19284 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 

concurrence from NMFS on that 

determination by a letter dated January 

10, 2007, when EPA reissued the 

expiring permit in 2007. Because there 

are no changes which make the permit 

less stringent through this action, EPA 

again finds that its issuance is unlikely 

to adversely affect Essential Fish 

Habitat. EPA is seeking concurrence 

with that decision from NMFS. 

F. Historic Preservation Act 

Facilities which adversely affect 

properties listed or eligible for listing in 

the National Register of Historical 

Places are not authorized to discharge 

under this permit. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection required 

by this permit has been approved by 

OMB under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq., in submission made for the 

NPDES permit program and assigned 

OMB control numbers 2040–0086 

(NPDES permit application) and 2040– 

0004 (discharge monitoring reports). 

Because this permit authorizes limited 

discharges, the reporting time for 

discharges is less than that for 

permittees discharging under the 

Territorial Seas of Texas (TXG260000) 

or to Outer Continental Shelf 

(GMG290000) permits. Also, this 

proposed permit requires electronic 

reporting for discharge monitoring 

reports, so it will save some reporting 

time and paper mailing costs. 

H. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 USC 

601 et seq, requires that EPA prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for 

regulations that have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This permit is not a ‘‘rule’’ 

subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

EPA prepared a regulatory flexibility 

analysis, however, on the promulgation 

of the Coastal Subcategory guidelines on 

which many of the permit’s effluent 

limitations are based. That analysis 

shows that compliance with the permit 

requirements will not result in a 

significant impact on dischargers, 

including small businesses, covered by 

this permit. EPA Region 6, therefore, 

concludes that the permit being 

proposed today will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Dated: March 19, 2012. 

William K. Honker, 

Acting Director, Water Quality Protection 

Division, EPA Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7686 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9654–5] 

Proposed CERCLA Administrative 

Settlement; George L. Gomez and 

Patricia A. Gomez. 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency 

ACTION: Notice; request for public 

comment 

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 

122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act, as 

amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 

9622(h)(1), notice is hereby given of a 

proposed administrative settlement for 

the Terrible Mine Site, Isle Mining 

District, Custer County, Colorado with 

George L. Gomez and Patricia A. Gomez 

based upon an inability to pay 

settlement. The settlement includes a 

covenant not to sue the settling party 

pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 

42 U.S.C. 9607(a), and provides that the 

settling parties will sign and execute an 

environmental covenant on the Site. For 

thirty (30) days following the date of 

publication of this notice, the agency 

will receive written comments relating 

to the settlement. The agency will 

consider all comments received and 

may modify or withdraw its consent to 

the settlement if comments received 

disclose facts or considerations which 

indicate that the settlement is 

inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. 

The agency’s response to any comments 

received will be available for public 

inspection at the EPA Region 8 Records 

Center, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before April 30, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is 

available for public inspection at the 

EPA Region 8 Records Center, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202. A copy of the proposed 

settlement may be obtained from John 

Works, EPA Technical Enforcement 

Officer, EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop 

Street, Denver, CO 80202, 303.312.6196. 

Comments should reference the Terrible 

Mine Site, Isle Mining District, Custer 

County, Colorado and EPA Docket No. 

08–2012–0003 and should be addressed 

to John Works, EPA Technical 

Enforcement Officer, EPA Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 

80202. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Works, EPA Technical Enforcement 

Officer, EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop 

Street, Denver, CO 80202, 303–312– 

6196. 

Dated: March 21, 2012. 

Andrew M. Gaydosh, 

Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance and 

Environmental Justice, U. S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 8, Denver, CO. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7682 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Information Collection Being Reviewed 

by the Federal Communications 

Commission 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC), as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

burdens, invites the general public and 

other Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on the 

following information collection, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) of 1995. Comments are 

requested concerning (a) whether the 

proposed collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the Commission, 

including whether the information shall 

have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of 

the Commission’s burden estimate; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information collected; (d) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on the 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology; 

and (e) ways to further reduce the 

information collection burden on small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

The FCC may not conduct or sponsor 

a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid control 

number. No person shall be subject to 

any penalty for failing to comply with 

a collection of information subject to the 

PRA that does not display a valid Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

control number. 

DATES: Written PRA comments should 

be submitted on or before May 29, 2012. 

If you anticipate that you will be 

submitting comments, but find it 

difficult to do so within the period of 

time allowed by this notice, you should 

advise the contact listed below as soon 

as possible. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 19285 

ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to 

the Federal Communications 

Commission via email to PRA@fcc.gov 

and Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information about the 

information collection, contact Cathy 

Williams at (202) 418–2918. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Control Number: 3060–1162. 

Title: Closed Captioning of Video 

Programming Delivered Using Internet 

Protocol, and Apparatus Closed Caption 

Requirements. 

Form Number: N/A. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Individuals or 

households; Businesses or other forprofit entities; Not-for-profit 

institutions. 

Number of Respondents and 

Responses: 1,762 respondents; 4,684 

responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: 0.084 

to 10 hours. 

Frequency of Response: One time and 

on occasion reporting requirements; 

Recordkeeping requirement; Third-party 

disclosure requirement. 

Obligation To Respond: Mandatory; 

Required to obtain or retain benefits. 

The statutory authority for this 

information collection is contained in 

the Twenty-First Century 

Communications and Video 

Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 

111–260, 124 Stat. 2751, and Sections 

4(i), 4(j), 303, 330(b), 713, and 716 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303, 

330(b), 613, and 617. 

Total Annual Burden: 11,685 hours. 

Total Annual Cost: $307,800. 

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Yes. 

The Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) 

was completed on June 28, 2007. It may 

be reviewed at: http://www.fcc.gov/ 

omd/privacyact/ 

Privacy_Impact_Assessment.html. The 

Commission is in the process of 

updating the PIA to incorporate various 

revisions made to the SORN. 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

Some assurances of confidentiality are 

being provided to the respondents. 

Parties filing petitions for exemption 

based on economic burden, requests for 

Commission determinations of technical 

feasibility and achievability, requests for 

purpose-based waivers, or responses to 

complaints alleging violations of the 

Commission’s rules may seek 

confidential treatment of information 

they provide pursuant to the 

Commission’s existing confidentiality 

rules. See 47 CFR 0.459. 

The Commission is not requesting 

that individuals who file complaints 

alleging violations of the Commission’s 

rules (complainants) submit 

confidential information (e.g., credit 

card numbers, social security numbers, 

or personal financial information) to the 

Commission. The Commission requests 

that complainants submit their names, 

addresses, and other contact 

information, which Commission staff 

needs to process complaints. Any use of 

this information is covered under the 

routine uses listed in the Commission’s 

SORN, FCC/CGB–1, ‘‘Informal 

Complaints and Inquiries.’’ 

The PIA that the FCC completed on 

June 28, 2007 gives a full and complete 

explanation of how the FCC collects, 

stores, maintains, safeguards, and 

destroys PII, as required by OMB 

regulations and the Privacy Act, 5 

U.S.C. 552a. The PIA may be viewed at: 

http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/ 

Privacy_Impact_Assessment.html. 

Also, the Commission will prepare a 

revision to the SORN and PIA to cover 

the PII collected related to this 

information collection, as required by 

OMB’s Memorandum M–03–22 

(September 26, 2003) and by the Privacy 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a. 

Needs and Uses: On January 13, 2012, 

in document FCC 12–9, the Commission 

released a Report and Order adopting 

final rules to implement sections 303, 

330(b), and 713 of the Communications 

Act of 1934 (the Act), as amended by the 

‘‘Twenty-First Century Communications 

and Video Accessibility Act of 2010’’ 

(CVAA). See Public Law 111–260, 

§§ 202 and 203. The Commission also 

released an Erratum thereto on January 

30, 2012. Pursuant to Section 202 of the 

CVAA, the Report and Order adopts 

rules governing the closed captioning 

requirements for the owners, providers, 

and distributors of video programming 

delivered using Internet protocol (IP). 

Pursuant to Section 203 of the CVAA, 

the Report and Order adopts rules 

governing the closed captioning 

capabilities of certain apparatus on 

which consumers view video 

programming. 

The following rule sections and other 

requirements contain revised 

information collection requirements for 

which the Commission is seeking 

approval from the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB): 

(a) 47 CFR 79.4(c)(1)(ii) and 47 CFR 

79.4(c)(2)(ii) require video programming 

owners (VPOs) and video programming 

distributors and providers (VPDs) to 

agree upon a mechanism to inform 

VPDs on an ongoing basis whether 

video programming is subject to the IP 

closed captioning requirements. The 

Commission considered and rejected 

adopting a single specific mechanism 

that could impose greater information 

collection burdens on small businesses. 

47 CFR 79.4(c)(2)(ii) requires VPDs to 

make a good faith effort to identify 

video programming subject to the IP 

closed captioning requirements using 

the agreed upon mechanism. A VPD 

may rely in good faith on a certification 

by a VPO that video programming need 

not be captioned if: (A) the certification 

includes a clear and concise explanation 

of why captioning is not required; and 

(B) the VPD is able to produce the 

certification to the Commission in the 

event of a complaint. VPDs may seek 

Commission determinations that other 

proposed mechanisms provide adequate 

information for them to rely on the 

mechanisms in good faith. 

(b) 47 CFR 79.4(c)(2)(iii) requires 

VPDs to make contact information 

available to end users for the receipt and 

handling of written IP closed captioning 

complaints. The contact information 

required for written complaints shall 

include the name of a person with 

primary responsibility for IP captioning 

issues and who can ensure compliance 

with the IP closed captioning rules. In 

addition, this contact information shall 

include the person’s title or office, 

telephone number, fax number, postal 

mailing address, and email address. 

VPDs must keep this information 

current and update it within 10 business 

days of any change. 

(c) 47 CFR 79.4(d)(1) permits VPOs 

and VPDs to petition the Commission 

for a full or partial exemption from the 

IP closed captioning requirements, 

which the Commission may grant upon 

a finding that the requirements would 

be economically burdensome. 47 CFR 

79.4(d)(2) requires the petitioner to 

support a petition for exemption with 

sufficient evidence to demonstrate that 

compliance with the requirements for 

closed captioning of IP-delivered video 

programming would be economically 

burdensome. The term ‘‘economically 

burdensome’’ means imposing 

significant difficulty or expense. The 

Commission will consider the following 

factors when determining whether the 

requirements for closed captioning of 

IP-delivered video programming would 

be economically burdensome: (i) the 

nature and cost of the closed captions 

for the programming; (ii) the impact on 

the operation of the VPD or VPO; (iii) 

the financial resources of the VPD or 

VPO; and (iv) the type of operations of 

the VPD or VPO. 47 CFR 79.4(d)(3) 

provides that, in addition to these 

factors, the petitioner must describe any 

other factors it deems relevant to the 

Commission’s final determination and 

any available alternatives that might 

constitute a reasonable substitute for the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19286 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 

IP closed captioning requirements 

including, but not limited to, text or 

graphic display of the content of the 

audio portion of the programming. The 

Commission will evaluate economic 

burden with regard to the individual 

outlet. 47 CFR 79.4(d)(4) requires the 

petitioner to electronically file its 

petition for exemption, and all 

subsequent pleadings related to the 

petition. 47 CFR 79.4(d)(6) permits any 

interested person to electronically file 

comments or oppositions to the petition 

within 30 days after release of the 

public notice of the petition. Within 20 

days after the close of the period for 

filing comments or oppositions, the 

petitioner may reply to any comments 

or oppositions filed. 47 CFR 79.4(d)(7) 

requires persons who file comments or 

oppositions to the petition to serve the 

petitioner with copies of those 

comments or oppositions and to include 

a certification that the petitioner was 

served with a copy. Any petitioner filing 

a reply to comments or oppositions 

must serve the commenting or opposing 

party with a copy of the reply and must 

include a certification that the party was 

served with a copy. 

Comments or oppositions and replies 

shall be served upon a party, its 

attorney, or its other duly constituted 

agent by delivering or mailing a copy to 

the party’s last known address or by 

sending a copy to the email address last 

provided by the party, its attorney, or 

other duly constituted agent. 47 CFR 

79.4(d)(8) provides that, upon a finding 

of good cause, the Commission may 

lengthen or shorten any comment 

period and waive or establish other 

procedural requirements. 47 CFR 

79.4(d)(9) requires persons filing 

petitions and responsive pleadings to 

include a detailed, full showing, 

supported by affidavit, of any facts or 

considerations relied on. Overall, while 

there is some burden associated with 

requesting an exemption, when granted, 

an exemption will relieve the entity 

from complying with the IP closed 

captioning requirements. 

(d) 47 CFR 79.4(e)(1) provides that 

complaints concerning an alleged 

violation of the IP closed captioning 

requirements shall be filed in writing 

with the Commission or with the VPD 

responsible for enabling the rendering 

or pass through of the closed captions 

for the video programming within sixty 

(60) days after the date the complainant 

experienced a problem with captioning. 

A complaint filed with the Commission 

must be directed to the Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau and 

submitted through the Commission’s 

online informal complaint filing system, 

U.S. Mail, overnight delivery, or 

facsimile. 47 CFR 79.4(e)(2) sets forth 

certain information that a complaint 

should include. 47 CFR 79.4(e)(3) states 

that, if a complaint is filed first with the 

Commission, the Commission will 

forward complaints satisfying the above 

requirements to the named VPD and/or 

VPO, as well as to any other VPD and/ 

or VPO that Commission staff 

determines may be involved. The VPD 

and/or VPO must respond in writing to 

the Commission and the complainant 

within 30 days after receipt of the 

complaint from the Commission. 47 

CFR 79.4(e)(4) states that, if a complaint 

is filed first with the VPD, the VPD must 

respond in writing to the complainant 

within thirty (30) days after receipt of a 

closed captioning complaint. If a VPD 

fails to respond to the complainant 

within thirty (30) days, or the response 

does not satisfy the consumer, the 

complainant may file the complaint 

with the Commission within thirty (30) 

days after the time allotted for the VPD 

to respond. If a consumer re-files the 

complaint with the Commission and the 

complaint satisfies the above 

requirements, the Commission will 

forward the complaint to the named 

VPD, as well as to any other VPD and/ 

or VPO that Commission staff 

determines may be involved. The VPD 

and/or VPO must then respond in 

writing to the Commission and the 

complainant within 30 days after receipt 

of the complaint from the Commission. 

47 CFR 79.4(e)(5) requires VPDs and/or 

VPOs, in response to a complaint, to file 

with the Commission sufficient records 

and documentation to prove that the 

responding entity was (and remains) in 

compliance with the Commission’s 

rules. If the responding entity admits 

that it was not or is not in compliance 

with the Commission’s rules, it shall file 

with the Commission sufficient records 

and documentation to explain the 

reasons for its noncompliance, show 

what remedial steps it has taken or will 

take, and show why such steps have 

been or will be sufficient to remediate 

the problem. 47 CFR 79.4(d)(6) permits 

the Commission to request additional 

information from any relevant entities 

when, in the estimation of Commission 

staff, such information is needed to 

investigate the complaint or adjudicate 

potential violation(s) of Commission 

rules. When the Commission requests 

additional information, parties to which 

such requests are addressed must 

provide the requested information in the 

manner and within the time period the 

Commission specifies. Overall, while 

the complaint procedures impose an 

information collection burden, the 

requirement for VPDs to publish contact 

information, described above, and to 

respond to consumer complaints 

provides an opportunity for VPDs to 

resolve complaints without Commission 

involvement. 

(e) Under the CVAA, the requirements 

of Section 203 only apply to the extent 

they are ‘‘technically feasible.’’ Parties 

may raise technical infeasibility as a 

defense to a complaint or, alternatively, 

may file a request for a ruling under 

Section 1.41 of the Commission’s rules 

before manufacturing or importing the 

product. 

(f) 47 CFR 79.103(b)(3)(i) permits 

manufacturers of apparatus that use a 

picture screen of less than 13 inches in 

size to petition the Commission for a 

full or partial exemption from the closed 

captioning requirements pursuant to 

Section 1.41 of the Commission’s rules, 

which the Commission may grant upon 

a finding that the requirements are not 

achievable. Such manufacturers may 

also assert that such apparatus is fully 

or partially exempt as a response to a 

complaint, which the Commission may 

dismiss upon a finding that the 

requirements are not achievable. 47 CFR 

79.103(b)(3)(ii) requires the petitioner or 

respondent to support a petition for 

exemption or a response to a complaint 

with sufficient evidence to demonstrate 

that compliance with the requirements 

is not ‘‘achievable’’ where ‘‘achievable’’ 

means with reasonable effort or 

expense. The rule further sets forth 

certain factors that the Commission will 

consider when determining whether the 

requirements are not ‘‘achievable.’’ 

(g) 47 CFR 79.103(b)(4) permits 

manufacturers of apparatus to petition 

the Commission for a full or partial 

waiver of the closed captioning 

requirements, which the Commission 

may grant upon a finding that the 

apparatus meets one of the following 

provisions: (i) The apparatus is 

primarily designed for activities other 

than receiving or playing back video 

programming transmitted 

simultaneously with sound; or (ii) The 

apparatus is designed for multiple 

purposes, capable of receiving or 

playing back video programming 

transmitted simultaneously with sound 

but whose essential utility is derived 

from other purposes. 

(h) The Report and Order also 

established procedures for the filing of 

written complaints alleging violations of 

the Commission’s rules requiring 

apparatus designed to receive, play 

back, or record video programming to be 

equipped with built-in closed caption 

decoder circuitry or capability designed 

to display closed captions. The 

Commission set forth information that 

such complaints should include. A 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 19287 

written complaint filed with the 

Commission must be transmitted to the 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau through the Commission’s 

online informal complaint filing system, 

U.S. Mail, overnight delivery, or 

facsimile. The Commission may forward 

such complaints to the named 

manufacturer or provider, as well as to 

any other entity that Commission staff 

determines may be involved, and may 

request additional information from any 

relevant parties when, in the estimation 

of Commission staff, such information is 

needed to investigate the complaint or 

adjudicate potential violations of 

Commission rules. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7601 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Change in Bank Control Notices; 

Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or 

Bank Holding Company 

The notificants listed below have 

applied under the Change in Bank 

Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and 

§ 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 

CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank 

or bank holding company. The factors 

that are considered in acting on the 

notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of 

the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). 

The notices are available for 

immediate inspection at the Federal 

Reserve Bank indicated. The notices 

also will be available for inspection at 

the offices of the Board of Governors. 

Interested persons may express their 

views in writing to the Reserve Bank 

indicated for that notice or to the offices 

of the Board of Governors. Comments 

must be received not later than April 16, 

2012. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta 

(Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice 

President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30309: 

1. Ander P. and Sandra G. Gibbs, 

Dade City, Florida; to acquire 

convertible nonvoting preferred shares 

of Florida Bancshares, Inc., and thereby 

indirectly acquire control of First 

National Bank of Pasco, both in Dade 

City, Florida. 

B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago 

(Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice 

President) 230 South LaSalle Street, 

Chicago, Illinois 60690–1414: 

1. Frank A. Peplinski, David 

Peplinski, Jerry Pelinksi, Terry 

Peplinski, Lynda Watchowski, Lauren 

Peplinski, Crystal Stomack, Nicole 

Peplinski, Brandon Watchowski, all of 

Ubly, Michigan, and certain of their 

minor children as a group acting in 

concert, to retain voting shares of 

Northstar Financial Group, Inc., and 

thereby indirectly retain control of 

Northstar Bank, both in Bad Axe, 

Michigan, and Seaway Community 

Bank, St. Clair, Michigan. In addition, 

Jerry Peplinski, as trustee of the 

Peplinski Family 2012 Trust, and The 

Peplinksi Family 2012 Trust will 

acquire shares of Northstar Financial 

Group, and thereby become a member of 

the Peplinski Family Group. 

2. Lynette Drake, individually, Maria 

Roberts, Maria Roberts, as trustee of the 

Ryan J. Roberts Trust, the Ryan J. 

Roberts Trust, Jeffrey Roberts, and 

Austin Drake, all of Bad Axe, Michigan, 

and certain of their minor children as a 

group acting in concert, to retain voting 

shares of Northstar Financial Group, 

Inc., and thereby indirectly retain 

control of Northstar Bank, both in Bad 

Axe, Michigan, and Seaway Community 

Bank, St. Clair, Michigan. In addition, 

Lynette Drake, as trustee of the Roberts 

Family, 2012 Trust, and the Roberts 

Family 2012 Trust, will acquire shares 

of Northstar Financial Group, Inc., and 

thereby become a member of the Roberts 

Family Control Group. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, March 27, 2012. 

Jennifer J. Johnson, 

Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7673 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and 

Mergers of Bank Holding Companies 

The companies listed in this notice 

have applied to the Board for approval, 

pursuant to the Bank Holding Company 

Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) 

(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 

225), and all other applicable statutes 

and regulations to become a bank 

holding company and/or to acquire the 

assets or the ownership of, control of, or 

the power to vote shares of a bank or 

bank holding company and all of the 

banks and nonbanking companies 

owned by the bank holding company, 

including the companies listed below. 

The applications listed below, as well 

as other related filings required by the 

Board, are available for immediate 

inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 

indicated. The applications will also be 

available for inspection at the offices of 

the Board of Governors. Interested 

persons may express their views in 

writing on the standards enumerated in 

the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the 

proposal also involves the acquisition of 

a nonbanking company, the review also 

includes whether the acquisition of the 

nonbanking company complies with the 

standards in section 4 of the BHC Act 

(12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise 

noted, nonbanking activities will be 

conducted throughout the United States. 

Unless otherwise noted, comments 

regarding each of these applications 

must be received at the Reserve Bank 

indicated or the offices of the Board of 

Governors not later than April 26, 2012. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta 

(Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice 

President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30309: 

1. Ategra Capital Partners I, LLC, 

Vienna, Virginia; to become a bank 

holding company by acquiring at least 

87 percent of the preferred shares of 

Florida Bancshares, Inc., and its 

subsidiary, First National Bank of Pasco, 

both in Dade City, Florida. The 

preferred shares are convertible to 

approximately 27.8 percent of the voting 

shares. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, March 27, 2012. 

Jennifer J. Johnson, 

Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7674 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[OMB Control No. 9000–0010; Docket 2011– 

0079; Sequence 24] 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; 

Submission for OMB Review; Progress 

Payments (SF–1443) 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DOD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Notice of request for public 

comments regarding an extension to an 

existing OMB clearance. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, the 

Regulatory Secretariat will be 

submitting to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) a request to review 

and approve an extension of a 

previously information collection 

requirement concerning progress 

payments. A notice was published in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES