This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), no recordkeeping or reporting requirements have been included that are subject to approval from the Office of Management and Budget.

This notice has been determined to be not significant and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in conformance with Executive Order 12866.

The affected programs are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.553, No. 10.555, No. 10.556, No. 10.558 and No. 10.559 and are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, Subpart V, and the final rule related notice published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983.)

Pursuant to sections 9(b)(1) and 17(c)(4) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 1766(c)(4)), and sections 3(a)(6) and 4(e)(1)(A) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1772(a)(6) and 1773(e)(1)(A)), the Department annually issues the Income Eligibility Guidelines for free and reduced price meals for the National School Lunch Program (7 CFR Part 210), the Commodity School Program (7 CFR Part 210), School Breakfast Program (7 CFR Part 220), Summer Food Service Program (7 CFR Part 225) and Child and Adult Care Food Program (7 CFR Part 226) and the guidelines for free milk in the Special Milk Program for Children (7 CFR Part 215). These eligibility guidelines are based on the Federal income poverty guidelines and are stated by household size. The guidelines are used to determine eligibility for free and reduced price meals and free milk in accordance with applicable program rules.

In accordance with the Department's policy as provided in the Food and Nutrition Service publication Eligibility Manual for School Meals, “income,” as the term is used in this Notice, means income before any deductions such as income taxes, Social Security taxes, insurance premiums, charitable contributions and bonds. It includes the following: (1) Monetary compensation for services, including wages, salary, commissions or fees; (2) net income from nonfarm self-employment; (3) net income from farm self-employment; (4) Social Security; (5) dividends or interest on savings or bonds or income from estates or trusts; (6) net rental income; (7) public assistance or welfare payments; (8) unemployment compensation; (9) government civilian employee or military retirement, or pensions or veterans payments; (10) private pensions or annuities; (11) alimony or child support payments; (12) regular contributions from persons not living in the household; (13) net royalties; and (14) other cash income. Other cash income would include cash amounts received or withdrawn from any source including savings, investments, trust accounts and other resources that would be available to pay the price of a child's meal.

“Income,” as the term is used in this Notice, does not include any income or benefits received under any Federal programs that are excluded from consideration as income by any statutory prohibition. Furthermore, the value of meals or milk to children shall not be considered as income to their households for other benefit programs in accordance with the prohibitions in section 12(e) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and section 11(b) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1760(e) and 1780(b)).

The following are the Income Eligibility Guidelines to be effective from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014. The Department's guidelines for free meals and milk and reduced price meals were obtained by multiplying the year 2013 Federal income poverty guidelines by 1.30 and 1.85, respectively, and by rounding the result upward to the next whole dollar. This Notice displays only the annual Federal poverty guidelines issued by the Department of Health and Human Services because the monthly and weekly Federal poverty guidelines are not used to determine the Income Eligibility Guidelines. The chart details the free and reduced price eligibility criteria for monthly income, income received twice monthly (24 payments per year), income received every two weeks (26 payments per year) and weekly income.

Income calculations are made based on the following formulas: Monthly income is calculated by dividing the annual income by 12; twice monthly income is computed by dividing annual income by 24; income received every two weeks is calculated by dividing annual income by 26; and weekly income is computed by dividing annual income by 52. All numbers are rounded upward to the next whole dollar. The numbers reflected in this notice for a family of four in the 48 contiguous states, the District of Columbia, Guam and the territories represent an increase of 2.2% over last year's level for a family of the same size.

Executive Order 12866

This notice has been determined to be not significant and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in conformance with Executive Order 12866.

This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of this Act.

This notice does not contain reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to approval by OMB in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507).

This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs under No. 10.557, and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials (7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983, and 49 FR 22676, May 31, 1984).

Description: Section 17(d)(2)(A) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1786(d)(2)(A)), requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish income criteria to be used with nutritional risk criteria in determining a person's eligibility for participation in the WIC Program. The law provides that persons will be income eligible for the WIC Program only if they are members of families that satisfy the income standard prescribed for reduced-price school meals under section 9(b) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)). Under section 9(b), the income limit for reduced-price school meals is 185 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines, as adjusted.

Section 9(b) also requires that these guidelines be revised annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. The annual revision for 2013/2014 was published by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) at 78 FR 16, January 24, 2013. The guidelines published by HHS are referred to as the poverty guidelines.

Section 246.7(d)(1) of the WIC regulations (Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations) specifies that State agencies may prescribe income guidelines either equaling the income guidelines established under section 9 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act for reduced-price school meals, or identical to State or local guidelines for free or reduced-price health care. However, in conforming WIC income guidelines to State or local health care guidelines, the State cannot establish WIC guidelines which exceed the guidelines for reduced-price school meals, or which are less than 100 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines. Consistent with the method used to compute income eligibility guidelines for reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program, the poverty guidelines were multiplied by 1.85 and the results rounded upward to the next whole dollar. At this time, the Department is publishing the maximum and minimum WIC income eligibility guidelines by household size for the period July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014. Consistent with section 17(f)(17) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1786(f)(17)), a State agency may implement the revised WIC income eligibility guidelines concurrently with the implementation of income eligibility guidelines under the Medicaid Program established under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396, et seq.). State agencies may coordinate implementation with the revised Medicaid guidelines, i.e., earlier in the year, but in no case may implementation take place later than July 1, 2013.

State agencies that do not coordinate implementation with the revised Medicaid guidelines must implement the WIC income eligibility guidelines on July 1, 2013. The first table of this Notice contains the income limits by household size for the 48 contiguous States, the District of Columbia, and all Territories, including Guam.

Because the poverty guidelines for Alaska and Hawaii are higher than for the 48 contiguous States, separate tables for Alaska and Hawaii have been included for the convenience of the State agencies.

The Canada lynx was listed as a Threatened species under the Endangered Species Act in 2000. The 1997 Targhee Revised Forest Plan did not identify lynx habitat. The NRLMD ROD established programmatic management direction for lynx habitat on the Targhee but did not make a decision about what lynx habitat is, where linkage area boundaries are, or how they are identified.

This analysis has been initiated in response to a June 6, 2012, District of Idaho Court Order. In that order, the Court determined that the Agency may not rely upon its 2005 Lynx Analysis Unit Map which delineates the areas subject to the NRLMD until it is analyzed in an EIS pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.

The project area is located in the Idaho counties of Bonneville, Butte, Clark, Fremont, Jefferson, Lemhi, Madison, Teton; and the Wyoming counties of Lincoln and Teton.

The proposed action is to amend the 1997 Targhee Revised Forest Plan to incorporate a map that will identify lynx habitat, lynx analysis units, and linkage areas. The map will incorporate the finest-scale vegetation information and best data available. The analysis will be completed in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the NRLMD and other applicable laws, rules, regulations and policies. The effects of such an amendment will be analyzed and disclosed in the EIS. Consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service will occur to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act.

The Caribou-Targhee National Forest Supervisor is the responsible official and will make the decision.

In the decision, the responsible official will decide whether or not to amend the 1997 Targhee Revised Forest Plan.

1. Disagreement regarding the extent and distribution of lynx habitat across the Targhee portion of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.

At a minimum, the proposed action and a no action alternative will be analyzed. The no action alternative would not incorporate the lynx habitat, LAU, and linkage area map as an amendment to the 1997 Targhee Revised Forest Plan.

This Notice initiates the public involvement process, which guides the development of the alternatives and the analysis. It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the Draft EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns.

Comments received in response to this scoping notice, including names and addresses of those who comment, will become part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered.

Title: 7 CFR 1940 Subpart G, “Environmental Program.”

OMB Number: 0575-0094.

Expiration Date of Approval: May 31, 2013.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The information collection under OMB Number 0575-0094 enables the Agencies to effectively administer the policies, methods, and responsibilities for compliance with the NEPA and other applicable environmental laws, executive orders, and regulations.

The NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider the potential environmental impacts of proposed major Federal actions on the quality of the human environment during agency planning and decision-making processes. For Rural Development to comply, it is necessary that they have information on the types of environmental resources on site or in the vicinity of an Applicant's proposed project that could be impacted by Rural Development Federal action. The Applicant is the logical source for providing this information. In fact, the vast majority of Federal Agencies that assist non-Federal Applicants in sponsoring projects require their Applicants to submit such environmental data to allow the agency to make an informed decision.

Both Rural Development provide forms and/or other guidance to assist in the collection and submission of necessary information. The information is usually submitted via email, U.S. Postal Service, or hand delivery to the appropriate Agency office.

The information is used by the Agency official who is processing the application for financial assistance or request for approval. Having environmental information on the Applicant's proposed project and the construction and operation activities enables the Agency official to determine the magnitude of any potential environmental impacts and to take such impacts into consideration during planning and decision-making as required by NEPA. The analysis of potential environmental impacts of an Applicant's proposed project and Rural Development decision is a full disclosure process, and therefore, can involve public information meetings and public notification.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3.7 hours per response.

Respondents: Individuals, non-Federal agency governments, farmers, ranchers, business owners, for-profit or non-profit institutions, and organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,684.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Number of Responses: 3,344.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 12,470 hours.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, at (202) 692-0035.

Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agencies, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of Agencies' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments may be sent to Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-0742. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

On September 17, 2012, the Department published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Results. 2 Interested parties were provided an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results. 3 On October 17, 2012, the Department received a case brief from Leggett and Platt, Inc. (“Petitioner”). 4 No other case or rebuttal briefs were filed by interested parties. On December 7, 2012, the Department partially extended the time limit for these final results by 30 days. 5 On February 6, 2013, the Department fully extended the time limit for these final results by an additional 30 days to March 18, 2013. 6

The merchandise subject to the order is uncovered innerspring units. 7 The product is currently classified under subheading 9404.29.9010 and has also been classified under subheadings 9404.10.0000, 7326.20.0070, 7320.20.5010, 7320.90.5010, or 7326.20.0071 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written product description of the scope of the order is dispositive. 8

All issues raised in the case brief by Petitioner are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is incorporated herein by reference. A list of the issues which parties raised, and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and 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, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The Department has made changes with respect to its treatment of Tai Wa Hong and its affiliates. Specifically, we determine as facts available that we should collapse Tai Wa Hong with two other companies, Tai Wa Commercial & Industrial (Macau) Co. Ltd. (“Tai Wa Commercial”) and Macau Commercial & Industrial Spring Mattress Manufacturer (“Macau Commercial”), and that we should treat this group of companies as a single entity ( i.e., the Tai Wa Hong Group).

As stated in the Preliminary Results, Tai Wa Hong failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in providing requested information, failed to provide the information in a timely manner and in the form requested, and significantly impeded this proceeding. 9 Accordingly, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) and section 776(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”) we find it appropriate to assign total adverse facts available (“AFA”) to Tai Wa Hong. 10 Moreover, as facts available, the Department finds it appropriate to regard Tai Wa Hong as affiliated with Tai Wa Commercial and Macau Commercial, to collapse these three companies, and to treat these companies as a single entity, the Tai Wa Hong Group. Therefore, the Department has assigned the total AFA rate of 234.51% to the Tai Wa Hong Group. Because the Tai Wa Hong Group is located in Macau, it is a third country reseller. Accordingly, this rate only applies to the Tai Wa Hong Group's PRC-origin merchandise. 11

The dumping margin for the period of review (“POR”) is as follows:

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific (or customer) ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. 12 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, all entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporter listed above, the cash deposit rate will be 234.51 percent for its PRC-origin merchandise; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 234.51 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. The deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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 POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), this notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

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

Background

On April 9, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the final results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico. The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2007, through October 31, 2008. 1

In the Final Results, the Department assigned to Mueller Comercial de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. (Mueller), an exporter of certain circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico to the United States, an adverse facts available (AFA) rate of 48.33 percent. The application of AFA was necessitated by Mueller's failure to cooperate with the Department and impeding this administrative review by ignoring multiple requests for information.

Following the publication of the final results, Mueller filed a lawsuit with the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) challenging the Department's final results of administrative review. 2 The Court remanded this matter to the Department ordering that the Department “shall reconsider its determination not to apply the `all others' rate to Mueller's entries.” See the Opinion at 23. The Department complied with the Court order and reconsidered its determination not to apply the “all others” rate to a non-cooperating respondent. In the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, for the reasons set forth in the review, the Department found the “all others” rate was not sufficient to deter non-compliance by Mueller. 3

The United States and Mueller have now entered into an agreement to settle this dispute. The Court issued its Order of Judgment by Stipulation on February 27, 2013. Pursuant to the Court's Order of Judgment by Stipulation, the Department will order liquidation of the unliquidated entries of certain circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico, produced and/or exported by Mueller Comercial de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V., and entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption in the United States, from November 1, 2007 through October 31, 2008, at the rate of 40.475 percent agreed to by the parties.

We are issuing this determination and publishing these final results of antidumping duty administrative review pursuant to settlement and notice in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1516a(e).

Scope of the Order

The merchandise subject to the order is PSF. The PSF subject to the order is currently classifiable under subheadings 5503.20.00.40, 5503.20.00.45, 5503.20.00.60, and 5503.20.00.65 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan” dated concurrently with this notice (“Preliminary Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The written description is dispositive.

The Preliminary 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”). Access to IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Nan Ya reported that it did not sell or export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 1 Based on record evidence, we preliminarily find that Nan Ya had no shipments during the POR.

The Department has conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we disregarded certain sales by FENC in the home market which were made at below-cost prices and were outside of the ordinary course of trade. To determine the appropriate comparison method, the Department applied a “differential pricing” analysis and has preliminarily determined to use the average-to-average method in making comparisons of export price or constructed export price and normal value for FENC. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent exists for FENC for the period May 1, 2011, through April 30, 2012.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 2 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 3

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, filed electronically via IA ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If FENC's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis in the final results of this review, we will calculate importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for an importer's examined sales and the total entered value of such sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). If FENC's weighted-average dumping margin continues to be zero or de minimis in the final results of review, we will instruct CBP not to assess duties on any of its entries in accordance with the Final Modification for Reviews, i.e., “{w}here the weighted-average margin of dumping for the exporter is determined to be zero or de minimis, no antidumping duties will be assessed.”  4

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. 5 This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by FENC for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

Consistent with the Assessment Policy Notice, if we continue to find that Nan Ya had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States in the final results of this review, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries of merchandise produced by Nan Ya and exported by other parties at the all-others rate.

We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of PSF from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for FENC will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 7.31 percent, the all-others rate established in the Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, 65 FR 33807 (May 25, 2000). These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum

On February 15, 2013, the Binational Panel issued an Order granting a joint motion filed by the Investigating Authority (U.S. Department of Commerce) and the Complainant (ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. and Mexinox USA, Inc.) to dismiss the panel review concerning the Department of Commerce's final determination concerning Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico. The Secretariat was instructed to issue a Notice of Completion of Panel Review on the 31st day following the issuance of the Notice of Final Panel Action, if no request for an Extraordinary Challenge Committee was filed. No such request was filed. Therefore, on the basis of the Panel Order and Rule 80 of the Article 1904 Panel Rules, the Panel Review was completed and the panelists were discharged from their duties effective March 18, 2013.

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216). The applicant is requesting authorization to conduct two photography/filming projects. The first would consist of helicopter flights over Florida Bay to capture bottlenose dolphins mud-ring feeding. A maximum of 400 dolphins may be harassed during the filming. The second project would focus on areas where spinner dolphins and humans interact in Hawaii. Locations would include the west side of Oahu and four bays on the Kona coast of Hawaii Island. Methods include both vessel-based and underwater photography. Up to 75 spinner dolphins may be approached within 50 yards during the filming. Four pantropical spotted dolphins ( Stenella attenuata ) may also be approached if they are associated with spinner dolphins. Images and video from both locations will be used for a feature story in National Geographic Magazine on dolphin cognition and intelligence. Dolphin researchers familiar to each filming location are working as scientific advisors with the applicant. Both projects are currently scheduled for two week timeframes in summer 2013. To allow for scheduling changes, the permit would be valid until March 2014.

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

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register , NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

The renewal of the Charter for six months is critical to the success of the national climate assessment.

One amendment was made to the charter. Under section 5. Authority to Which the Committee Reports, first sentence “The committee shall report to the USGCRP through the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere (“Under Secretary”) or her or his designee on the committee's activities and recommendations regarding the contents and process of the National Climate Assessment.” The phrase “the USGCRP through” was removed. At the end of the section, this sentence was added—“The Under Secretary shall ensure that the National Climate Assessment is forwarded to the USGCRP.”

On November 13, 2012, notice was published in the Federal Register (77 FR 67631) that requests for scientific research permits to take shortnose sturgeon and/or Atlantic sturgeon had been submitted by the above-named applicants. The requested permits have 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).

File No. 17367: The permit holder is issued a five year permit to study captive shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon to conduct scientific research facilitating the development of new methods needed for achieving species recovery in four facilities located in the Southeast Region of the USFWS. Research would include, but is not limited to, nutrition, physiology, propagation, contaminants, genetics, fish health, cryopreservation, tagging, refugia, as well as, collaborative research with other researchers. Additionally, work with captive animals would examine abiotic factors (e.g., pH, temperature, salinity dissolved oxygen, etc.) potentially influencing distribution and abundance in the wild.

File No. 17364: The permit holder is issued a five year permit to refine propagation and culture techniques of captive Atlantic sturgeon held in refugia at the USFWS's Northeast Fisheries Center, providing a source of research animals for studies related to tagging, tracking, behavior, physiology, genetics, health, cryopreservation, and other methods for population conservation, recovery, or enhancement of the species in the wild.

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.

Additions

On 12/21/2012 (77 FR 75616) and 1/25/2013 (78 FR 5423), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

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

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

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following products and service are added to the Procurement List:

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

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

The following service is proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:

The following product is proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

Authority: The CAFTA-DR Agreement; Section 203(o)(4) of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (“CAFTA-DR Implementation Act”), Pub. L. 109-53; the Statement of Administrative Action, accompanying the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act; and Presidential Proclamations 7987 (February 28, 2006) and 7996 (March 31, 2006).

The CAFTA-DR Agreement provides a list in Annex 3.25 for fabrics, yarns, and fibers that the Parties to the CAFTA-DR Agreement have determined are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party. The CAFTA-DR Agreement provides that this list may be modified pursuant to Article 3.25(4)(5), when the President of the United States determines that a fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party. See Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement; see also section 203(o)(4)(C) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act.

The CAFTA-DR Implementation Act requires the President to establish procedures governing the submission of a request and providing opportunity for interested entities to submit comments and supporting evidence before a commercial availability determination is made. In Presidential Proclamations 7987 and 7996, the President delegated to CITA the authority under section 203(o)(4) of CAFTA-DR Implementation Act for modifying the Annex 3.25 list. Pursuant to this authority, on September 15, 2008, CITA published modified procedures it would follow in considering requests to modify the Annex 3.25 list of products determined to be not commercially available in the territory of any Party to CAFTA-DR ( Modifications to Procedures for Considering Requests Under the Commercial Availability Provision of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement, 73 FR 53200) (“CITA's procedures”).

On February 21, 2013, the Chairman of CITA received a request for a Commercial Availability determination (“Request”) from Sorini Samet & Associates LLC on behalf of Garan Manufacturing, Inc. for certain piece dyed three-thread fleece fabric, as specified below. On February 25, 2013, in accordance with CITA's procedures, CITA notified interested parties of the Request, which was posted on the dedicated Web site for CAFTA-DR Commercial Availability proceedings. In its notification, CITA advised that any Response with an Offer to Supply (“Response”) must be submitted by March 7, 2013, and any Rebuttal Comments to a Response must be submitted by March 13, 2013, in accordance with sections 6 and 7 of CITA's procedures. No interested entity submitted a Response to the Request advising CITA of its objection to the Request and its ability to supply the subject product.

In accordance with section 203(o)(4)(C) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act, and section 8(c)(2) of CITA's procedures, as no interested entity submitted a Response objecting to the Request and providing an offer to supply the subject product, CITA has determined to add the specified fabric to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement.

The subject product has been added to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement in unrestricted quantities. A revised list has been posted on the dedicated Web site for CAFTA-DR Commercial Availability proceedings.

Previous Engineer Regulation No. 15-2-13 titled “Mississippi River Water Control Board” was published on 10 May 1989 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Since its last revision, the Corps has reorganized its command and control structure. This regulation revision reflects the current organizational structure and is aligned with water management activities during recent flood and drought events in the United States.

This is published in Federal Register as a notice to concerned people and entities, and is not a request for comments.

Through the preparation of a Universal Need Statement (UNS), Marine Aircraft Group 31 (MAG-31) identified its requirement for an air-to-ground training range that allows aircrews to utilize PGMs in a realistic training environment. Following the preparation of the UNS, the USMC began the process to certify the requirement to establish an air-to-ground training range to support MAG-31's aviation training needs and develop the approach to accommodate this requirement. MAG-31's need for an air-to-ground range that can accommodate realistic PGM training allowed the USMC and the DoN to request the DoD's approval to study the land acquisition alternatives that could support the creation of a modernized air-to-ground training range. The USMC then initiated the preparation of the EIS to examine the potential impacts of the proposed land acquisition and airspace modification alternatives that could meet the training requirement.

The USMC conducted a multi-step screening process to identify candidate ranges and alternatives that meet the purpose and need. To achieve this, the USMC: (1) Developed range evaluation criteria by identifying key physical and operational attributes required to support training with PGMs; (2) identified existing candidate DoD ranges in the Southeastern United States; and (3) evaluated the candidate ranges against the range evaluation criteria. As a result of the evaluations, seven candidate ranges were identified and subjected to initial analysis; however, only TBR satisfied all of the screening criteria and was carried forward for full analysis in the EIS.

Purpose and Need: The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide an air-to-ground training range capable of providing a wider variety of air-to-ground operations, including the use of PGMs, to meet current training requirements. The Proposed Action is needed to more efficiently meet current training requirements for USMC aviation assets by significantly increasing air-to-ground training capabilities in the Beaufort, South Carolina Region.

Proposed Action: The Proposed Action in the FEIS evaluated potential environmental impacts of acquiring additional property and constructing the necessary infrastructure to allow the use of PGMs at TBR, Georgia.

The Proposed Action includes five interrelated components:

(1) Acquisition of land;

(2) Acquisition of a timber easement;

(3) Modification of existing airspace;

(4) Construction of infrastructure to support PGM training; and

(5) Improvement of training capabilities.

Alternatives Evaluated in the FEIS: The USMC analyzed four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. All four action alternatives involved the acquisition and management of land and a timber easement, the modification of existing airspace, and the construction of infrastructure to support PGM training, and would result in the improvement of training capabilities. The land acquired under each action alternative involved different strategic combinations of three possible land acquisition areas (referred to as “Acquisition Area 1A,” “Acquisition Area 1B,” and “Acquisition Area 3”). Similarly under all four action alternatives, the USMC proposed to modify the existing airspace based on the amount of land acquired. Any combination of the land proposed to be acquired would be under the current Restricted Area R-3007. All the action alternatives involved the installation of target scoring equipment, facility and/or tower construction, and roadway construction/improvement. The USMC identified Alternative 4 as the Preferred Alternative, which includes acquisition of Areas 1B and 3 (28,630 acres) and construction of six new target areas.

Environmental Compliance: The USMC prepared the Final EIS per the guidance provided in 40 CFR 1502.9, with the purpose of fully analyzing environmental impacts as a result of implementing the Proposed Action through selection of the Preferred Alternative. Impacts were assessed for the following resource areas: Land use; socioeconomics; recreation; wetlands; water resources; airspace; noise; biological resources; cultural resources; air quality; transportation; noise; topography, geology, and soils; utilities and infrastructure; and hazardous materials and waste. However, it was determined through the EIS analysis that only socioeconomics would be significantly impacted as a result of the Proposed Action.

Schedule: Publication of the USEPA's NOA signifies the beginning of a 30-day waiting period (No Action Period). In accordance with NEPA, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment) will publish the Record of Decision in the Federal Register after the 30-day waiting period has ended.

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: School Attendance Boundary Survey (SABS) 2013-2015.

OMB Control Number: 1850—NEW.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 13,600.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 13,600.

Abstract: The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), within the U.S. Department of Education, is requesting clearance to collect the boundaries for all public school service areas in the 50 states and the District of Columbia in 2013 and 2015. The School Attendance Boundary Survey (SABS), to be collected on a two year cycle, will assign geographic school attendance boundaries for the public elementary and secondary schools included in the Common Core of Data (CCD) universe. NCES will then disseminate data from sources such as the American Community Survey (e.g. demographics and poverty information) mapped against the school boundaries. The NCES mapping system is the only system in the United States to nationally visually link school exact geographic locations to their demographic and economic information.

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: eZ-Audit: Electronic Submission of Financial Statements and Compliance Audits.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0072.

Type of Review: an extension of a previously approved information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector, State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 6,100.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 2,342.

Abstract: eZ-Audit is a web-based process designed to facilitate the submission of compliance and financial statement audits, expedite the review of those audits by the Department, and provide more timely and useful information to public, non-profit and proprietary institutions regarding the Department's review. eZ-Audit establishes a uniform process under which all institutions submit directly to the Department any audit required under the Title IV, HEA program regulations. eZ-Audit continues to have minimal number of financial template line items and general information questions.

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Annual Performance Report.

OMB Control Number: 1840-0640.

Type of Review: A revision of a previously approved information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector, State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 158.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,738.

Abstract: Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement (McNair) Program Annual Performance Report Program grantees must submit the report annually. The reports are used to evaluate grantees' performance for substantial progress, GPRA, and to award prior experience points at the end of each project (budget) period. The Department also aggregates the data to provide descriptive information on the projects and to analyze the impact of the McNair Program on the academic progress of participating students.

On page 5434 we correct Chart 1 to read as follows:

Immediately following the chart we add:

“Note: The FFEL Program loans represented by the second row of the chart were only made to “new borrowers” on or after July 23, 1992.”

We corrected the margin column for what were the second, third, and fourth rows (now the third, fourth, and fifth rows) to read 3.10 percent, rather than 3.25 percent. The total rate column reflects the margin rate changes.

We added a sixth row, to differentiate between two cohorts of “converted” variable-rate loans that were originally fixed-rate loans with rates that began at 8 percent, but increased to 10 percent after 4 years of repayment.

We added a cohort column, consistent with other charts in the notice, to provide additional specificity as to when the FFEL Program loans represented in the chart were made.

On page 5434 we correct Chart 2 to read:

We corrected the maximum rate column for the second row from 8.25 percent to 9 percent.

The Note following Chart 2 in the interest rate notice is correct, and we do not republish it here.

As a reminder, a dagger following a date in the cohort fields indicates that the trigger for the rate to apply is a period of enrollment for which the loan was intended either “ending before” or “beginning on or after” the date in the cohort field.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

• Welcome and Announcements.

• Comments from the Deputy Designated Federal Officer.

• Comments from the DOE, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, and Environmental Protection Agency Liaisons.

• Public Comment Period.

• Presentation on EM Portfolio Plans.

• Additions/Approval of Agenda.

• Motions/Approval of March 13, 2013 Meeting Minutes.

• Status of Recommendations with DOE.

• Committee Reports.

• Federal Coordinator Report.

• Adjourn.

Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Oak Ridge, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Melyssa P. Noe at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to the agenda item should contact Melyssa P. Noe at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Melyssa P. Noe at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab/minutes.htm.

Section 323 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Act) requires that DOE prescribe test procedures for the measurement of the estimated annual operating costs or other measures of energy consumption for certain consumer products specified in the Act. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) These test procedures are found in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B.

Section 323(b)(3) of the Act requires that the estimated annual operating costs of a covered product be calculated from measurements of energy use in a representative average use cycle or period of use and from representative average unit costs of the energy needed to operate such product during such cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The section further requires that DOE provide information to manufacturers regarding the representative average unit costs of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(4)) This cost information should be used by manufacturers to meet their obligations under section 323(c) of the Act. Most notably, these costs are used to comply with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requirements for labeling. Manufacturers are required to use the revised DOE representative average unit costs when the FTC publishes new ranges of comparability for specific covered products, 16 CFR part 305. Interested parties can also find information covering the FTC labeling requirements at http://www.ftc.gov/appliances.

DOE last published representative average unit costs of residential energy in a Federal Register notice entitled, “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Representative Average Unit Costs of Energy”, dated April 26, 2012, 77 FR 24940.

On April 22, 2013, the cost figures published in today's notice will become effective and supersede those cost figures published on April 26, 2012. The cost figures set forth in today's notice will be effective until further notice.

DOE's Energy Information Administration (EIA) has developed the 2013 representative average unit after-tax residential costs found in this notice. These costs for electricity, natural gas, No. 2 heating oil, and propane are based on simulations used to produce the March 2013, EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook (EIA releases the Outlook monthly). The representative average unit after-tax cost for kerosene is derived from its price relative to that of heating oil, based on the 2008-2012 averages for these fuels. The source for these price data is the February 2013, Monthly Energy Review DOE/EIA-0035 (2013/02). The Short-Term Energy Outlook and the Monthly Energy Review are available on the EIA Web site at http://www.eia.doe.gov. Propane prices are econometric modeling projections based on historical Weekly Petroleum Status Report winter prices and Mont Belvieu (Texas) spot and futures prices. For more information on the data sources used in this Notice, contact the National Energy Information Center, Forrestal Building, EI-30, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-8800, email: infoctr@eia.doe.gov.

The 2013 representative average unit costs under section 323(b)(4) of the Act are set forth in Table 1, and will become effective April 22, 2013. They will remain in effect until further notice.

In response to an increase in wind energy development Western and the Service have interests in streamlining their procedures for conducting environmental reviews of wind energy applications by implementing standardized evaluation procedures and identifying measures to address potential environmental impacts associated with wind energy projects in the UGP Region. As joint lead agencies, Western and the Service have cooperatively prepared this PEIS to (1) assess the potential environmental impacts associated with wind energy projects within the UGP Region that may interconnect to Western's transmission system, or that may propose placement of project elements on grassland or wetland easements managed by the Service; and (2) evaluate how environmental impacts would differ under alternative sets of environmental evaluation procedures, best management practices, and mitigation measures that the agencies would request project developers to implement (as appropriate for specific wind energy projects).

The objective of the PEIS is to support the environmental review process by having already addressed general environmental concerns. The Draft PEIS analyzes, to the extent practicable, the impacts resulting from development of wind energy projects and the effectiveness of best management practices and mitigation measures in reducing potential impacts. Impacts and mitigation have been analyzed for each environmental resource, and all aspects of wind energy projects have been addressed, including turbine, transformer, collector line, access road, substation installations, and operational and maintenance activities. The environmental procedures and mitigation strategies have been structured to complement Western's Open Access Transmission Service Tariff.

Many of the impacts resulting from wind energy infrastructure development, including siting wind turbines, access roads, underground collector lines, overhead lines, and substations, are well known. Similarly, effective best management practices and mitigation measures have been developed to reduce the environmental impacts of constructing and operating wind energy projects. The Draft PEIS collected and analyzed this information as it applies to wind energy development in the six states included in the UGP Region. Specifically, the Draft PEIS has:

1. Defined areas with a high potential for wind energy development near the UGP Region's transmission system in anticipation of future wind-generation interconnection requests.

2. Defined natural and human environment resources in areas with high wind energy development potential, including Native American lands, to support analyses of the environmental impacts and development of wind energy projects.

3. Identified standardized environmental evaluation procedures, best management practices, and mitigation measures to be used by interconnection applicants for identifying and reducing wind energy development impacts of their projects on the natural and human environment.

4. Initiated a programmatic Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation for federally listed and proposed threatened and endangered species within the study area boundaries established for the PEIS.

5. Provided guidance for interconnection applicants that includes information about natural resources within areas with a high potential for wind development, requirements for subsequent site-specific environmental reviews, and appropriate best management practices and mitigation measures to address adverse environmental impacts related to wind projects and associated transmission system enhancements.

The Service maintains a grassland and wetland easement program to support and enhance waterfowl populations in the Prairie Pothole Region. The Service has developed a plan that will, in some circumstances, allow partial release of an easement for wind generation purposes, only with defined conditions and on a specified area, in exchange for additional easement acreage being conveyed to the Service. A streamlined approach for compliance (NEPA, National Historic Properties Act [NHPA], and ESA) for subsequent site-specific wind development projects in the future would result from this PEIS.

In accordance with the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321), and CEQ regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), 1501.5(b), Western and the Service have served as joint lead agencies in the preparation of the Draft PEIS. Western and the Service are engaged in informal consultation under Section 7 of the ESA in support of the PEIS process. A Programmatic Biological Assessment has been prepared for listed and candidate species occurring in the UGP Region, and it is expected that the Ecological Services Field Office will issue a letter of concurrence as a result of this consultation.

CEQ regulations require that Western and the Service invite any Federal, State, or local agency or tribal government with jurisdiction by law or special expertise in wind energy development and/or electricity transmission operation to be a cooperating agency. Reclamation, BIA, and RUS have participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the Draft PEIS. Other agencies or state or tribal governments could become cooperating agencies at their request.

Public hearings will begin at 5 p.m. and will include a pre-hearing informal open house; introductory presentations on the proposed action by Western and the Service; the formal hearing beginning at 6 p.m. where oral comments from interested parties and the public will be heard; and an informal period after the close of the hearing. Oral comments from the public will commence immediately after the presentations. Equal consideration will be given to electronic, oral, and written comments. Western and the Service encourage electronic submissions if possible. All meeting locations will be handicapped-accessible. Anyone needing special accommodations should contact Western or the Service to make arrangements.

Interested parties are invited to review the Draft PEIS and provide comments. The comment process is intended to involve all interested agencies (Federal, State, county, and local), public interest groups, businesses, and members of the public.

The outcome of this PEIS may affect or apply to tribal resources. Therefore, Western and the Service have consulted with potentially affected tribes throughout the development of the Draft PEIS to jointly evaluate and address the potential effects, if any, of the proposed action. No specific concerns have been identified, mainly because specific projects and locations have not yet been developed. Once individual projects are proposed, project-specific consultations with tribes would be conducted in accordance with Executive Order 13175 “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249), the President's memorandum of November 5, 2009, “Tribal Consultation” ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-tribal-consultation-signed-president ), agency-specific guidance on tribal interactions, and applicable natural and cultural resource laws and regulations (e.g., NEPA, ESA, NHPA, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act).

Public hearing locations and times as described above under DATES and ADDRESSES will also be announced through the local media, the project Web site ( http://plainswindeis.anl.gov ), and an interested party mailing list. A presiding officer will establish only those procedures needed to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak has a chance to do so and that the agencies understand all issues and comments. Speakers will be asked to provide brief comments to allow adequate time to hear all comments. Depending upon the number of persons wishing to speak, the presiding officer may allow longer speaking times. Persons wishing to speak on behalf of an organization should identify that organization in their request to speak. Meetings will begin at the times specified and will continue until all those present who wish to participate have had an opportunity to do so. Should any speaker desire to provide further information for the record that cannot be presented within the designated time, such additional information may be submitted at the hearing, electronically, or by letter by April 13, 2013. Speakers are encouraged to provide a written version of their oral comments at the hearings to ensure the agencies capture all comments completely and accurately. A transcript of all comments offered during the public hearings will be prepared and made available.

The public is encouraged to communicate information and comments on issues it believes Western and the Service should address in the Final PEIS. The Agencies request that reviewers provide specific information and comments on factual errors, missing information, or additional considerations that should be corrected or included in the Final PEIS. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. The names, street addresses, and city or town information of those providing comments will be part of the administrative record, and will be subject to public disclosure unless confidentiality is requested. Such a request must be stated prominently at the beginning of the comment. We will honor requests to the extent allowed by law. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be available for public inspection in their entirety, consistent with applicable law.

After gathering public comments on what issues should be addressed in the Final PEIS, Western and the Service will identify and provide rationale in the Final PEIS on those issues addressed and those issues beyond the scope of the PEIS. Depending on the extent and nature of the comments received, the agencies may republish the entire PEIS incorporating responses to comments, or publish an abbreviated Final version that, together with the Draft PEIS, would constitute the Final PEIS.

Western and the Service anticipate that comments will be incorporated and the Final PEIS to be available to the public in October, 2013. Separate Records of Decision addressing each agency's Federal actions will be issued by Western and the Service not sooner than 30 days following distribution of the Final PEIS, or about October, 2013.

This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitter of the PMNs addressed in this action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPA classifies a chemical substance as either an “existing” chemical or a “new” chemical. Any chemical substance that is not on EPA's TSCA Inventory is classified as a “new chemical,” while those that are on the TSCA Inventory are classified as an “existing chemical.” For more information about the TSCA Inventory go to: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/inventory.htm. Anyone who plans to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, before initiating the activity. Section 5(h)(1) of TSCA authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application, to manufacture (includes import) or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a), for “test marketing” purposes, which is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems.

Under TSCA sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3), EPA is required to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish in the Federal Register periodic status reports on the new chemicals under review and the receipt of NOCs to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from January 14, 2013 to February 8, 2013, consists of the PMNs and TMEs, both pending or expired, and the NOCs to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

In Table I. of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the PMNs received by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the PMN, the date the PMN was received by EPA, the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN, the submitting manufacturer/importer, the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the PMN, and the chemical identity.

In Table II. of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the TMEs received by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the TME, the date the TME was received by EPA, the projected end date for EPA's review of the TME, the submitting manufacturer/importer, the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the TME, and the chemical identity.

In Table III. of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the NOCs received by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the NOC, the date the NOC was received by EPA, the projected end date for EPA's review of the NOC, and chemical identity.

If you are interested in information that is not included in these tables, you may contact EPA as described in Unit II. to access additional non-CBI information that may be available.

Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Imports, Notice of commencement, Premanufacturer, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Test marketing exemptions.

Under EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) program for passenger automobiles and light trucks, starting with the 2016 model year, the regulations describe two pathways for determining the GHG value for flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) that run either on gasoline or on E85 (a fuel mixture of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline). The default approach is to use the GHG emissions of the vehicle operated solely on gasoline (see 40 CFR 600.510-12). The alternative is to combine the gasoline and E85 GHG values together in a way that accounts for real-world use of E85 by using a weighting factor. 1 When the weighting factor is used, the emissions value used for the vehicle model in the fleet average calculations would be determined by weighting the gasoline and E85 values of the model together using the specified factor (see 40 CFR 600.510-12(k)).

EPA's regulations establish two different approaches that may be used to determine the value of the weighting factor. Manufacturers may request that EPA determine and publish by guidance an appropriate value for the E85 weighting factor based on EPA's assessment of the real-world use of E85. Alternatively, a manufacturer may submit data demonstrating the actual real-world use of E85 by its vehicles. EPA would determine whether the data is adequate and what an appropriate weighting factor should be for the manufacturer.

In mid-2012, manufacturers requested that EPA provide a weighting factor to use for 2016 and later model year vehicles. EPA has assessed the weighting factor that would be appropriate to use and intends to issue guidance to vehicle manufacturers regarding the E85 weighting factor (called the F factor) that may be used by manufacturers for weighting the CO 2 of FFVs using E85 and conventional gasoline. EPA intends to establish the weighting factor for the 2016 model year. The weighting factor may also be used for the 2017-2019 model years unless EPA takes action to revise the factor for the later model years based on new information or data.

EPA seeks input by the public prior to our issuing final F factor guidance, and requests comment on the value that we have determined and on the methodology used to derive this value. We have placed a draft guidance letter, including a support document attachment that provides additional background and describes the methodology used by EPA to determine the weighting factor, in the EPA Air Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0120 and available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/ld-hwy/greenhouse/ld-ghg.htm . The draft guidance letter provides for use of a weighting factor of 0.2.

Interested parties should submit comments according to the guidelines described in this notice. After fully considering the comments we receive, we will issue a final guidance document.

EPA will keep the record open until April 22, 2013. All information will be available for inspection at the EPA Air Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0120. Persons with comments containing proprietary information must distinguish such information from other comments to the greatest extent possible and label it as “Confidential Business Information” (“CBI”). If a person making comments wants EPA to base its decision on a submission labeled as CBI, then a non-confidential version of the document that summarizes the key data or information should be submitted to the public docket. To ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the public docket, submissions containing such information should be sent directly to the contact person listed above and not to the public docket. Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed, and according to the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission when EPA receives it, EPA will make it available to the public without further notice to the person making comments.

The existing NPDES General Permit for Oil and Gas Exploration, Development and Production Facilities Located in State and Federal Waters in Cook Inlet, NPDES Permit No. AKG-31-5000 (2007 Permit) expired on July 2, 2012. The 2007 Permit authorized discharges from 19 facilities, all located in State Waters, and continues in effect for facilities that applied in a timely manner. The 2007 Permit for discharge to State Waters was transferred to Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) in 2013 following resolution of a permit appeal pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and ADEC. Once ADEC reissues permits that cover the discharges to State Waters, coverage under the 2007 permit will end. As proposed, the EPA's Permit AKG 28-5100 would reissue the exploration component of the 2007 Permit in Federal Waters. Concurrently, ADEC is taking action to reissue the exploration permit in State Waters.

Executive Order 12866: The Office of Management and Budget exempts this action from the review requirements of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to Section 6 of that order.

Regulatory Flexibility Act: Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., a Federal agency must prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis “for any proposed rule” for which the agency “is required by section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), or any other law, to publish general notice of proposed rulemaking.” The RFA exempts from this requirement any rule that the issuing agency certifies “will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” EPA has concluded that NPDES general permits are permits, not rulemakings, under the APA and thus not subject to APA rulemaking requirements or the RFA. Notwithstanding that general permits are not subject to the RFA, EPA has determined that this GP, as issued, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Titles and Form Number: EIB 95-10 Application for Long Term Loan or Guarantee.

OMB Number: 3048-0013.

Type of Review: Regular.

Need and Use: The information collected will provide information needed to determine compliance and creditworthiness for transaction requests submitted to the Export Import Bank under its long term guarantee and direct loan programs.

Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.

Annual Number of Respondents: 84.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 1.5 hours.

Government Annual Burden Hours: 2,100.

Frequency of Reporting or Use: Yearly.

Total Cost to the Government: $81,312.

Titles and Form Number: EIB 92-32 Single Buyer Export Credit Insurance Policy.

OMB Number: 3048-XXXX.

Type of Review: New.

Need and Use: The information requested enables the applicant to provide Ex-Im Bank with the information necessary to obtain legislatively required assurance of repayment and fulfills other statutory requirements.

Annual Number of Respondents: 150.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 15 minutes.

Frequency of Reporting or Use: Annually.

Government Review Time: 1 hour.

Total Hours: 150 hours.

Cost to the Government: $16,320.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0649.

Title: Sections 76.1601, Deletion or Repositioning of Broadcast Signals; Section 76.1617, Initial Must-Carry Notice; 76.1607 and 76.1708 Principal Headend.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 3,300 respondents and 4,100 responses.

Estimated Hours per Response: 0.5 to 1 hour.

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

Total Annual Burden: 2,200 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Sections 4(i) and 614(b)(9) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

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

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 76.1601 requires that effective April 2, 1993, a cable operator shall provide written notice to any broadcast television station at least 30 days prior to either deleting from carriage or repositioning that station. Such notification shall also be provided to subscribers of the cable system.

47 CFR 76.1607 states that cable operators shall provide written notice by certified mail to all stations carried on its system pursuant to the must-carry rules at least 60 days prior to any change in the designation of its principal headend.

47 CFR 76.1617(a) states within 60 days of activation of a cable system, a cable operator must notify all qualified NCE stations of its designated principal headend by certified mail.

47 CFR 76.1617(b) within 60 days of activation of a cable system, a cable operator must notify all local commercial and NCE stations that may not be entitled to carriage because they either:

(1) Fail to meet the standards for delivery of a good quality signal to the cable system's principal headend, or

(2) May cause an increased copyright liability to the cable system.

47 CFR 76.1617(c) states within 60 days of activation of a cable system, a cable operator must send by certified mail a copy of a list of all broadcast television stations carried by its system and their channel positions to all local commercial and noncommercial television stations, including those not designated as must-carry stations and those not carried on the system.

47 CFR 76.1708(a) states that the operator of every cable television system shall maintain for public inspection the designation and location of its principal headend. If an operator changes the designation of its principal headend, that new designation must be included in its public file.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0951.

Title: Sections 1.1204(b) Note and 1.1206(a) Note 1, Service of Petitions for Preemption.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities; Individuals or households; Not-for-profit institutions; and State, local, or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 125 respondents; 125 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.28 hours (17 minutes).

Frequency of Response: Occasion reporting requirements; Third party disclosure.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits; Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, and 303.

Total Annual Burden: 35 hours.

Total Annual Costs: N/A.

Privacy Impact Assessment: Yes.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission is not requesting respondents to submit confidential information to the Commission. If the Commission requests respondents to submit information which respondents believe is confidential, respondents may request confidential treatment of such information pursuant to section 0.459 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.459.

The FCC has a system of records, FCC/OGC-5, “Pending Civil Cases,” to cover the collection, purpose(s), storage, safeguards, and disposal of the personally identifiable information (PII) that individuals may submit with their petitions for preemption that they file with the Commission.

Needs and Uses: These provisions supplement the procedures for filing petitions seeking Commission preemption of state and local government regulation of telecommunications services. They require that such petitions, whether in the form of a petition for rulemaking or a petition for declaratory ruling, be served on all state and local governments. The actions for which are cited as a basis for requesting preemption. Thus, in accordance with these provisions, persons seeking preemption must serve their petitions not only on the state or local governments whose authority would be preempted, but also on other state or local governments whose actions are cited in the petition.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0422.

Title: Section 68.5, Waivers (Application for Waivers of Hearing Aid Compatibility Requirements).

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 2 respondents; 2 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 3 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 610.

Total Annual Burden: 6 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: An assurance of confidentiality is not offered because this information collection does not require the collection of personally identifiable information from individuals.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: Telephone manufacturers seeking a waiver of 47 CFR 68.4(a)(1), which requires that certain telephones be hearing aid compatible, must demonstrate that compliance with the rule is technologically infeasible or too costly. Information is used by FCC staff to determine whether to grant or dismiss the request.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0188.

Title: Call Sign Reservation and Authorization System, FCC Form 380.

Form Number: FCC Form 380.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions; and State, local, or tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,600 respondents; 1,600 responses.

Estimated Hours per Response: 0.166-0.25 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 333 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $162,000.

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

Nature and Extend of Confidentiality: There is need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 73.3550 provides that all requests for new or modified call signs be made via the on-line call sign reservation and authorization. The Commission uses an on-line system, FCC Form 380, for the electronic preparation and submission of requests for the reservation and authorization of new and modified call signs. Access to the call sign reservation and authorization system is made by broadcast licensees and permittees, or by persons acting on their behalf, via the Internet's World Wide Web. This on-line, electronic call sign system enables users to determine the availability and licensing status of call signs; to request an initial, or change an existing, call sign; and to determine and submit more easily the appropriate fee, if any. Because all elements necessary to make a valid call sign reservation are encompassed within the on-line system, this system prevents users from filing defective or incomplete call sign requests. The electronic system also provides greater certitude, as a selected call sign is effectively reserved as soon as the user has submitted its call sign request. This electronic call sign reservation and authorization system has significantly improved service to all radio and television broadcast station licensees and permittees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0170.

Title: Section 73.1030, Notifications Concerning Interference to Radio Astronomy, Research and Receiving Installations.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 57 respondents; 57 responses.

Estimated Hours per Response: 0.5 hours.

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

Total Annual Cost: $14,250.

Total Annual Burden: 29 hours.

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

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is need for confidentiality required with this collection of information.

Privacy Impact Assessment(s): No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 73.1030 states in order to minimize harmful interference at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory site located at Green, Pocahontas County, West Virginia, and at the Naval Radio Research Observatory at Sugar Grove, Pendleton County, West Virginia, a licensee proposing to operate a short-term broadcast auxiliary station pursuant to § 74.24, and any applicant for authority to construct a new broadcast station, or for authority to make changes in the frequency, power, antenna height, or antenna directivity of an existing station within the area bounded by 39°15′ N on the north, 78°30′ W on the east, 37°30′ N on the south, and 80°30′ W on the west, shall notify the Interference Office, National Radio Astronomy Observatory, P.O. Box 2, Green Bank, West Virginia 24944. Telephone: (304) 456-2011. The notification shall be in writing and set forth the particulars of the proposed station, including the geographical coordinates of the antenna, antenna height, antenna directivity if any, proposed frequency, type of emission and power. The notification shall be made prior to, or simultaneously with, the filing of the application with the Commission. After receipt of such applications, the FCC will allow a period of 20 days for comments or objections in response to the notifications indicated. If an objection to the proposed operation is received during the 20-day period from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory for itself, or on behalf of the Naval Radio Research Observatory, the FCC will consider all aspects of the problem and take whatever action is deemed appropriate.

(2) Any applicant for a new permanent base or fixed station authorization to be located on the islands of Puerto Rico, Desecheo, Mona, Vieques, and Culebra, or for a modification of an existing authorization which would change the frequency, power, antenna height, directivity, or location of a station on these islands and would increase the likelihood of the authorized facility causing interference, shall notify the Interference Office, Arecibo Observatory, HC3 Box 53995, Arecibo, Puerto Rico 00612, in writing or electronically, of the technical parameters of the proposal. Applicants may wish to consult interference guidelines, which will be provided by Cornell University. Applicants who choose to transmit information electronically should email to: prcz@naic.edu.

(i) The notification to the Interference Office, Arecibo Observatory shall be made prior to, or simultaneously with, the filing of the application with the Commission. The notification shall state the geographical coordinates of the antenna (NAD-83 datum), antenna height above ground, ground elevation at the antenna, antenna directivity and gain, proposed frequency and FCC Rule Part, type of emission, and effective radiated power.

(ii) After receipt of such applications, the Commission will allow the Arecibo Observatory a period of 20 days for comments or objections in response to the notification indicated. The applicant will be required to make reasonable efforts to resolve or mitigate any potential interference problem with the Arecibo Observatory and to file either an amendment to the application or a modification application, as appropriate. The Commission shall determine whether an applicant has satisfied its responsibility to make reasonable efforts to protect the Observatory from interference.

OMB Number: 3060-0171.

Title: Section 73.1125, Station Main Studio Location.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 72 respondents; 72 responses.

Estimated Hours per Response: 0.5 to 2 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 135 hours.

Annual Burden Cost: $111,870.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information 154(i) and 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

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

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 73.1125(d)(1) requires AM, FM or TV licensees to notify the Commission when the main studio is relocated and from a point outside the locations specified in Section 73.1125(a) or (c) to one within those locations.

47 CFR 73.1125(d)(2) requires licensees to receive written authority to locate a main studio outside the locations specified in paragraph (a) or (c) of this section for the first time must be obtained from the Audio Division, Media Bureau for AM and FM stations, or the Video Division for TV and Class A television stations before the studio may be moved to that location. Where the main studio is already authorized at a location outside those specified in paragraph (a) or (c) of this section, and the licensee or permittee desires to specify a new location also located outside those locations, written authority must also be received from the Commission prior to the relocation of the main studio. Authority for these changes may be requested by filing a letter with an explanation of the proposed changes with the appropriate division. Licensees or permittees should also be aware that the filing of such a letter request does not imply approval of the relocation request, because each request is addressed on a case-by-case basis. A filing fee is required for commercial AM, FM, TV or Class A TV licensees or permittees filing a letter request under the section (see Sec. 1.1104 of this chapter).

OMB Control Number: 3060-0688.

Title: Abbreviated Cost-of-Service Filing for Cable Network Upgrades, FCC Form 1235.

Form Number: FCC Form 1235.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business and other for-profit entities; State, local or tribal governments.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 50 respondents; 25 responses.

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

Estimated Hours per Response: 10-20 hours.

Total Annual Burden: 750 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

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

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

Privacy Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 1235 is an abbreviated cost of service filing for significant network upgrades that allows cable operators to justify rate increases related to capital expenditures used to improve rate-regulated cable services. FCC Form 1235 is filed following the end of the month in which upgraded cable services become available and are providing benefits to subscribers. In addition, FCC Form 1235 can be filed for pre-approval any time prior to the upgrade services becoming available to subscribers using projected upgrade costs. If the pre-approval option is exercised, the operator must file the form again following the end of the month in which upgraded cable services become available and are providing benefits to customers of regulated services, using actual costs where applicable.

The FAR requires contracts to be awarded to only those contractors determined to be responsible. Instances where a firm, its principals, or subcontractors, have been indicted, convicted, suspended, proposed for debarment, debarred, or had a contract terminated for default are critical factors to be considered by a Government contracting officer in making a responsibility determination. FAR 52.209-5 and 52.212-3(h), Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters, and FAR 52.209-6, Protecting the Government's Interest when Subcontracting with Contractors Debarred, Suspended, or Proposed for Debarment, require the disclosure of this information.

One respondent submitted public comments on the extension of the previously approved information collection. The analysis of the public comments is summarized as follows:

Comment: The respondent commented that the extension of the information collection would violate the fundamental purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act because of the burden it puts on the entity submitting the information and the agency collecting the information.

Response: In accordance with the Paperwork Required Act (PRA), agencies can request an OMB approval of an existing information collection. The PRA requires that agencies use the Federal Register notice and comment process, to extend the OMB's approval, at least every three years. This extension, to a previously approved information collection, pertains to Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters, FAR Subpart 9.1, Subpart 9.4, 52.209-5, 52.212-3(h) and 52.209-6. This information collection, in compliance with Executive Order 12549, Debarment and Suspension, is necessary to determine the responsibility of prospective contractors, to ensure that contractors protect the interests of the Government when issuing subcontracts under Government contracts, and ensure business integrity in contract performance. Not granting this extension would consequently eliminate a key process for assessing contractor responsibility and protecting the Government's interests.

Comment: The respondent commented that the agency did not accurately estimate the public burden challenging that the agency's methodology for calculating it is insufficient and inadequate and does not reflect the total burden. The respondent stated that the “estimate of four responses per contractor per year is unrealistically low because almost all solicitations will include FAR 52.209-5 and 52.212-3(h) * * * we believe, based on the experience of our members, that most companies will be required to meet this requirement from 20 to more than 100 times per year.” Further, the respondent commented that the estimate of 0.083 hours of burden per response was low when considering the time and effort necessary for a company to gather responsibility data. For this reason, the respondent provided that the agency should reassess the estimated total burden hours and revise the estimate upwards to be more accurate. The same respondent also provided that the burden of compliance with the information collection requirement greatly exceeds the agency's estimate and outweighs any potential utility of the extension.

Response: Serious consideration is given, during the open comment period, to all comments received and adjustments are made to the paperwork burden estimate based on reasonable considerations provided by the public. This is evidenced, as the respondent notes, in FAR Case 2007-006 where an adjustment was made from the total preparation hours from three to 60. This change was made considering particularly the hours that would be required for review within the company, prior to release to the Government.

The burden is prepared taking into consideration the necessary criteria in OMB guidance for estimating the paperwork burden put on the entity submitting the information. For example, consideration is given to an entity reviewing instructions; using technology to collect, process, and disclose information; adjusting existing practices to comply with requirements; searching data sources; completing and reviewing the response; and transmitting or disclosing information. The estimated burden hours for a collection are based on an average between the hours that a simple disclosure by a very small business might require and the much higher numbers that might be required for a very complex disclosure by a major corporation. Also, the estimated burden hours should only include projected hours for those actions which a company would not undertake in the normal course of business.

Careful consideration went into assessing the estimated burden hours for this collection, and it is determined that an upward adjustment is not required at this time related to the responses per respondent. The estimate of four responses per respondent is based upon contractor use of the Online Representation and Certifications Application (ORCA) function in the System for Award Management (SAM) rather than the completion of representations and certifications for each solicitation/contract for which a vendor submits an offer. The ORCA function was developed to eliminate the administrative burden for contractors of submitting the same information to various contracting offices, and to establish a common source for this information to procurement offices across the Government. Prior to the ORCA function's implementation, prospective contractors were required to submit representations and certifications in paper form for each individual contract award. Under these conditions, a response rate of 20 to more than 100 times per year per contractor as suggested by the respondent may have been necessary. However, using the ORCA function in SAM, a contractor can enter their representations and certification information once for use on all Federal contracts and solicitations. FAR 4.1201(a) requires prospective contractors to complete electronic annual representations and certifications at the SAM Internet site in conjunction with required registration in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) function in SAM. The representations and certifications are effective until one year from the date of submission or update to the ORCA function in SAM. For purposes of this information collection, initial data entry plus three updates per year was considered reasonable and was used to estimate the number of responses per respondent per year, i.e., 4 responses per respondent.

We have reassessed the hours of burden per response based on the respondent's comment, and have determined that an upward estimate of thirty minutes or approximately six times the original estimate of 0.083 would provide a more accurate measure of the time required to complete and review each response.

However, at any point, members of the public may submit comments for further consideration, and are encouraged to provide data to support their request for an adjustment.

Respondents: 162,000.

Responses per Respondent: 4.

Annual Responses: 648,000.

Hours per Response: 0.50.

Total Burden Hours: 324,000.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20417, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0094, Debarment and Suspension, in all correspondence.

A. Purpose

In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 19.702, which implements the statutory requirements of Section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)), contractors receiving a contract for more than the simplified acquisition threshold agree to have small business, small disadvantaged business, women-owned small business, historically underutilized business zone small business, veteran-owned small business, and service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns participate in the performance of the contract as far as practicable. Contractors receiving a contract or a modification to a contract expected to exceed $650,000 ($1,500,000 for construction) must submit a subcontracting plan that provides maximum practicable opportunities for the above named concerns. Specific elements required to be included in the plan are specified in section 8(d) of the Small Business Act and implemented in FAR subpart 19.7.

In conjunction with the subcontracting plan requirements, contractors must submit semi-annual reports of their small business subcontracting progress to the government. With the exception of those contracts noted in FAR 4.606(c)(5) which states “Actions that, pursuant to other authority, will not be entered in FPDS (e.g., reporting of the information would compromise national security)”, contractors must use the electronic Individual Subcontract Report (ISR) in the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) in lieu of the Standard Form 294, Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts. The ISR is the electronic equivalent of the Standard Form 294. The eSRS streamlines the small business subcontracting program reporting process and provides the data to agencies in a manner that enables them to more effectively manage the program. Those contract actions noted in FAR 4.606(c)(5) will continue to use the Standard Form 294.

One respondent submitted public comments on the extension of the previously approved information collection. The analysis of the public comments is summarized as follows:

Comment: The respondent commented that the extension of the information collection would violate the fundamental purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Response: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), agencies can request OMB approval an existing information collection. PRA requires that agencies use the Federal Register notice and comment process, to extend OMB's approval, at least every three years. This extension, to a previously approved information collection, pertains to the use of the ISR to collect subcontract award data from prime or subcontractors that: (a) Hold one or more contracts over $650,000 (over $1,500,000 for construction); and (b) are required to report subcontracts awarded to small business, small disadvantaged business, women-owned small business, historically underutilized business zone small business, veteran-owned small business, and service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns. The ISR is also used to collect subcontract award data from Alaskan Native Corporations and Indian Tribe concerns under a subcontracting plan with the Federal government. For the Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the United States Coast Guard, the ISR collects subcontract awards for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions. Absent this information the suitability of the contractor to report subcontract award data could not be ascertained. Further, the contracting officer could not examine the subcontract award data to assess contractors' compliance with their subcontracting plans, the Small Business Act, and the FAR.

Comment: The respondent commented that the agency did not accurately estimate the public burden challenging that the agency's methodology for calculating it is insufficient and inadequate and does not reflect the total burden. The respondent indicated that the upward adjustment made to the number of respondents from 103,908 to 129,009 was reasonable. However, the decrease in the estimated hours per response from 11.90 to 8.5 hours per responses is understated, and that the average burden on companies is somewhere in the range of 10 to 100 time greater than the estimate put forth in the Federal Register Notice. For this reason, the respondent provided that agency should reassess the estimated total burden hours and revise the estimate upwards to be more accurate, as was done in FAR Case 2007-006.

Response: Serious consideration given, during the open comment period, to all comments received and adjustments are made to the paperwork burden estimate based on reasonable considerations provided by the public. This is evidenced, as the respondent notes, in FAR Case 2007-006 where adjustment was made from the total preparation hours from three to 60. This change was made considering particularly the hours that would be required for review within the company prior to release to the Government. The burden is prepared taking into consideration the necessary criteria OMB guidance for estimating the paperwork burden put on the entity submitting the information. For example, consideration is given to entity reviewing instructions; using technology to collect, process, and disclose information; adjusting existing practices to comply with requirements; searching data sources; completing reviewing the response; and transmitting or disclosing information. The estimated burden hours for a collection are based on an average between the hours that a simple disclosure by a very small business might require and the much higher numbers that might be required for a very complex disclosure by a major corporation. Also, the estimated burden hours should only include projected hours for those actions which a company would not undertake in the normal course of business.

Careful consideration went into assessing the estimated burden hours for this collection. Given that many of the key data elements are pre-populated in eSRS from the Federal Procurement Data System and the System for Award Management (e.g. basic contractual information and contractor information), combined with the system improvements to streamline user experience, the amount of training provided, the user guides and webinars available, and the sample reports provided, the length of time necessary for reporting subcontracting achievements into eSRS has been shortened.

As a result, the estimate burden hours published in the Federal Register at 77 FR 69627, on November 20, 2012 remains a valid estimate and an upward adjustment is not required at this time. However, at any point, members of the public may submit comments for further consideration, and are encouraged to provide data to support their request for an adjustment.

Comment: The respondent commented that the collective burden of compliance with the information collection requirement greatly exceeds the agency's estimate and outweighs any potential utility of the extension.

Response: The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) was designed to improve the quality and use of Federal information to strengthen decision-making, accountability, and openness in government and society. Central to this process is the solicitation of comments from the public. This process incorporates and enumerated specification of targeted information and provides interested parties a meaningful opportunity for comment on the relevant compliance cost. This process has led to decreases in the overall collection requirement in regards to the public. Based on OMB estimates, in FY 2010, the public spent 8.8 billion hours responding to information collections. This was a decrease of one billion hours, or ten percent from the previous fiscal year. In effect, the collective burden of compliance for the public is going down as the Government publishes rule that make the process less complex, more transparent, and reduces the cost of federal regulations to both the Contractor community and Government.

Based on information from eSRS and an estimate of the use of eSRS, an upward adjustment is being made to the number of respondents, but a downward adjustment is being made to the average burden hours for reporting and recordkeeping per response. As a result, a downward adjustment is being made to the estimated annual reporting burden since the notice regarding an extension to this clearance published in the Federal Register at 75 FR 9604, on March 3, 2010.

Respondents: 129,009.

Responses per Respondent: 3.

Total Responses: 387,027.

Average Burden Hours per Response: 8.50.

Total Burden Hours: 3,289,729.50.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20417, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0006, Subcontracting Plans/Individual Subcontract Report (SF-294), in all correspondence.