Local Workforce Investment Areas (LWIAs) participating in the WIA Evaluation. For the Veterans Supplemental Study (VSS) qualitative analysis, additional questions and several activities will be added to the WIA Evaluation's second round of site visits to the 28 LWIAs. A separate quantitative analysis will use two sets of administrative data that States already report to the DOL-WIA Standardized Record Data and Wagner-Peyser data. Because the data are already reported to the DOL, there is no additional burden associated with this quantitative data collection.

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. For additional information, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on June 25, 2012 (77 FR 37923).

Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB ICR Reference Number 201208-1205-012. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

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

• 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 to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Agency: DOL-ETA.

Title of Collection: Workforce Investment Act Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs Gold Standard Evaluation Follow-Up Surveys, Veterans Study, and Cost Data.

OMB ICR Reference Number: 201208-1205-012.

Affected Public: Individuals or Households and State, Local and Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 12,488.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 13,159.

Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 2,581.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) has granted the request of Pacific Gas and Electric (the licensee) to withdraw its application dated October 24, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11326A070), as supplemented by letters dated March 30, April 12, April 30, and June 18, 2012 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML12093A043, ML12104A022, ML12122A012, and ML12171A233, respectively), for a proposed amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in San Luis Obispo County, California.

The proposed amendment would have modified the facility Technical Specification 3.3.5, “Loss of Power Diesel Generator Start Instrumentation,” to correct the nonconservative first level undervoltage relays limits contained in Surveillance Requirement 3.3.5.3; revise the Final Safety Analysis Report Update (FSARU) Appendix 6.2D and Sections 6.3, 15.3, and 15.4; revise the loss-of-coolant accident control room operator and offsite dose analysis of record described in the FSARU; and provide a new process for revising input values to this analysis.

The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on May 15, 2012 (77 FR 28632). However, by letter dated September 27, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12272A098), the licensee withdrew the proposed change.

For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated October 24, 2012, as supplemented by letters dated March 30, April 12, April 30, and June 18, 2012, and the licensee's letter dated September 27, 2012, which withdrew the application for license amendment.

This notice serves to update and amend collection and maintenance of OPM\Central-11 (Presidential Management Fellows Program) as a result of new program regulations as well as a change from a government-operated Talent Acquisition System (TAS) to a contractor operated system. The PMF Program authority changed with Executive Order 13562, Recruiting and Hiring Students and Recent Graduates (Presidential Management Fellows Program), signed by President Barack Obama on December 27, 2010. Changes to data collection listed within the categories of records for this system include the following: (1) Elimination of nominations by accredited educational institutions (hence, the elimination of Nominee status for applicants); (2) the added collection of academic transcripts for verification of eligibility; and (3) the collection of Applicant Flow Data in the TAS in accordance with the approved Office of Management and Budget Approval #3046-0046. As part of its effort to revamp the PMF Program, the program office sought to improve the applicant experience and improve the data collection systems by contracting with a private talent acquisition system provider. Pursuant to the contract with OPM, that provider is required to comply with any applicable requirements of the Privacy Act.

In addition, pursuant to the terms of the contract, each contract employee who has access to the PMF system is required to undergo an adjudication of their fitness to have access to work of this nature and to assess their fitness to perform this work, based upon an appropriate background investigation. Beginning in November 2012, data for the Class of 2013 will be collected by the contractor. During the initial six months of operation, the existing OPM Human Resource Services (HRS) operated system in Macon, GA will continue to function in parallel with the new system and will remain the system of record for 2012 and prior Presidential Management Fellows. By March 2013, all data contained in the HRS system in Macon will be migrated to the contractor. A routine use has been added to this systems notice to permit release of records to contractors working on the system pursuant to a contract with OPM or the Federal government.

The notice of the Administrator's disaster declaration for the State of California, dated 09/14/2012 I hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning on 08/26/2012 and continuing through 09/09/2012.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

• Title of Information Collection: Petition to Classify Special Immigrant Under INA 203(b)(4) as an employee or former employee of the U.S. Government Abroad

• OMB Control Number: 1405-0082

• Type of Request: Extension of a Currently Approved Collection

• Originating Office: CA/VO/L/R

• Form Number: DS-1884

• Respondents: Aliens petitioning for immigrant visas under INA 203(b)(4) as a special immigrant described in INA section 101(a)(27)(D)

• Estimated Number of Respondents: 300

• Estimated Number of Responses: 300

• Average Time per Response: 10 minutes

• Total Estimated Burden Time: 50 hours

• Frequency: Once per petition

• Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain benefits

• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.

• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.

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

• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Abstract of proposed collection: DS-1884 solicits information from petitioners claiming employment-based immigrant visa preference under section 203(b)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act on the basis of qualification as a special immigrant described in INA section 101(a)(27)(D). A petitioner may file the DS-1884 petition within one year of notification by the Department of State that the Secretary has approved a recommendation that such special immigrant status be accorded to the alien. DS-1884 solicits information that will assist the consular officer in ensuring that the petitioner is statutorily qualified to receive such status, including meeting the years of service and exceptional service requirements.

Methodology: This form can be obtained from posts abroad or through the Department's eForms intranet site. The application available through eForms allows the applicant to complete the application online and then print the application. Most applicants are current federal government employees abroad and have access to the intranet system. Once the form is printed, it is submitted to post.

Interested parties are invited to submit comments on whether Curaçao, Sint Maarten, and the Turks and Caicos Islands meet or fail to satisfy the eligibility criteria described in sections 212(b), 212(c), and 213(b)(5)(B) of the CBERA, as amended, and whether the Bahamas, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Vincent meet or fail to satisfy the eligibility criteria described in section 213(b)(5)(B) of the CBERA, as amended. Those criteria may be accessed at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title19/html/USCODE-2011-title19-chap15.htm and are summarized below.

After a country, territory or successor political entity identified in the statute as a potential beneficiary country requests benefits under CBERA and CBTPA, the President must determine whether to designate it as a beneficiary under the two programs. The President shall consider only the specified countries, territories, or successor political entities. In determining whether to designate a country as a CBERA beneficiary country, the President must take into account the criteria contained in section 212(b) of the CBERA, which include whether the country, inter alia: (1) Is a Communist country; (2) has nationalized, expropriated or otherwise seized ownership or control of property owned by a United States citizen or by a corporation, partnership, or association which is 50 percent or more beneficially owned by United States citizens, or taken certain steps described in the statute that have such an effect, without proper compensation or arbitration of the dispute; (3) fails to act in good faith in enforcing arbitral awards in favor of United States citizens or a corporation, partnership or association which is 50 percent or more beneficially owned by United States citizens; (4) affords preferential treatment to the products of a developed country, other than the United States, which has, or is likely to have, a significant adverse effect on United States commerce; (5) owns an entity that engages in the broadcast of copyrighted material belonging to United States copyright owners without their express consent; (6) is a signatory to a treaty, convention, protocol, or other agreement regarding the extradition of United States citizens; and (7) has not or is not taking steps to afford internationally recognized worker rights (as defined in section 507(4) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2467(4)) to workers in the country.

The President must also take into account the criteria contained in section 212 (c) of the CBERA, which include, inter alia: (1) The economic conditions in such country; (2) the extent to which such country has assured the United States it will provide equitable and reasonable access to the markets and basic commodity resources of such country; (3) the degree to which such country follows the accepted rules of international trade provided for under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement and the multilateral trade agreements; (4) the degree to which such country uses export subsidies or imposes export performance requirements or local content requirements which distort international trade; (5) the degree to which the trade policies of such country as they relate to other beneficiary countries are contributing to the revitalization of the region; (6) the degree to which such country is undertaking self-help measures to promote its own economic development; (7) whether or not such country has taken or is taking steps to afford to workers in that country internationally recognized worker rights; (8) the extent to which such country provides under its law adequate and effective means for foreign nationals to secure, exercise, and enforce exclusive rights in intellectual property; (9) the extent to which such country prohibits its nationals from engaging in the broadcast of copyrighted material belonging to United States copyright owners without their express consent; (10) and the extent to which such country is prepared to cooperate with the United States in the administration of the provisions of the CBERA.

In determining whether to designate a country as a CBTPA beneficiary country, the President must take into account the criteria contained in sections 212(b) and (c) of CBERA described above, and other appropriate criteria, including the following criteria contained in section 213(b)(5)(B) of the CBERA: (1) Whether the beneficiary country has demonstrated a commitment to undertake its obligations under the WTO Agreement; (2) participates in negotiations toward the completion of the Free Trade Area of the Americas or another free trade agreement; (3) the extent to which the country provides protection of intellectual property rights consistent with or greater than the protection afforded under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights described in section 101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(15)); (4) the extent to which the country provides internationally recognized worker rights; (5) whether the country has implemented its commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor; (6) the extent to which the country has met U.S. counter-narcotics certification criteria under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; (7) the extent to which the country has taken steps to become a party to and implement the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption; and (8) the extent to which the country applies transparent, nondiscriminatory and competitive procedures in government procurement and contributes to efforts in international fora to develop and implement rules on transparency in government procurement.

Additionally, before a country can receive benefits under the CBTPA, the President must also determine that the country has satisfied the requirements of section 213(b)(4)(A)(ii) of CBERA (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)(4)(A)(ii)) relating to the implementation of procedures and requirements similar to the relevant procedures and requirements under chapter 5 of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Requirements for Submissions. Persons submitting comments must do so in English and must identify (on the first page of the submission) the “CBERA and/or CBTPA Eligibility for [insert names of countries upon which you are commenting].” Written comments must be received by November 9, 2012.

In order to ensure the most timely and expeditious receipt and consideration of comments, USTR has arranged to accept on-line submissions via www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via www.regulations.gov , enter docket number USTR-2012-0028 on the home page and click “go”. The site will provide a search-results page listing all documents associated with this docket. Find a reference to this notice by selecting “Notice” under “Document Type” on the left side of the search-results page, and click on the link entitled “Send a Comment or Submission.” (For further information on using the www.regulations.gov Web site, please consult the resources provided on the Web site by clicking on “How to Use This Site” on the left side of the home page.)

The www.regulations.gov Web site provides the option of making submissions by filling in a “General Comments” field, or by attaching a document. We expect that most submissions will be provided in an attached document. If a document is attached, it is sufficient to type “See attached” in the “General Comments” field.

Submissions in Microsoft Word (.doc) or Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) are preferred. If an application other than those two is used, please identify in your submission the specific application used. For any comments submitted electronically containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC” and must be submitted separately from the public version. Any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page. If you file comments containing business confidential information you must also submit a public version of the comments under a separate submission. The file name of the public version should begin with the character “P”. The “BC” and “P” should be followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the comments. If you submit comments that contain no business confidential information, the file name should begin with the character “P”, followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the comments. Electronic submissions should not attach separate cover letters; rather, information that might appear in a cover letter should be included in the comments you submit. Similarly, to the extent possible, please include any exhibits, annexes, or other attachments to a submission in the same file as the submission itself and not as separate files.

We strongly urge submitters to use electronic filing. If an on-line submission is impossible, alternative arrangements must be made with Mr. Eiss prior to delivery for the receipt of such submissions. Mr. Eiss may be contacted at (202) 395-3475. General information concerning the Office of the United States Trade Representative may be obtained by accessing its Internet Web site ( http://www.ustr.gov ).

Section 127(b)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)) requires that notice and opportunity for comment be provided after the United States submits or receives a request for the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement panel. Consistent with this obligation, USTR is providing notice that the United States has requested a panel pursuant to the WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”). Once it is established, the panel will hold its meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, and would be expected to issue a report on its findings and recommendations within nine months after it is established.

The United States considers that certain measures imposing antidumping and countervailing duties on certain automobiles from the United States are inconsistent with China's obligations under the WTO Agreement. The measures are set forth in the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) Notice No. 20 [2011] and Notice No. 84 [2011], including any and all annexes. These measures appear to be inconsistent with Articles 1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 5.4, 6.5.1, 6.8, 6.9, 12.2, 12.2.2, and Paragraph 1 of Annex II of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“AD Agreement”); Articles 10, 11.4, 12.4.1, 12.7, 12.8, 15.1, 15.2, 15.4, 15.5, 16.1, 22.3, and 22.5 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”); and Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ( “GATT 1994”). On July 5, 2012, the United States requested consultations with China. That request may be found at www.wto.org contained in a document designated as WT/DS440/1. The United States and China held consultations on August 23, 2012, but the consultations did not resolve the matter.

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning the issues raised in this dispute. Persons may submit public comments electronically to www.regulations.gov docket number USTR-2012-0016. If you are unable to provide submissions at www.regulations.gov, please contact Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-9483 to arrange for an alternative method of transmission.

To submit comments via www.regulations.gov, enter docket number USTR-2012-0016 on the home page and click “search”. The site will provide a search-results page listing all documents associated with this docket. Find a reference to this notice by selecting “Notice” under “Document Type” on the left side of the search-results page, and click on the link entitled “Comment Now!.” (For further information on using the www.regulations.gov Web site, please consult the resources provided on the Web site by clicking on “How to Use Regulations.gov Site” on the bottom of the page.)

The www.regulations.gov site provides the option of providing comments by filling in a “Type Comments” field, or by attaching a document using an “Upload File” field. It is expected that most comments will be provided in an attached document. If a document is attached, it is sufficient to type “See attached” in the “Type Comments” field.

A person requesting that information contained in a comment submitted by that person be treated as confidential business information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such and the submission must be marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page. Any comment containing business confidential information must be submitted by fax to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-3640. A non-confidential summary of the confidential information must be submitted to www.regulations.gov. The non-confidential summary will be placed in the docket and open to public inspection.

Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than business confidential information, may be determined by USTR to be confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information or advice may qualify as such, the submitter—

(1) Must clearly so designate the information or advice;

(2) Must clearly mark the material as “SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page; and

(3) Must provide a non-confidential summary of the information or advice.

Any comment containing confidential information must be submitted by fax. A non-confidential summary of the confidential information must be submitted to www.regulations.gov. The non-confidential summary will be placed in the docket and open to public inspection.

Pursuant to section 127(e) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a docket on this dispute settlement proceeding accessible to the public at www.regulations.gov , docket number USTR-2012-0016. The public file will include non-confidential comments received by USTR from the public with respect to the dispute. If a dispute settlement panel is convened or in the event of an appeal from such a panel, the U.S. submissions, any non-confidential submissions, or non-confidential summaries of submissions, received from other participants in the dispute, will be made available to the public on USTR's Web site at www.ustr.gov, and the report of the panel, and, if applicable, the report of the Appellate Body, will be available on the Web site of the World Trade Organization, www.wto.org. Comments open to public inspection may be viewed on the www.regulations.gov Web site.

USTR is providing notice that consultations have been requested pursuant to the WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”). If such consultations should fail to resolve the matter and a dispute settlement panel is established pursuant to the DSU, such panel, which would hold its meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, would be expected to issue a report on its findings and recommendations within nine months after it is established.

On September 17, 2012, China requested consultations concerning: (1) Section 1 of Public Law 112-99, “Application of Countervailing Duty Provisions to Nonmarket Economy Countries”; and (2) Section 2 of Public Law 112-99, “Adjustment of Antidumping Duty in Certain Proceedings Relating to Imports from Nonmarket Economy Countries.”

China also challenges the concurrent application of anti-dumping and countervailing duties under the nonmarket economy methodology with respect to the following investigations and reviews initiated between November 20, 2006 and March 13, 2012 on imports from China: Coated Free Sheet Paper (C-570-907); Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe (C-570-911); Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube (C-570-915); Laminated Woven Sacks (C-570-917); Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires; (C-570-913); Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires, Administrative Review (C-570-913); Raw Flexible Magnets (C-570-923); Lightweight Thermal Paper (C-570-921); Sodium Nitrite (C-570-926); Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe (C-570-931); Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe (C-570-936); Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts (C-570-938); Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts, Administrative Review (C-570-938); Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof (C-570-940); Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks (C-570-942); Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks, Administrative Review (C-570-942), Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods (C-570-944), Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand (C-570-946); Certain Steel Grating (C-570-948); Wire Decking (C-570-950); Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge (C-570-953); Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks (C-570-955); Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe (C-570-957); Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses (C-570-959); Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts (C-570-963); Drill Pipe (C-570-966); Aluminum Extrusions (C-570-968); Multilayered Wood Flooring (C-570-971); Certain Steel Wheels (C-570-974); Galvanized Steel Wire (C-570-976); High Pressure Steel Cylinders (C-570-978); Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, (C-570-980); Utility Scale Wind Towers (C-570-982); Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks (C-570-984); Coated Free Sheet Paper (A-570-906); Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe (A-570-910); Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube (A-570-916); Laminated Woven Sacks (A-570-914); Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires (A-570-912); Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires, Administrative Review (A-570-912); Raw Flexible Magnets (A-570-922); Lightweight Thermal Paper (A-570-920); Sodium Nitrite (A-570-925); Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe (A-570-930); Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe (A-570-935); Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts (A-570-937); Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts, Administrative Review (A-570-937); Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof (A-570-939); Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks (A-570-941); Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks, Administrative Review (A-570-941); Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods (A-570-943); Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand (A-570-945); Certain Steel Grating (A-570-947); Wire Decking (A-570-949); Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge (A-570-952); Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks (A-570-954); Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe (A-570-956); Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses (A-570-958); Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts (A-570-962); Drill Pipe (A-570-965); Aluminum Extrusions (A-570-967); Multilayered Wood Flooring (A-570-970); Certain Steel Wheels (A-570-973); Galvanized Steel Wire (A-570-975); High Pressure Steel Cylinders (A-570-977); Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules (A-570-979); Utility Scale Wind Towers (A-570-981); and Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks (A-570-983).

China alleges inconsistencies with Articles VI, X:1, X:2, X:3 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”), Articles 10, 15, 19, 21 and 32 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and Articles 9 and 11 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994. The challenged investigations and reviews are available at the following web page of the Department of Commerce: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html.

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning the issues raised in this dispute. Persons may submit public comments electronically to www.regulations.gov docket number USTR-2012-0031. If you are unable to provide submissions by www.regulations.gov, please contact Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-9483 to arrange for an alternative method of transmission.

To submit comments via www.regulations.gov, enter docket number USTR-2012-0031 on the home page and click “search”. The site will provide a search-results page listing all documents associated with this docket. Find a reference to this notice by selecting “Notice” under “Document Type” on the left side of the search-results page, and click on the link entitled “Comment Now!.” (For further information on using the www.regulations.gov Web site, please consult the resources provided on the Web site by clicking on “How to Use Regulations.gov” on the bottom of the page.)

The www.regulations.gov site provides the option of providing comments by filling in a “Type Comments” field or by attaching a document using an “upload file” field. It is expected that most comments will be provided in an attached document. If a document is attached, it is sufficient to type “See attached” in the “Type Comments” field.

A person requesting that information contained in a comment submitted by that person be treated as confidential business information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such and the submission must be marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page. Any comment containing business confidential information must be submitted by fax to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-3640. A non-confidential summary of the confidential information must be submitted to www.regulations.gov. The non-confidential summary will be placed in the docket and open to public inspection.

Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than business confidential information, may be determined by USTR to be confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information or advice may qualify as such, the submitter—

(1) Must clearly so designate the information or advice;

(2) Must clearly mark the material as “SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page; and

(3) Must provide a non-confidential summary of the information or advice. Any comment containing confidential information must be submitted by fax. A non-confidential summary of the confidential information must be submitted to www.regulations.gov. The non-confidential summary will be placed in the docket and open to public inspection.

Pursuant to section 127(e) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a docket on this dispute settlement proceeding accessible to the public at www.regulations.gov , docket number USTR-2012-0031.

The public file will include non-confidential comments received by USTR from the public with respect to the dispute. If a dispute settlement panel is convened or in the event of an appeal from such a panel, the U.S. submissions, any non-confidential submissions, or non-confidential summaries of submissions, received from other participants in the dispute, will be made available to the public on USTR's Web site at www.ustr.gov, and the report of the panel, and, if applicable, the report of the Appellate Body, will be available on the Web site of the World Trade Organization, www.wto.org. Comments open to public inspection may be viewed on the www.regulations.gov Web site.

You may retrieve this document online through the Federal Document Management System at http://www.regulations.gov . Electronic retrieval instructions are available under the help section of the Web site. An electronic copy is also available for download from the Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board at http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara .

On May 15, 2002, Congress enacted the “Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002,” now recognized as the No FEAR Act (Pub. L. 107-174). One purpose of the Act is to “require that Federal agencies be accountable for violations of antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws.” (Pub. L. 107-174, Summary). In support of this purpose, Congress found that “agencies cannot be run effectively if those agencies practice or tolerate discrimination” (Pub. L. 107-174, Title I, General Provisions, section 101(1)). The Act also requires the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) to provide this Notice to all USDOT employees, former USDOT employees, and applicants for USDOT employment. This Notice is to inform you of the rights and protections available to you under Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws.

A Federal agency cannot discriminate against an employee or applicant with respect to the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status, genetic information, or political affiliation. One or more of the following statutes prohibit discrimination on these bases: 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(1), 29 U.S.C. 631, 29 U.S.C. 633a, 29 U.S.C. 206(d), 29 U.S.C. 791, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16 and 2000ff.

If you believe you were a victim of unlawful discrimination on the bases of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, genetic information, and/or disability, you must contact an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) counselor within 45 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory action, or in the case of a personnel action, within 45 calendar days of the effective date of the action to try and resolve the matter informally. This must be done before filing a formal complaint of discrimination with USDOT (See, e.g., 29 CFR part 1614).

If you believe you were a victim of unlawful discrimination based on age, you must either contact an EEO counselor as noted above or give notice of intent to sue to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory action. As an alternative to filing a complaint pursuant to 29 CFR part 1614, you can file a civil action in a United States district court under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), against the head of an alleged discriminating agency, after giving the EEOC not less than a 30 day notice of the intent to file such action. You may file such notice in writing with the EEOC via mail at P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, personal delivery, or facsimile within 180 days of the occurrence of the alleged unlawful practice.

If you are alleging discrimination based on marital status or political affiliation, you may file a written discrimination complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) (See Contact information below). In the alternative (or in some cases, in addition), you may pursue a discrimination complaint by filing a grievance through the USDOT administrative or negotiated grievance procedures, if such procedures apply and are available. Form OSC-11 is available online at the OSC Web site http://www.osc.gov/index.htm, under the filing tab ( Contact Information ). Additionally, you can download the form under the same filing tab, under OSC Forms. Complete this form and mail it to the Complaints Examining Unit, U.S. Office of Special Counsel at 1730 M Street NW., Suite 218 Washington, DC 20036-4505. You also have the option to call the Complaints Examining Unit at (800) 872-9855 for additional assistance.

If you are alleging compensation discrimination pursuant to the Equal Pay Act (EPA), and wish to pursue your allegations through the administrative process, you must contact an EEO counselor within 45 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory action as such complaints are processed under EEOC's regulations at 29 CFR part 1614. Alternatively, you may file a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction within two years, or if the violation is willful, three years of the date of the alleged violation, regardless of whether you pursued any administrative complaint processing. The filing of a complaint or appeal pursuant to 29 CFR part 1614 shall not toll the time for filing a civil action.

A USDOT employee with authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action must not use that authority to take, or fail to take, or threaten to take, or fail to take a personnel action against an employee or applicant because of a disclosure of information by that individual that is reasonably believed to evidence violations of law, rule, or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, unless the disclosure of such information is specifically prohibited by law and such information is specifically required by Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs.

Retaliation against a USDOT employee or applicant for making a protected disclosure is prohibited (5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)). If you believe you are a victim of whistleblower retaliation, you may file a written complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel at 1730 M Street, NW., Suite 218, Washington, DC 202-036-4505 using Form OSC-11. Alternatively, you may file online through the OSC Web site at http://www.osc.gov .

Under existing laws, USDOT retains the right, where appropriate, to discipline a USDOT employee who engages in conduct that is inconsistent with Federal Antidiscrimination and Whistleblower Protection laws up to and including removal from Federal service. If OSC initiates an investigation under 5 U.S.C. 1214 according to 5 U.S.C. 1214(f), USDOT must seek approval from the Special Counsel to discipline employees for, among other activities, engaging in prohibited retaliation. Nothing in the No FEAR Act alters existing laws, or permits an agency to take unfounded disciplinary action against a USDOT employee, or to violate the procedural rights of a USDOT employee accused of discrimination.

For more information regarding the No FEAR Act regulations, refer to 5 CFR part 724, as well as the appropriate office(s) within your agency (e.g., EEO/civil rights offices, human resources offices, or legal offices). You can find additional information regarding Federal antidiscrimination, whistleblower protection, and retaliation laws at the EEOC Web site at http://www.eeoc.gov and the OSC Web site at http://www.osc.gov .

Pursuant to section 205 of the No FEAR Act, neither the Act nor this notice creates, expands, or reduces any rights otherwise available to any employee, former employee, or applicant under the laws of the United States, including the provisions of law specified in 5 U.S.C. 2302(d).

Notice is hereby given that the FHWA and other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the highway projects in the State of Texas that are listed below. The actions by the Federal agencies on a project, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the documented environmental assessments (EAs) issued in connection with the project, and in other FHWA project records. The EAs and other documents from the FHWA project record files for the listed projects are available by contacting the FHWA or TxDOT at the addresses provided above.

This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions on the listed projects as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken. This notice does not apply to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineering (USACE) permitting process for these projects, because no USACE permits have been issued for any of the projects to date. The laws under which Federal agency decisions were made on the projects listed in this notice include, but are not limited to:

1. General: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321-4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act (FAHA) [23 U.S.C. 109 and 128].

2. Air: Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q).

3. Land: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303].

4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act (ESA) [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 and Section 1536], Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) [16 U.S.C. 703-712].

5. Historic and Cultural Resources: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (106) [16 U.S.C. 470(f) et seq. ]; Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) [16 U.S.C. 470(aa)-470(11)]; Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (AHPA) [16 U.S.C. 469-469(c)]; Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) [25 U.S.C. 3001-3013]

6. Social and Economic: Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Civil Rights) [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)-2000(d)(1)]; American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRF) [42 U.S.C. 1996]; Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) [7 U.S.C. 4201-4209].

7. Wetlands and Water Resources: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251-1377 (Section 404, Section 401, Section 319); Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA), 33 U.S.C. 401-406; Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) [42 U.S.C. 300(f)-300(j)(6); Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (EWRA) [16 U.S.C. 3921, 3931]; Wetlands Mitigation (WM) [23 U.S.C. 103(b)(6)(M) and 133(b)(11); Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA) [42 U.S.C. 4001-4128].

8. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management; E.O. 13007 Indian Sacred Sites; E.O. 13287 Preserve America; E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations; E.O. 13112 Invasive Species and the Executive Memorandum on Beneficial Landscaping; and E.O. 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.

The projects subject to this notice are:

(1) Project location: The 10.8 mile section of Interstate Highway (IH) 35W North study limits extend from State Highway (SH) 114 in Denton County to IH 820 in Tarrant County Texas. The proposed improvements extend from south of SH 114 at Eagle Parkway to IH 820.

Project reference number: TxDOT Control Section Job numbers (CSJs): 0014-16-252, 0014-16-255, 0081-12-041 & 0081-13-904.

Project Type: The various ultimate lane configurations of the three sections of the roadway are described as follows:

• From Eagle Parkway to US 81/287, the proposed project will consist of reconstructing and widening the roadway to a 10-lane facility consisting of three general purpose lanes (non-toll) in each direction and a barrier-separated four-lane concurrent managed (toll) lane facility (two lanes in each direction). The concurrent managed (toll) lane facility will be centered between the general purpose lanes (non-toll). Auxiliary lanes will be constructed between entrance and exit ramps along the roadway and two/three lane frontage roads in each direction with bicycle accommodation will be constructed. Direct connectors from IH 35W to SH 170 will also be constructed.

• From US 81/287 to Basswood Boulevard, the proposed project will consist of reconstructing and widening the roadway to a 12-lane facility consisting of four general purpose lanes (non-toll) in each direction and a barrier-separated four-lane concurrent managed (toll) lane facility (two lanes in each direction). The concurrent managed (toll) lane facility will be centered between the general purpose lanes (non-toll). Auxiliary lanes will be constructed between entrance and exit ramps along the roadway and two/three/four-lane frontage roads in each direction with bicycle accommodation will be constructed throughout this section. Direct connectors to/from US 81/287 from IH 35W managed (toll) lanes will be constructed.

• From Basswood Boulevard to IH 820, the proposed project will consist of reconstructing and widening the roadway to a 14-lane facility consisting of four general purpose lanes (non-toll) in each direction and a barrier-separated six-lane concurrent managed (toll) lane facility (three lanes in each direction). The concurrent managed (toll) lane facility will be centered between the general purpose lanes (non-toll). Auxiliary lanes will be constructed between entrance and exit ramps along the roadway and two/three/four-lane frontage roads in each direction with bicycle accommodation will be constructed throughout this section.

The proposed project does not include improvements to the IH 35W/IH 820 interchange. The interchange (extending from the centerline of IH 820 to 825 feet north of Fossil Creek Boulevard) will be constructed as part of the IH 820 improvement project that was approved by FHWA on December 30, 2008.

Final actions taken under: NEPA, FAHA, CAA, Section 106, ESA, MBTA, ARPA, AHPA, NAGPRA, Civil Rights Act of 1964, RHA, Section 401, AIRF, FPPA, SDWA, EWRA, WM, FDPA, E.O. 11990, E.O. 11988, E.O. 13007, E.O. 13287, E.O. 13175, E.O. 12898, E.O. 13112 and E.O. 13166.

FHWA NEPA documents: A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued by FHWA on March 19, 2012. The EA, FONSI and other documents in the administrative record are available by contacting the FHWA or TxDOT at the addresses provided above or at: http://txdot.gov/project_information/projects/fort_worth/north_tarrant_express/environmental_studies.htm .

(2) Project Location: A 5.4 mile section along IH 35W South from IH 820 to IH 30, and includes improvements along US 287 from IH 35W to IH 30 and along SH 121 from Riverside Drive to Belknap Street/Weatherford Street in downtown Fort Worth in Tarrant County Texas. The proposed project construction limits extend along IH 35W from just north of Meacham Boulevard to just north of IH 30, along SH 121 from Riverside Drive west to IH 35W, along US 287 from IH 35W to IH 30, and from IH 35W west along Belknap Street and Weatherford Street to their crossing with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) in downtown Fort Worth. Improvements to the interchanges at IH 820 and IH 30 are not included in the proposed project, but improvements to the SH 121 and US 287 interchanges are included.

Project reference number: TxDOT CSJs: 0014-16-179 & 0014-16-268.

Project type:

• On IH 35W from IH 820 to IH 30, the proposed project will consist of 8 general purpose lanes plus auxiliary lanes (non-toll), four/two-lanes concurrent High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV)/managed lanes (toll) and auxiliary lanes, four/six/eight-lanes continuous and discontinuous frontage road lanes (that includes auxiliary lanes near ramp locations and cross streets).

• Along US 287 from IH 35W to IH 30, the project will consist of 6 general purpose lanes (non-toll), two concurrent HOV/managed lanes (toll) and two lanes discontinuous frontage road lanes (that includes two-way northbound frontage road from Cypress Street to 4th Street).

• On SH 121 from IH 35W to Riverside Drive, the project will consist of 8 general purpose lanes (non-toll), continuous frontage roads for the length of the improvement on SH 121 and direct connectors will be provided to IH 35W north and south with local access to Belknap-Weatherford Streets.

The proposed project does not include improvements to the IH 35W/IH 820 interchange. The interchange (extending from the centerline of IH 820 to 825 feet north of Fossil Creek Boulevard) will be constructed as part of the IH 820 improvement project that was approved by FHWA on December 30, 2008.

Final actions taken under: NEPA, FAHA, CAA, Section 4(f), Section 106, ESA, MBTA, ARPA, AHPA, NAGPRA, Civil Rights Act of 1964, AIRF, FPPA, SDWA, EWRA, WM, FDPA, RHA, Section 401, E.O. 11990, E.O. 11988, E.O. 13007, E.O. 13287, E.O. 13175, E.O. 12898, E.O. 13112 and E.O. 13166.

FHWA NEPA documents: A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Section 4(f) de minimis determination was issued by FHWA on August 24, 2012. The EA, FONSI and other documents in the administrative record are available by contacting the FHWA or TxDOT at the addresses provided above or at: http://txdot.gov/project_information/projects/fort_worth/north_tarrant_express/environmental_studies.htm .

(3) Project Location: The IH 35E North section from FM 2181 to US 380 is approximately 11 miles in length located in Denton County Texas.

Project reference number: TxDOT CSJs: 0195-03-050, 0195-03-071, 0195-03-075, 0196-01-056 & 0196-01-074.

Project Type: The proposed improvements include reconstruction of existing 4 lanes to eight mainlanes (four in each direction); two to four concurrent tolled HOV/managed lanes in the center median (one to two in each direction) of IH 35E; and two-, three- and four-lane continuous frontage roads in each direction along the entire project.

Final actions taken under: NEPA, FAHA, CAA, Section 106, ESA, MBTA, ARPA, AHPA, NAGPRA, Civil Rights Act of 1964, AIRF, FPPA, SDWA, EWRA, WM, FDPA, RHA, Section 401, E.O. 11990, E.O. 11988, E.O. 13007, E.O. 13287, E.O. 13175, E.O. 12898, E.O. 13112 and E.O. 13166.

FHWA NEPA documents: A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued by FHWA on January 31, 2012. The EA, FONSI and other documents in the administrative record are available by contacting the FHWA or TxDOT at the addresses provided above or at: http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/projects/interstate-highways/ih-35e-from-ih-635-to-us-380/schematics-and-environmental-documents .

(4) Project Location: The IH 35E Middle section from President George Bush Turnpike (PGBT) to FM 2181 is approximately 12 miles in length located in Denton and Dallas County Texas.

Project reference number: TxDOT CSJs: 0196-02-068, 0196-01-096, 0196-02-073, 0196-02-114, and 0196-03-245.

Project Type: The proposed improvements include reconstruction of existing 6 lanes to eight mainlanes (four in each direction); two to four lane collector distributor (each direction) from PGBT to north of SH 121; four concurrent tolled HOV/managed lanes in the center median (two in each direction) of IH 35E; and two, three and four-lane continuous frontage roads in each direction along the entire project.

Final actions taken under: NEPA, FAHA, CAA, Section 4(f), Section 106, ESA, MBTA, ARPA, AHPA, NAGPRA, Civil Rights Act of 1964, AIRF, FPPA, SDWA, EWRA, WM, FDPA, RHA, Section 401, E.O. 11990, E.O. 11988, E.O. 13007, E.O. 13287, E.O. 13175, E.O. 12898, E.O. 13112 and E.O. 13166.

FHWA NEPA documents: A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and approvals of Programmatic Section 4(f) Net Benefits was issued by FHWA on January 28, 2011, and a FONSI by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on February 2, 2011. The EA, FONSIs and other documents in the administrative record are available by contacting the FHWA or TxDOT at the addresses provided above or at: http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/projects/interstate-highways/ih-35e-from-ih-635-to-us-380/schematics-and-environmental-documents .

(5) Project Location: The IH 35E South section from IH 635 to President George Bush Turnpike (PGBT) is approximately 5 miles in length located in Dallas County Texas.

Project reference number: TxDOT CSJs: 0196-03-138, 0196-03-180, and 0196-03-240.

Project Type: The proposed improvements include reconstruction of existing 6 lanes to eight mainlanes (four in each direction); two- to four-lane collector distributor (each direction) from Sandy Lake Road/Whitlock Lane to PGBT; four concurrent tolled HOV/managed lanes in the center median (two in each direction) of IH 35E; and two-, three- and four-lane continuous frontage roads in each direction along the entire project.

Final actions taken under: NEPA, FAHA, CAA, ESA, MBTA, Section 106, ARPA, AHPA, NAGPRA, Civil Rights Act of 1964, AIRF, FPPA, SDWA, EWRA, WM, FDPA, RHA, Section 401, E.O. 11990, E.O. 11988, E.O. 13007, E.O. 13287, E.O. 13175, E.O. 12898, E.O. 13112 and E.O. 13166.

FHWA NEPA documents: A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued by FHWA on December 28, 2011. The EA, FONSI and other documents in the administrative record are available by contacting the FHWA or TxDOT at the addresses provided above or at: http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/projects/interstate-highways/ih-35e-from-ih-635-to-us-380/schematics-and-environmental-documents .

(6) Project Location: The SH 183 from SH 360 to IH 35E is approximately 8 miles in length located in Tarrant and Dallas Counties Texas.

Project reference number: TxDOT CSJs: 0094-03-065, 0094-07-015, and 0094-07-020.

Project Type: The proposed improvements include reconstruction of existing six lanes to eight mainlanes (four in each direction); four to six concurrent tolled HOV/managed lanes (two to three in each direction); and two- to three-lane continuous frontage roads in each direction along the entire project. The design process produced additional mainlanes, continuous frontage roads in each direction along the corridor, addition of HOV/managed lanes in the center median, and no conversion of existing mainlanes into tolled HOV/managed lanes.

Final actions taken under: NEPA, FAHA, CAA, Section 4(f), Section 106, ESA, MBTA, ARPA, AHPA, NAGPRA, Civil Rights Act of 1964, AIRF, FPPA, SDWA, EWRA, WM, FDPA, RHA, Section 401, E.O. 11990, E.O. 11988, E.O. 13007, E.O. 13287, E.O. 13175, E.O. 12898, E.O. 13112 and E.O. 13166.

FHWA NEPA documents: A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued by FHWA on February 10, 2004. The reevaluation and public involvement conducted thus far indicated no additional environmental concerns have been identified. Therefore, on April 9, 2012, FHWA concurred that the original FONSI issued on February 10, 2004 remains valid for the approved EA. The EA, FONSI and other documents in the administrative record are available by contacting the FHWA or TxDOT at the addresses provided above or at: http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/projects/state-highways/sh-183 .

(7) Project Location: Dallas Horseshoe Project includes improvements along IH 30 from Sylvan Avenue to west of IH 45 and along IH 35E, and from 8th Street to IH 30. The project is approximately 5 miles in length and is located in Dallas County Texas.

Project reference number: TxDOT CSJs: 0196-03-205, 0442-02-118, 0442-02-132, 1068-04-099, 1068-04-116, and 0009-11-226.

Project Type: The project consists mainly of the replacement of the IH 30 and IH 35E bridge structures that cross the Dallas Floodway and the reconstruction of the IH 35E at IH 30 interchange commonly known as the Mixmaster. The proposed improvements would include the addition of general purpose lanes, collector distributor roads, access ramps, and direct connection ramps. Other improvements include the continuous frontage roads, the extension of the existing reversible HOV lane along IH 35E, and cross street improvements. The proposed project would also accommodate pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The main components of the proposed project are described as follows:

• IH 30 and IH 35E Bridge Replacement: The existing IH 30 bridge structures would be replaced with four new bridge structures each (two structures for the mainlanes and two structures for the frontage roads). Each IH 30 mainlane bridge would consist of five travel lanes. Each frontage road bridge would include two lanes. The IH 35E bridge structures would also be replaced with four new bridge structures. The IH 35E northbound bridges would consist of three travel lanes, two reversible HOV lanes, separated from the mainlanes by an outside shoulder and a concrete traffic barrier; five collector distributor lanes, and a sidewalk. The IH 35E southbound bridges would consist of four travel lanes, four collector distributor lanes, and a sidewalk along the outside of the collector distributor road.

• Interchange reconstruction: The Mixmaster would be reconstructed to include new direct connectors, collector distributor lanes, mainlanes, reversible HOV lanes, and extension of the IH 30 frontage road which would include one outside lane for shared-use for bikes and vehicles, and a sidewalk. The existing HOV lane within the Mixmaster would be widened from one to two lanes and extended approximately 1,900 feet north to Reunion Boulevard.

• Cross street improvements proposed at Beckley Avenue, Riverfront Boulevard, and Colorado Boulevard. Beckley Avenue would include reconstruction of the existing U-turn lane, the addition of sidewalks on both sides of the street, and an outside shared-use lane to accommodate bicycle traffic which would intersect with the Coombs Creek Trail Extension. The proposed improvements along Riverfront Boulevard would include a sidewalks and outside shared-use lanes for bikes and vehicles. The proposed improvements along Colorado Boulevard include the replacement of the half cloverleaf interchange and the realignment of Colorado Boulevard with full reconstruction.

Final actions taken under: NEPA, FAHA, CAA, ESA, MBTA, Section 106, ARPA, AHPA, NAGPRA, Civil Rights Act of 1964, AIRF, FPPA, SDWA, EWRA, WM, FDPA, RHA, Section 401, Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-212, § 405, 124 Stat. 2302, 2314 (2010), E.O. 11990, E.O. 11988, E.O. 13007, E.O. 13287, E.O. 13175, E.O. 12898, E.O. 13112 and E.O. 13166.

FHWA NEPA documents: A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued by FHWA on September 18, 2012. The EA, FONSI and other documents in the administrative record are available by contacting the FHWA or TxDOT at the addresses provided above or at: http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/public-hearings/2012/dallas-horseshoe-project-ih30-ih35e .

Notice is hereby given that the FHWA and other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the following highway project in the State of Illinois: reconstruct and widen Willow Road (FAP 305) from Illinois Route 43 (Waukegan Road) to Interstate 94 (Edens Expressway), a distance of approximately 1.8 miles including replacing the bridge over the Middle Fork North Branch of the Chicago River. The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project approved on March 28, 2012, the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued on September 14, 2012, and in other documents in the FHWA administrative record. The EA, FONSI, and other documents in the FHWA administrative record file are available by contacting the FHWA or the Illinois Department of Transportation at the addresses provided above. The EA and FONSI and all other supporting documentation can be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at www.willowroadfuture.org.

This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:

1. General: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321-4351] Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109 and 23 U.S.C. 128].

2. Air: Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q)].

3. Land: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138].

4. Social and Economic: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)-2000(d)(1)].

5. Historic and Cultural Resources: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(f) et seq. ]; Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (AHPA) [16 U.S.C. 469-469(c)].

6. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 and Section 1536]; Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 U.S.C. 703-712].

7. Wetlands and Water Resources: Clean Water Act (Section 401 and 404) [33 U.S.C. 1251-1377]; Wild and Scenic Rivers Act [16 U.S.C. 1271-1287].

8. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations.

PHMSA will be holding this public meeting to provide an open forum for exchanging information about how pipeline data is used by stakeholders and how performance measures could be improved. The NTSB and the DOT Office of the Inspector General have recommended that PHMSA improve pipeline safety performance measures and generate meaningful metrics. Various stakeholders, including Federal and state regulatory agencies, industry, advocacy groups and the media often use data collected by PHMSA and made publicly available to describe the reliability of the pipeline infrastructure, portray safety trends, or identify emerging safety concerns. Further, this data is often used as part of evaluating the safety performance of individual companies, the industry as a whole, and the effectiveness of the regulatory process.

PHMSA regulations require integrity management program performance measures for gas distribution pipelines (49 CFR 192.1007(e)), gas transmission pipelines (49 CFR 192.945) and hazardous liquids pipelines (49 CFR 195.452(k)). The information exchanged at this public meeting will help inform PHMSA as rulemakings or information collections are considered to improve integrity management performance measures and establish new performance measures for aspects of pipeline safety other than integrity management programs.

The keynote speaker will be NTSB member Mr. Mark Rosekind. Presenters will include PHMSA, NAPSR, the Pipeline Safety Trust, and representatives from the pipeline industry. As speakers are identified by name, the agenda on the registration Web page will be updated. PHMSA invites all stakeholders to actively participate in the meeting and specifically engage in thoughtful input and discussion during the topic specific breakout session.

The overall objectives of the meeting are to:

1. Determine how stakeholders, including PHMSA, industry, and the public use the data.

2. Determine how industry and PHMSA currently measure performance, how performance measures could be improved, and what additional data is needed to do so.

3. Determine the best method(s) for collecting, analyzing, and ensuring transparency of additional data needed to improve performance measures.

4. Summarize the data PHMSA currently collects, who we collect it from, and why we collect it.

5. Discuss data quality improvement including past efforts and future opportunities as well as universally understood definitions.

PHMSA is preparing a document summarizing the pipeline data currently collected by PHMSA. This document will be available on the registration Web page by October 22, 2012. All presentations made during the meeting will be available on the registration Web page a few days after the meeting ends.

I. Background

Federal regulations for gas, liquefied natural gas (LNG), and hazardous liquid pipeline facilities require operators to have written procedures for responding to emergencies involving their pipeline facility. The regulations further require that operators include procedures for planning with and notifying local emergency response and other public officials to ensure a coordinated response. Under 49 CFR §§ 192.605, 192.615, 193.2509, and 195.402, pipeline facility operators must include provisions for coordinating with appropriate fire, law enforcement, emergency management, and other public safety officials in their emergency plans. Immediate contact by pipeline facility operators with local emergency responders located in potentially affected areas provides for appropriate, more coordinated and effective response to emergency situations involving pipelines, and can minimize potential injury, death and environmental damage.

Under §§ 192.616 and 195.440, pipeline facility operators must also develop and implement, and sustain a written public education program that follows the American Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162. Incorporated by reference into §§ 192.616 and 195.440, API RP 1162 further requires operators to provide notice of, and information regarding their emergency response plans to appropriate local emergency officials. These response plans should include information about how emergency officials can determine potential pipeline related risks, and implement appropriate response plans.

In addition, on December 11, 2011, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued safety recommendations following its investigation of the September 9, 2010, natural gas pipeline rupture in the city of San Bruno, CA. Included in these recommendations was NTSB Safety Recommendation P-11-9, which suggested that PHMSA require operators of gas and hazardous liquid pipelines “to ensure that their control room operators immediately and directly notify the 9-1-1 emergency call center(s) for the communities and jurisdiction in which those pipelines are located when a possible rupture of any pipeline is indicated.” Pipeline facility operators should be proactive in notifying officials of possible incidents so that a suitable and timely response can be implemented.

Finally, PHMSA is publishing this Advisory Bulletin to reiterate the importance of immediate dialogue between pipeline facility operators and PSAP staff when there is any indication of a pipeline rupture or other emergency condition which may have an adverse impact on public safety or the environment. The local PSAP may have information pertaining to the event that is not available to the pipeline facility operator. For example, a pipeline facility operator may be aware of a sudden pressure drop on their pipeline, but not be able to pinpoint the location of a release. The local PSAP may have received 9-1-1 calls concerning a strong odor of crude oil or fuel, or of a large fire, but not be aware a pipeline facility is involved. The early exchange and coordination of information can benefit both pipeline facility operators and emergency responders so that a more rapid and effective response to the event is achieved.

To: Operators of Gas, Hazardous Liquid, and Liquefied Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities

Subject: Communication During Emergency Situations

Advisory: To further enhance the Department's safety efforts, PHMSA is issuing this Advisory Bulletin regarding communication between pipeline facility operators and the PSAP which serves the local emergency responders during pipeline facility emergencies in communities along the pipeline route.

To ensure a prompt, effective, and coordinated response to any type of emergency involving a pipeline facility, pipeline facility operators are required to maintain an informed relationship with emergency responders in their jurisdiction in accordance with §§ 192.615, 193.2509 and 195.402.

PHMSA reminds pipeline facility operators of these requirements and, in particular, the need to notify the PSAP(s), commonly referred to as 9-1-1 emergency call centers, or the local equivalent, of indications of a pipeline facility emergency. Such indications may include an unexpected drop in pressure, unanticipated loss of supervisory control and data acquisition communications, or reports from field personnel. PHMSA recommends that pipeline facility operators immediately contact the PSAP for the communities and jurisdictions in which those indications occur, to notify local responders and implement a coordinated emergency response. These notifications to the PSAP(s) are typically made from pipeline facility control rooms and dispatch centers; pipeline facility operators should ensure the call to the appropriate PSAP is made promptly, and to as many jurisdictions as is necessary. A direct-inbound ten-digit number must be used for the specific PSAP, since a call to 9-1-1 would be routed only to the PSAP for the caller's location.

Further, PHMSA believes that immediate contact and conversation should be established between pipeline facility operators and PSAP staff when there is any indication of a pipeline rupture or other emergency condition which may have a potential adverse impact on public safety or the environment. PHMSA recommends that pipeline facility operators inquire of the PSAP(s) if there are any other reported indicators of possible pipeline emergencies such as odors, unexplained noises, product releases, explosions, fires, etc., as these reports may not have been linked to a possible pipeline incident by the callers contacting the 9-1-1 emergency call center. This early coordination will facilitate the timely and effective implementation of the pipeline facility operator's emergency response plan and coordinated response with local public safety officials.

Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. II, 10(a)(2), through implementing regulations at 41 CFR 102-3.150.

Request for Public Comments: FACI is seeking public comments on the EU-U.S. Insurance Dialogue Summary Report (Report) located at: https://eiopa.europa.eu/consultations/public-hearings/forthcoming/20121016/index.html . FACI will be discussing the Report at the November 14, 2012 meeting. In addition, the Report will be addressed during a public consultation on October 12, 2012 from 2-5 p.m. in Independence Room F-I, Grand Hyatt Washington, 1000 H Street NW., Washington, DC 20001, as part of the EU-U.S. Dialogue Project. Members of the public wishing to comment on the Report are invited to submit written statements before October 28, 2012, to the FACI by any of the following methods:

• Send electronic comments to faci@treasury.gov .

• Send paper statements in triplicate to the Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance, Department of the Treasury, 1425 New York Avenue NW., Room 2100, Washington, DC 20005.

Tentative Agenda/Topics for Discussion: During this periodic meeting of the FACI, members will discuss international insurance matters. Among the topics to be discussed are the EU-U.S. Insurance Dialogue and matters pending at the International Association of Insurance Supervisors.

Notice is hereby given that Hudson Insurance Company (NAIC# 25054) has changed its business address to: 100 William Street, 5th Floor, New York, New York, 10038. Federal bond-approving officials should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Department Circular 570 (“Circular”), 2012 Revision, to reflect this change.

The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at www.fms.treas.gov/c570.

Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6F01, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

Currently, the IRS is seeking comments concerning the following information collection tools, reporting, and record-keeping requirements:

(1) Title: Clean Renewable Energy Bond Credit and Gulf Bond Credit.

OMB Number: 1545-2025. Form Number: 8912.

Abstract: Form 8912, Clean Renewable Energy Bond Credit and Gulf Bond Credit, was developed to carry out the provisions of new Internal Revenue Code sections 54 and 1400N(l). The new form provides a means for the taxpayer to compute the clean renewable energy bond credit and the Gulf bond credit.

Current Actions: There are no changes to the previously approved burden of this existing collection.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profit organizations, Farms.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 500.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 11 hrs., 7 min.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,555.

(2) Title: Tax Return Preparer Complaint.

OMB Number: 1545-2168.

Form Number: 14157.

Abstract: This form was created to comply with TIGTA report 200840015, Complaints Against Return Preparers. This form will be used by taxpayers to report allegations of misconduct by tax return preparers. The form was created specifically for tax return preparer complaints and includes items necessary for the IRS to effectively evaluate the complaint and route to the appropriate function.

Current Actions: There are no changes being made to the revenue procedure at this time.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or households and businesses and other for-profits.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,500.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 1 hr.

Estimated Total Annual Reporting Burden hours: 1,500.

(3) Title: Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return.

OMB Number: 1545-0687.

Form Number: 990-T.

Abstract: Form 990-T is used to report and compute the unrelated business income tax imposed on exempt organizations by Internal Revenue Code section 511 and the proxy tax imposed by Code section 6033(e). The form provides the IRS with the information necessary to determine that the tax has been properly computed.

Current Actions: There is no change in the paperwork burden previously approved by OMB.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 37,103.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 141 hrs., 20 min.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,244,139.

(4) Title: Form 5434, Application for Enrollment, and Form 5434-A, Application for Renewal of Enrollment.

OMB Number: 1545-0951.

Form Number: 5434 and 5434-A.

Abstract: Form 5434 is used to apply for enrollment to perform actuarial services under the Employee Retirement income

Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Form 5434-A is used to renew enrollment every three years to perform actuarial services under (ERISA). The information is used by the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries to determine the eligibility of the applicant to perform actuarial services.

Current Actions: There is no change in the paperwork burden previously approved by OMB.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 6,000.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 38 min.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 38,000.

(5) Title: Passive Activity Credit Limitations.

OMB Number: 1545-1034.

Form Number: 8582-CR.