Notices. Notice

19,089 words·~87 min read·/register/2007/11/28/07-5863

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-846] Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the 2006 Semiannual New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 25, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published the preliminary results of the semiannual new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the People's Republic of China. *See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China:

Preliminary Results of the 2006 Semiannual New Shipper Review* , 72 FR 54430 (September 25, 2007) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). The merchandise covered by this review is brake rotors, exported and manufactured by Longkou Qizheng Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (“Qizheng”), as described in the “Scope of the Order” section of this notice. The period of review is April 1, 2006, through October 31, 2006. We invited parties to comment on our *Preliminary Results* . We received no comments, and no new evidence was placed on the record to cause us to question that determination.

Therefore, the final results are unchanged from those presented in the Preliminary Results. The final weighted-average dumping margin for Qizheng is listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of the Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: November 28, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Moats or Blanche Ziv, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-5047 or

(202)482-4207, respectively. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8 to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) and in weight from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters (weight and dimension) of the brake rotors limit their use to the following types of motor vehicles: automobiles, all-terrain vehicles, vans and recreational vehicles under “one ton and a half,” and light trucks designated as “one ton and a half.” Finished brake rotors are those that are ready for sale and installation without any further operations. Semi-finished rotors are those on which the surface is not entirely smooth, and have undergone some drilling. Unfinished rotors are those which have undergone some grinding or turning. These brake rotors are for motor vehicles, and do not contain in the casting a logo of an original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) which produces vehicles sold in the United States. ( *e.g.* , General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Volvo). Brake rotors covered in this order are not certified by OEM producers of vehicles sold in the United States. The scope also includes composite brake rotors that are made of gray cast iron, which contain a steel plate, but otherwise meet the above criteria. Excluded from the scope of this order are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, with a diameter less than 8 inches or greater than 16 inches (less than 20.32 centimeters or greater than 40.64 centimeters) and a weight less than 8 pounds or greater than 45 pounds (less than 3.63 kilograms or greater than 20.41 kilograms). 1 1 On January 17, 2007, the Department determined the brake rotors produced by Federal-Mogul and certified by the Ford Motor Company to be excluded from the scope of the order. *See* Memorandum from Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, through Wendy J. Frankel, Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled, “Scope Ruling of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China; Federal-Mogul Corporation,” dated January 17, 2007. Brake rotors were classifiable under subheading 8708.39.50.30 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”) during the period of review. 2 Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. 2 As of January 1, 2005, the HTSUS classification for brake rotors (discs) changed from 8708.39.50.10 to 8708.39.50.30. As of January 1, 2007, the HTSUS classification for brake rotors (discs) changed from 8708.39.50.30 to 8708.30.50.30. *See HTSUS (2007)* , available at <www.usitc.gov>. Final Results of Review We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margin exists for the period April 1, 2006, through October 31, 2006: Exporter and Manufacturer Margin Longkou Qizheng Auto Parts Co., Ltd. 0.0 %% Liquidation 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 these final results of review. We will direct CBP to assess the appropriate assessment rate (0 percent) against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of Qizheng's entries under the relevant order during the POR. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”):

(1)for subject merchandise exported and produced by Qizheng, the cash deposit rate will be zero percent;

(2)for subject merchandise exported but not produced by Qizheng, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate;

(3)the cash deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding;

(4)for all other 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 43.32 percent; and

(5)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Interested Parties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entry during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This new shipper review and this notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: November 21, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-23143 Filed 11-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-588-868] Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Glycine from Japan AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 28, 2007. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce determines that imports of glycine from Japan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The final weighted-average dumping margins are listed below in the section entitled “Final Determination of Investigation.” In addition, the Department of Commerce has determined that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of glycine from Japan. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov or Richard Rimlinger, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0665 or

(202)482-4477, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 13, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value

(LTFV)in the antidumping investigation of glycine from Japan. See *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Glycine from Japan* , 72 FR 52349 (September 13, 2007) ( *Preliminary Determination* ). We invited parties to comment on *Preliminary Determination* . We did not receive any case or rebuttal briefs from any interested parties. On October 25, 2007, the petitioner in this investigation, Geo Specialty Chemicals, Inc., submitted an allegation of critical circumstances with respect to imports of glycine from Japan. Period of Investigation The period of investigation is January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. Scope of Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is glycine, which in its solid (i.e., crystallized) form is a free-flowing crystalline material. Glycine is used as a sweetener/taste enhancer, buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid, chemical intermediate, metal complexing agent, dietary supplement, and is used in certain pharmaceuticals. The scope of this investigation covers glycine in any form and purity level. Although glycine blended with other materials is not covered by the scope of this investigation, glycine to which relatively small quantities of other materials have been added is covered by the scope. Glycine's chemical composition is C 2 H 5 NO 2 and is normally classified under subheading 2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The scope of this investigation also covers precursors of dried crystalline glycine including, but not limited to, glycine slurry ( *i.e.* , glycine in a non-crystallized form) and sodium glycinate. Glycine slurry is classified under the same HTSUS subheading as crystallized glycine (2922.49.4020) and sodium glycinate is classified under subheading HTSUS 2922.49.8000. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Adverse Facts Available For the final determination, we continue to find that, by failing to provide information we requested, Nu-Scaan Nutraceuticals Ltd. (Nu-Scaan) and Yuki Gosei Co., Ltd. (Yuki Gosei), the mandatory respondents in this investigation, along with other producers and/or exporters of glycine from Japan (Showa Denko K.K., Hayashi Pure Chemical Industries Co. Ltd., CBC Co., Ltd., Seino Logix Co. Ltd., Estee Lauder Group Companies K.K., and Chelest Corporation) did not act to the best of their ability. Thus, the Department continues to find that the use of adverse facts available is warranted for these companies under sections 776(a)(2) and

(b)of the Act. See *Preliminary Determination* , 72 FR at 52350. As we explained in *Preliminary Determination* , the rate of 280.57 percent we selected as the adverse facts-available rate is the highest margin alleged in the petition, as recalculated in the April 19, 2007, “Office of AD/CVD Operations Initiation Checklist for the Antidumping Duty Petition on Glycine from Japan” (the Initiation Checklist) on file in Import Administration's Central Records Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. See also *Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Glycine from India, Japan, and the Republic of Korea* filed on March 30, 2007 (the Petition), and the April 3, 12, 13, 17, and 18, 2007, supplements to the Petition filed on behalf of Geo Specialty Chemicals, Inc. We included the range of margins we re-calculated in the Initiation Checklist in *Glycine from India, Japan, and the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations* , 72 FR 20816 (April 26, 2007) ( *Initiation Notice* ). Further, as discussed in *Preliminary Determination* , we corroborated the adverse facts-available rate pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act. All-Others Rate Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that, where the estimated weighted-averaged dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or *de minimis* or are determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. Our recent practice under these circumstances has been to assign, as the all-others rate, the simple average of the margins in the petition. See *Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From Argentina, Japan and Thailand* , 65 FR 5520, 5527-28 (February 4, 2000); see also *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coil from Canada* , 64 FR 15457 (March 31, 1999), and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coil from Italy* , 64 FR 15458, 15459 (March 31, 1999). Consistent with our practice we calculated a simple average of the rates in the Petition, as recalculated in the Initiation Checklist at Attachment VI and as listed in *Initiation Notice* , and assigned this rate to all other manufacturers/exporters. For details of these calculations, see the memorandum from Dmitry Vladimirov to the File entitled “Antidumping Duty Investigation on Glycine from Japan - Analysis Memo for All-Others Rate,” dated September 6, 2007. Final Determination of Investigation We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006: Manufacturer or Exporter Margin (percent) Nu-Scaan Nutraceuticals Co., Ltd. 280.57 Yuki Gosei Co., Ltd. 280.57 Showa Denko K.K. 280.57 Hayashi Pure Chemical Industries Co., Ltd. 280.57 CBC Co., Ltd. 280.57 Seino Logix Co., Ltd. 280.57 Estee Lauder Group Companies K.K. 280.57 Chelest Corporation 280.57 All-Others 165.34 Final Critical-Circumstances Determination On October 25, 2007, the petitioner in this investigation, Geo Specialty Chemicals, Inc., alleged that there is a reasonable basis to find that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of glycine from Japan. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(e), because the petitioner submitted an allegation of critical circumstances at least 21 days before the scheduled date of the final determination, the Department must make a final finding on critical circumstances not later than the date of the final determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(3) of the Act. Section 735(a)(3) of the Act provides that the Department will determine that critical circumstances exist if the following criteria are met: (A)(i) There is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise or

(ii)the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales and

(B)there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been “massive,” the Department normally will examine

(i)the volume and value of the imports,

(ii)seasonal trends, and

(iii)the share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2) provides that an increase in imports of 15 percent during the “relatively short period” of time may be considered “massive.” Section 351.206(i) of the regulations defines “relatively short period” as normally being the period beginning on the date the proceeding begins ( *i.e.* , the date the petition is filed) and ending at least three months later. The regulations also provide that, if the Department finds that importers, or exporters or producers, had reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, the Department may consider a period of not less than three months from that earlier time. Because we are not aware of any antidumping duty order in any country on glycine from Japan, we do not find that there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise. For this reason, the Department does not find a history of injurious dumping of glycine from Japan pursuant to section 735(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Act. Therefore, we must look to the second criterion for determining importer knowledge of dumping. To determine whether the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value in accordance with section 735(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for export-price sales or 15 percent or more for constructed export-price transactions sufficient to impute knowledge of dumping. See *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Wax and Wax/Resin Thermal Transfer Ribbons From Japan* , 68 FR 71072, 71076 (December 22, 2003) (unchanged in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Wax and Wax/Resin Thermal Transfer Ribbons from Japan* , 69 FR 11834, 11835 (March 12, 2004)), and *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper Products from Indonesia* , 71 FR 15162, 15166 (March 27, 2006) ( *Lined Paper Products from Indonesia* ) (unchanged in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper Products from Indonesia* , 71 FR 47171, 47173 (August 16, 2006)). For the reasons explained above, we have assigned a margin of 280.57 percent to the mandatory respondents, Nu-Scaan and Yuki Gosei. Consequently, we have imputed knowledge of dumping to importers of subject merchandise from these companies because the assigned margins for these companies exceed the 15-percent threshold. Similar to the Department's normal practice of conducting its critical-circumstances analysis of companies in the all-others group based on the experience of investigated companies, as discussed below and because we have assigned a margin of 280.57 percent to other Japanese exporters/producers of glycine (Showa Denko K.K., Hayashi Pure Chemical Industries Co. Ltd., CBC Co., Ltd., Seino Logix Co. Ltd., Estee Lauder Group Companies K.K., and Chelest Corporation), we have imputed knowledge of dumping to importers of subject merchandise from these companies. In determining whether to find that an importer knew or should have known that there would be material injury by reason of dumped imports, the Department normally will look to the preliminary injury determination of the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). If the ITC finds a reasonable indication of present material injury to the relevant U.S. industry, the Department will determine that a reasonable basis exists to impute importer knowledge that there would be material injury by reason of dumped imports. See *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Japan* , 64 FR 30574, 30578 (June 8, 1999). In this case, the ITC has found that a reasonable indication of present material injury due to dumping exists for Japan. See *Glycine From India, Japan, and Korea* , 72 FR 29352 (May 25, 2007) (Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1111-1113 (Preliminary)) ( *ITC Prelim* ). As a result, the Department has determined that importers knew or should have known that there would be material injury by reason of dumped imports of subject merchandise from Japan. In determining whether there have been “massive imports” over a “relatively short period,” the Department normally compares the import volume and value of the subject merchandise for three months immediately preceding and following the filing of the petition. Imports normally will be considered massive when imports have increased by 15 percent or more during this “relatively short period.” Because we do not have verifiable data from any of the uncooperative Japanese respondents, we must base our “massive imports” determination as to these companies on the basis of facts otherwise available, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act. 1 Because these companies failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability to respond to our requests for information, we may make an adverse inference in selecting from the facts otherwise available pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. Therefore, consistent with our practice, we have made an adverse inference, as facts available, that there were massive imports from these companies over a relatively short period. See *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Collated Roofing Nails from Taiwan* , 62 FR 51427 (October 1, 1997), and accompanying Issues and Decision memorandum at Comment 20. 1 Because the non-cooperating respondents in question did not respond to our requests for information during the course of this investigation we did not request monthly shipment data from these companies. Based on our determination that importers knew or should have known that producers/exporters Nu-Scaan, Yuki Gosei, Showa Denko K.K., Hayashi Pure Chemical Industries Co. Ltd., CBC Co., Ltd., Seino Logix Co. Ltd., Estee Lauder Group Companies K.K., and Chelest Corporation were selling glycine from Japan at less than fair value, that there would be material injury by reason of such dumped imports, and that there have been massive imports of glycine from these producers/exporters over a relatively short period, we determine affirmatively that critical circumstances exist for imports from Japan of glycine produced and/or exported by the companies in question. It is the Department's normal practice to conduct its critical-circumstances analysis of companies in the all-others group based on the experience of investigated companies (see *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey* , 62 FR 9737, 9741 (March 4, 1997) (the Department found that critical circumstances existed for the majority of the companies investigated and therefore concluded that critical circumstances also existed for companies covered by the all-others rate)). Notwithstanding that practice, however, the Department does not automatically extend an affirmative critical-circumstances determination to companies covered by the all-others rate. See *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Japan* , 64 FR 30574, 30585 (June 8, 1999) ( *Stainless Steel from Japan* ). Instead, the Department considers the traditional critical-circumstances criteria with respect to the companies covered by the all-others rate. Consistent with *Stainless Steel from Japan* , in this case we have applied the traditional critical-circumstances criteria to the all-others category for the antidumping investigation of glycine from Japan. First, in determining whether there is a reasonable basis to find that an importer knew or should have known that the exporter was selling glycine at less than fair value, we look to the all-others rate. The dumping margin for the all-others category in the instant case, 165.34 percent, exceeds the 15-percent threshold necessary to impute knowledge of dumping. Second, based on the ITC's preliminary material-injury determination, we also find that importers knew or should have known that there would be material injury caused by the dumped merchandise. Finally, with respect to massive imports, we are unable to base our determination on our findings for the mandatory respondents because our determinations for all companies in this investigation were based on adverse facts available. We have not inferred, as adverse facts available, that massive imports exist for companies under the all-others category because, unlike the uncooperative companies in question, the all-others companies have not failed to cooperate in this investigation. Therefore, an adverse inference with respect to a finding of a massive surge in imports by the all-others companies is not appropriate. Instead, consistent with the approach taken in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Japan* , 64 FR 24329 (May 6, 1999), and *Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From Argentina, Japan and Thailand* , 65 FR 5520, 5527 (February 4, 2000), we examined U.S. Customs and Border Protection data 2 on aggregate imports from Japan for the five months preceding and the five months following the filing of the petition in order to ascertain whether an increase in shipments of greater than 15 percent or more occurred within a relatively short period following the point in time at which importers had reason to know that a proceeding has commenced. 3 We determined that, with respect to HTSUS number 2922.49.4020, there have been massive imports of glycine from Japan over a relatively short period. For further discussion, see memorandum from Dmitry Vladimirov to Laurie Parkhill entitled “Antidumping Duty Investigation on Glycine from Japan - Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances - All-Others Producers/Exporters,” dated November 20, 2007. 2 With respect to HTSUS 2922.49.8000 (covered by the scope of this investigation) the Department did not use information supplied by U.S. Customs and Border Protection because information publically available indicates that this is a basket category that includes non-subject merchandise. Thus, the Department cannot make an accurate analysis to determine whether there were massive imports of subject merchandise classified under this HTSUS number for the all-others category. See *Lined Paper Products from Indonesia* , 71 FR at 15167, *Stainless Steel from Japan* , 64 FR at 30585, *Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances: Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South Africa* , 65 FR 12509, 12511 (March 9, 2000) (where the Department determined that massive imports did not exist for imports from companies in the all-others category because it could not rely on the U.S. Customs data) (unchanged in *Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Japan; and Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Japan and the Republic of South Africa* , 65 FR 25907, 25908 (May 4, 2000)). 3 In its October 25, 2007, submission, the petitioner alleged an importer's prior knowledge of likelihood of the imminent filing of the petition at a time preceding the actual filing of the petition on March 30, 2007. Accordingly, in alleging a surge in imports of glycine from Japan, the petitioner relied on import data comprising the base and comparison periods, the selection of which was guided by the point in time of the alleged knowledge. We did not rely on import data comprising the base and comparison periods the petitioner used in our evaluation of the massive surge in imports. We find that the petitioner's claim of prior knowledge was not supported by evidence sufficient in demonstrating conclusively that importers had knowledge that a petition was likely to be filed. See, *e.g.* , *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From South Africa* , 67 FR 31243 (May 9, 2002), and the applicable April 26, 2002, critical- circumstances decision memorandum from Richard W. Moreland to Faryar Shirzad entitled “Antidumping Duty Investigation on Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From The Republic of South Africa - Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances.” A public version of this memorandum is on file at the Import Administration Central Records Unit in Room B-099 of the Department of Commerce main building. Based on our determination that massive imports of glycine from the producers/exporters included in the all-others category have occurred and, consequently, that the third criterion necessary for determining affirmative critical circumstances has been met, we have determined affirmatively that critical circumstances exist for imports of glycine from Japan under HTSUS number 2922.49.4020 for producers/exporters in the all-others category. Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b)(1), we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from Japan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 13, 2007, the date of the publication of *Preliminary Determination* . Pursuant to section 735(c)(4) of the Act we will direct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries, for all importers of subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after 90 days before the date of publication of *Preliminary Determination* . We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average margin, as indicated in the chart above, as follows:

(1)the rates for companies identified in the chart above will be the rates we have determined in this final determination;

(2)if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation but the producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise;

(3)the rate for all other producers or exporters will be 165.34 percent. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our final determination. As our final determination is affirmative and in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding APO This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order

(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: November 20, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-23127 Filed 11-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-858] Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Glycine from the Republic of Korea AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 28, 2007. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce determines that imports of glycine from the Republic of Korea are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The final weighted-average dumping margins are listed below in the section entitled “Final Determination of Investigation.” FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov or Richard Rimlinger, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0665 or

(LTFV)in the antidumping investigation of glycine from the Republic of Korea. See *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Glycine from the Republic of Korea* , 72 FR 52345 (September 13, 2007) ( *Preliminary Determination* ). We invited parties to comment on *Preliminary Determination* . We did not receive any case or rebuttal briefs from any interested parties. Period of Investigation The period of investigation is January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. Scope of Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is glycine, which in its solid ( *i.e.* , crystallized) form is a free-flowing crystalline material. Glycine is used as a sweetener/taste enhancer, buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid, chemical intermediate, metal complexing agent, dietary supplement, and is used in certain pharmaceuticals. The scope of this investigation covers glycine in any form and purity level. Although glycine blended with other materials is not covered by the scope of this investigation, glycine to which relatively small quantities of other materials have been added is covered by the scope. Glycine's chemical composition is C 2 H 5 NO 2 and is normally classified under subheading 2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The scope of this investigation also covers precursors of dried crystalline glycine including, but not limited to, glycine slurry ( *i.e.* , glycine in a non-crystallized form) and sodium glycinate. Glycine slurry is classified under the same HTSUS subheading as crystallized glycine (2922.49.4020) and sodium glycinate is classified under subheading HTSUS 2922.49.8000. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Adverse Facts Available For the final determination, we continue to find that, by failing to provide information we requested, a producer and/or exporter of glycine from the Republic of Korea, Korea Bio-Gen Co., Ltd., also a mandatory respondent in this investigation, did not act to the best of its ability in responding to our questionnaire. Thus, the Department continues to find that the use of adverse facts available is warranted for this company under sections 776 (a)(2) and

(b)of the Act. See *Preliminary Determination* , 72 FR at 52346. As we explained in *Preliminary Determination* , the rate of 138.83 percent we selected as the adverse facts-available rate is the highest margin alleged in the petition, as recalculated in the April 19, 2007, “Office of AD/CVD Operations Initiation Checklist for the Antidumping Duty Petition on Glycine from the Republic of Korea” (the Initiation Checklist) on file in Import Administration's Central Records Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. See also *Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Glycine from India, Japan, and the Republic of Korea* filed on March 30, 2007 (the Petition), and the April 3, 12, 13, 17, and 18, 2007, supplements to the Petition filed on behalf of Geo Specialty Chemicals, Inc. We included the range of margins we re-calculated in the Initiation Checklist in *Glycine from India, Japan, and the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations* , 72 FR 20816 (April 26, 2007) ( *Initiation Notice* ). Further, as discussed in *Preliminary Determination* , we corroborated the adverse facts-available rate pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act. All-Others Rate Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that, where the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or *de minimis* or are determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. Our recent practice under these circumstances has been to assign, as the all-others rate, the simple average of the margins in the petition. See *Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From Argentina, Japan and Thailand* , 65 FR 5520, 5527-28 (February 4, 2000); see also *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coil from Canada* , 64 FR 15457 (March 31, 1999), and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coil from Italy* , 64 FR 15458, 15459 (March 31, 1999). Consistent with our practice we calculated a simple average of the rates in the Petition, as recalculated in the Initiation Checklist at Attachment VI and as listed in *Initiation Notice* , and assigned this rate to all other manufacturers/exporters. For details of these calculations, see the memorandum from Dmitry Vladimirov to the File entitled “Antidumping Duty Investigation on Glycine from the Republic of Korea - Analysis Memo for All-Others Rate,” dated September 6, 2007. Final Determination of Investigation We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006: Manufacturer or Exporter Margin (percent) Korea Bio-Gen Co., Ltd. 138.83 All-Others 138.60 Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b)(1), we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from the Republic of Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 13, 2007, the date of the publication of *Preliminary Determination* . We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average margin, as indicated in the chart above, as follows:

(1)the rate for the mandatory respondent will be the rate we have determined in this final determination;

(2)if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation but the producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise;

(3)the rate for all other producers or exporters will be 138.60 percent. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission

(ITC)of our final determination. As our final determination is affirmative and in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding APO This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order

(CVD)order on certain in-shell roasted pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran

(Iran)for the period January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. For information on the net subsidy rate for the reviewed company, please see the “Preliminary Results of Review” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. (See the “Public Comment” section of this notice). EFFECTIVE DATE: November 28, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Hargett, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-4161. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 7, 1986, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the countervailing duty order on certain in-shell roasted pistachios from Iran. *See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order: Roasted In-shell Pistachios from Iran* , 51 FR 35679 (October 7, 1986). On March 21, 2007, the Department received a timely request for a new shipper review from Kerman Corporation (Kerman) on behalf of Ahmadi's Agricultural Productions, Processing and Trade Complex (Ahmadi). *See* Letter from Ali R. Ahmadi, Kerman Corporation, dated March 21, 2007. On June 1, 2007, the Department published the notice of initiation of this new shipper review for the period of review

(POR)of January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. *See Certain In-shell Roasted Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty New Shipper Review* , 72 FR 30547 (June 1, 2007). On June 6, 2007, we issued our initial questionnaire to the Government of Iran

(GOI)and Ahmadi, to which Ahmadi and the GOI submitted responses on August 3 and September 14, 2007, respectively. On September 10, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Ahmadi and Ahmadi submitted a response on October 1, 2007. On October 3, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to the GOI. The GOI did not respond to the supplemental questionnaire. On October 4, 2007, the Western Pistachio Commission (petitioner) submitted additional subsidy allegations regarding certain programs provided by the GOI. On November 13, 2007, the Department issued supplemental questions to petitioners regarding their additional subsidy allegations. The supplemental information is due to the Department on November 27, 2007, and will be addressed in the final results of this proceeding. On November 13, 2007, petitioner submitted comments regarding the Department's preliminary results. The Department intends to address these concerns as part of the *Public Comment* phase of this proceeding, as discussed below. In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(a), this new shipper review covers only merchandise produced and exported by Ahmadi, for which a review was specifically requested. Scope of Order The product covered by this order is all roasted in-shell pistachio nuts, whether roasted in Iran or elsewhere, from which the hulls have been removed, leaving the inner hard shells and edible meat, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 0802.50.20.00. The HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Analysis of Programs I. *Programs Preliminarily Determined to Be Not Used* Based on the information supplied by Kerman on behalf of Ahmadi, we preliminarily determine that the programs listed below were not used during the POR. A. Provision of Fertilizer and Machinery B. Provision of Credit C. Tax Exemptions D. Provision of Water and Irrigation Equipment E. Technical Support F. Duty Refunds on Imported Raw or Intermediate Materials Used in the Production of Export Goods G. Program to Improve Quality of Exports of Dried Fruit H. Iranian Export Guarantee Fund I. GOI Grants and Loans to Pistachio Farmers J. Crop Insurance for Pistachios New Shipper Review Bona Fide Analysis Consistent with the Department's practice, we investigated the bona fide nature of the sales made by Ahmadi for this new shipper review. The Department reviewed import data provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and compared the quantity and value of the only shipment by Ahmadi to the United States to imports of subject merchandise by other companies. We also reviewed information on the record with regard to the commercial legitimacy of Ahmadi, Kerman, and the unaffiliated sale in the United States. We find that there is nothing on the record to question the *bona fides* of Ahmadi's sale. Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results of review, we are treating Ahmadi's sale of subject merchandise to the United States as bona fide for this new shipper review. *See* Memo to the file from Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, Office 3, Operations, entitled, “Preliminary Bona Fide Sales Analysis.” Preliminary Results of Review In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we have calculated an individual subsidy rate for Ahmadi, the only producer/exporter subject to this proceeding, for the POR, *i.e.* , calendar year 2006. We preliminarily determine that the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rate is 0.00 percent *ad valorem* . We intend to issue the following cash deposit requirements, effective upon publication of the notice of final results of review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication:

(1)for merchandise produced and exported by Ahmadi, the cash deposit rate will be 0.00 percent,

(2)the rate calculated for merchandise exported by Ahmadi but not produced by Ahmadi, the cash deposit rate will be the all-others rate established in the original CVD investigation ( *see* 51 FR 35679 (October 7, 1986));

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original CVD investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; and

(4)if neither the exporter nor producer is a firm covered in this review or the original investigation, the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters of the subject merchandise will continue to be 99.52 percent *ad valorem* . This rate is the all-others rate from the final determination in the original investigation. If the final results of this review remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department intends to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review to liquidate without regard to countervailing duties all shipments of subject merchandise produced and exported by Ahmadi, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the POR. Should the final results of this review remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department also will instruct CBP not to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties on all shipments of the subject merchandise produced and exported by Ahmadi, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this new shipper review. Public Comment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, case briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the publication of these preliminary results. Rebuttal briefs, which are limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs, unless otherwise specified by the Department. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:

(1)a statement of the issue, and

(2)a brief summary of the argument. Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department copies of the public version on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing. This new shipper review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(h) and 351.221(b)(4). Dated: November 20, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-23142 Filed 11-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Minority Business Development Agency [Docket No.: 071121731-7735-01] Solicitation of Applications for the Minority Business Enterprise Center

(MBEC)Program AGENCY: Minority Business Development Agency, Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with 15 U.S.C. Section 1512 and Executive Order 11625, the Minority Business Development Agency

(MBDA)is soliciting competitive applications from organizations to operate a Minority Business Enterprise Center

(MBEC)in the locations and geographical service areas specified in this notice. The MBEC operates through the use of business consultants and provides a range of business consulting and technical assistance services directly to eligible minority-owned businesses. Responsibility for ensuring that applications in response to this competitive solicitation are complete and received by MBDA on time is the sole responsibility of the applicant. Applications submitted must be to operate a MBEC and to provide business consultation services to eligible clients. Applications that do not meet these requirements will be rejected. This is not a grant program to help start or to further an individual business. DATES: The closing date for receipt of applications is January 11, 2008 at 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). Completed applications must be received by MBDA at the address below for paper submissions or at *http://www.Grants.gov* for electronic submissions. The due date and time is the same for electronic submissions as it is for paper submissions. The date that applications will be deemed to have been submitted electronically shall be the date and time received at Grants.gov. Applicants should save and print the proof of submission they receive from Grants.gov. Applications received after the closing date and time will not be considered. Anticipated time for processing is seventy-five

(75)days from the close of the competition period. MBDA anticipates that awards under this notice will be made with a start date of April 1, 2008. Pre-Application Conference: In connection with this solicitation, a pre-application teleconference will be held on December 12, 2007 at 1 p.m. (EST). Participants must register at least 24 hours in advance of the teleconference and may participate in person or by telephone. Please visit the MBDA Internet Portal at *http://www.mbda.gov* (MBDA Portal) or contact an MBDA representative listed below for registration instructions. ADDRESSES:

(1a)*Paper Submission—If Mailed:* If the application is sent by postal mail or overnight delivery service by the applicant or its representative, one

(1)signed original plus two

(2)copies of the application must be submitted. Completed application packages must be mailed to: Office of Business Development—MBEC Program, Office of Executive Secretariat, HCHB, Room 5063, Minority Business Development Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Applicants are advised that MBDA's receipt of mail sent via the United States Postal Service may be substantially delayed or suspended in delivery due to security measures. Applicants may therefore wish to use a guaranteed overnight delivery service. Department of Commerce delivery policies for overnight delivery services require all packages to be sent to the address above.

(1b)*Paper Submission—If Hand-Delivered:* If the application is hand-delivered by the applicant or by its representative, one

(1)signed original plus two

(2)copies of the application must be delivered to: U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency, Office of Business Development—MBEC Program (extension 1940), HCHB—Room 1874, Entrance #10, 15th Street, NW., (between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues), Washington, DC. MBDA will not accept applications that are submitted by the deadline, but that are rejected due to the applicant's failure to adhere to Department of Commerce protocol for hand-deliveries.

(2)*Electronic Submission:* Applicants are encouraged to submit their proposal electronically at *http://www.Grants.gov.* Electronic submissions should be made in accordance with the instructions available at Grants.gov (see *http://www.grants.gov/forapplicants* for detailed information). MBDA strongly recommends that applicants not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov as, in some cases, the process for completing an online application may require 3-5 working days. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information or for an application package, please visit MBDA's Minority Business Internet Portal at *http://www.mbda.gov.* Paper applications may also be obtained by contacting the MBDA Office of Business Development or the MBDA National Enterprise Center

(NEC)in the region in which the MBEC will be located (see below Agency Contacts). In addition, Standard Forms

(SF)may be obtained by accessing *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants* or *http://www.grants.gov.* and Department of Commerce

(CD)forms may be accessed at *http://www.doc.gov/forms.* *Agency Contacts:* 1. MBDA Office of Business Development, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 5075, Washington, DC 20230. Contact: Efrain Gonzalez, Chief, 202-482-1940. 2. Dallas National Enterprise Center (DNEC), 1100 Commerce Street, Room 726, Dallas, Texas 75242. This region covers the states of Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wyoming. *Contact:* John F. Iglehart, Regional Director, 214-767-8001. 3. San Francisco National Enterprise Center (SFNEC), 221 Main Street, Room 1280, San Francisco, California 94105. This region covers the states of Alaska, America Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. *Contact:* Linda M. Marmolejo, Regional Director, 415-744-3001. 4. Atlanta National Enterprise Center (ANEC), 401 W. Peachtree Street, NW., Suite 1715, Atlanta, Georgia 30308. This region covers the states and territories of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee and the Virgin Islands. *Contact:* John F. Iglehart, Regional Director, 404-730-3300 or 214-767-8001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Background:* The MBEC Program is a key component of MBDA's overall minority business development assistance program and promotes the growth and competitiveness of eligible minority-owned businesses. MBEC operators leverage project staff and professional consultants to provide a wide-range of direct business assistance services to eligible minority-owned firms, including but not limited to initial consultations and assessments, business technical assistance, and access to federal and non-federal procurement and financing opportunities. MBDA currently funds a network of 31 MBEC projects located throughout the United States. Pursuant to this notice, competitive applications for new awards are being solicited for the MBEC projects identified below. *Locations and Geographical Service Areas:* MBDA is soliciting competitive applications from organizations to operate a MBEC in the following locations and geographical service areas: Name of MBEC Location of MBEC MBEC geographical service area** Honolulu MBEC Honolulu, HI Honolulu MSA.** Miami MBEC Miami, FL Miami/Ft. Lauderdale/Pompano Beach MSA.** Oklahoma City MBEC Oklahoma City, OK State of Oklahoma. ** Metropolitan Statistical Area, please see OMB Bulletin No. 07-01, Update of Statistical Area Definitions and Guidance on Their Uses (December 18, 2006) at *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins.* *Electronic Access:* A link to the full text of the Announcement of Federal Funding Opportunity

(FFO)for this solicitation may be accessed at: *http://www.Grants.gov,* *http://www.mbda.gov,* or by contacting the appropriate MBDA representative identified above. The FFO contains a full and complete description of the requirements under the MBEC Program. In order to receive proper consideration, applicants must comply with all information and requirements contained in the FFO. Applicants will be able to access, download and submit electronic grant applications for the MBEC Program through *http://www.Grants.gov.* MBDA strongly recommends that applicants not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov as in some cases the process for completing an online application may require additional time (e.g., 3-5 working days). The date that applications will be deemed to have been submitted electronically shall be the date and time received at Grants.gov. Applicants should save and print the proof of submission they receive from Grants.gov. Applications received after the closing date and time will not be considered. *Funding Priorities:* Preference may be given during the selection process to applications which address the following MBDA funding priorities:

(a)Proposals that include performance goals that exceed by 10% or more the minimum performance goal requirements in the FFO;

(b)Applicants who demonstrate an exceptional ability to identify and work towards the elimination of barriers which limit the access of minority businesses to markets and capital;

(c)Applicants who demonstrate an exceptional ability to identify and work with minority firms seeking to obtain large-scale contracts and/or insertion into supply chains with institutional customers;

(d)Proposals that take a regional approach in providing services to eligible clients; or

(e)Proposals from applicants with pre-existing or established operations in the identified geographic service area(s). *Funding Availability:* MBDA anticipates that a total of approximately $574,679 will be available in FY 2008 and that a total of approximately $766,238 will be available in FY 2009 to fund financial assistance awards for the three MBEC projects referenced in this competitive solicitation. The total award period for awards made under this competitive solicitation is anticipated to be twenty-one

(21)months and all awards are expected to be made with a start date of April 1, 2008. The anticipated amount of the financial assistance award for each MBEC project (including the minimum 20% non-federal cost share) is as follows: Project name April 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008 Total cost ($) Federal share ($) Non-federal share ($) (20% min.) January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009 Total cost ($) Federal share ($) Non-federal share ($) (20% min.) Honolulu MBEC $222,863 $178,238 $44,625 $297,150 $237,650 $59,500 Miami MBEC 307,941 246,441 61,500 410,588 328,588 82,000 Oklahoma City MBEC 187,500 150,000 37,500 250,000 200,000 50,000 Applicants must submit project plans and budgets for each of the two

(2)funding periods covered by the award (April 1, 2008-December 31, 2008 and January 1, 2009-December 31, 2009, respectively). Projects will initially be funded for the first funding period and will not have to compete for funding for the second funding period. However, operators that fail to achieve a “satisfactory” or better performance rating for the first funding period may be denied funding for the second funding period. Recommendations for funding for the second funding period are generally evaluated by MBDA based on a “Satisfactory” or better mid-year funding performance rating (i.e., April 1, 2007-September 30, 2007) and/or a combination of a mid-year and year-to date (i.e., April 1-December 31, 2007) “Satisfactory” or better performance rating. In making such funding recommendations, MBDA and the Department of Commerce will consider the facts and circumstances of each case, such as but not limited to market conditions, most recent performance of the operator and other mitigating circumstances. Applicants are hereby given notice that FY 2008 funds have not yet been appropriated for the MBEC program. Accordingly, MBDA issues this notice subject to the appropriations made available under the current continuing resolution, H.J. Res. 52, “Making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes,” Public Law 110-92, as amended by H.R. 3222, Public Law 110-116. In no event will MBDA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if this program fails to receive funding or is cancelled because of other MBDA or Department of Commerce priorities. Authority: 15 U.S.C. Section 1512 and Executive Order 11625. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA):* 11.800, Minority Business Enterprise Centers. *Eligibility:* For-profit entities (including but not limited to sole-proprietorships, partnerships, and corporations), non-profit organizations, state and local government entities, American Indian Tribes, and educational institutions are eligible to operate an MBEC. *Program Description:* MBDA is soliciting competitive applications from organizations to operate a Minority Business Enterprise Centers

(MBEC)(formerly known as Minority Business Development Centers). The MBEC will operate through the use of trained professional business consultants who will assist eligible minority entrepreneurs through direct client engagements. Entrepreneurs eligible for assistance under the MBEC Program are: African Americans, Puerto Ricans, Spanish-speaking Americans, Aleuts, Asian Pacific Americans, Native Americans (including Alaska Natives, Alaska Native Corporations and tribal entities), Eskimos, Asian Indians and Hasidic Jews. No service may be denied to any member of the eligible groups listed above. The MBEC Program generally requires project staff to provide standardized business assistance services directly to “eligible minority owned firms,” with an emphasis on those firms with $500,000 or more in annual revenues and/or those eligible firms with “rapid growth potential” (“Strategic Growth Initiative” or “SGI” firms); to develop and maintain a network of strategic partnerships; to provide collaborative consulting services with MBDA and other MBDA funded programs and strategic partners; and to provide referral services (as necessary) for client transactions. MBEC operators will assist eligible minority-owned firms in accessing federal and non-federal contracting and financing opportunities that result in demonstrable client outcomes. The MBEC Program incorporates an entrepreneurial approach to building market stability and improving the quality of client services. This entrepreneurial strategy expands the reach of the MBECs by requiring project operators to develop and build upon strategic alliances with public and private sector partners as a means of serving minority-owned firms within each MBEC's geographical service area. The MBEC Program is also designed to effectively leverage MBDA resources, including but not limited to: MBDA Office of Business Development and MBDA National Enterprise Centers; MBDA's Business Internet Portal; and MBDA's nationwide network of MBECs, Native American Business Enterprise Centers (NABECs) and Minority Business Opportunity Centers (MBOCs). MBEC operators are also required to attend a variety of MBDA training programs designed to increase operational efficiencies and the provision of value-added client services. MBEC operators are generally required to provide the following four client services:

(1)Client Assessment—this is a standardized service activity that includes identifying the client's immediate and long-term needs and establishes a projected growth track;

(2)Strategic Business Consulting—this involves providing intensive business consulting services that can be delivered as personalized consulting or group consulting;

(3)Access to Capital—this assistance is designed to secure the financial capital necessary for client growth, and

(4)Access to Markets—this involves assisting clients to identify and access opportunities for increased sales and revenues. Please refer to the FFO pertaining to this competitive solicitation for a full and complete description of the application and programmatic requirements under the MBEC Program. *Match Requirements:* The MBEC Program requires a minimum non-federal cost share of 20%, which must be reflected in the proposed project budget. Non-federal cost share is the portion of the project cost not borne by the Federal Government. Applicants must satisfy the non-federal cost sharing requirements in one or more of the following four means or any combination thereof:

(1)Client fees;

(2)applicant cash contributions;

(3)applicant in-kind (i.e., non-cash) contributions; or

(4)third-party in-kind contributions. The MBEC is required to charge client fees for services rendered and such fees must be used by the operator towards meeting the non-federal cost share requirements under the award. Applicants will be awarded up to five bonus points to the extent that the proposed project budget includes a non-federal cost share contribution, measured as a percentage of the overall project budget, exceeding 20% (see Evaluation Criterion below). *Evaluation Criterion:* Proposals will be evaluated and applicants will be selected based on the below evaluation criterion. The maximum total number of points that an application may receive is 105, including the bonus points for exceeding the minimum required non-federal cost sharing, except when oral presentations are made by applicants. If oral presentations are made (see below: Oral Presentation—Optional), the maximum total of points that can be earned is 115. The number of points assigned to each evaluation criterion will be determined on a competitive basis by the MBDA review panel based on the quality of the application with respect to each evaluation criterion. 1. Applicant Capability (40 points) Proposals will be evaluated with respect to the applicant's experience and expertise in providing the work requirements listed. Specifically, proposals will be evaluated as follows:

(a)*Community* —Experience in and knowledge of the minority community, minority business sector, and strategies for enhancing its growth and expansion; particular emphasis shall be on expanding SGI firms. Consideration will be given as to whether the applicant has a physical presence in the geographic service area at the time of its application (4 points);

(b)*Business Consulting* —Experience in and knowledge of business consulting with respect to minority firms, with emphasis on SGI firms in the geographic service area (5 points);

(c)*Financing* —Experience in and knowledge of the preparation and formulation of successful financial transactions, with an emphasis on the geographic service area (5 points);

(d)*Procurements and Contracting* —Experience in and knowledge of the public and private sector contracting opportunities for minority businesses, as well as demonstrated expertise in assisting clients into supply chains (5 points);

(e)*Financing Networks* —Resources and professional relationships within the corporate, banking and investment community that may be beneficial to minority-owned firms (5 points);

(f)*Establishment of a Self-Sustainable Service Model* —Summary plan to establish a self-sustainable model for continued services to the MBE communities beyond the MBDA award period (3 points);

(g)*MBE Advocacy* —Experience and expertise in advocating on behalf of minority communities and minority businesses, both as to specific transactions in which a minority business seeks to engage and as to broad market advocacy for the benefit of the minority community at large (3 points); and

(h)*Key Staff* —Assessment of the qualifications, experience and proposed role of staff that will operate the MBEC. In particular, an assessment will be made to determine whether proposed key staff possesses the expertise in utilizing information systems and the ability to successfully deliver program services. At a minimum the applicant must identify a proposed project director. (10 points). 2. Resources (20 points) The applicant's proposal will be evaluated as followed:

(a)*Resources* —Resources (not included as part of the non-federal cost share) that will be used in implementing the program, including but not limited to existing prior and/or current data lists that will serve in fostering immediate success for the MBEC (8 points);

(b)*Location* —Assessment of the applicant's strategic rationale for the proposed physical location of the MBEC. Applicant is encouraged to establish a location for the MBEC that is in a building which is separate and apart from any of the applicant's existing offices in the geographic service area (2 points);

(c)*Partners* —How the applicant plans to establish and maintain the network of strategic partners and the manner in which these partners will support the MBEC in meeting program performance goals (5 points); and

(d)*Equipment* —How the applicant plans to satisfy the MBEC information technology requirements, including computer hardware, software requirements and network map (5 points). 3. Techniques and Methodologies (20 points) The applicant's proposal will be evaluated as follows:

(a)*Performance Measures* —For each funding period, the manner in which the applicant relates each performance measure to the financial information and market resources available in the geographic service area (including existing client list); how the applicant will create MBEC brand recognition (marketing plan); and how the applicant will satisfy program performance goals. In particular, emphasis may be placed on the manner in which the applicant matches MBEC performance goals with client service hours and how it accounts for existing market conditions in its strategy to achieve such goals (10 points);

(b)*Start-up Phase* —How the applicant will commence MBEC operations within the initial 30-day period. The MBEC shall have thirty

(30)days to become fully operational after an award is made (3 points); and

(c)*Work Requirement Execution Plan* —The applicant will be evaluated on how effectively and efficiently staff time will be used to achieve the work requirements, particularly with respect to periods beyond the start-up phase (7 points). 4. Proposed Budget and Budget Narrative (20 points) The applicant's proposal will be evaluated as follows:

(a)*Reasonableness, Allowability and Allocability of Proposed Program Costs.* All of the proposed program costs expenditures should be discussed and the budget line-item narrative must match the proposed budget. Fringe benefits and other percentage item calculations should match the proposed budget line-item and narrative (5 points);

(b)*Non-Federal Cost Share.* The required 20% non-Federal share must be adequately addressed and properly documented, including but not limited to how client fees (if proposed) will be used by the applicant in meeting the non-federal cost-share (5 points); and

(c)*Performance-Based Budgeting.* The extent to which the line-item budget and budget narrative relate to the accomplishment of the MBEC work requirements and performance measures ( *i.e.* , performance-based budgeting) (10 points). *Bonus for Non-Federal Cost Sharing (maximum of 5 points):* Proposals with non-federal cost sharing exceeding 20% of the total project costs will be awarded bonus points on the following scale: more than 20%-less than 25% = 1 point; 25% or more-less than 30% = 2 points; 30% or more-less than 35% = 3 points; 35% or more-less than 40% = 4 points; and 40% or more = 5 points. Non-federal cost sharing of at least 20% is required under the MBEC Program. Non-federal cost sharing is the portion of the total project cost not borne by the Federal Government and may be met by the applicant in any one or more of the following four means (or a combination thereof):

(1)Client fees;

(2)cash contributions;

(3)non-cash applicant contributions; or,

(4)third party in-kind contributions. 5. Oral Presentation—Optional (10 points) Oral presentations are optional and held *only* when requested by MBDA. This action may be initiated for the top two

(2)ranked applications for each project and will be applied on a consistent basis for each project competition. Oral presentations will be used to establish a final evaluation and ranking. The applicant's presentation will be evaluated as to the extent to which the presentation demonstrates:

(a)How the applicant will effectively and efficiently assist MBDA in the accomplishment of its mission (2 points);

(b)Business operating priorities designed to manage a successful MBEC (2 points);

(c)A management philosophy that achieves an effective balance between micromanagement and complete autonomy for its Project Director (2 points);

(d)Robust search criteria for the identification of a Project Director (1 point);

(e)Effective employee recruitment and retention policies and procedures (1 point); and

(f)A competitive and innovative approach to exceeding performance requirements (2 points). *Review and Selection Process:* 1. Initial Screening Prior to the formal paneling process, each application will receive an initial screening to ensure that all required forms, signatures and documentation are present. An application will be considered non-responsive and will not be evaluated by the review panel if it is received after the closing date for receipt of applications, the applicant fails to submit an original, signed Form SF-424 by the application closing date (paper applications only), or the application does not provide for the operation of a MBEC. Other application deficiencies may be accounted for through point deductions during panel review. 2. Panel Review Each application will receive an independent, objective review by a panel qualified to evaluate the applications submitted. The review panel will consist of at least 3 persons, all of whom will be full-time federal employees and at least one of whom will be an MBDA employee, who will review the applications for a specified project based on the above evaluation criterion. Each reviewer shall evaluate and provide a score for each proposal. Each project review panel (through the panel Chairperson) shall provide the MBDA National Director (Recommending Official) with a ranking of the applications based on the average of the reviewers' scores and shall also provide a recommendation regarding funding of the highest scoring application. 3. Oral Presentation—Upon MBDA Request MBDA may invite the two

(2)top-ranked applicants for each project competition to develop and provide an oral presentation. If an oral presentation is requested, the affected applicants will receive a formal communication (via standard mail, e-mail or fax) from MBDA indicating the time and date for the presentation. In-person presentations are not mandatory but are encouraged; telephonic presentations are acceptable. Applicants will be asked to submit a PowerPoint presentation (or equivalent) to MBDA that addresses the oral presentation criteria set forth above. The presentation must be submitted at least 24 hours before the scheduled date and time of the presentation. The presentation will be made to the MBDA National Director (or his/her designee) and up to three senior MBDA staff who did not serve on the original review panel. The oral panel members may ask follow-up questions after the presentation. MBDA will provide the teleconference dial-in number and pass code. Each applicant will present to MBDA staff only; competitors are not permitted to listen (and/or watch) other presentations. All costs pertaining to this presentation shall be borne by the applicant. MBEC award funds may *not* be used as a reimbursement for this presentation. MBDA will not accept any requests or petitions for reimbursement. The oral panel members shall score each presentation in accordance with the oral presentation criterion provided above. An average score shall be compiled and added to the score of the original panel review. 4. Final Recommendation The MBDA National Director makes the final recommendation to the Grants Officer regarding the funding of applications under this competitive solicitation. MBDA expects to recommend for funding the highest ranking application for each project, as evaluated and recommended by the review panel and taking into account oral presentations (as applicable). However, the MBDA National Director may not make any selection, or he may select an application out of rank order for the following reasons:

(a)A determination that an application better addresses one or more of the funding priorities for this competition. The National Director (or his/her designee) reserves the right to conduct one or more site visits (subject to the availability of funding), in order to make a better assessment of an applicant's capability to achieve the funding priorities; or

(b)The availability of MBDA funding. Prior to making a final recommendation to the Grants Officer, MBDA may request that the apparent winner of the competition provide written clarifications (as necessary) regarding its application. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” *Limitation of Liability:* In no event will MBDA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if this program fails to receive funding or is cancelled because of other MBDA or Department of Commerce priorities. All funding periods are subject to the availability of funds to support the continuation of the project and the Department of Commerce and MBDA priorities. Publication of this notice does not obligate the Department of Commerce or MBDA to award any specific cooperative agreement or to obligate all or any part of available funds. *Universal Identifier:* Applicants should be aware that they will be required to provide a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering system

(DUNS)number during the application process. See the June 27, 2003 **Federal Register** notice (68 FR 38402) for additional information. Organizations can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS Number request line at 1-866-705-5711 or by accessing the Grants.gov Web site at *http://www.Grants.gov.* *Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements:* The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the **Federal Register** notice of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389) are applicable to this solicitation. *Paperwork Reduction Act:* This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 have been approved by OMB under the respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. *Executive Order 12866:* This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. *Administrative Procedure Act/ Regulatory Flexibility Act:* Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act for rules concerning public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts (5 U.S.C. 533(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 533 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601 *et seq.* ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared. Dated: November 21, 2007. Ronald N. Langston, National Director, Minority Business Development Agency. [FR Doc. E7-23129 Filed 11-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-21-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Minority Business Development Agency [Docket No.: 071121729-7734-01] Solicitation of Applications for the Native American Business Enterprise Center (NABEC) Program AGENCY: Minority Business Development Agency, Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 1512 and Executive Order 11625, the Minority Business Development Agency

(MBDA)is soliciting competitive applications from organizations to operate a Native American Business Enterprise Center (NABEC) in the locations and geographical service areas specified in this notice. The NABEC operates through the use of business consultants and provides a range of business consulting and technical assistance services directly to Native American- and other eligible minority-owned businesses. Responsibility for ensuring that applications in response to this competitive solicitation are complete and received by MBDA on time is the sole responsibility of the applicant. Applications submitted must be to operate a NABEC and to provide business consultation services to eligible clients. Applications that do not meet these requirements will be rejected. This is not a grant program to help start or to further an individual business. DATES: The closing date for receipt of applications is January 11, 2008 at 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). Completed applications must be received by MBDA at the address below for paper submissions or at *http://www.Grants.gov* for electronic submissions. The due date and time is the same for electronic submissions as it is for paper submissions. The date that applications will be deemed to have been submitted electronically shall be the date and time received at Grants.gov. Applicants should save and print the proof of submission they receive from Grants.gov. Applications received after the closing date and time will not be considered. Anticipated time for processing is seventy-five

(75)days from the close of the competition period. MBDA anticipates that awards under this notice will be made with a start date of April 1, 2008. Pre-Application Conference: In connection with this solicitation, a pre-application teleconference will be held on December 11, 2007 at 1:00 p.m. (EST). Participants must register at least 24 hours in advance of the teleconference and may participate in person or by telephone. Please visit the MBDA Internet Portal at *http://www.mbda.gov* (MBDA Portal) or contact an MBDA representative listed below for registration instructions. ADDRESSES:

(1a)*Paper Submission—If Mailed:* If the application is sent by postal mail or overnight delivery service by the applicant or its representative, one

(1)signed original plus two

(2)copies of the application must be submitted. Completed application packages must be mailed to: Office of Business Development—NABEC Program, Office of Executive Secretariat, HCHB, Room 5063, Minority Business Development Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Applicants are advised that MBDA's receipt of mail sent via the United States Postal Service may be substantially delayed or suspended in delivery due to security measures. Applicants may therefore wish to use a guaranteed overnight delivery service. Department of Commerce delivery policies for overnight delivery services require all packages to be sent to the address above.

(1b)*Paper Submission—If Hand-Delivered:* If the application is hand-delivered by the applicant or by its representative, one

(1)signed original plus two

(2)copies of the application must be delivered to: U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency, Office of Business Development—NABEC Program (extension 1940), HCHB—Room 1874, Entrance #10, 15th Street, NW. (between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues), Washington, DC. MBDA will not accept applications that are submitted by the deadline, but that are rejected due to the applicant's failure to adhere to Department of Commerce protocol for hand-deliveries.

(NEC)in the region in which the NABEC will be located (see below Agency Contacts). In addition, Standard Forms

(SF)may be obtained by accessing *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants* or *http://www.grants.gov* and Department of Commerce

(CD)forms may be accessed at *http://www.doc.gov/forms.* *Agency Contacts:* 1. MBDA Office of Business Development, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 5075, Washington, DC 20230. Contact: Efrain Gonzalez, Chief, 202-482-1940. 2. MBDA Chicago National Enterprise Center (CNEC), 55 E. Monroe Street, Suite 2810, Chicago, Illinois 60603. This region covers the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin. *Contact:* Eric Dobyne, Regional Director, 312-353-0182. 3. Dallas National Enterprise Center (DNEC), 1100 Commerce Street, Room 726, Dallas, Texas 75242. This region covers the states of Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wyoming. *Contact:* John F. Iglehart, Regional Director, 214-767-8001. 4. San Francisco National Enterprise Center (SFNEC), 221 Main Street, Room 1280, San Francisco, California 94105. This region covers the states of Alaska, America Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. *Contact:* Linda M. Marmolejo, Regional Director, 415-744-3001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Background:* The NABEC Program is a key component of MBDA's overall minority business development assistance program and promotes the growth and competitiveness of Native American and eligible minority-owned businesses. NABEC operators leverage project staff and professional consultants to provide a wide range of direct business assistance services to Native American, tribal entities and eligible minority-owned firms. NABEC services include, but are not limited to, initial consultations and assessments, business technical assistance, and access to Federal and non-Federal procurement and financing opportunities. MBDA currently funds a network of eight NABEC projects located throughout the United States. Pursuant to this notice, competitive applications for new three-year awards are being solicited for the five NABEC projects set forth below. MBDA intends to hold a separate award competition during FY 2008 for the remaining three NABEC projects, due to their current award cycles which end on July 31, 2008 or August 31, 2008. *Geographical Service Areas:* MBDA is soliciting competitive applications from organizations to operate a NABEC and to provide services in the following geographical service areas: NABEC name Geographical service area Arizona NABEC State of Arizona. California NABEC State of California. Minnesota/Iowa NABEC States of Minnesota & Iowa. North/South Dakota NABEC States of North Dakota & South Dakota. Northwest NABEC States of Washington, Oregon & Idaho. The NABEC project must be physically located within the applicable geographical service area. *Electronic Access:* A link to the full text of the Announcement of Federal Funding Opportunity

(FFO)for this solicitation may be accessed at: *http://www.Grants.gov, http://www.mbda.gov,* or by contacting the appropriate MBDA representative identified above. The FFO contains a full and complete description of the requirements under the NABEC Program. In order to receive proper consideration, applicants must comply with all information and requirements contained in the FFO. Applicants will be able to access, download and submit electronic grant applications for the NABEC Program through *http://www.Grants.gov.* MBDA strongly recommends that applicants not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov as in some cases the process for completing an online application may require additional time (e.g., 3-5 working days). The date that applications will be deemed to have been submitted electronically shall be the date and time received at Grants.gov. Applicants should save and print the proof of submission they receive from Grants.gov. Applications received after the closing date and time will not be considered. *Funding Priorities:* Preference may be given during the selection process to applications which address the following MBDA funding priorities:

(a)Proposals that include performance goals that exceed by 10% or more the minimum performance goal requirements in the FFO;

(b)Applicants who demonstrate an exceptional ability to identify and work towards the elimination of barriers which limit the access of minority businesses to markets and capital;

(c)Applicants who demonstrate an exceptional ability to identify and work with Native American firms, tribal entities or minority firms seeking to obtain large-scale contracts and/or insertion into supply chains with institutional customers;

(d)Proposals that utilize fee for service models and those that use innovative approaches to charging and collecting fees from clients;

(e)Proposals that take a regional approach in providing services to eligible clients; or

(f)Proposals from applicants with pre-existing or established operations in the identified geographic service area(s). *Funding Availability:* MBDA anticipates that a total of approximately $1,116,500 will be available in each of FYs 2008 through 2010 to fund financial assistance awards for the five NABEC projects referenced in this competitive solicitation. The total award period for awards made under this competitive solicitation is anticipated to be three years and all awards are expected to be made with a start date of April 1, 2008. The anticipated amount of the financial assistance award for each NABEC project (including the minimum 10% non-federal cost share) is as follows: Project name April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009 Total Cost ($) Federal share ($) Non-federal share ($) (10% min.) April 1, 2009 through March 31, 2010 Total cost ($) Federal share ($) Non-federal share ($) (10% min.) April 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011 Total cost ($) Federal share ($) Non-federal share ($) (10% min.)

(1)Arizona NABEC $225,500 $203,000 $22,500 $225,500 $203,000 $22,500 $225,500 $203,000 $22,500

(2)California NABEC 330,500 297,500 33,000 330,500 297,500 33,000 330,500 297,500 33,000

(3)Minnesota/Iowa NABEC 222,300 200,000 22,300 222,300 200,000 22,300 222,300 200,000 22,300 (4)North/South Dakota NABEC 225,500 203,000 22,500 225,500 203,000 22,500 225,500 203,000 22,500

(5)Northwest NABEC 236,700 213,000 23,700 236,700 213,000 23,700 236,700 213,000 23,700 Applicants must submit project plans and budgets for each of the three

(3)program years. Projects will be funded for no more than one year at a time. Project proposals accepted for funding will not compete for funding in subsequent budget periods within the approved award period. However, operators that fail to achieve a “satisfactory” or better performance rating for the preceding program year may be denied second- or third-year funding (as the case may be). Recommendations for second- and third-year funding are generally evaluated by MBDA based on a mid-year performance rating and/or combination of mid-year and cumulative third quarter performance (e.g., April 1-January 31) performance rating. In making such funding recommendations, MBDA and the Department of Commerce will consider the facts and circumstances of each case, such as but not limited to market conditions, most recent performance of the operator and other mitigating circumstances. Applicants are hereby given notice that FY 2008 funds have not yet been appropriated for the NABEC program. Accordingly, MBDA issues this notice subject to the appropriations made available under the current continuing resolution, H.J. Res. 52, “Making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes,” Public Law 110-92, as amended by H.R. 3222, Public Law 110-116. In no event will MBDA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if this program fails to receive funding or is cancelled because of other MBDA or Department of Commerce priorities. Authority: 15 U.S.C. Section 1512 and Executive Order 11625. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA):* 11.801, Native American Business Enterprise Centers. *Eligibility:* For-profit entities (including but not limited to sole-proprietorships, partnerships, and corporations), non-profit organizations, state and local government entities, American Indian Tribes, and educational institutions are eligible to operate a NABEC. *Program Description:* MBDA is soliciting competitive applications from organizations to operate Native American Business Enterprise Centers (NABEC) (formerly known as Native American Business Development Centers). The NABEC will operate through the use of trained professional business consultants who will assist Native American and other minority entrepreneurs and tribal entities through direct client engagements. Entrepreneurs eligible for assistance under the NABEC Program are Native Americans (including Alaska Natives, Alaska Native Corporations and tribal entities), Eskimos, African Americans, Puerto Ricans, Spanish-speaking Americans, Aleuts, Asian Pacific Americans, Asian Indians and Hasidic Jews. References throughout this notice regarding a NABEC's provision of services and assistance to Native American clients also includes the eligible non-Native American clients listed in the preceding sentence. No service may be denied to any member of the eligible groups listed above. The NABEC Program generally requires project staff to provide standardized business assistance services directly to eligible Native American clients, with an emphasis on those firms with $500,000 or more in annual revenues and/or those eligible firms with “rapid growth potential” (“Strategic Growth Initiative” or “SGI” firms); to develop and maintain a network of strategic partnerships; to provide collaborative consulting services with MBDA and other MBDA funded programs and strategic partners; and to provide referral services (as necessary) for client transactions. NABEC operators will assist Native American clients in accessing federal and non-federal contracting and financing opportunities that result in demonstrable client outcomes. Specific work requirements and performance metrics are used by MBDA to evaluate each project and are a key component of the NABEC program. The NABEC Program also incorporates an entrepreneurial approach to building market stability and improving quality of services delivered. This strategy expands the reach of the NABECs by requiring project operators to develop and build upon strategic alliances with public and private sector partners, as a means of serving Native American and minority-owned firms within each NABEC's geographical service area. The NABEC Program is also designed to leverage MBDA resources including but not limited to: MBDA Office of Native American Business Development; MBDA Office of Business Development; MBDA National Enterprise Centers; MBDA Business Internet Portal; and MBDA's network of Minority Business Opportunity Centers (MBOCs), Minority Business Enterprise Centers (MBECs), and other NABECs. NABEC operators are required to attend a variety of MBDA training programs designed to increase operational efficiencies and the provision of value-added client services. NABEC operators are generally required to provide the following four client services:

(1)Client Assessment—this is a standardized service activity that includes identifying the client's immediate and long-term needs and establishes a projected growth track;

(2)Strategic Business Consulting—this involves providing intensive business consulting services that can be delivered as personalized consulting or group consulting;

(3)Access to Capital—this assistance is designed to secure the financial capital necessary for client growth, and

(4)Access to Markets—this involves assisting clients to identify and access opportunities for increased sales and revenues. Please refer to the FFO pertaining to this competitive solicitation for a full and complete description of the application and programmatic requirements under the NABEC Program. *Match Requirements:* The NABEC Program requires a minimum non-federal cost share of 10%, which must be reflected in the proposed project budget. Non-federal cost share is the portion of the project cost not borne by the Federal Government. Applicants must satisfy the non-federal cost sharing requirements in one or more of the following four means or any combination thereof:

(1)Client fees;

(2)applicant cash contributions;

(3)applicant in-kind (i.e., non-cash) contributions; or

(4)third-party in-kind contributions. The NABEC may but is not required to charge client fees for services rendered, although MBDA encourages the applicant to implement a fee-for-service program. Client fees (if imposed) must be used towards meeting non-federal cost share requirements and must be used in furtherance of the program objectives. Applicants will be awarded up to five bonus points to the extent that the proposed project budget includes a non-federal cost share contribution, measured as a percentage of the overall project budget, exceeding 10% (see Evaluation Criterion below). *Evaluation Criterion:* Proposals will be evaluated and applicants will be selected based on the below evaluation criterion. The maximum total number of points that an application may receive is 105, including the bonus points for exceeding the minimum required non-federal cost sharing, except when oral presentations are made by applicants. If oral presentations are made (see below: Oral Presentation—Optional), the maximum total of points that can be earned is 115. The number of points assigned to each evaluation criterion will be determined on a competitive basis by the MBDA review panel based on the quality of the application with respect to each evaluation criterion. 1. Applicant Capability (40 points) Proposals will be evaluated with respect to the applicant's experience and expertise in providing the work requirements listed. Specifically, proposals will be evaluated as follows: *(a) Community* —Experience in and knowledge of the Native American community, Native American tribal entities and minority business sector, and strategies for enhancing its growth and expansion; particular emphasis shall be on expanding SGI firms and tribal entities. Consideration will be given as to whether the applicant has a physical presence in the geographic service area at the time of its application (4 points); *(b) Business Consulting* —Experience in and knowledge of business consulting with respect to Native American and minority firms and tribal entities, with emphasis on SGI firms in the geographic service area (5 points);

(c)*Financing* —Experience in and knowledge of the preparation and formulation of successful financial transactions, with an emphasis on the geographic service area (5 points);

(d)*Procurements and Contracting* —Experience in and knowledge of the public and private sector contracting opportunities for Native American entities and minority businesses, as well as demonstrated expertise in assisting clients into supply chains (5 points);

(e)*Financing Networks* —Resources and professional relationships within the corporate, banking and investment community that may be beneficial to Native American entities and minority-owned firms (5 points);

(f)*Establishment of a Self-Sustainable Service Model* —Summary plan to establish a self-sustainable model for continued services to the Native American and MBE communities beyond the three-year MBDA award period (3 points);

(g)*MBE Advocacy* —Experience and expertise in advocating on behalf of Native American communities, Native American tribal entities and minority businesses, both as to specific transactions in which a minority business seeks to engage and as to broad market advocacy for the benefit of the minority community at large (3 points); and

(h)*Key Staff* —Assessment of the qualifications, experience and proposed role of staff that will operate the NABEC. In particular, an assessment will be made to determine whether proposed key staff possesses the expertise in utilizing information systems and the ability to successfully deliver program services. At a minimum the applicant must identify a proposed project director (10 points). 2. Resources (20 points) The applicant's proposal will be evaluated as followed:

(b)*Location* —Assessment of the applicant's strategic rationale for the proposed physical location of the NABEC. Applicant is encouraged to establish a location for the NABEC that is in a building which is separate and apart from any of the applicant's existing offices in the geographic service area (2 points);

(c)*Partners* —How the applicant plans to establish and maintain the network of strategic partners and the manner in which these partners will support the NABEC in meeting program performance goals (5 points); and

(d)*Equipment* —How the applicant plans to satisfy the NABEC information technology requirements, including computer hardware, software requirements and network map (5 points). 3. Techniques and Methodologies (20 points) The applicant's proposal will be evaluated as follows:

(a)*Performance Measures* —For each program year, the manner in which the applicant relates each performance measure to the financial information and market resources available in the geographic service area (including existing client list); how the applicant will create NABEC brand recognition (marketing plan); and how the applicant will satisfy program performance goals. In particular, emphasis may be placed on the manner in which the applicant matches NABEC performance goals with client service hours and how it accounts for existing market conditions in its strategy to achieve such goals (10 points);

(b)*Start-up Phase* —How the applicant will commence NABEC operations within the initial 30-day period. The NABEC shall have thirty

(30)days to become fully operational after an award is made (3 points); and

(b)*Non-Federal Cost Share.* The required 10% non-Federal share must be adequately addressed and properly documented, including but not limited to how client fees (if proposed) will be used by the applicant in meeting the non-federal cost-share (5 points); and

(c)*Performance-Based Budgeting.* The extent to which the line-item budget and budget narrative relate to the accomplishment of the NABEC work requirements and performance measures (i.e., performance-based budgeting) (10 points). *Bonus for Non-Federal Cost Sharing (maximum of 5 points):* Proposals with non-federal cost sharing exceeding 10% of the total project costs will be awarded bonus points on the following scale: more than 10%-less than 15% = 1 point; 15% or more-less than 20% = 2 points; 20% or more-less than 25% = 3 points; 25% or more-less than 30% = 4 points; and 30% or more = 5 points. Non-federal cost sharing of at least 10% is required under the NABEC Program. Non-federal cost sharing is the portion of the total project cost not borne by the Federal Government and may be met by the applicant in any one or more of the following four means (or a combination thereof):

(1)Client fees (encouraged but not mandatory);

(2)cash contributions;

(3)non-cash applicant contributions; or

(4)third party in-kind contributions. 5. Oral Presentation—Optional (10 points) Oral presentations are optional and held only when requested by MBDA. This action may be initiated for the top two

(a)How the applicant will effectively and efficiently assist MBDA in the accomplishment of its mission (2 points);

(b)Business operating priorities designed to manage a successful NABEC (2 points);

(c)A management philosophy that achieves an effective balance between micromanagement and complete autonomy for its Project Director (2 points);

(d)Robust search criteria for the identification of a Project Director (1 point);

(e)Effective employee recruitment and retention policies and procedures (1 point); and

(f)A competitive and innovative approach to exceeding performance requirements (2 points). *Review and Selection Process:* 1. Initial Screening Prior to the formal paneling process, each application will receive an initial screening to ensure that all required forms, signatures and documentation are present. An application will be considered non-responsive and will not be evaluated by the review panel if it is received after the closing date for receipt of applications, the applicant fails to submit an original, signed Form SF-424 by the application closing date (paper applications only), or the application does not provide for the operation of a NABEC. Other application deficiencies may be accounted for through point deductions during panel review. 2. Panel Review Each application will receive an independent, objective review by a panel qualified to evaluate the applications submitted. The review panel will consist of at least 3 persons, all of whom will be full-time federal employees and at least one of whom will be an MBDA employee, who will review the applications for a specified project based on the above evaluation criterion. Each reviewer shall evaluate and provide a score for each proposal. Each project review panel (through the panel Chairperson) shall provide the MBDA National Director (Recommending Official) with a ranking of the applications based on the average of the reviewers' scores and shall also provide a recommendation regarding funding of the highest scoring application. 3. Oral Presentation—Upon MBDA Request MBDA may invite the two

(2)top-ranked applicants for each project competition to develop and provide an oral presentation. If an oral presentation is requested, the affected applicants will receive a formal communication (via standard mail, e-mail or fax) from MBDA indicating the time and date for the presentation. In-person presentations are not mandatory but are encouraged; telephonic presentations are acceptable. Applicants will be asked to submit a PowerPoint presentation (or equivalent) to MBDA that addresses the oral presentation criteria set forth above. The presentation must be submitted at least 24 hours before the scheduled date and time of the presentation. The presentation will be made to the MBDA National Director (or his/her designee) and up to three senior MBDA staff who did not serve on the original review panel. The oral panel members may ask follow-up questions after the presentation. MBDA will provide the teleconference dial-in number and pass code. Each applicant will present to MBDA staff only; competitors are not permitted to listen (and/or watch) other presentations. All costs pertaining to this presentation shall be borne by the applicant. NABEC award funds may not be used as a reimbursement for this presentation. MBDA will not accept any requests or petitions for reimbursement. The oral panel members shall score each presentation in accordance with the oral presentation criterion provided above. An average score shall be compiled and added to the score of the original panel review. 4. Final Recommendation The MBDA National Director makes the final recommendation to the Grants Officer regarding the funding of applications under this competitive solicitation. MBDA expects to recommend for funding the highest ranking application for each project, as evaluated and recommended by the review panel and taking into account oral presentations (as applicable). However, the MBDA National Director may not make any selection, or he may select an application out of rank order for the following reasons:

(DUNS)number during the application process. See the June 27, 2003 **Federal Register** notice (68 FR 38402) for additional information. Organizations can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS Number request line at 1-866-705-5711 or by accessing the Grants.gov Web site at *http://www.Grants.gov* . *Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements:* The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the **Federal Register** notice of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389) are applicable to this solicitation. *Paperwork Reduction Act:* This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 have been approved by OMB under the respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. *Executive Order 12866:* This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. *Administrative Procedure Act/ Regulatory Flexibility Act:* Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act for rules concerning public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts (5 U.S.C. 533(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 533 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared. Dated: November 21, 2007. Ronald N. Langston, National Director, Minority Business Development Agency. [FR Doc. E7-23128 Filed 11-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-21-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE09 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish Observer Program; Notice of Observer Program Public Workshop AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notification of public workshop. SUMMARY: NMFS will present a public workshop on the implementation of new Alaska groundfish observer sampling protocols for fishery participants and other interested parties. At the workshop, NMFS will provide an overview of the changes to observer sampling protocols, discuss alterations made in the observer electronic data submission and communications system, and answer questions. NMFS is conducting this public workshop to provide assistance to fishery participants in understanding the sampling protocols which will be used by groundfish observers in 2008 and beyond. DATES: The workshop will be held on Tuesday, December 11, 2007, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Pacific standard time. ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at the Nordic Heritage Museum, 3014 NW 67th Street, Seattle, WA 98117. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Ferdinand, 206-526-4076 or *Jennifer.Ferdinand@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Groundfish fisheries in waters of the Gulf of Alaska

(GOA)and Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area

(BSAI)are managed under quotas set annually for groundfish species and for several other species that the groundfish fishery is prohibited from retaining. These quotas may be apportioned among areas, seasons, gear types, processor and catcher vessel sectors, cooperatives, and individual fishermen. Both retained and discarded catch are credited against these annual quotas, which generally are based on stock assessments generated principally by NMFS and on recommendations from the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. NMFS' Alaska Region is responsible for monitoring the progress of fisheries toward attainment of these quotas and allocations, and for closing the fisheries when quotas are reached. Stock assessments, quota monitoring, and management require collection of data from the fishery to account for all groundfish and prohibited species catch, including the portion of the catch that is discarded. North Pacific groundfish observers aboard vessels and at shoreside or floating stationary processors collect the data necessary for these purposes. The Alaska Fisheries Science Center's groundfish observer program has embarked on an ambitious set of observer data collection changes for implementation in the 2008 fishing year. The new sampling procedures eliminate much of the need for observers to summarize and calculate information at sea and take steps to ensure all data points are recorded at the level from which they are observed. NMFS is conducting a public workshop to provide assistance to fishery participants in reviewing the new observer sampling protocols and the changes that were necessary to the observer electronic data submission and communications system. Additionally, NMFS will answer questions from workshop participants. For further information on the groundfish observer program, please visit the NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center website at *http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/FMA/.htm* . Special Accommodations This workshop is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for special accommodations should be directed to Jennifer Ferdinand (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) before December 6, 2007. Dated: November 21, 2007. Emily H. Menashes Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-23141 Filed 11-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce. *Title:* Electronic Response to Office Action and Preliminary Amendment Forms. *Form Number(s):* PTO-1771, PTO-1882, PTO-1930, PTO-1957 and PTO-1966. *Agency Approval Number:* 0651-0050. *Type of Request:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Burden:* 27,240 hours annually, including 495 hours per year for Post Publication Amendments and 1,092 hours per year for the Response to Suspension Inquiry or Letter of Suspension. *Number of Respondents:* 158,300 responses per year, including 1,800 responses per year for Post Publication Amendments and 5,600 responses per year for the Response to Suspension Inquiry or Letter of Suspension. *Avg. Hours Per Response:* The USPTO estimates that the public will require approximately 10 to 18 minutes (0.17 to 0.30 hours) to prepare and submit the information in this collection. Completion times may vary, depending upon the nature and amount of information requested in a particular Office Action. *Needs and Uses:* This collection of information is required by the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 *et seq.* , which provides for the Federal registration of trademarks, service marks, collective trademarks and service marks, collective membership marks, and certification marks. Individuals and businesses that use or intend to use such marks in commerce may file an application to register their marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In some cases, the USPTO may issue an Office Action to an applicant in order to request additional information that is required before a mark can be registered. Applicants may also supplement their applications by providing additional information voluntarily. The USPTO is proposing to add two forms to this information collection, Post Publication Amendment (PTO-1711) and Response to Suspension Inquiry or Letter of Suspension (PTO-1822). Applicants may file a Post Publication Amendment in order to submit a proposed amendment to an application that has already been approved for publication by the examining attorney. If an applicant receives a Suspension Inquiry or Letter of Suspension from the USPTO, the applicant may use the proposed response form to file a reply. Applicants may submit the two proposed new forms to the USPTO electronically through the USPTO Web site or submit the required information for the amendment or response to the USPTO on paper. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households, businesses or other for-profits, and not-for-profit institutions. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,

(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by any of the following methods: *E-mail: Susan.Fawcett@uspto.gov.* Include “0651-0050 copy request” in the subject line of the message. *Fax:* 571-273-0112, marked to the attention of Susan Fawcett. *Mail:* Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before December 28, 2007 to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. Dated: November 21, 2007. Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division. [FR Doc. E7-23115 Filed 11-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket No. DoD-2007-OS-0089] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION: Notice. The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 28, 2007. *Title, Form, and OMB Number:* Defense Logistics Agency Survey of Supply Vendors; OMB Control Number 0704-0429. *Type of Request:* Extension. *Number of Respondents:* 200. *Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Annual Responses:* 200. *Average Burden per Response:* 1 hour. *Annual Burden Hours:* 200. *Needs and Uses:* The Defense Logistics Agency

(DLA)is transforming its distribution business practices. It is developing an automated system that will give it visibility on the location and movement of material originating at Government and contractor locations alike, and the ability to use that information for Corporate-wide planing and management. DLA needs to understand corresponding business practices of segments of the contractor community. The survey information will be used by DLA to help determine the extent to which shipments from contractor locations can be integrated into DLA's distribution practices. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *OMB Desk Officer:* Ms. Hillary Jaffe. Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jaffe at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this **Federal Register** document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. *DoD Clearance Officer:* Ms. Patricia Toppings. Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 22209-2133. Dated: November 20, 2007. Patricia L. Toppings, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 07-5863 Filed 11-27-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 16

Traces to 16 documents

CFR