Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2008-02-05 · National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA · Notices

Notices. Notice and request for comments

19,731 words·~90 min read·/register/2008/02/05/08-482

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 AGRICULTURE National Agricultural Statistics Service Notice of Intent To Request Approval To Revise and Extend an Information Collection AGENCY: National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intent of the National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS)to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection, the Livestock Slaughter Survey. Revision to burden hours may be needed due to changes in the size of the target population, sampling design, and/or questionnaire length. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by April 7, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0005, by any of the following methods: • *E-mail:* *ombofficer@nass.usda.gov* . Include docket number above in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:*
(202)720-6396. • *Mail:* Mail any paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions to: NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336A, Mail Stop 2024, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Hand deliver to: NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336A, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph T. Reilly, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
(202)720-4333. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Livestock Slaughter Survey. *OMB Control Number:* 0535-0005. *Approval Expires:* August 31, 2008. *Type of Request:* Intent to Request Approval to Revise and Extend an Information Collection. *Abstract:* The primary objective of the National Agricultural Statistics Service is to prepare and issue State and national estimates of crop and livestock production, prices, and disposition. The livestock survey program collects information on livestock slaughter. Slaughter data are used to estimate U.S. red meat production and reconcile inventory estimates which provide producers and the rest of the industry with current and future information on market supplies. This data is also used in preparing production, disposition, and income statistics which facilitate more orderly production, marketing, and processing of livestock and livestock products. The livestock program was approved by OMB for a 3-year period in 2005; NASS intends to request that the survey be approved for another 3 years. *Authority:* These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) and Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 (60 FR 44978, August 29, 1995). *Estimate of Burden:* The Livestock Slaughter Survey includes a weekly survey of 900 Federally Inspected
(FI)slaughter plants and monthly/quarterly surveys of approximately 2,000 Non-Federally Inspected
(NFI)slaughter facilities. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 7 minutes per response for an estimated annual average burden of 370 minutes per respondent. *Respondents:* Farmers, USDA inspectors, and custom/state inspected slaughter plants. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 2,900. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 18,000 hours. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from NASS Clearance Officer, at
(202)720-2448. Comments: Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval. Signed at Washington, DC, January 16, 2008. Joseph T. Reilly, Associate Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-2041 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Business-Cooperative Service Inviting Applications for Rural Business Opportunity Grants AGENCY: Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Rural Business-Cooperative Service, an Agency within the Rural Development mission area, announces the availability of grants of up to $50,000 per application from the Rural Business Opportunity Grant
(RBOG)program for fiscal year
(FY)2008, to be competitively awarded. For multi-state projects, grant funds of up to $150,000 will be available on a competitive basis. These limits do not apply to specific funding as discussed below. DATES: The deadline for the receipt of applications in the Rural Development State Office is March 31, 2008. The RBOG appropriation for FY 2008 provides specific funding for Native American, Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, and Rural Economic Area Partnerships, and these applications must also be received in the Rural Development State Office by March 31, 2008. The Agency reserves the right to extend this application deadline. Any applications received at a Rural Development State Office after these dates for this type of assistance will not be considered for FY 2008 funding. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Mason, Loan Specialist, USDA Rural Development, STOP 3225, Room 6866, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3225. Telephone:
(202)690-1433. ADDRESSES: For further information, entities wishing to apply for assistance should contact a Rural Development State Office to receive copies of the application package. Potential applicants located in the District of Columbia must send their applications to the National Office at: District of Columbia USDA Rural Development, Specialty Lenders Division, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 6867, STOP 3225, Washington, DC 20250-3225,
(202)720-1400. A list of Rural Development State Offices follows: Alabama USDA Rural Development State Office, Sterling Centre, Suite 601, 4121 Carmichael Road, Montgomery, AL 36106-3683,
(334)279-3400/TDD
(334)279-3495. Alaska USDA Rural Development State Office, 800 West Evergreen, Suite 201, Palmer, AK 99645-6539,
(907)761-7705/TDD
(907)761-8905. Arizona USDA Rural Development State Office, 230 N. 1st Ave., Suite 206, Phoenix, AZ 85003,
(602)280-8701/TDD
(602)280-8705. Arkansas USDA Rural Development State Office, 700 West Capitol Avenue, Room 3416, Little Rock, AR 72201-3225,
(501)301-3200/TDD
(501)301-3279. California USDA Rural Development State Office, 430 G Street, # 4169, Davis, CA 95616-4169,
(530)792-5800/TDD
(530)792-5848. Colorado USDA Rural Development State Office, 655 Parfet Street, Room E-100, Lakewood, CO 80215,
(720)544-2903/TDD
(720)544-2976. Delaware-Maryland USDA Rural Development State Office, 1221 College Park Drive, Suite 200, Dover, DE 19904,
(302)857-3580/TDD
(302)857-3585. Florida/Virgin Islands USDA Rural Development State Office, 4440 NW 25th Place, P.O. Box 147010, Gainesville, FL 32614-7010,
(352)338-3400/TDD
(352)338-3499. Georgia USDA Rural Development State Office, Stephens Federal Building, 355 E. Hancock Avenue, Athens, GA 30601-2768,
(706)546-2162/TDD
(706)546-2034. Hawaii USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Room 311, 154 Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo, HI 96720,
(808)933-8380/TDD
(808)933-8321. Idaho USDA Rural Development State Office 9173 West Barnes Drive, Suite A1 Boise, ID 83709
(208)378-5600/TDD
(208)378-5644 Illinois USDA Rural Development State Office, 2118 West Park Court, Suite A, Champaign, IL 61821,
(217)403-6200/TDD
(217)403-6240. Indiana USDA Rural Development State Office, 5975 Lakeside Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN 46278,
(317)290-3100/TDD
(317)290-3343. Iowa USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Room 873, 210 Walnut Street, Des Moines, IA 50309,
(515)284-4663/TDD
(515)284-4858. Kansas USDA Rural Development State Office, 1303 S.W. First American Place, Suite 100, Topeka, KS 66604-4040,
(785)271-2700/TDD
(785)271-2767. Kentucky USDA Rural Development State Office, 771 Corporate Drive, Suite 200, Lexington, KY 40503,
(859)224-7300/TDD
(859)224-7422. Louisiana USDA Rural Development State Office, 3727 Government Street, Alexandria, LA 71302,
(318)473-7921/TDD
(318)473-7655. Maine USDA Rural Development State Office, 967 Illinois Avenue, Suite 4, P.O. Box 405, Bangor, ME 04402-0405,
(207)990-9160/TDD
(207)942-7331. Massachusetts/Rhode Island/Connecticut USDA Rural Development State Office, 451 West Street, Suite 2, Amherst, MA 01002-2999,
(413)253-4300/TDD
(413)253-4590. Michigan USDA Rural Development State Office, 3001 Coolidge Road, Suite 200, East Lansing, MI 48823,
(517)324-5190/TDD
(517)324-5169. Minnesota USDA Rural Development State Office, 375 Jackson Street, Suite 410, St. Paul, MN 55101-1853,
(651)602-7800/TDD
(651)602-3799. Mississippi USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Suite 831, 100 West Capitol Street, Jackson, MS 39269,
(601)965-4316/TDD
(601)965-5850. Missouri USDA Rural Development State Office, 601 Business Loop 70 West, Parkade Center, Suite 235, Columbia, MO 65203,
(573)876-0976/TDD
(573)876-9480. Montana USDA Rural Development State Office, 900 Technology Boulevard, Suite B, P.O. Box 850, Bozeman, MT 59771,
(406)585-2580/TDD
(406)585-2562. Nebraska USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Room 152, 100 Centennial Mall North, Lincoln, NE 68508,
(402)437-5551/TDD
(402)437-5093. Nevada USDA Rural Development State Office, 1390 South Curry Street, Carson City, NV 89703-5146,
(775)887-1222/TDD
(775)885-0633. New Jersey USDA Rural Development State Office, 8000 Midlantic Drive, 5th Floor North, Suite 500, Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054,
(856)787-7700/TDD
(856)787-7784. New Mexico USDA Rural Development State Office, 6200 Jefferson Street NE., Room 255, Albuquerque, NM 87109,
(505)761-4950/TDD
(505)761-4938. New York USDA Rural Development State Office, The Galleries of Syracuse, 441 South Salina Street, Suite 357, Syracuse, NY 13202-2541,
(315)477-6400/TDD
(315)477-6447. North Carolina USDA Rural Development State Office, 4405 Bland Road, Suite 260, Raleigh, NC 27609,
(919)873-2000/TDD
(919)873-2003. North Dakota USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Room 208, 220 East Rosser, P.O. Box 1737, Bismarck, ND 58502-1737,
(701)530-2037/TDD
(701)530-2113. Ohio USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Room 507, 200 North High Street, Columbus, OH 43215-2418,
(614)255-2400/TDD
(614)255-2554. Oklahoma USDA Rural Development State Office, 100 USDA, Suite 108, Stillwater, OK 74074-2654,
(405)742-1000/TDD
(405)742-1007. Oregon USDA Rural Development State Office, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 801, Portland, OR 97232,
(503)414-3300/TDD
(503)414-3387. Pennsylvania USDA Rural Development State Office, One Credit Union Place, Suite 330, Harrisburg, PA 17110-2996,
(717)237-2299/TDD
(717)237-2261. Puerto Rico USDA Rural Development State Office, IBM Building, Suite 601, 654 Munos Rivera Avenue, San Juan, PR 00918-6106,
(787)766-5095/TDD
(787)766-5332. South Carolina USDA Rural Development State Office, Strom Thurmond Federal Building, 1835 Assembly Street, Room 1007, Columbia, SC 29201,
(803)765-5163/TDD
(803)765-5697. South Dakota USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Room 210, 200 Fourth Street, SW., Huron, SD 57350,
(605)352-1100/TDD
(605)352-1147. Tennessee USDA Rural Development State Office, 3322 West End Avenue, Suite 300, Nashville, TN 37203-1084,
(615)783-1300. Texas USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Suite 102, 101 South Main, Temple, TX 76501,
(254)742-9700/TDD
(254)742-9712. Utah USDA Rural Development State Office, Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building, 125 South State Street, Room 4311, Salt Lake City, UT 84138,
(801)524-4320/TDD
(801)524-3309. Vermont/New Hampshire USDA Rural Development State Office, City Center, 3rd Floor, 89 Main Street, Montpelier, VT 05602,
(802)828-6000/TDD
(802)223-6365. Virginia USDA Rural Development State Office, 1606 Santa Rosa Road, Suite 238, Richmond, VA 23229-5014,
(804)287-1550/TDD
(804)287-1753. Washington USDA Rural Development State Office, 1835 Black Lake Boulevard SW., Suite B, Olympia, WA 98512-5715,
(360)704-7740/TDD
(360)704-7760. West Virginia USDA Rural Development State Office, 75 High Street, Room 320, Morgantown, WV 26505-7500,
(304)284-4860/TDD
(304)284-4836. Wisconsin USDA Rural Development State Office, 4949 Kirschling Court, Stevens Point, WI 54481,
(715)345-7600/TDD
(715)345-7614. Wyoming USDA Rural Development State Office, 100 East B, Federal Building, Room 1005, P.O. Box 11005, Casper, WY 82602-5006,
(307)233-6700/TDD
(307)233-6733. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATON: Overview *Federal Agency:* Rural Business-Cooperative Service. *Funding Opportunity Type:* Rural Business Opportunity Grants. *Announcement Type:* Initial announcement. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number:* 10.773. *Dates:* Application Deadline: Completed applications for these funds must be received in the Rural Development State Office no later than March 31, 2008, to be eligible for FY 2008 grant funding. Applications received after this date will not be eligible for FY 2008 grant funding. I. Funding Opportunity Description The RBOG program is authorized under section 306(a)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT) (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(11)). The Rural Development State Offices administer the RBOG program on behalf of USDA Rural Development at the State level. The primary objective of the program is to improve the economic conditions of rural areas. Assistance provided to rural areas under this program may include technical assistance for business development and economic development planning. To ensure that a broad range of communities have the opportunity to benefit from the program, no grant will exceed $50,000, unless it is a multi-State project where funds may not exceed $150,000. As indicated in the summary, these limits do not apply to specified funding for Native American, Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, and Rural Economic Area Partnerships. Awards are made on a competitive basis using specific selection criteria contained in 7 CFR part 4284, subpart G. Information required to be in the application package include an SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance;” applicant's organizational documents; Scope of Work Narrative; Income Sheet; Balance Sheet or current audit if available; AD-1047, “Debarment/Suspension Certification;” AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion;” AD-1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements;” Restrictions on Lobbying, RD 400-1, “Equal Opportunity Agreement;” and RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.” See 7 CFR 4284.639 for additional application requirements. Information required to be in the application package are contained in 7 CFR part 4284, subpart G. The State Director may assign up to 15 discretionary points to an application, and the Agency Administrator may assign up to 20 additional discretionary points for projects funded from the National Office reserve. Discretionary points awarded by the State Director or Administrator must be based on geographic distribution of funds, special importance for implementation of a strategic plan in partnership with other organizations, or extraordinary potential for success due to superior project plans or qualifications of the grantee. To ensure the equitable distribution of funds, a maximum of two projects from each State that score the greatest number of points based on the selection criteria and discretionary points will be considered by the National Office for funding. Applications will be tentatively scored by the State Offices and submitted to the National Office for final review and selection. The National Office will review the scores based on the grant selection criteria and weights contained in 7 CFR part 4284, subpart G. All applicants will be notified by USDA Rural Development of the Agency's decision on the awards. Definitions The definitions are published at 7 CFR 4284.603. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Grant. *Fiscal Year Funds:* FY 2008. *Total Funding:* $655,110 for regular RBOG; $990,000 for Native American and $990,000 for Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, and Rural Economic Area Partnerships. *Approximate Number of Awards:* 13 for regular RBOG and 19 for Native American and 19 Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, and Rural Economic Area Partnerships. *Average Award:* $50,000. *Anticipated Award Date:* June 30, 2008. III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants Grants may be made to public bodies, nonprofit corporations, Indian tribes on Federal or State reservations and other federally recognized tribal groups, and cooperatives with members that are primarily rural residents and that conduct activities for the mutual benefit of the members. B. Cost Sharing or Matching Matching funds are not required. C. Other Eligibility Requirements Applications will only be accepted for projects to assist in promoting sustainable economic development in rural communities. D. Completeness Eligibility Applications will not be considered for funding if they do not provide sufficient information to determine eligibility or are missing required elements. IV. Fiscal Year 2008 Application and Submission Information: A. Address to Request Application Package For further information, entities wishing to apply for assistance should contact the Rural Development State Office identified in this notice to obtain copies of the application package. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications through the Grants.gov Web site at: *http://www.grants.gov* . Applications may be submitted in either electronic or paper format. Users of Grants.gov will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it off line, and then upload and submit the application via the Grants.gov Web site. Applications may not be submitted by electronic mail. • When you enter the Grants.gov Web site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site as well as the hours of operation. USDA Rural Development strongly recommends that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov. To use Grants.gov, applicants must have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)number which can be obtained at no cost via a toll-free request line at 1-866-705-5711. • You may submit all documents electronically through the Web site, including all information typically included on the application for RBOGs and all necessary assurances and certifications. • After electronically submitting an application through the Web site, the applicant will receive an automatic acknowledgement from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. • USDA Rural Development may request that the applicant provide original signatures on forms at a later date. • If applicants experience technical difficulties on the closing date and are unable to meet the deadline, you may submit a paper copy of your application to your respective Rural Development State Office. Paper applications submitted to a Rural Development State Office must meet the closing date and local time deadline. Please note that applicants must locate the downloadable application package for this program by the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number or FedGrants Funding Opportunity Number, which can be found at *http://www.fedgrants.gov.* In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection requirement contained in this Notice is approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under OMB Control Number 0570-0024. B. Content and Form of Submission An application must contain all of the required elements. Each application received in a Rural Development State Office will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the eligible purposes contained in section 306 of the CONACT. Each selection priority criterion outlined in 7 CFR 4284.639, must be addressed in the application. Failure to address any of the criteria will result in a zero-point score for that criterion and will impact the overall evaluation of the application. Copies of 7 CFR part 4284, subpart G, will be provided to any interested applicant making a request to a Rural Development State Office listed in this notice. C. Submission Dates and Times *Application Deadline Date:* March 31, 2008. *Explanation of Deadlines:* Applications for funds must be in the Rural Development State Office by the deadline date. V. Application Review Information The National Office will score applications based on the grant selection criteria and weights contained in 7 CFR part 4284, subpart G and will select a grantee subject to the grantee's satisfactory submission of the additional items required by 7 CFR part 4284, subpart G and the USDA Rural Development Letter of Conditions. VI. Award Administration Information A. Award Notices Successful applicants will receive notification for funding from the Rural Development State Office. Applicants must comply with all applicable statutes and regulations before the grant award will be approved. Unsuccessful applications will receive notification by mail. B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements Additional requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program can be found in the 7 CFR 4284, subpart G. VII. Agency Contacts For general questions about this announcement, please contact your Rural Development State Office identified in this notice. *Nondiscrimination Statement:* “The U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA)prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at
(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call
(800)795-3272 (voice), or
(202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.” Dated: January 25, 2008. Ben Anderson, Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service. [FR Doc. E8-2002 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Business-Cooperative Service Inviting Applications for the Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program for Fiscal Year 2008 AGENCY: Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This Notice announces the availability of approximately $33.077 million of loan funds under the Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant (REDLG) program for fiscal year
(FY)2008. This notice is being issued to allow applicants sufficient time to leverage financing, submit applications, and give the Agency time to process applications within the current fiscal year. The Agency will publish a subsequent notice identifying the amount of funding received for grants, if any, and the final maximum dollar amount for grant awards. The awards made as a result of this notice are effective for loans made during the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2007, and ending September 30, 2008. REDLG loans and grants are to assist in economically developing rural areas. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melvin Padgett, Loan Specialist, USDA Rural Development, STOP 3225, Room 6866, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3225. Telephone:
(202)720-1495, FAX:
(202)720-2213. ADDRESSES: For further information, entities wishing to apply for assistance should contact a Rural Development State Office to receive further information and copies of the application package. A list of Rural Development State Offices follows: District of Columbia USDA Rural Development, Specialty Lenders Division, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 3225, Room 6867, Washington, DC 20250-3225,
(202)720-1400. Alabama USDA Rural Development State Office, Sterling Centre, Suite 601, 4121 Carmichael Road, Montgomery, AL 36106-3683,
(334)279-3400/TDD
(334)279-3495. Alaska USDA Rural Development State Office, 800 West Evergreen, Suite 201, Palmer, AK 99645-6539,
(907)761-7705/TDD
(907)761-8905. Arizona USDA Rural Development State Office, 230 N. 1st First Ave., Suite 206, Phoenix, AZ 85003,
(602)280-8701/TDD
(602)280-8705. Arkansas USDA Rural Development State Office, 700 West Capitol Avenue, Room 3416, Little Rock, AR 72201-3225,
(501)301-3200/TDD
(501)301-3279. California USDA Rural Development State Office, 430 G Street, # 4169, Davis, CA 95616-4169,
(530)792-5800/TDD
(530)792-5848. Colorado USDA Rural Development State Office, 655 Parfet Street, Room E100, Lakewood, CO 80215,
(720)544-2903/TDD
(720)544-2976. Delaware-Maryland USDA Rural Development State Office, 1221 College Park Drive, Suite 200, Dover, DE 19904,
(302)857-3580/TDD
(302)857-3585. Florida/Virgin Islands USDA Rural Development State Office, 4440 NW 25th Place, P.O. Box 147010, Gainesville, FL 32614-7010,
(352)338-3400/TDD
(352)338-3499. Georgia USDA Rural Development State Office, Stephens Federal Building, 355 E. Hancock Avenue, Athens, GA 30601-2768,
(706)546-2162/TDD
(706)546-2034. Hawaii USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Room 311, 154 Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo, HI 96720,
(808)933-8380/TDD
(808)933-8321. Idaho USDA Rural Development State Office, 9173 West Barnes Dr., Suite A1, Boise, ID 83709,
(208)378-5600/TDD
(208)378-5644. Illinois USDA Rural Development State Office, 2118 W. Park Court, Suite A, Champaign, IL 61821,
(217)403-6200/TDD
(217)403-6240. Indiana USDA Rural Development State Office, 5975 Lakeside Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN 46278,
(317)290-3100/TDD
(317)290-3343. Iowa USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Room 873, 210 Walnut Street, Des Moines, IA 50309,
(515)284-4663/TDD
(515)284-4858. Kansas USDA Rural Development State Office, 1303 S.W. First American Place, Suite 100, Topeka, KS 66604-4040,
(785)271-2700/TDD
(785)271-2767. Kentucky USDA Rural Development State Office, 771 Corporate Drive, Suite 200, Lexington, KY 40503,
(859)224-7300/TDD
(859)224-7422. Louisiana USDA Rural Development State Office, 3727 Government Street, Alexandria, LA 71302,
(318)473-7921/TDD
(318)473-7655. Maine USDA Rural Development State Office, 967 Illinois Avenue, Suite 4, P.O. Box 405, Bangor, ME 04402-0405,
(207)990-9160/TDD
(207)942-7331. Massachusetts/Rhode Island/Connecticut USDA Rural Development State Office, 451 West Street, Suite 2, Amherst, MA 01002-2999,
(413)253-4300/TDD
(413)253-4590. Michigan USDA Rural Development State Office, 3001 Coolidge Road, Suite 200, East Lansing, MI 48823,
(517)324-5190/TDD
(517)324-5169. Minnesota USDA Rural Development State Office, 375 Jackson Street, Suite 410, St. Paul, MN 55101-1853,
(651)602-7800/TDD
(651)602-3799. Mississippi USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Suite 831, 100 W. Capitol Street, Jackson, MS 39269,
(601)965-4316/TDD
(601)965-5850. Missouri USDA Rural Development State Office, 601 Business Loop 70 West, Parkade Center, Suite 235, Columbia, MO 65203,
(573)876-0976/TDD
(573)876-9480. Montana USDA Rural Development State Office, 900 Technology Boulevard, Suite B, P.O. Box 850, Bozeman, MT 59771,
(406)585-2580/TDD
(406)585-2562. Nebraska USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Room 152, 100 Centennial Mall North, Lincoln, NE 68508,
(402)437-5551/TDD
(402)437-5093. Nevada USDA Rural Development State Office, 1390 South Curry Street, Carson City, NV 89703-5146,
(775)887-1222/TDD
(775)885-0633. New Jersey USDA Rural Development State Office, 8000 Midlantic Drive, 5th Floor North, Suite 500, Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054,
(856)787-7700/TDD
(856)787-7784. New Mexico USDA Rural Development State Office, 6200 Jefferson Street, NE., Room 255, Albuquerque, NM 87109,
(505)761-4950/TDD
(505)761-4938. New York USDA Rural Development State Office, The Galleries of Syracuse, 441 South Salina Street, Suite 357, Syracuse, NY 13202-2541,
(315)477-6400/TDD
(315)477-6447. North Carolina USDA Rural Development State Office, 4405 Bland Road, Suite 260, Raleigh, NC 27609,
(919)873-2000/TDD
(919)873-2003. North Dakota USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Room 208, 220 East Rosser, P.O. Box 1737, Bismarck, ND 58502-1737,
(701)530-2037/TDD
(701)530-2113. Ohio USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Room 507, 200 North High Street, Columbus, OH 43215-2418,
(614)255-2400/TDD
(614)255-2554. Oklahoma USDA Rural Development State Office, 100 USDA, Suite 108, Stillwater, OK 74074-2654,
(405)742-1000/TDD
(405)742-1007. Oregon USDA Rural Development State Office, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 801, Portland, OR 97232,
(503)414-3300/TDD
(503)414-3387. Pennsylvania USDA Rural Development State Office, One Credit Union Place, Suite 330, Harrisburg, PA 17110-2996,
(717)237-2299/TDD
(717)237-2261. Puerto Rico USDA Rural Development State Office, IBM Building, Suite 601, 654 Munos Rivera Avenue, San Juan, PR 00918-6106,
(787)766-5095/TDD
(787)766-5332. South Carolina USDA Rural Development State Office, Strom Thurmond Federal Building, 1835 Assembly Street, Room 1007, Columbia, SC 29201,
(803)765-5163/TDD
(803)765-5697. South Dakota USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Room 210, 200 Fourth Street, SW., Huron, SD 57350,
(605)352-1100/TDD
(605)352-1147. Tennessee USDA Rural Development State Office, 3322 West End Avenue, Suite 300, Nashville, TN 37203-1084,
(615)783-1300. Texas USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Suite 102, 101 South Main, Temple, TX 76501.
(254)742-9700/TDD
(254)742-9712. Utah USDA Rural Development State Office, Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building, 125 South State Street, Room 4311, Salt Lake City, UT 84138,
(801)524-4320/TDD
(801)524-3309. Vermont/New Hampshire USDA Rural Development State Office, City Center, 3rd Floor, 89 Main Street, Montpelier, VT 05602,
(802)828-6000/TDD
(802)223-6365. Virginia USDA Rural Development State Office, 1606 Santa Rosa Road, Suite 238, Richmond, VA 23229-5014,
(804)287-1550/TDD
(804)287-1753. Washington USDA Rural Development State Office, 1835 Black Lake Boulevard SW., Suite B, Olympia, WA 98512-5715,
(360)704-7740/TDD
(360)704-7760. West Virginia USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, 75 High Street, Room 320, Morgantown, WV 26505-7500,
(304)284-4860/TDD
(304)284-4836. Wisconsin USDA Rural Development State Office, 4949 Kirschling Court, Stevens Point, WI 54481,
(715)345-7600/TDD
(715)345-7614. Wyoming USDA Rural Development State Office, 100 East B, Federal Building, Room 1005, P.O. Box 11005, Casper, WY 82602-5006,
(307)233-6700/TDD
(307)233-6733. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Overview *Federal Agency:* Rural Business-Cooperative Service. *Funding Opportunity Type:* Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants. *Announcement Type:* Initial Announcement. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number:* 10.854. *Dates:* Application Deadline: Completed applications must be received in the State Office as follows: For First and Second Quarters, January 31, 2008, Third Quarter, March 31, 2008, and Fourth Quarter, June 30, 2008. I. Funding Opportunity Description The Regulations for these programs are at 7 CFR part 4280, subpart A. The primary objective of the program is to promote rural economic development and job creation projects. Assistance provided to rural areas, as defined, under this program may include business startup costs, business expansion, business incubators, technical assistance feasibility studies, advanced telecommunications services and computer networks for medical, educational, and job training services and community facilities projects for economic development. Awards are made on a competitive basis using specific selection criteria contained in 7 CFR 4280, subpart A. Information required to be in the application include an SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance;” a Resolution of the Board of Directors; AD-1047, “Debarment/Suspension Certification;” Assurance statement for the Uniform Act; Restrictions on Lobbying, AD 1049; “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements;” Seismic certification (if construction); RD 1940-20, “Request for Environmental Information;” RUS Form 7; “Financial and Statistical Report;” and RUS Form 7a, “Investments, Loan Guarantees, and Loans,” or similar information; and written narrative of project description. Applications will be tentatively scored by the State Offices and submitted to the National Office for review. Definitions The definitions are published at 7 CFR 4280.3. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Loan. *Fiscal Year Funds:* FY 2008. *Maximum Anticipated Award:* $740,000. *Anticipated Award Date:* First and Second Quarters, March 14, 2008, Third Quarter, May 14, 2008, and Fourth Quarter, August 15, 2008. III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants *Loans and grants may be made to any entity that is identified by USDA Rural Development* as an eligible borrower under the Rural Electrification Act. In accordance with 7 CFR 4280.13, applicants that are not delinquent on any Federal debt or otherwise disqualified from participation in these program are eligible to apply. An applicant must be eligible under 7 U.S.C. 940c. B. Cost Sharing or Matching For loans, either the Ultimate Recipient or the Intermediary must provide supplemental funds for the project equal to at least 20 percent of the loan to the Intermediary. For grants, the Intermediary must provide supplemental funds for the project equal to at least 20 percent of the grant to the Intermediary. C. Other Eligibility Requirements Applications will only be accepted for projects that promote rural economic development and job creation. D. Completeness Eligibility Applications will not be considered for funding if they do not provide sufficient information to determine eligibility or are missing required elements. IV. Fiscal Year 2008 Application and Submission Information: A. Address To Request Application Package For further information, entities wishing to apply for assistance should contact the Rural Development State Office identified in this NOFA to obtain copies of the application package. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications through the Grants.gov Web site at: *http://www.grants.gov.* Applications may be submitted in either electronic or paper format. Users of Grants.gov will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it off line, and then upload and submit the application via the Grants.gov Web site. Applications may not be submitted by electronic mail. • When you enter the Grants.gov Web site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site as well as the hours of operation. USDA Rural Development strongly recommends that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov. To use Grants.gov, applicants must have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)number which can be obtained at no cost via a toll-free request line at 1-866-705-5711. • You may submit all documents electronically through the Web site, including all information typically included on the application for REDLGs and all necessary assurances and certifications. • After electronically submitting an application through the Web site, the applicant will receive an automatic acknowledgement from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. • USDA Rural Development may request that the applicant provide original signatures on forms at a later date. • If applicants experience technical difficulties on the closing date and are unable to meet the deadline, they may submit a paper copy of your application to your respective Rural Development State Office. Paper applications submitted to a Rural Development State Office must meet the closing date and local time deadline. Please note that applicants must locate the downloadable application package for this program by the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number or FedGrants Funding Opportunity Number, which can be found at *http://www.grants.gov* . In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection requirement contained in this Notice is approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under OMB Control Number 0570-0024. B. Content and Form of Submission An application must contain all of the required elements. Each selection priority criterion outlined in 7 CFR 4280.42(b), must be addressed in the application. Failure to address any of the criteria will result in a zero-point score for that criterion and will impact the overall evaluation of the application. Copies of 7 CFR part 4280, subpart A, will be provided to any interested applicant making a request to a Rural Development State Office listed in this notice. C. Submission Dates and Times *Application Deadline Date:* First and Second Quarters, January 31, 2008, Third Quarter, March 31, 2008, and Fourth Quarter, June 30, 2008. *Explanation of Deadlines:* Applications must be in the Rural Development State Office by the deadline dates as indicated above. V. Application Review Information The National Office will score applications based on the grant selection criteria and weights contained in 7 CFR part 4280, subpart A and will select an Intermediary subject to the Intermediary's satisfactory submission of the additional items required by 7 CFR part 4280, subpart A and the USDA Rural Development Letter of Conditions. VI. Award Administration Information A. Award Notices Successful applicants will receive notification for funding from the Rural Development State Office. Applicants must comply with all applicable statutes and regulations before the loan/grant award will be approved. Provided the application requirements have not changed, an application not selected will be reconsidered in three subsequent funding competitions for a total of four competitions. If an application is withdrawn, it can be resubmitted and will be evaluated as a new application. B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements Additional requirements that apply to Intermediary's selected for this program can be found in the 7 CFR 4280, subpart A. VII. Agency Contacts For general questions about this announcement, please contact your Rural Development State Office identified in this NOFA. *Nondiscrimination Statement:* “The U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA)prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at
(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call
(800)795-3272 (voice), or
(202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.” Dated: January 29, 2008. Ben Anderson, Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service. [FR Doc. E8-2001 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Telephone Bank Rural Telephone Bank Board Meeting *Time and Date:* 4 p.m., Monday, February 11, 2008. *Place:* Sheraton New Orleans Hotel, Gallier AB Room, 500 Canal St., New Orleans, LA 70130. *Status:* Open. *Matters To Be Considered:* The following matters have been placed on the agenda for the Board of Directors meeting: 1. Call to Order 2. Report on the Rural Telephone Bank Dissolution: • Secretary's Report. • Treasurer's Report. • Report on the Dissolution. 3. Reflections on the Rural Telephone Bank. 4. Adjournment and Closing Remarks by Under Secretary Thomas C. Dorr. *Contact Person for More Information:* Jonathan Claffey, Deputy Assistant Governor and Assistant Secretary, Rural Telephone Bank,
(202)720-9554. Dated: January 29, 2008. James M. Andrew, Governor, Rural Telephone Bank. [FR Doc. E8-2042 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Information Collection Activity; Comment Request AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended), the Rural Utilities Service, an agency delivering the United States Department of Agriculture's Rural Development Utilities Programs, hereinafter referred to as Rural Development and/or Agency, invites comments on this information collection for which Rural Development intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by April 7, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele L. Brooks, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., STOP 1522, Room 5168 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone:
(202)690-1078. Fax:
(202)720-8435. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB)regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that the Agency is submitting to OMB as a revision to an existing collection. Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Michele L. Brooks, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Development Utilities Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 1522, Room 5168, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-1522. Fax:
(202)720-8435. *Title:* Accounting Requirements for Electric and Telecommunications Borrowers. *OMB Control Number:* 0572-0003. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* The Agency believes that this is the minimum record retention requirements needed to carry out its due diligence responsibilities in loan underwriting and maintaining loan security. Agency borrowers should understand that they may be subject to additional record retention requirements imposed by other regulatory authorities such as FERC, FCC, state commissions and IRS. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per response. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents and Recordkeepers:* 1,422. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Number of Hours per Recordkeeper:* 50 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 2,844 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Recordkeepers:* 35,550 hours. Copies of this information collection can be obtained from MaryPat Daskal, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at
(202)720-7853, Fax:
(202)720-4120. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Dated: January 30, 2008. James M. Andrew, Administrator, Rural Utilities Service. [FR Doc. E8-2000 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-846] Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2006-2007 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews and Partial Rescission of the 2006-2007 Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is currently conducting the 2006-2007 administrative and new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). We preliminarily determine that sales have not been made below normal value (“NV”) with respect to certain exporters who participated fully and are entitled to a separate rate in the administrative or new shipper reviews. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of these reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the period of review (“POR”) for which the importer-specific assessment rates are above *de minimis* . Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Veith 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)482-4295 or
(202)482-4207, respectively. Background On April 17, 1997, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China* , 62 FR 18740 (April 17, 1997) (“ *the Order* ”). New Shipper Review On April 18, 2007, Shanghai Tylon Company Ltd. (“Tylon”) requested a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC, which has an April anniversary month, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c). In response to the Department's April 24, 2007, request for information, Tylon provided supplemental information on April 27, 2007. On May 25, 2007, the Department initiated a new shipper review of Tylon covering the period April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007. *See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review* , 72 FR 29299 (May 25, 2007). On May 23, 2007, the Department issued a new shipper antidumping duty questionnaire to Tylon. On July 5, 2007, the Department received Tylon's Sections A, C, and D response. On July 19, 2007, the Department received Tylon's Importer-Specific Questionnaire response. On August 24, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Tylon, to which we received a response on September 17, 2007. On June 4, 2007, the Department placed on the record of the new shipper review copies of CBP documents pertaining to the shipment of brake rotors from the PRC exported by Tylon to the United States during the POR. 1 1 *See* the Department's memorandum entitled, “2006-2007 New Shipper Review of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China,” entitled, “Results of Request for Assistance from U.S. Customs and Border Protection on U.S. Entry Documents,” dated June 4, 2007. On May 31, 2007, we requested that the Office of Policy issue a surrogate-country memorandum for the selection of the appropriate surrogate countries for this new shipper review. 2 On June 1, 2007, the Office of Policy provided a list of five countries at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC for the POR. 3 On June 6, 2007, the Department invited all interested parties to submit comments on surrogate-country selection and to submit publicly available information as surrogate values (“SVs”) for purposes of calculating NV. 4 *See* “Surrogate Country” section below. On August 1, 2007, the Coalition for the Preservation of American Brake Drum and Rotor Aftermarket Manufacturers (“petitioner”) submitted publicly available information for use as SVs in the calculation of NV in the 2006-2007 new shipper review. On August 17, 2007, the Department selected India as the most appropriate surrogate country for the purpose of this new shipper review. 5 2 *See* the Department's memorandum entitled, “Surrogate-Country Selection: 2006-2007 New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China,” dated May 31, 2007. 3 *See* the Department's memorandum entitled, “New Shipper Review of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries,” dated June 1, 2007 (“ *NSR Policy Memorandum”* ). 4 *See* the Department's letter regarding, “New Shipper Review of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China,” requesting parties to provide comments on surrogate-country selection and provide surrogate factors-of-production (“FOP”) values from the potential surrogate countries ( *i.e.* , India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, the Philippines and Egypt), dated June 6, 2007. 5 *See* The Department's memorandum entitled, “2006-2007 New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country,” dated August 17, 2007 (“ *NSR Surrogate Country Memorandum”* ). On August 23, 2007, Tylon agreed to waive the new shipper review time limits in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3), to align the new shipper review with the concurrent 2006-2007 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC. On August 24, 2007, the Department aligned the new shipper review with the 2006-2007 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC. 6 6 *See* the Department's memorandum, entitled “2006-2007 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Alignment of 2006-2007 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews,” dated August 24, 2007. Administrative Review On April 2, 2007, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review,* 72 FR 15650 (April 2, 2006). On April 30, 2007, the Department received timely requests for an administrative review of this antidumping duty order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213 from the following individual companies: LABEC, Winhere, Haimeng, Hongda, Meita, Wally, and Longkou Dixion Brake System Ltd. (“Dixion”). On April 30, 2007, the Department also received timely requests for an administrative review of 23 companies (or producer/exporter combinations) 7 from petitioner. As a result of the above-mentioned companies' and petitioner's requests for a review, this administrative review covers 24 companies. 7 The names of these companies or producer/exporter combination are as follows:
(1)Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd. (“Haimeng”);
(2)Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry Co., Ltd. (“Meita”);
(3)Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Factory (“LABEC”);
(4)Yantai Winhere Auto-Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Winhere”);
(5)Laizhou Hongda Auto Replacement Parts Co., Ltd. (“Hongda”);
(6)Laizhou City Luqi Machinery Co., Ltd. (“Luqi”);
(7)Laizhou Wally Automobile Co., Ltd. (“Wally”);
(8)Zibo Luzhou Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. (“ZLAP”);
(9)Zibo Golden Harvest Machinery Limited Company (“ZGOLD”);
(10)Longkou TLC Machinery Co., Ltd. (“TLC”);
(11)Longkou Jinzheng Maxhinery Co. (“Jinzheng”);
(12)Qingdao Gren Co. (“Gren”);
(13)Shenyang Yinghao Machinery Co. (“Yinghao”);
(14)Shanxi Zhongding Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (“SZAP”);
(15)Shandong Huanri Group Company (“Huanri”);
(16)Longkou Qizheng Auto Parts Co. (“Qizheng”);
(17)China National Automotive Industry Import & Export Corporation (“CAIEC”), excluding entries manufactured by Shandong Laizhou CAPCO Industry (“CAPCO”);
(18)CAPCO, excluding entries manufactured by CAPCO;
(19)Laizhou Luyuan Automobile Fittings Co. (“Luyuan”), excluding entries manufactured by Laizhou Luyuan or Shenyang Honbase Machinery Co., Ltd. (“Honbase”);
(20)Honbase, excluding entries manufactured by Laizhou Luyuan or Honbase;
(21)China National Industrial Machinery Import & Export Corporation (“CNIM”);
(22)Xianghe Xumingyuan Auto Parts Co. (“Xumingyuan”); and
(23)Qingdao Golrich Autoparts Co., Ltd. (“Golrich”). On May 30, 2007, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC for 24 individually named firms, for the POR of April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007. 8 Between May 30 and June 5, 2007, the Department issued letters to all firms named in the AR Initiation Notice requesting:
(1)A separate-rate certification or application, and
(2)information on the quantity and value (“Q&V”) of sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Of the 24 companies for which the Department initiated a review, ten companies certified that they had no shipments during the POR, and between June 14 and June 22, 2007, 9 we received requests for a rescission of the review from five of those companies. 10 *See* “Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2006-2007 Administrative Review” section below. 8 *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part,* 72 FR 29968 (May 30, 2007) ( *“AR Initiation Notice”* ). 9 These ten companies are SZAP, Huanri, Qizheng, CNIM, Xumingyuan, Golrich, CAIEC, CAPCO, Luyuan, and Honbase. 10 These five companies are Xumingyuan, CAIEC, CAPCO, Luyuan, and Honbase. Due to the large number of participating firms subject to this administrative review, and the Department's experience regarding the administrative burden of reviewing each company for which a request was made, the Department exercised its authority to limit the number of mandatory respondents selected for individual review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), by selecting exporters accounting for the largest volume of the subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined. On July 13, 2007, based on reported export volumes of subject merchandise during the POR, the Department selected the two companies accounting for the largest volume of subject merchandise, *i.e.* , Haimeng and Meita, as the two mandatory respondents in this review. The remaining 12 respondents are non-selected respondents. 11 See “Separate Rates” section below. On July 16, 2007, we issued antidumping duty questionnaires to Haimeng and Meita. 11 *See* the Department's memorandum entitled, “2006-2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Selection of Respondents,” dated July 13, 2007 ( *“Respondent Selection Memo”* ). On May 31, 2007, we requested that the Office of Policy issue a surrogate-country memorandum for the selection of the appropriate surrogate countries for this review. 12 On June 1, 2007, the Office of Policy provided a list of five countries at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC for the POR of this review. 13 On June 6, 2007, the Department invited all interested parties to submit comments on surrogate-country selection and to submit publicly available information as SVs for purposes of calculating NV. 14 On August 17, 2007, the Department selected India as the most appropriate surrogate country for this administrative review. 15 *See* “Surrogate Country” section below. On August 1, 2007, petitioner submitted publicly available information for use as SVs in the calculation of NV in the administrative review. 12 *See* the Department's memorandum entitled, “Surrogate-Country Selection: 2006-2007 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China,” dated May 31, 2007. 13 *See* the Department's memorandum entitled, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries,” dated June 1, 2007 ( *“AR Policy Memorandum”* ). 14 *See* the Department's letter regarding, “New Shipper Review of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China,” requesting parties to provide comments on surrogate-country selection and provide surrogate FOP values from the potential surrogate countries ( *i.e.* , India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, the Philippines and Egypt), dated June 6, 2007. 15 *See* the Department's memorandum entitled, “2006-2007 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Selection of Surrogate Country,” dated August 17, 2007 ( *“AR Surrogate Country Memorandum”* ). On August 28 and October 18, 2007, the Department placed on the record of this review copies of CBP documents pertaining to certain entries of brake rotors from the PRC exported to the United States during the POR. 16 On September 7, 2007, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to Golrich to which we received a response on September 19, 2007. 16 *See* the Department's memorandum entitled, “2006-2007 Administrative Review of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China, Results of Request for Assistance from U.S. Customs and Border Protection on U.S. Entry Documents,” dated August 28, 2007. On September 4, 2007, we received questionnaire responses from Haimeng and Meita. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Haimeng and Meita on October 4 and October 23, 2007, respectively. We received supplemental questionnaire responses from Haimeng and Meita on November 9 and November 13, 2007, respectively. Period of Review The POR is April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007. 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). Brake rotors are currently classifiable under subheading 8708.39.5010 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”). 17 Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. 17 As of January 1, 2005, the HTSUS classification for brake rotors (discs) changed from 8708.39.5010 to 8708.39.5030. As of January 1, 2007, the HTSUS classification for brake rotors (discs) changed from 8708.39.5030 to 8708.30.5030. *See Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(2007)(Rev. 2),* available at *http://www.usitc.gov.* Separate Rates In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control, and thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of subject merchandise subject to review in an NME country a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent of government control to be entitled to a separate rate. *See, e.g., Honey from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 70 FR 74764, 74766 (December 16, 2005) (unchanged in the final results). For the administrative review, in order to demonstrate separate-rate status eligibility, the Department normally requires entities, for whom a review was requested, and who were assigned a separate rate in a previous segment of this proceeding, to submit a separate-rate certification stating that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. For entities that were not assigned a separate rate in the previous segment of a proceeding, to demonstrate eligibility for such, the Department requires a separate-rate application. In this administrative review the 12 entities not selected for individual review ( *i.e.* , separate-rate respondents) all submitted separate-rate certifications. The two mandatory respondents ( *i.e.* , Haimeng and Meita) and the 12 separate-rate respondents provided company-specific information and each 18 stated that it meets the criteria for the assignment of a separate rate. For the new shipper ( *i.e.* , Tylon), a separate-rate analysis is necessary to determine whether the export activities of Tylon are independent from government control. 18 The non-selected respondents are as follows: LABEC, Winhere, Hongda, Luqi, Wally, ZLAP, ZGOLD, TLC, Jinzheng, Gren, Yinghao, and Dixion. We considered whether the administrative review respondents and the new shipper referenced above were eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate-rate status test to determine whether the exporter is independent from government control does not consider, in general, macroeconomic/border-type controls ( *e.g.* , export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices), particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the individual firm level. 19 19 *See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value,* 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997); and *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997). To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes the exporter in light of select criteria, discussed below. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China,* 56 FR 20588, 20589 (May 6, 1991) ( *“Sparklers”* ); and *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China,* 59 FR 22585, 22586, 22587 (May 2, 1994) ( *“Silicon Carbide”* ). Under this test, exporters in NME countries are entitled to separate, company-specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence of government control over exports, both in law ( *“de jure”* ) and in fact ( *“de facto”* ). 1. Absence of *De Jure* Control The Department considers the following de jure criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate:
(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;
(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; or
(3)any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *See Sparklers,* 56 FR 20589. Haimeng, Meita, and Tylon each placed on the administrative record documents to demonstrate an absence of *de jure* control ( *e.g.* , the 1994 “Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China,” and the 1999 “Company Law of the People's Republic of China”). As in prior cases, we analyzed the laws presented to us and found them to establish sufficiently an absence of *de jure* control. *See, e.g., Honey from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 72 FR 102, 105 (January 3, 2007); *Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review and Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review,* 72 FR 937, 944 (January 9, 2007). We have no new information in this proceeding which would cause us to reconsider this determination with regard to Haimeng, Meita, and Tylon. Therefore, we believe that evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of an absence of *de jure* government control with regard to Haimeng, Metia, and Tylon. The 12 separate-rate respondents Winhere, LABEC, Hongda, Wally, Dixion, Gren, ZLAP, TLC, ZGOLD, Luqi, Yinghao, and Jinzheng each certified that, as with the previous granting period, there is an absence of *de jure* control. Each separate-rate respondent's separate-rate certification, stated, where applicable, that it had no relationship with any level of the PRC government with respect to ownership, internal management, and business operations. In this segment, we have no new information that would cause us to reconsider the previous period's *de jure* control determination with regard to Winhere, LABEC, Hongda, Wally, Dixion, Gren, ZLAP, TLC, ZGOLD, Luqi, Yinghao, and Jinzheng. 2 . Absence of *De Facto* Control As stated in previous cases, there is evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. *See Silicon Carbide* , 59 FR at 22586, 22587. Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of *de facto* control is critical in determining whether the respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to *de facto* government control of its export functions:
(1)Whether the export prices are set by, or subject to the approval of, a government authority;
(2)whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements;
(3)whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and
(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses. *See Silicon Carbide* , 59 FR at 22586-87; *see also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China* , 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). In these reviews, Haimeng, Winhere, Meita, LABEC, Hongda, Wally, Dixion, Gren, ZLAP, TLC, ZGOLD, Luqi, Yinghao, Jinzheng, and Tylon each asserted the following:
(1)It establishes its own export prices;
(2)it negotiates contracts without guidance from any government entities or organizations;
(3)it makes its own personnel decisions; and
(4)it retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses profits according to its business needs, and has the authority to sell its assets and to obtain loans. Additionally, each of these companies' questionnaire responses indicate that its pricing during the POR does not involve coordination among exporters. Thus, we preliminarily determine that Haimeng, Winhere, Meita, LABEC, Hongda, Wally, Dixion, Gren, ZLAP, TLC, ZGOLD, Luqi, Yinghao, Jinzheng, and Tylon have each met the criteria for the application of a separate rate based on the documentation each of these respondents has submitted on the record of these reviews. 20 20 *See* the Department's memorandum entitled “Preliminary Results 2006-2007 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China Separate-Rate Analysis for Respondents (Including Exporters Not Being Individually Reviewed),” dated January 30, 2008 (“ *Separate Rate Memo* ”). Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2006-2007 Administrative Review With respect to SZAP, Huanri, Qizheng, CNIM, Xumingyuan, Golrich, CAIEC, CAPCO, Luyuan and Honbase, each informed the Department that it did not export the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR in the combinations described below, where applicable. Specifically,
(1)SZAP, Huanri, Qizheng, CNIM, Xumingyuan, and Golrich did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR;
(2)CAIEC did not export brake rotors to the United States that were manufactured by producers other than CAPCO;
(3)CAPCO did not export brake rotors to the United States that were manufactured by producers other than CAPCO;
(4)Luyuan did not export brake rotors to the United States that were manufactured by producers other than Luyuan or Honbase; and
(5)Honbase did not export brake rotors to the United States that were manufactured by producers other than Honbase or Luyuan. In order to corroborate these submissions, we reviewed PRC brake rotor shipment data maintained by CBP. In reviewing the CBP data, we did not find any evidence contradicting SZAP's, Huanri's, Qizheng's, CNIM's, Xumingyuan's, Golrich's, CAIEC's, CAPCO's, Luyuan's and Honbase's claims of no shipments of brake rotors to the United States during the POR. Based on the record of these reviews, we conclude that SZAP, Huanri, Qizheng, CNIM, Xumingyuan, Golrich, CAIEC, CAPCO, Luyuan and Honbase did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. For the reasons mentioned above, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are preliminarily rescinding the administrative review for these exporters in the following specified exporter or exporter/producer combinations:
(1)SZAP,
(2)Huanri,
(3)Qizheng,
(4)CNIM,
(5)Xumingyuan,
(6)Golrich,
(7)CAIEC/manufactured by any company other than CAPCO,
(8)CAPCO/manufactured by any company other than CAPCO,
(9)Luyuan/manufactured by any company other than Luyuan or Honbase, and
(10)Honbase/manufactured by any company other than Honbase or Luyuan. Bona Fide Sales Analysis—Tylon In evaluating whether or not sales are commercially reasonable, and therefore *bona fide* , the Department has considered, *inter alia* , such factors as:
(1)The timing of the sale;
(2)the price and quantity of the sale;
(3)the expenses arising from the transaction;
(4)whether the goods were resold at a profit; and
(5)whether the transaction was made on an arm's-length basis. *See Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.* v. *United States* , 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (CIT 2005) (“ *TTPC* ”) at 9, citing *Am. Silicon Techs.* v. *United States* , 110 F. Supp. 2d 992, 995 (CIT 2000). Therefore, the Department examines a number of factors, all of which may speak to the commercial realities surrounding the sale of subject merchandise. While some *bona fides* issues may share commonalities across various cases, each case is company-specific and the analysis may vary with the facts surrounding each sale. *See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms for the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of New Shipper Review and Administrative Reviews* , 68 FR 41304 (July 11, 2003). The weight given to each factor investigated will depend on the circumstances surrounding the sale. *See TTPC* , 366 F. Supp at 1263. For the reasons stated below, we preliminarily find that Tylon's reported U.S. sales during the POR appear to be *bona fide* sales, as required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(c), based on the totality of the facts on the record. Specifically, we find that the quantity or unit prices for Tylon's sales compared to the quantities and unit values of U.S. imports of comparable brake rotors from the PRC during the POR together with the totality of circumstances surrounding the sales at issue indicate the sales were not aberrational. We also examined information placed on the record by Tylon and Tylon's customer for the POR sales, and information developed independently by the Department regarding Tylon's customer for the POR sale and circumstances surrounding the POR sales. We found no evidence that the POR sales under review are not *bona fide* sales. 21 Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, the Department preliminarily finds that Tylon's U.S. sales during the POR were *bona fide* commercial transactions. 21 For further information, *see* the Department's memorandum entitled “2006-2007 New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Bona Fide Analysis of Shanghai Tylon Company Ltd.,” dated January 30, 2008. Non-Market Economy Country In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as an NME country. Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 7013 (February 10, 2006). None of the parties to these proceedings has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries. Surrogate Country Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on the NME producer's FOP, valued in a surrogate market economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall use, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of the FOPs in one or more market economy countries that are:
(1)At a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and
(2)significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the “Normal Value” section below. *See also* , the Department's memorandum entitled, “Preliminary Results of the 2006-2007 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum,” dated January 30, 2008 (“ *Surrogate Value Memorandum* ”). The Department determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. *See NSR Policy Memorandum* and *AR Policy Memorandum.* Customarily, we select an appropriate surrogate country from the policy memorandum based on the availability and reliability of data from the countries that are significant producers of comparable merchandise. In this case, we found that India is at a comparable level of economic development to the PRC; is a significant producer of the subject merchandise ( *i.e.* , brake rotors); and has publicly available and reliable data. *See NSR Surrogate Country Memorandum* and *AR Surrogate Country Memorandum.* Accordingly, we selected India as the primary surrogate country for purposes of valuing the FOPs in the calculation of NV because it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate country selection. *See NSR Surrogate Country Memorandum* and *AR Surrogate Country Memorandum.* We obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever possible. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in antidumping administrative and new shipper reviews, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by Haimeng, Meita, and Tylon to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared each company's export prices (“EPs”) to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice below, pursuant to section 773 of the Act. Export Price Because each respondent sold subject merchandise to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation into the United States and use of a constructed-export-price methodology was not otherwise indicated, we used EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We made the following company-specific adjustments: A. Haimeng, Meita, and Tylon We calculated EP based on the delivery method reported to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling charges in the PRC, international freight, U.S. duties, and other U.S. customs charges pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 22 Where foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling fees, or marine insurance were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based those charges on surrogate rates from India. *See* “Factor Valuation” section below for further discussion of surrogate rates. 22 *See* the Department's memorandum entitled, “2006-2007 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary Results Margin Calculation for Shanghai Tylon Company Ltd.,” dated January 30, 2008 (“ *Tylon Calculation Memo* ”); the Department's memorandum entitled, “2006-2007 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary Results Margin Calculation for Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd.,” dated January 30, 2008 (“ *Haimeng Calculation Memo* ”); and the Department's memorandum entitled, 2006-2007 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary Results Margin Calculation for Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry Co., Ltd,” dated January 30, 2008 (“ *Meita Calculation Memo* ”). In determining the most appropriate SVs to use in a given case, the Department's stated practice is to use review period-wide price averages, prices specific to the input in question, prices that are net of taxes and import duties, prices that are contemporaneous with the POR, and publicly available data. *See e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 38366 (July 6, 2006), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 1. The data we used for brokerage and handling expenses fulfill all of the foregoing criteria except that they are not specific to the subject merchandise. There is no information of that type on the record of these reviews. The Department used two sources to calculate an SV for domestic brokerage expenses:
(1)Data from the January 9, 2006, public version of the Section C questionnaire response from Kejriwal Paper Ltd. (“Kejriwal”); 23 and
(2)data from Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. for the POR February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005 ( *see Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 37757 (June 30, 2005) (unchanged in final results)). Because these values were not concurrent with the POR of these administrative and new shipper reviews, we adjusted these rates for inflation using the Wholesale Price Indices (“WPI”) for India as published in the International Monetary Fund's *International Financial Statistics* , available at *http://ifs.apdi.net/imf* , and then calculated a simple average of the two companies' brokerage expense data. 23 Kejriwal was a respondent in the certain lined paper products from India investigation for which the period of investigation was July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2005. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From India* , 71 FR 19706 (April 17, 2006) (unchanged in final determination). Haimeng reported that its U.S. customers purchased ball bearing cup and lug bolts from PRC producers that were delivered to Haimeng in specific quantities free-of-charge, and that the components were then incorporated into models shipped to U.S. customers during the POR. Section 773(c)(3) of the Act states that “factors of production utilized in producing merchandise include, but are not limited to the quantities of raw materials employed.” *See, e.g., Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper Review* , 71 FR 66304, 66305 (November 14, 2006) and the accompanying *Issues and Decisions Memorandum* at Comment 9. * See also Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review * , 70 FR 54361 (September 14, 2005), and the accompanying *Issues and Decisions Memorandum* at Comment 13. Therefore, to reflect the U.S. customers' expenditures for these items, we adjusted the U.S. price of applicable sales of these models by adding the Indian SV for each component ( *i.e.* , the ball bearing cups and lug bolts) used to the U.S. price of such brake rotors sold to the United States during the POR. For further information, *see Haimeng Calculation Memo* . Normal Value Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME, the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department will base NV on FOP because the presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under our normal methodologies. Therefore, we calculated NV based on FOP in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and
(4)of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). For purposes of calculating NV, we valued the PRC FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. The FOPs include:
(1)Hours of labor required;
(2)quantities of raw materials employed;
(3)amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and
(4)representative capital costs. We used the FOPs reported by respondents for materials, energy, labor, and packing. *See* section 773(c)(3) of the Act. In examining SVs, we selected, where possible, the publicly available value, which was an average non-export value, representative of a range of prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. *See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 75294, 75300 (December 16, 2004) (“ *Chlorinated Isocyanurates* ”) (unchanged in final determination). For a detailed explanation of the methodology used to calculate SVs, *see Surrogate Value Memorandum.* Regarding the components supplied free of charge to Haimeng noted above, section 773(c)(3) of the Act states that the “factors of production include but are not limited to the quantities of raw materials employed.” Therefore, consistent with the corresponding adjustment to U.S. price discussed above, we valued the ball bearing cups and lug bolts usage amounts reported by Haimeng for specific brake rotor models by using an Indian SV for each input. *See Haimeng Calculation Memo* and *Surrogate Value Memorandum* . Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on the FOPs reported by the respondents for the POR. We relied on the factor-specific data submitted by the respondents for the above-mentioned inputs in their questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses, where applicable, for purposes of selecting SVs. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available Indian SVs (except where noted below). In selecting the SVs, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. *See, e.g., Folding Metal Tables and Chairs From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 71509 (December 11, 2006), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 9. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import SVs a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory, where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). *See Sigma Corp.* v. *United States,* 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where necessary, we adjusted the SVs for inflation/deflation using the WPI as published on the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) Web site, available at *http://www.rbi.org.in* . For a detailed description of all SVs used for respondents, *see* the *Surrogate Value Memorandum.* Except where discussed below, we valued raw material inputs using April 2006 through March 2007, weighted-average unit import values derived from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India (“MSFTI”), as published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India and compiled by the World Trade Atlas (“WTA”), available at <http:www.gtis.com/wta.htm>. The Indian WTA import data is reported in rupees and is contemporaneous with the POR. 24 Indian SVs denominated in Indian rupees were converted to U.S. dollars using the applicable daily exchange rate for India for the POR. See *http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html* . Where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with the POR with which to value factors, we adjusted the SVs for inflation using the WPI for India. See *Surrogate Value Memorandum.* 24 See *Surrogate Value Memorandum* at Attachment 1. Furthermore, with regard to the WTA Indian import-based SVs, we have disregarded prices from NME countries 25 and those we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized, because we have found in other proceedings that the exporting countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, there is reason to believe or suspect all exports to all markets from such countries may be subsidized. 26 We are also guided by the statute's legislative history that explains that it is not necessary to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. *See* H.R. Rep. No. 576 100th Cong., 2. Sess. 590-91 (1988). Rather, the Department was instructed by Congress to base its decision on information that is available to it at the time it is making its determination. Therefore, we exclude export prices from Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand, and India when calculating the Indian import-based SVs. *See Surrogate Value Memorandum* . Finally, we excluded imports that were labeled as originating from an “unspecified” country from the average value, because we could not be certain that they were not from either an NME or a country with general export subsidies. 25 The NME countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, PRC, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. 26 *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of the 1998-1999 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part* , 66 FR 1953 (Jan. 10, 2001), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 1; *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1999-2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part,* 66 FR 57420 (Nov. 15, 2001), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 1; and *China National Machinery Imp. & Exp. Corp* . v. *United States* , 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1339 (CIT 2003), as affirmed by the Federal Circuit, 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004). To value electricity, the Department used the 2000 electricity price rates from *Key World Energy Statistics 2003* , published by the International Energy Agency available at *http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/elecprii.html* . Because this data was not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the average value for inflation using WPI. *See Surrogate Value Memorandum* at Attachment 5. For direct labor, indirect labor and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rates reflective of the observed relationship between wages and national income in market economy countries as reported on Import Administration's home page. *See* “Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries” (revised January 2007) (available at *http://www.trade.gov/ia/* ). For further details on the labor calculation, *see Surrogate Value Memorandum* at Attachment 7. Because the regression-based wage rates do not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, we applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by each respondent. For packing materials, we used the per-kilogram values obtained from the Indian WTA import data and made adjustments to account for freight costs incurred between the PRC supplier and the respondent. *See Surrogate Value Memorandum* at Attachment 1. The Department valued truck freight using Indian freight rates published by Indian Freight Exchange available at *http://www.infreight.com.* This source provided daily rates from six major points of origin to six destinations in India for the period April 2005 through October 2005. Because this data was not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the average value for inflation using WPI. We averaged the monthly rates for each rate observation to obtain an SV. *See Surrogate Value Memorandum* at Attachment 8. Both Meita and Tylon reported that during the manufacturing process, their subject merchandise was transported from each respondent's respective casting facility to their finishing workshops. To value PRC freight for the distance between each respondents' casting facility and the finishing workshop, we used the inland freight SV calculated for inputs shipped by truck, as discussed above. *See Meita Calculation Memorandum* and *Tylon Calculation Memorandum.* Petitioners submitted financial information for two Indian producers of identical and comparable merchandise: Bosch Chassis Systems India Ltd. (“Bosch”) for the year ending March 31, 2006, and Rico Auto Industries Limited (“Rico”) for the year ending March 31, 2005. 27 Because neither Bosch's nor Rico's financial statements were contemporaneous with the POR, the Department placed on the record of these reviews the public information from Rico's 2006-2007 annual report and Bosch's nine-month ( *i.e.* , April through December 2006) annual report 28 to be considered for valuing FOPs. 29 27 *See* Petitioners' submission dated August 1, 2007. 28 In Bosch's nine-month 2006 annual report, it stated that Bosch was changing its financial reporting from a fiscal year to a calendar year, starting January 1, 2007. 29 *See* the Department's memorandum, entitled, “2006-2007 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Financial Statements,” dated January 3, 2007. We preliminarily determine that both Bosch's and Rico's 2006-2007 financial statements are the best available information with which to calculate financial ratios because they appear to be complete, are publicly available, and are contemporaneous with the POR. 30 Therefore, for factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”), and profit values, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(4), we used the public information from the 2006-2007 annual reports of Bosch and Rico. From this information, we were able to determine factory overhead as a percentage of the total raw materials, labor, and energy (“ML&E”) costs; SG&A as a percentage of ML&E plus overhead ( *i.e.* , cost of manufacture); and the profit rate as a percentage of the cost of manufacture plus SG&A. Where appropriate, we did not include in the surrogate overhead and SG&A calculations the excise duty amount listed in the financial reports. For a full discussion of the calculation of these ratios, *see Surrogate Value Memorandum* and its accompanying calculation worksheets at Attachment 6. 30 *See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews and Partial Rescission of the 2005-2006 Administrative Review* , 72 FR 42386, 42389 (August 22, 2007), and the accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 2 ( *“2005-2006 Brake Rotors”* ). To value coking coal, coke, and firewood, we applied SVs using Indian import prices by HTS classification for the POR reported in the MSFTI, and available from WTA. *See Surrogate Value Memorandum* for a full discussion of the calculation of these ratios. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. *See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.* Preliminary Results of Reviews As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for the period April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007: Brake Rotors From the PRC Individually Reviewed Exporters 2006-2007 Administrative Review Weighted- Average Percent Margin (Percent) Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd 0.03 ( *de minimis* ). Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry Co., Ltd 0 Separate Rate Applicant Exporters 2006-2007 Administrative Review Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Co., Ltd 0 Yantai Winhere Auto-Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd 0 Laizhou Hongda Auto Replacement Parts Co., Ltd 0 Laizhou City Luqi Machinery Co., Ltd 0 Laizhou Wally Automobile Co., Ltd 0 Zibo Luzhou Automobile Parts Co., Ltd 0 Zibo Golden Harvest Machinery Limited Company 0 Longkou TLC Machinery Co., Ltd 0 Longkou Jinzheng Machinery Co., Ltd 0 Qingdao Gren (Group) Co 0 Shenyang Yinghao Machinery Co 0 Longkou Dixion Brake System Ltd 0 2006-2007 New Shipper Review Shanghai Tylon Company Ltd 0 PRC-Wide Rate Margin (Percent). PRC-Wide Rate 43.32 While the Department has, for these preliminary results, applied the average of the rates calculated for the two mandatory respondents, Haimeng and Meita, to the companies not individually examined, LABEC, Winhere, Hongda, Luqi, Wally, ZLAP, ZGOLD, TLC, Jinzheng, Gren, Yinghao, and Dixion, we invite comments from interested parties regarding the methodology to be used to determine the rate for non-examined companies. Specifically, we invite interested parties to comment on the rate to be applied to the non-examined companies, considering, but not limited to, the following factors:
(a)The Department has limited its examination of respondents pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act,
(b)section 735(c)(5) provides that, with some exceptions, the all-others rate in an investigation is to be calculated excluding any margins that are zero, *de minimis* or based entirely on facts available, and
(c)the Statement of Administrative Action states that with respect to the calculation of the all-others rate in such cases, “the expected method will be to weight-average the zero and *de minimis* margins and margins determined pursuant to the facts available, provided that volume data is available. However, if this method is not feasible, or if it results in an average that would not be reasonably reflective of potential dumping margins for non-investigated exporters or producers, Commerce may use other reasonable methods.” Disclosure We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to these proceedings within five days of the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in these proceedings are requested to submit with each argument
(1)a statement of the issue, and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. Parties are requested to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Additionally, parties are requested to provide its case brief and rebuttal briefs in electronic format ( *e.g.* , WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, pdf, etc.). Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain:
(1)The party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2)the number of participants; and
(3)a list of issues to be discussed. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in case and rebuttal briefs. The Department will issue the final results of these reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice. Assessment Rates Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by these reviews. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of these reviews. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for Haimeng, Meita, and Tylon, we calculated an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate for the merchandise subject to these reviews. Where the respondent has reported reliable entered values, we calculated importer (or customer)-specific *ad valorem* rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer). *See* 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or customer)-specific *ad valorem* rate is greater than *de minimis* , we will apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importer's/customer's entries during the review period. *See* 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where we do not have entered values for all U.S. sales, we calculated a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the antidumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or customer). *See* 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To determine whether the duty assessment rates are *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer (or customer)-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on the estimated entered value. Where an importer (or customer)-specific *ad valorem* rate is zero or *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. *See* 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). For the companies receiving a separate rate that were not selected for individual review ( *i.e.* , LABEC, Winhere, Hongda, Luqi, Wally, ZLAP, ZGOLD, TLC, Jinzheng, Gren, Yinghao, and Dixion), we will calculate an assessment rate based on the weighted average of the cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected for individual review pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. Where the weighted average *ad valorem* rate is zero or *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. *See* 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of the new shipper review for all shipments of subject merchandise from Tylon entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date:
(1)For subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Tylon, the cash deposit rate will be zero percent; and
(2)for subject merchandise exported by Tylon but not manufactured by Tylon, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate. The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of the administrative review for all shipments of brake rotors from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)The cash deposit rates for Haimeng, Meita, LABEC, Winhere, Hongda, Luqi, Wally, ZLAP, ZGOLD, TLC, Jinzheng, Gren, Yinghao, and Dixion will be the rates determined in the final results of review (except that if a rate is *de minimis* , *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent, a zero cash deposit will be required);
(2)the cash deposit rate for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding (which were not reviewed in this segment of the proceeding) will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding;
(3)the cash deposit rate for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 43.32 percent; and
(4)the cash deposit rate for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. These administrative and new shipper reviews and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.214. Dated: January 30, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-2081 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology International Code Council: The Update Process for the International Codes AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Code Development Hearings on U.S. Model Building Safety and Fire Prevention Codes, 2009 editions. SUMMARY: The International Code Council (ICC), under whose auspices the International Codes (“I-Codes”) are developed, maintains a process for updating these model codes based on receipt of proposals from interested individuals and organizations. Each of the I-Codes are comprehensively updated and re-published every three years with a supplement released between each edition. The most current versions of the I-Codes are the 2006 editions and the 2007 supplements to the 2006 editions. The 2009 editions of the I-Codes, the subject of this notice, will be released in the first quarter of 2009. The purpose of this notice is to invite public participation in the Code Development Hearings. At this session, all proposed changes submitted for the family of the 2009 I-Codes will be considered by the respective Code Development Committees, with the assembled body of the International Code Council members also afforded the opportunity to vote via an assembly action. Proposals for consideration at these hearings were received by the August 20, 2007, deadline and were made publically available as an electronic document on November 7, 2007, and as a printed Monograph on December 18, 2007. The publication of this notice by the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST)on behalf of ICC is being undertaken as a public service. NIST does not necessarily endorse, approve, or recommend any of the codes or standards referenced in the notice. *Session Dates:* The Code Development Hearings of the 2007/2008 Code Development Cycle will occur between February 18 and March 1, 2008, at the Palm Springs Convention Center in Palm Springs, California. The agenda for the hearing as well as updates to the schedule are also posted on the ICC Web site at: *http://www.iccsafe.org* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Pfeiffer, PE, Deputy Senior Vice President, Codes and Standards Development at ICC's Chicago District Office, 4051 West Flossmoor Road, Country Club Hills, Illinois 60478; Telephone 888-422-7233, Extension 4338; e-mail *mpfeiffer@iccsafe.org* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The ICC produces a family of codes and standards that are comprehensive, coordinated, and are widely used across the country in the regulation of the built environment. Local, state, and federal agencies use these codes and standards as the basis for developing regulations concerning new and existing construction. ICC's model codes and standards are each developed and maintained through voluntary consensus development processes known as the Governmental Consensus Process. Consistent with the voluntary consensus requirements of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113), the Governmental Consensus process incorporates a balance of involved interests, ensures due process, provides for conclusion by consensus, the resolution of objections by interested parties, the fair consideration of all public comments, and has a prescribed process for appeal of any action. The ICC code development process is initiated when proposals from interested persons—supported by written data, views, or arguments—are solicited, received and then published in the Proposed Changes document. This document is distributed a minimum of 30 days in advance of the Code Development Hearings and serves as the agenda for that session. At the Code Development Hearing the ICC Code Development Committee for each code or subject area of the code considers testimony and takes action on each proposal (Approval, Disapproval, or Approval as Modified). At the conclusion of committee action on each proposal, any member of the public assembly may make a motion for a vote by the ICC members in attendance (“assembly action”) to consider an action different than the committee action. Successful assembly actions on code changes become part of the record of public comments and are considered at the Final Action Hearing. Following the Code Development Hearing, the Report of the Public Hearing is published and identifies the disposition of each proposal, the reason for the committee's action, and successful assembly actions. Any person may provide additional comment on the committee actions in the public comment period following the first hearing. These comments are published and distributed in Final Action Agenda which serves as the agenda for the second public hearing in each cycle. Proposals which are approved by a vote of the Governmental Members of ICC at the Final Action Hearing are incorporated in either the Supplement or Edition, as applicable, with the next 18-month cycle starting with the submittal deadline for proposals. Proponents of proposals will receive a copy of all documents (Proposed Changes, Report of the Public Hearing and Final Action Agenda). Any interested party may also request a copy, free of charge, by downloading the “return coupon” from the ICC Web site at *http://www.iccsafe.org* and forwarding it as directed. *The 2009 International Codes consist of the following:* International Building Code; International Energy Conservation Code; International Existing Building Code; International Fire Code; International Fuel Gas Code; International Mechanical Code; ICC Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities; International Plumbing Code; International Private Sewage Disposal Code; International Property Maintenance Code; International Residential Code; International Urban-Wildland Interface Code; and International Zoning Code. Dated: January 31, 2008. Richard F. Kayser, Acting Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E8-2077 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF42 Marine Mammals; File No. 1021-1658 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit amendment. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Jenifer A. Zeligs-Hurley, Ph.D., Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, 8272 Moss Landing Road, Moss Landing, CA 95039, has been issued a minor amendment to Scientific Research Permit No. 1021-1568, for research on California sea lions ( *Zalophus californianus* ) and Pacific harbor seals ( *Phoca vitulina richardsi* ) maintained at the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories. ADDRESSES: The amendment and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Sloan or Tammy Adams, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The original permit was issued on March 14, 2003 (67 FR 53780), with an expiration date of March 31, 2008. The original permit authorized Dr. Zeligs-Hurley to conduct physiological and veterinary medical studies on California sea lions and harbor seals maintained at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories. The requested amendment has been granted under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216). The amendment extends the duration of the permit by 12 months beyond that established in the original permit. The amendment also allows studies with captive California sea lions to evaluate whether a mild underwater electric field can deter them from an area when food is present. No other terms or conditions of the permit were changed. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), a final determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Dated: January 28, 2008. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-2056 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF43 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The Trawl Survey Advisory Panel, composed of representatives from the National Marine Fisheries Service's Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), and several independent scientific researchers, will hold a public meeting. DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, February 21, 2008, from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. and Friday, February 22, 2008, from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Crowne Plaza, Two Harmon Plaza, Secaucus, NJ 07094; telephone:
(201)348-6900. *Council address* : Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; 300 S. New Street, Room 2115, Dover, DE 19904; telephone:
(302)674-2331. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; 300 S. New Street, Room 2115, Dover, DE 19904; telephone:
(302)674-2331, extension 19. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this meeting is to review the status of the new research vessel FSV Henry B. Bigelow and evaluate survey protocols for the new survey. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Saunders at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office,
(302)674-2331 extension 18, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: January 30, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-1973 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF46 Pacific Halibut Fishery; Guideline Harvest Levels for the Guided Recreational Halibut Fishery AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of guideline harvest level. SUMMARY: NMFS provides notice of Pacific halibut guideline harvest levels
(GHLs)for the guided sport charter vessel fishery in the International Pacific Halibut Commission
(IPHC)regulatory areas 2C and 3A. The GHLs provide a benchmark harvest level for participants in the charter fishery. This notice is necessary to meet the management and regulatory requirements for the GHLs and to inform the public about the 2008 GHLs for the charter halibut fishery. DATES: The GHLs are effective beginning February 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008. This period is specified by the IPHC as the sport fishing season in all waters of Alaska. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Scheurer,
(907)586-7356, or email at *julie.scheurer@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS implemented a final rule to establish GHLs in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A for the harvest of Pacific halibut ( *Hippoglossus stenolepis* ) by the charter fishery on August 8, 2003 (68 FR 47256). The GHLs are intended to serve as a benchmark harvest level for participants in the charter fishery. This announcement is consistent with 50 CFR 300.65(c)(2), which requires that GHLs for IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A be specified by NMFS and announced by publication in the **Federal Register** no later than 30 days after receiving information from the IPHC. The IPHC annually establishes the constant exploitation yield
(CEY)for halibut in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A. Regulations at § 300.65(c)(1) establish the GHLs based on the CEY that is established annually by the IPHC. The CEY established by the IPHC for 2008 is 6,500,000 lb (2,948.4 mt) in Area 2C and 28,960,000 lb (13,136.0 mt) in Area 3A. The corresponding GHLs are 931,000 lb (447.2 mt) in Area 2C, and 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) in Area 3A. The GHL in Area 2C has been reduced from the 2007 level of 1,432,000 lb (649.5 mt). The GHL for Area 3A did not change. This is a notice of the GHLs in Areas 2C and 3A for 2008 and does not require any regulatory action by NMFS. If a GHL is exceeded in 2008, NMFS will notify the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) in writing within 30 days of receipt of that information. The Council has proposed management actions to reduce the harvest of Pacific halibut in the Area 2C guided charter vessel fishery to the GHL (72 FR 74257, December 31, 2007). The Secretary of Commerce may issue a final rule after consideration of the 2008 GHL and public comments on the proposed rule. Classification This notice does not require any additional regulatory action by NMFS and does not impose any additional restrictions on harvests by the charter fishery. If a GHL is exceeded in any year, the Council would be notified, but would not be required to take action. This process of notification is intended to provide the Council with information about the level of Pacific halibut harvest by the charter fishery in a given year and could prompt future action. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 *et seq.* Dated: January 30, 2008. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-2057 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration [Docket No. 080129095-8096-01] Spectrum Sharing Innovation Test-Bed AGENCY: National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce ACTION: Notice of Solicitation of Participation SUMMARY: On June 8, 2006, the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunication and Information Administration
(NTIA)published a Notice of Inquiry in the Federal Register seeking public comment on the implementation of the Presidential Spectrum Policy Initiative Spectrum Sharing Innovation Test-Bed (Test-Bed). This Notice of Solicitation of Participation seeks expressions of interest from parties that may be willing to participate in the Test-Bed. DATES: Expressions of interest are due on or before February 29, 2008. ADDRESSES: Expressions of interest should be sent to the attention of Ed Drocella, Office of Spectrum Management, 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 6725, Washington DC 20230; by facsimile transmission to
(202)482-4595; or by electronic mail to testbed@ntia.doc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Drocella at
(202)482-2608 or edrocella@ntia.doc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background In May 2003, President Bush established the Spectrum Policy Initiative to promote the development and implementation of a United States spectrum policy for the 21st Century. 1 In response to the Spectrum Policy Initiative, the Secretary of Commerce established a Federal Government Spectrum Task Force and initiated a series of public meetings to address policies affecting spectrum use by the federal, state, and local governments, and the private sector. The recommendations resulting from these activities were included in two reports released by the Secretary of Commerce in June 2004. 2 Based on the recommendations contained in these reports, the President directed the federal agencies on November 30, 2004, to plan the implementation of the recommendations contained in the reports. 3 1 Presidential Memorandum on Spectrum Policy for the 21 st Century, 69 FR 1568 (Jan. 9, 2004), 39 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 726, 727 (May 29, 2003), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030605-4.html. 2 Department of Commerce, * Spectrum Policy for the 21 st Century - The President's Spectrum Policy Initiative: Report 1 Recommendations of the Federal Government Spectrum Task Force * (June 2004) (“Report 1”); Department of Commerce, *Spectrum Policy for the 21st Century - The President's Spectrum Policy Initiative: Report 2 Recommendations From State and Local Governments and Private Sector Responders* (June 2004) (“Report 2”). These reports are available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/. 3 * President's Memorandum on Improving Spectrum Management for the 21 st Century * , 49 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 2875 (Nov. 29, 2004). One of these recommendations stated that NTIA and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in coordination with the federal agencies are to establish a Test-Bed to examine the feasibility of increased sharing between federal and non-federal users. 4 Specifically, the Test-Bed recommendation states: 4 By this Notice, NTIA is implementing its responsibilities under the President's November 2004 Executive Memorandum. The FCC is also designating spectrum and establishing procedures for the Test-Bed through a public notice. Public Notice, Federal Communications Commission Designates Spectrum and Provides Guidance for Participation in a Spectrum Sharing Innovation Test-Bed, ET Docket No. 06-89. Within two years of this report's publication, NTIA and the FCC should establish a pilot program to allow for increased sharing between federal and non-federal users. NTIA and the FCC should each identify a segment of spectrum of equal bandwidth within their respective jurisdiction for this program. Each segment should be approximately 10 MHz for assignment on a shared basis for federal and non-federal use. The spectrum to be identified for this pilot program could come from bands currently allocated on either an exclusive or shared basis. Two years after the inception of the pilot program, NTIA and the FCC should provide reports outlining the results and suggesting appropriate procedures for expanding the program as appropriate. 5 5 Report 1, *supra* note 2, Recommendation 11; Report 2, *supra* note 2, Recommendation 6(b). The recommendation to establish the Test-Bed recognized that the increased use of spectrum for federal and non-federal communications necessitates increased sharing to benefit both federal and non-federal users of the spectrum. On June 8, 2006, NTIA published a Notice of Inquiry
(NOI)in the Federal Register seeking public comment on issues related to the Test-Bed. 6 The FCC also solicited public comment on issues related to the Test-Bed through a separate Public Notice (PN). 7 There were 14 comments filed in response to the NOI and 16 comments and 9 reply comments filed in response to the PN. 8 In addition, the public comments were reviewed by the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC), which was established as part the Presidential Spectrum Policy Initiative to advise the Assistant Secretary of Communications and Information, Department of Commerce, on needed reforms to spectrum policies and management to enable the introduction of new spectrum dependent technologies and services. 9 NTIA also sought comments from the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC). 10 The public responses to the NTIA NOI and FCC PN as well as the comments provided by the CSMAC and the IRAC were used to develop the federal portion of the Test-Bed described below. 6 National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Docket, No. 060602142-6142-01,Notice of Inquiry, 71 FR 33282 (June 8, 2006). 7 Federal Communications Commission, ET Docket No. 06-89, FCC 06-77, Creation of a Spectrum Sharing Innovation Test-Bed, 71 FR 35675 (June 21, 2006). 8 The complete public comments filed in response to the NOI are available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov. The complete public comments and reply comments filed in response to the PN are available on the FCC Electronic Comment Filing System (ET Docket No. 06-89). 9 Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee Report: Opportunities Relating to the Spectrum Sharing Test Bed, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/reports/2007/CSMAC_TestBed_Report.pdf. 10 The IRAC, consisting of representatives of 20 federal agencies, serves in an advisory capacity to the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information. The IRAC assists the Assistant Secretary in the discharge of responsibilities pertaining to the use of the electromagnetic spectrum. II. Test-Bed Description **Test-Bed Goal:** To objectively evaluate new technologies to facilitate sharing between federal and non-federal spectrum users. If sharing is successfully demonstrated, the results of the Test-Bed can be used as the basis to establish service rules for the technologies that have operated in the Test-Bed frequency bands. 11 11 The subsequent designation of bands where the technologies might be authorized to operate on a permanent basis would be the subject of a separate rulemaking. **Number of Simultaneously Operating Test-Beds:** One. **Test-Bed Technology:** Equipment employing Dynamic Spectrum Access
(DSA)technology. 12 12 Dynamic Spectrum Access technology allows a radio device to
(i)evaluate its radio frequency environment using spectrum sensing, geo-location, or a combination of spectrum sensing and geo-location techniques,
(ii)determine which frequencies are available for use on a non-interference basis, and
(iii)reconfigure itself to operate on the identified frequencies. **Test-Bed Frequency Band:** 410-420 MHz. **Authorization of Test-Bed Operations:** FCC Part 5 Experimental Radio Service Rules. **Limitations on Test-Bed Operations:** Frequency and/or geographic limitations may be identified as necessary. **Protection of Incumbent Spectrum Users:** To address potential interference to incumbent spectrum users the Test-Bed employing DSA equipment will be performed in three phases: **Phase 1 - Equipment Characterization** . Equipment employing DSA techniques will be sent to the NTIA Institute for Telecommunication Sciences in Boulder, Colorado and characterization measurements of the DSA capabilities in response to simulated environmental signals will be performed. **Phase 2 - Evaluation of Capabilities** . After successful completion of Phase 1, the DSA capabilities of the equipment in the geographic area of the Test-Bed will be evaluated. **Phase 3 - Field Operation Evaluation** . After successful completion of Phase 2, the DSA equipment will be permitted to transmit in an actual radio frequency signal environment. An automatic signal logging capability will be used during the operation of the Test-Bed to help resolve interference events if they occur. A point-of-contact will also be established to stop Test-Bed operations if interference is reported. **Planning and Evaluation of Test-Bed:** A flexible peer review process open to the public will be employed. 13 Federal and non-federal users will have an opportunity to participate in the development of test plans, review status reports, and review the final report on the results of the Test-Bed. 13 There may be certain limitations on the peer review process to take into account the proprietary rights of the developers participating in the Test-Bed. As part of the Test-Bed, NTIA may enter into Cooperative Research and Development Agreements or Joint Project Agreements with the equipment developers. III. Expressions of Interest The following criteria will be used to evaluate the DSA technologies proposed for the Test-Bed: 14 14 The NTIA NOI proposed these criteria to evaluate the Test-Bed technologies and they are adopted as evaluation criteria herein. How well does the proposed technology achieve the goal of the Test-Bed? How readily available is the equipment proposed for the Test-Bed? How well does the proposed technology explore creative and original concepts in spectrum sharing? For the proposed technology, can the results of the Test-Bed be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technologic understanding? How well does the proposed technology address the potential impact on the incumbent spectrum user(s)? Can the proposed technology be adapted for a variety of services and applications, including broadband, military/homeland security, and public safety? Are there any technical factors that limit the proposed technology to a specific frequency range? Will the necessary technical support be provided to assure performance of the equipment during the Test-Bed? On or before February 29, 2008, interested parties wishing to participate in the Test-Bed should submit to the address set forth above, their name, address, phone number, e-mail address and a short description of the DSA technology. After receiving all submissions, NTIA may contact any party that submitted an expression of interest to follow-up on how its DSA technology would meet the above evaluation criteria. NTIA will send via U.S. mail a letter to the selected Test-Bed participants. NTIA will also publish a list of all Test-Bed participants on its website. Dated: January 30, 2008. Kathy D. Smith, Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications and Information Administration. [FR Doc. E8-2050 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-S COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS Notice of Meeting The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 21 February 2008, at 10 a.m. in the Commission's offices at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include buildings, parks and memorials. Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our Web site: *http://www.cfa.gov.* Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address, or call 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date. Dated in Washington DC, 29 January 2008. Thomas Luebke, AIA, Secretary. [FR Doc. 08-482 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 17
Traces to 17 documents
CFR
17 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 104-113
  • 5 CFR 1320
  • 7 CFR 4284
  • 7 CFR 4284.639
  • 7 CFR 4284.603
  • 7 CFR 4280
  • 7 CFR 4280.3
  • 7 CFR 4280.13
  • 7 CFR 4280.42(b)
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 5 CFR 1320.8(d)
  • 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246
  • 110 F. Supp. 2d 992
  • 117 F.3d 1401
  • 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334
  • 50 CFR 216
  • 50 CFR 300.65(c)(2)
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice and request for comments
U.S.C.§ 2204
U.S.C.§ 2276
U.S.C.§ 1926
U.S.C.§ 940c
C.F.R.§ 351.214
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.301
C.F.R.§ 351.408
C.F.R.§ 351.224
F. Supp.366 F. Supp. 2d 1246
F. Supp.110 F. Supp. 2d 992
F. App'x117 F.3d 1401
Cites 34 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.