58466 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 21, 2011 / Notices 

(HTS) heading 9902.51.11); and (2) for 

worsted wool fabric with average fiber 

diameters of 18.5 microns or less (HTS 

heading 9902.51.12). On August 6, 2002, 

President Bush signed into law the 

Trade Act of 2002, which includes 

several amendments to Title V of the 

Act. On December 3, 2004, the Act was 

further amended pursuant to the 

Miscellaneous Trade Act of 2004, Public 

Law 108–429. The 2004 amendment 

included authority for the Department 

to allocate a TRQ for new HTS category, 

HTS 9902.51.16. This HTS category 

refers to worsted wool fabric with 

average fiber diameter of 18.5 microns 

or less. The amendment provided that 

HTS 9902.51.16 is for the benefit of 

persons (including firms, corporations, 

or other legal entities) who weave such 

worsted wool fabric in the United States 

that is suitable for making men’s and 

boys’ suits. The TRQ for HTS 

9902.51.16 provided for temporary 

reductions in the import duties on 

2,000,000 square meters annually for 

2005 and 2006. The amendment 

requires that the TRQ be allocated to 

persons who weave worsted wool fabric 

with average fiber diameter of 18.5 

microns or less, which is suitable for 

use in making men’s and boys’ suits, in 

the United States. On August 17, 2006, 

the Act was further amended pursuant 

to the Pension Protection Act of 2006, 

Public Law 109–280, which extended 

the TRQ for HTS 9902.51.16 through 

2009. The Senate-passed Emergency 

Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 

extending the TRQ for HTS 9902.51.16 

through 2014. 

On October 24, 2005, the Department 

adopted final regulations establishing 

procedures for allocating the TRQ. See 

70 FR 61363; 19 CFR 335. In order to 

be eligible for an allocation, an 

applicant must submit an application on 

the form provided at http:// 

otexa.ita.doc.gov/wooltrq/ 

wool_fabric.htm to the address listed 

above by 5 p.m. on October 21, 2011 in 

compliance with the requirements of 15 

CFR 335. Any business confidential 

information that is marked business 

confidential will be kept confidential 

and protected from disclosure to the full 

extent permitted by law. 

Dated: September 14, 2011. 

Kim Glas, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Textiles and 

Apparel. 

[FR Doc. 2011–24257 Filed 9–20–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Request for Comments on World 

Health Organization Pandemic 

Influenza Preparedness Framework 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The International Trade 

Administration invites submission of 

comments from the public and relevant 

industries on influenza surveillance and 

response, including implementation of 

the World Health Organization 

Pandemic Influenza Preparedness 

Framework (http://apps.who.int/gb/ 

ebwha/pdf_files/WHA64/A64_8-en.pdf) 

and additional planning for future 

possible pandemic influenza. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before October 21, 

2011. Comments should be no more 

than 15 pages. Business-confidential 

information should be clearly identified 

as such. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

E-mail: Vaccines@trade.gov. 

Fax: (202) 482–0975 (Attn.: Jane 

Earley). 

Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Jane 

Earley, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Office of Health and Consumer Goods, 

Room 1015, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions on the submission of 

comments, please contact Jane Earley by 

phone at (202) 482–6241 or Andrea 

Cornwell at (202) 482–0998. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written 

comments are sought in light of the 

approval of the World Health 

Organization (WHO) Pandemic 

Influenza Preparedness Framework by 

WHO Member States at the World 

Health Assembly and the need for the 

U.S. Government to participate in 

discussions and activities to plan for 

future pandemics. The facts and 

information obtained from written 

submissions will be used to inform the 

participation of the United States 

Department of Commerce in the 

interagency process to prepare for 

United States participation in 

international pandemic preparedness 

discussions and activities, following the 

May 2011 approval of the WHO 

Pandemic Influenza Preparedness 

Framework. The written submissions 

will be shared with other interested U.S. 

Government agencies, as needed, during 

the interagency process. 

This agency previously requested 

comments on international pandemic 

influenza preparedness via the Federal 

Register on September 14, 2010; 75 FR 

55776–55777. 

The Department of Commerce invites 

comments from civil society 

organizations as well as pharmaceutical 

and medical technology industries and 

other interested members of the public 

on a number of issues regarding 

pandemic influenza preparedness and 

response. 

The Department of Commerce invites 

written submissions on the following 

topics: 

1. Implementation of the WHO 

Pandemic Influenza Preparedness 

Framework. 

2. Operations of the Global Influenza 

Surveillance and Response System. 

3. Other matters related to prevention, 

planning and response whose resolution 

will be integral for the effective 

operation of a global influenza 

pandemic response. 

4. Other matters that are related to the 

substance contained in 1–3, above. 

Upon receipt of the written 

submission, representatives from the 

Department of Commerce will consider 

them and share them, as needed, with 

other interested U.S. Government 

agencies and departments. Entities 

making submissions may be contacted 

for further information or explanation 

and, in some cases, meetings with 

individual submitters may be requested. 

Dated: September 15, 2011. 

James Rice, 

Acting Director, Office of Health and 

Consumer Goods, International Trade 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–24205 Filed 9–20–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

[Docket No. 110829543–1541–01] 

Models To Advance Voluntary 

Corporate Notification to Consumers 

Regarding the Illicit Use of Computer 

Equipment by Botnets and Related 

Malware 

AGENCIES: U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Institute of 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 21, 2011 / Notices 58467 

1Botnets are collections of compromised 

computers that are remotely controlled by a 

malevolent party, as defined by the National 

Research Council’s Committee on Improving 

Cybersecurity Research in the United States, 

Toward a Safer and More Secure Cyberspace, at 40 

(2007). 

2See, e.g., Cybersecurity, Innovation and the 

Internet Economy at http://www.nist.gov/itl/upload/ 

Cybersecurity_Green-Paper_FinalVersion.pdf. 

3A Code of Conduct in business is typically a 

written set of industry-wide voluntary practices 

designed to spur a community to operate in a 

uniform and predictable manner. 

4See, McAfee Quarterly Threat Report 2nd 

Quarter 2011: http://www.mcafee.com/us/ 

resources/reports/rp-quarterly-threat-q2–2011.pdf. 

Standards and Technology; U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration; and U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security, National Protection 

and Programs Directorate. 

ACTION: Request for Information. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Commerce and U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security are requesting 

information on the requirements of, and 

possible approaches to creating, a 

voluntary industry code of conduct to 

address the detection, notification and 

mitigation of botnets.1 Over the past 

several years, botnets have increasingly 

put computer owners at risk. A botnet 

infection can lead to the monitoring of 

a consumer’s personal information and 

communication, and exploitation of that 

consumer’s computing power and 

Internet access. Networks of these 

compromised computers are often used 

to disseminate spam, to store and 

transfer illegal content, and to attack the 

servers of government and private 

entities with massive, distributed denial 

of service attacks. The Departments seek 

public comment from all Internet 

stakeholders, including the commercial, 

academic, and civil society sectors, on 

potential models for detection, 

notification, prevention, and mitigation 

of botnets’ illicit use of computer 

equipment. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

5 p.m. EDT, November 4, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted by mail to the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology at 

the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 4822, 

Washington, DC 20230. Submissions 

may be in any of the following formats: 

HTML, ASCII, Word, rtf, or pdf. Online 

submissions in electronic form may be 

sent to Consumer_Notice_RFI@nist.gov. 

Paper submissions should include a 

compact disc (CD). CDs should be 

labeled with the name and 

organizational affiliation of the filer and 

the name of the word processing 

program used to create the document. 

Comments will be posted at http:// 

www.nist.gov/itl/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon 

Boyens, National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail 

Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, 

jon.boyens@nist.gov. Please direct 

media inquires to NIST’s Office of 

Public Affairs at (301) 975–NIST. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The U.S. Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) recently issued a ‘‘Green 

Paper’’ 2 that suggests that voluntary 

codes of conduct 3 developed through a 

multi-stakeholder process can 

significantly advance efforts to protect 

the Internet from the growing security 

threats. One of the policy 

recommendations put forth was for 

Commerce to expand its role of working 

with multiple stakeholders to facilitate 

and promote the use of voluntary codes 

of conduct. Though the responses to the 

Green Paper are still being analyzed, it 

is clear that this facilitating role in the 

area of codes of conduct is seen as vital 

to advancing industry efforts in specific 

areas. 

The U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) has played an essential 

role in building cybersecurity 

educational programs for consumers. 

DHS’s educational programs emphasize 

that every Internet consumer has a role 

to play in securing cyberspace and in 

ensuring the safety of ourselves, our 

families, and our communities online. 

DHS has a variety of outreach programs; 

most notable from a consumer 

perspective are the National 

Cybersecurity Awareness Month and 

Campaign. Each October DHS hosts 

events to encourage consumers to follow 

a few simple steps to keep themselves 

safe online. The Awareness Campaign 

‘‘Stop. Think. Connect.’’ is a year-round 

program that helps consumers become 

more aware of growing threats and arms 

them with tools to protect themselves. 

While security risks on the Internet 

exist in many areas, one current widely 

exploited threat comes from ‘botnets.’ 

Through this Request for Information 

and any follow-on work, the two 

Departments aim to reduce the harm 

that botnets inflict on the nation’s 

computing environment. 

To build a botnet, intruders exploit 

security flaws in the hardware and/or 

software used by individual consumers, 

and they install malicious software that 

connects the consumer’s computer into 

a remotely controlled network of many 

computers. Once compromised, the 

owners of these computers are put at 

risk. Criminals have the ability to access 

personal information stored on the 

computer and communications made 

with the computer. Criminals can 

exploit this information for identity 

theft, privacy violations, and other 

crimes, as well as utilize the impacted 

users’ computing power and Internet 

access. Networks of these compromised 

computers are often used to disseminate 

spam, store and transfer illegal content, 

and attack the servers of government 

and private entities with distributed 

denial of service attacks. Researchers 

suggest an average of about 4 million 

new botnet infections occur every 

month.4

The Departments are concerned about 

the potential economic impact of 

botnets and the problems they cause to 

computer systems, businesses, and 

consumers. To address these problems, 

it is necessary to stop botnets from 

propagating and to remove or mitigate 

the malicious software (malware) where 

installed. Companies and consumers 

may be able to voluntarily address some 

of these issues, but to fully address the 

problem, they will need to work 

together to clean and better protect 

computers. This will require voluntary 

efforts on many fronts, including better 

standards and procedures to secure 

systems. 

One strategy that security experts 

suggest has been successful in stemming 

the tide of botnets has been for private 

sector entities to voluntarily and timely 

detect and notify end-users that their 

machines have been infected. This 

voluntary notification has mostly, 

though not always, come from the user’s 

Internet Service Provider (ISP), which 

has contact information for the end-user 

and a pre-existing relationship. Once a 

service provider has detected a likely 

end-user security problem, it can inform 

the Internet user of the steps the user 

can take to address the problem. For 

example, last year in Australia, the 

Internet Industry Association in 

conjunction with the Minister for 

Broadband, Communications and the 

Digital Economy launched a voluntary 

code of practice for Australian ISPs to 

ensure consistent notification and 

remediation of consumer computer 

problems created by botnets. Once 

notified of a botnet infection, the 

consumer is sent to a website with 

information to help clean up his or her 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
58468 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 21, 2011 / Notices 

5See, the icode Web site: http://icode.net.au. This 

is the site used for notification. It also has links to 

historical information about its founding. 

6See, Anti-Botnet Advisory Center: https:// 

www.botfrei.de/en/index.html. 

7See, Cyber Clean Center: https://www.ccc.go.jp/ 

en_ccc/. 

8See, e.g., IETF related Best Current Practice: 

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-currentpractices-07#section-2.8. 

9See, e.g., Internet Service Provider (ISP) Network 

Protection Practices at http://transition.fcc.gov/ 

pshs/docs/csric/CSRIC_WG8_FINAL_REPORT_ISP_

NETWORK_PROTECTION_20101213.pdf. The FCC 

has announced the creation of a new Working 

Group under the auspices of the reconstituted 

CSRIC. As we move forward with this process, we 

will coordinate with stakeholders and the nation’s 

independent telecommunications regulator to 

ensure that we are not duplicating any efforts for 

industry or government. 

10See http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-oreirdan-modybot-remediation-03.html. 

11See, e.g., Maxim Weinstein, Stop Badware 

Comments to the Department of Commerce 

Cybersecurity Green Paper, July 29, 2011 at http:// 

www.nist.gov/itl/upload/StopBadware_response-toDOC-Cybersecurity-Green-Paper.pdf. 

computer.5 Germany 6 and Japan 7 have 

begun similar efforts. Several U.S. 

companies seem to be engaged in 

similar types of practices, though 

without a code of conduct in place, and 

standards organizations 8 have been 

discussing standards for botnet 

detection. Last December the Federal 

Communication Commission’s (FCC’s) 

Communications Security, Reliability 

and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) 

Working Group (WG) 8 recommended 

24 Best Practices to address botnet 

protection for end-users as well as for 

the network.9 The Best Practices cover 

several areas including prevention, 

detection, notification and mitigation, 

and identified means to address 

externalities such as privacy concerns. 

The Best Practices identified are 

primarily for use by ISPs that provide 

direct service to end-users on residential 

broadband networks. However, they 

may apply to other end-users and 

networks as well. The Internet 

Engineering Task Force also has 

developed a draft ‘‘Recommendation for 

the Remediation of Bots in ISP 

Networks.’’ 10

Incentives and Voluntary Approaches 

To promote voluntary best practices 

in botnet detection, notification and 

mitigation, one suggestion has been to 

provide companies that take action with 

certain types of liability protection in 

order to foster greater marketplace 

certainty. Another suggestion is to 

encourage ISPs to send consumer 

support queries to a centralized 

consumer resource center that could be 

supported by a wide number of 

players.11 Such a resource center could 

reduce the burden on corporate 

customer support centers by pooling 

resources. The center could aid 

consumers by, for example, providing 

certain no-cost means of support, as 

well as information on other means for 

expedited support. This center could 

also be used to facilitate information 

sharing and research that could lead to 

better botnet detection. Moreover, as a 

‘‘condition of sponsorship’’ private 

sector entities could be required to 

adopt an agreed upon set of practices. 

There are many different ways that 

such a resource center could be created, 

including some that help encourage 

innovation in preventative security 

models and/or directly aid consumers in 

cleaning their machines. Below are 

three very broad scenarios proposed to 

help focus comment on possible 

voluntary approaches: 

A. Private-Sector Run and 

Supported—Under this scenario, the 

private sector would create, run, and 

fund a resource center to inform and 

educate consumers who have been 

notified that their equipment may be 

infected by a botnet. This service could 

be run by a new or existing non-profit 

or for-profit entity depending on the 

needs and the model created. 

B. Public/Private Partnership—Under 

this scenario, the government and 

private sector would work together to 

create a resource to inform and educate 

consumers who have been notified that 

their equipment may be infected by a 

botnet. These services could be 

provided through a non-profit or quasigovernmental entity depending on the 

needs and the model created. 

C. Government Run and Supported— 

Under this scenario, the government 

would create a centralized resource to 

inform and educate consumers who 

have been notified that their equipment 

may be infected by a botnet. These 

centralized services would be provided 

by a government agency with some 

substantive input from the private 

sector, perhaps through a Federal 

Advisory Committee. 

Request for Information. Recognizing 

the seriousness of the threat from, and 

potential harm caused by, botnets, 

Commerce and DHS are issuing this 

Request for Information to solicit 

information on: the need for a voluntary 

code of conduct for consumer 

notifications on botnets; how private 

entities might help prevent and identify 

botnets and certain types of malware on 

systems and networks; how to mitigate 

and notify users about botnets—on 

systems and networks; how to help 

promote incentives for companies to 

participate in voluntary notification 

efforts; and how to help build related 

resources in the United States for ISPs 

or other entities to notify consumers. 

The questions below are to assist in 

framing the issues and should not be 

construed as a limitation on comments. 

The Departments invite comment on the 

full range of issues that may be 

presented by this Request for 

Information. Comments that contain 

references, studies, research and other 

empirical data that are not widely 

published should include copies of the 

referenced materials with the submitted 

comments. 

A. General Questions on Practices To 

Help Prevent and Mitigate Botnet 

Infections 

(1) What existing practices are most 

effective in helping to identify and 

mitigate botnet infections? Where have 

these practices been effective? Please 

provide specific details as to why or 

why not. 

(2) What preventative measures are 

most effective in stopping botnet 

infections before they happen? Where 

have these practices been effective? 

Please provide specific details as to why 

or why not. 

(3) Are there benefits to developing 

and standardizing these practices for 

companies and consumers through 

some kind of code of conduct or 

otherwise? If so, why and how? If not, 

why not? 

(4) Please identify existing practices 

that could be implemented more 

broadly to help prevent and mitigate 

botnet infections. 

(5) What existing mechanisms could 

be effective in sharing information about 

botnets that would help prevent, detect, 

and mitigate botnet infections? 

(6) What new and existing data can 

ISPs and other network defense players 

share to improve botnet mitigation and 

situational awareness? What are the 

roadblocks to sharing this data? 

(7) Upon discovering that a 

consumer’s computer or device is likely 

infected by a botnet, should an ISP or 

other private entity be encouraged to 

contact the consumer to offer online 

support services for the prevention and 

mitigation of botnets? If so, how could 

support services be made available? If 

not, why not? 

(8) What should customer support in 

this context look like (e.g., web 

information, web chat, telephone 

support, remote access assistance, 

sending a technician, etc.) and why? 

(9) Describe scalable measures parties 

have taken against botnets. Which 

scalable measures have the most impact 

in combating botnets? What evidence is 

available or necessary to measure the 

impact against botnets? What are the 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 21, 2011 / Notices 58469 

challenges of undertaking such 

measures? 

B. Effective Practices for Identifying 

Botnets 

(10) When identifying botnets, how 

can those engaged in voluntary efforts 

use methods, processes and tools that 

maintain the privacy of consumers’ 

personally identifiable information? 

(11) How can organizations best avoid 

‘‘false positives’’ in the detection of 

botnets (i.e., detection of behavior that 

seems to be a botnet or malware-related, 

but is not)? 

(12) To date, many efforts have 

focused on the role of ISPs in detecting 

and notifying consumers about botnets. 

It has been suggested that other entities 

beyond ISPs (such as operating system 

vendors, search engines, security 

software vendors, etc.) can participate in 

anti-botnet related efforts. Should 

voluntary efforts focus only on ISPs? If 

not, why not? If so, why and who else 

should participate in this role? 

C. Reviewing Effectiveness of Consumer 

Notification 

(13) What baselines are available to 

understand the spread and negative 

impact of botnets and related malware? 

How can it be determined if practices to 

curb botnet infections are making a 

difference? 

(14) What means of notification 

would be most effective from an enduser perspective? 

(15) Should notices, and/or the 

process by which they are delivered, be 

standardized? If so, by whom? Will this 

assist in ensuring end-user trust of the 

notification? Will it prevent fraudulent 

notifications? 

(16) For those companies that 

currently offer mitigation services, how 

do different pricing strategies affect 

consumer response? Are free services 

generally effective in both cleaning 

computers and preventing re-infection? 

Are fee-based services more attractive to 

certain customer segments? 

(17) What impact would a consumer 

resource center, such as one of those 

described above, have on value-added 

security services? Could offers for valueadded services be included in a 

notification? If not, why not? If so, why 

and how? Also, how can fraudulent 

offers be prevented in this context? 

(18) Once a botnet infection has been 

identified and the end-user does not 

respond to notification or follow up on 

mitigating measures, what other steps 

should the private sector consider? 

What type of consent should the 

provider obtain from the end-user? Who 

should be responsible for considering 

and determining further steps? 

(19) Are private entities declining to 

act to prevent or mitigate botnets 

because of concerns that, for example, 

they may be liable to customers who are 

not notified? If so, how can those 

concerns be addressed? 

Best Practices for Consumer 

Notification 

(20) Countries such as Japan, 

Germany, and Australia have developed 

various best practices, codes of conduct, 

and mitigation techniques to help 

consumers. Have these efforts been 

effective? What lessons can be learned 

from these and related efforts? 

(21) Are there best practices in place, 

or proposed practices, to measure the 

effectiveness of notice and educational 

messages to consumers on botnet 

infection and remediation? 

D. Incentives To Promote Voluntary 

Action To Notify Consumers 

(22) Should companies have liability 

protections for notifying consumers that 

their devices have been infected by 

botnets? If so, why and what protections 

would be most effective in incentivizing 

notification? If not, why not? Are there 

other liability issues that should be 

examined? 

(23) What is the state-of-practice with 

respect to helping end-users clean up 

their devices after a botnet infection? 

Are the approaches effective, or do endusers quickly get re-infected? 

(24) What agreements with end-users 

may need modification to support a 

voluntary code of conduct? 

(25) Of the consumer resource 

scenarios described above, which would 

be most effective at providing incentives 

for entities to participate? Are there 

other reasons to consider one of these 

approaches over the others? 

(26) If a private sector approach were 

taken, would a new entity be necessary 

to run this project? Who should take 

leadership roles? Are the positive 

incentives involved (cost savings, 

revenue opportunity, etc.) great enough 

to persuade organizations to opt into 

this model? 

(27) If a public/private partnership 

approach were taken, what would be an 

appropriate governance model? What 

stakeholders should be active 

participants in such a voluntary 

program? What government agencies 

should participate? How could 

government agencies best contribute 

resources in such a partnership? 

(28) If a government-run approach 

were taken, what government agencies 

should play leading roles? 

(29) Are there other approaches aside 

from the three scenarios suggested 

above that could be used to create a 

consumer resource and to incentivize 

detection, notification, and mitigation of 

botnets? 

(30) Are there other positive 

incentives that do not involve creation 

of an organized consumer resource that 

could encourage voluntary market-based 

action in detection, notification, and 

mitigation of botnets? 

Willie E. May, 

Associate Director for Laboratory Programs/ 

Principal Deputy, Department of Commerce. 

Lawrence E. Strickling, 

Assistant Secretary for Communications and 

Information, Department of Commerce. 

Rand Beers, 

Under Secretary, National Protection and 

Programs Directorate, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2011–24180 Filed 9–20–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XA713 

Endangered Species; File Nos. 16526, 

16323, 16436, 16422, 16438, 16431, 

16507, 16547, 16375, 16442, 16482, and 

16508. 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of applications. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

NMFS has received twelve applications 

applying in due form for permits to take 

Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus) for purposes of scientific 

research. 

DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail 

comments must be received on or before 

October 21, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: The application and related 

documents are available for review by 

selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public 

Comment’’ from the Features box on the 

Applications and Permits for Protected 

Species (APPS) home page, https:// 

apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting 

associated File No. from the list of 

available applications. 

These documents are also available 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the offices listed in SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

Written comments on this application 

should be submitted to the Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES