Notices. Notice of Intent To Hold Public Scoping Meeting and Prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA)
17,169 words·~78 min read·
/register/2008/02/06/08-513A 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 Rural Utilities Service Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Intent To Hold Public Scoping Meeting and Prepare an Environmental Assessment AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of Intent To Hold Public Scoping Meeting and Prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA). SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service
(RUS)an Agency delivering the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Development Utilities Programs, hereinafter referred to as Rural Development and/or Agency, intends to hold a public scoping meeting and prepare an Environmental Assessment
(EA)in connection with possible impacts related to a project being proposed by Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (Basin Electric), of Bismarck, North Dakota. The proposal consists of the construction and operation of a natural gas-fired combustion turbine generation facility referred to as the Culbertson Unit 1 East Side Peaking Project, consisting of a single maximum net 100 Megawatt
(MW)unit, at a site near Culbertson, Montana. DATES: RUS will conduct the public scoping meeting in an open-house format on February 26, 2008, from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., Mountain Standard Time, at the Culbertson American Legion, 119 2nd Street, East, Culbertson, Montana. FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Fristik, Senior Environmental Protection Specialist, Water and Environmental Programs, Rural Development, Utilities Programs, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Mail Stop 1571, Washington DC 20250-1571, telephone:
(202)720-5093 or e-mail: *richard.fristik@wdc.usda.gov* , or Kevin L. Solie, Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., 1717 East Interstate Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58503-0564, telephone:
(701)355-5495 or e-mail: *ksolie@bepc.com* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Basin Electric proposes to construct a new 80-100 MW, simple-cycle natural gas fired turbine less than (50 MW average annual output), ancillary facilities and systems, a new natural gas pipeline to connect to the existing Northern Border Pipeline, and necessary equipment to allow connection to the Western Area Power Administration
(WAPA)transmission system. Basin Electric is requesting RUS to provide financing for the proposed project. WAPA will construct a new or modify an existing electrical substation, and construct up to 12 miles of new transmission line to facilitate connection of the proposed facility to its grid, and as such has agreed to be a cooperating agency in preparation of the EA. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ)is also a cooperating agency due to its responsibilities under the Montana Environmental Policy Act
(MEPA)and for air quality permitting. Alternatives to be considered by RUS include no action, purchased power, load management, renewable energy sources, distributed generation, and alternative site locations. Comments regarding the proposed project may be submitted (orally or in writing) at the public scoping meeting or in writing within 30 days after the February 26, 2008, scoping meeting to RUS at the address provided in this notice. A proposal development document—Alternative Evaluation and Site Selection Study—is available for public review at RUS or Basin Electric, at the addresses provided in this notice. This study is also available at the Culbertson Public Library, 202 Broadway, Culbertson, MT 59218. From information provided in the study mentioned above, and using input provided by government agencies, private organizations, and the public, RUS will prepare a Draft EA. The Draft EA will be available for review and comment for 45 days after distribution. A Final EA will then be prepared that considers all comments received. The Final EA will be available for review and comment for 30 days after distribution. Following the 30-day comment period, RUS will prepare either a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Notices announcing the availability of the Draft and Final EA and a FONSI, as appropriate, will be published in the **Federal Register** and in local newspapers. Any final action by RUS related to the proposed projects will be subject to, and contingent upon, compliance with all relevant Federal, State and local environmental laws and regulations and completion of the environmental review requirements as prescribed in the RUS Environmental Policies and Procedures (7 CFR Part 1794). Dated: January 31, 2008. James R. Newby, Assistant Administrator, Electric Programs. [FR Doc. E8-2101 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). *Title:* BEES Please. *OMB Control Number:* 0693-0036. *Form Number(s):* None. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 1,875. *Number of Respondents:* 30. *Average Hours Per Response:* 62 hours and 30 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability
(BEES)Please is a voluntary program to collect data from product manufacturers to scientifically evaluate their products' environmental performance using the BEES software. These data include product-specific materials use, energy consumption, waste, and environmental releases. BEES evaluates these data, translates them into decision-enabling results, and delivers them in a visually intuitive graphical format. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *OMB Desk Officer:* Jasmeet Seehra,
(202)395-3123. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Jasmeet Seehra, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number
(202)395-5806 or via the Internet at *Jasmeet_K._Seehra@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: January 31, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-2105 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration [Docket No.: 080125088-8090-01] Program Announcement for the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program AGENCY: Economic Development Administration (EDA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: EDA's mission is to lead the federal economic development agenda by promoting innovation and competitiveness, preparing American regions for growth and success in the worldwide economy. As part of this mission, EDA administers the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms
(TAAF)Program under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, through a national network of eleven Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers (each, a TAAC) to provide technical assistance to firms that have lost domestic sales and employment due to increased imports of similar or competitive goods. This program announcement applies only to the current eleven EDA-funded TAACs, and provides information necessary to clarify the requirements for operating and providing technical assistance to trade-impacted firms as a TAAC under a cooperative agreement with EDA for fiscal years 2008-2010. This notice does not solicit new applications for TAAC operators. DATES: A current TAAC that wishes to apply for federal financial assistance for the three-year project period for fiscal years 2008-2010 must submit an application to EDA at least 30 days before the expiration date of the TAAC's 2005-2007 cooperative agreement. EDA will amend currently active cooperative agreements as necessary to ensure that each TAAC that wishes to apply will have at least 30 days to complete the application requirements set out in this program announcement. EDA's TAAF Program Officer will hold a teleconference during the week of February 11, 2008 for all current TAACs to address questions about this program announcement. The exact date, time, registration requirements, and protocols for the call will be announced to all participants in advance of the teleconference. ADDRESSES: Applications for federal financial assistance may be submitted in either paper format or electronic format, in accordance with the procedures provided in this program announcement. The content of the application is the same for both paper and electronic submissions. EDA will not accept facsimile transmissions of applications. The eleven TAACs may obtain paper application packages by contacting the designated point of contact listed below under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or by downloading the required forms from EDA's Web site at *www.eda.gov/InvestmentsGrants/Preapp.xml.* *Paper Submissions:* A complete, signed original application may be sent via postal mail, shipped overnight or hand-delivered to EDA headquarters at the following address: William P. Kittredge, Ph.D., Program Officer, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 7009, Washington, DC 20230. *Electronic Submissions:* A complete, electronically signed original application may be e-mailed to *taac@eda.doc.gov* with the subject line “[Insert full name of TAAC] FY 2008 application.” FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or for a paper copy of the application package, please contact William P. Kittredge, Ph.D., Program Officer, at *taac@eda.doc.gov* or at 202-482-4122. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Program Information:* EDA's mission is to lead the federal economic development agenda by promoting innovation and competitiveness, preparing American regions for growth and success in the worldwide economy. One of EDA's economic development tools is the TAAF Program under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341—2355, 2391) (Trade Act). The goal of the TAAF Program is to identify firms that have been negatively impacted by import competition and assist these firms to become competitive in the global economy, thereby creating or retaining domestic jobs. Each TAAC is staffed by trade adjustment assistance professionals that help U.S. production and manufacturing firms apply for certification under the Trade Act. The TAAC assists the firm in completing and submitting to EDA a petition for certification of eligibility. If EDA determines that the firm meets the eligibility criteria for technical assistance under the Trade Act and approves the petition, the TAAC then works closely with the certified client-firm to diagnose the firm's strengths and weaknesses, develop an adjustment proposal
(AP)to address those strengths and weaknesses, and implement the AP. As required by the statute, an AP must:
(1)Be reasonably calculated to contribute materially to the economic adjustment of a client-firm;
(2)give adequate consideration to the interests of the workers of the client-firm; and
(3)demonstrate that the client-firm will make all reasonable efforts to use its own resources for economic development. The adjustment assistance identified in the AP must consist of specialized consulting services designed to assist the firm in becoming more competitive in the global marketplace. For this purpose, adjustment assistance generally consists of knowledge-based services such as market penetration studies, customized business improvements, and designs for new products. Adjustment assistance does not include expenditures for capital improvements or for the purchase of business machinery or supplies. This program announcement is intended to provide information and clarify the operational requirements for the current eleven EDA-funded TAACs. The cooperative agreements associated with fiscal years 2005-2007 for the current TAACs will expire this year and, therefore, this program announcement sets out important elements that will be included in each TAAC's cooperative agreement for fiscal years 2008-2010, subject to funding availability. A current TAAC that wishes to apply for federal financial assistance for the three-year project period for fiscal years 2008-2010 must submit an application to EDA at least 30 days before the expiration date of the TAAC's 2005-2007 cooperative agreement. EDA will amend currently active cooperative agreements as necessary to ensure that each TAAC will have at least 30 days to complete the application requirements set out under this program announcement. The current TAACs and the States they serve are: TAAC States served Great Lakes TAAC Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio Mid-America TAAC Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri Mid-Atlantic TAAC Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia Midwest TAAC Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin New England TAAC Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont New York State TAAC New York Northwestern TAAC Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington Rocky Mountain TAAC Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming Southeastern TAAC Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee Southwest TAAC Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas Western TAAC California, Arizona, Nevada, and Hawaii *Electronic Access:* The complete TAAF program announcement is available at *www.eda.gov* . *Funding Availability:* Currently, the TAAF Program is fully funded and at capacity with eleven TAACs providing technical assistance to trade-impacted firms throughout the nation. This program announcement merely clarifies the operating principles and administrative and procedural requirements applicable to the TAAF Program. Future funding for the TAAF Program under this program announcement depends upon the availability of funds appropriated for the Program. *Statutory Authority:* The specific authority for the TAAF Program is chapters 3 and 5 of Title II of the Trade Act, which authorizes EDA to administer the Program through the TAACs. EDA's regulations at 13 CFR Part 315 set forth the general and specific regulatory requirements applicable to the TAAF Program. EDA's regulations and the Trade Act are accessible on EDA's Internet Web site at *www.eda.gov/InvestmentsGrants/Lawsreg.xml.* *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number:* 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms. *Eligibility:* The TAAF Program currently is administered through a national network of eleven TAACs. As set out at 13 CFR 315.4, a TAAC may be a university affiliate, State or local government affiliate, or nonprofit organization. *Project Period:* EDA administers the TAAF Program by entering into cooperative agreements with each TAAC for a three-year project period. Once funded, a TAAC is not required to compete for the second and third years of funding, providing that performance is satisfactory (as determined by EDA). Funding beyond the initial year of the project period also is subject to the availability of funds. Carryover funds and program income earned in one year may be carried over and used to carry out eligible activities in a subsequent year throughout the three-year project period. At the conclusion of the third year of the project period, each TAAC has 90 days to submit final vouchers for reimbursement related to eligible activities funded prior to expiration of the project period. The maximum amount awarded by EDA under a cooperative agreement is for expenditures related to the TAAC's scope of work. *Cost Sharing Requirement:* EDA may fund up to 100 percent of TAAC operations. See section 253(b)(3) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2343). Once a firm is certified to receive assistance from a TAAC under the TAAF Program, the client-firm must pay at least 25 percent of the cost of preparing its AP. A client-firm that requests $30,000 or less in total assistance to implement an approved AP must pay at least 25 percent of the cost of that assistance. A client-firm that requests more than $30,000 in total assistance in its approved AP must pay at least 50 percent of the cost of that assistance. General cost limitations on APs are set out below in section VI.C. Limitations on assistance provided through an AP specific to a particular TAAC will be set out in the cooperative agreement between EDA and the TAAC. See 13 CFR 315.6(c)(2). *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications for funding under the TAAF Program are not subject to the State review requirements imposed by Executive Order 12372, “ *Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.* ” *Current TAAC Evaluation:* EDA generally evaluates currently funded TAACs based on:
(1)Performance under cooperative agreements with EDA and compliance with the terms and conditions of such cooperative agreements;
(2)Proposed scope of work, budget and application or amended application; and
(3)Availability of funds. *See* 13 CFR 315.5(c)(1). *New TAAC Evaluation:* If EDA determines that it is necessary to select a new TAAC to provide assistance under the TAAF Program (for example, if a currently funded TAAC does not timely provide an application per the requirements of this program announcement), EDA generally evaluates new TAACs based on:
(1)Competence in administering business assistance programs;
(2)Background and experience of staff;
(3)Proposed scope of work, budget and application; and
(4)Availab3ility of funding. *See* 13 CFR 315.5(c)(2). Content and Form of Application Submissions *General Requirements:* A complete application to provide assistance as a TAAC for the 2008-2010 project period consists of Forms SF-424, “ *Application for Federal Assistance* ;” SF-424A, “ *Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs;* ” SF-424B, “ *Assurances—Non-Construction Programs* ;” CD-512, “ *Certification Regarding Lobbying Lower Tier Covered Transactions* ;” all supporting documentation required by these forms; a project narrative; and a detailed budget narrative. All information submitted by a TAAC in an application for funding shall be accurate and based on the most current data available for the TAAC's service region. TAACs interested in applying for continued funding are advised to carefully read the instructions contained in this program announcement and on the application forms. The applicant TAAC is solely responsible for ensuring that applications are complete and timely received by EDA. Applications may be submitted either in paper format or electronically. EDA will evaluate applications consistent with the application review information set forth in this program announcement. A completed application must contain all the items listed in the “Checklist of Application Materials” set out below. Checklist of Application Materials *Project Narrative* Cover Page Section 1. Organizational History and Capability Section 2. Service Region, Needs of Service Region, and Target Audience Section 3. Scope of Work and Anticipated Impacts and Benefits *Budget and Budget Narrative* Budget Narrative (for each year of the award period) Staffing Plan Resumes of Key Project Staff *Standard Forms
(SF)and Department of Commerce (CD Forms)* Form SF-424, *Application for Federal Assistance* (The list of certifications and assurances referenced in Item 21 of Form SF-424 is contained in Form SF-424B.) Form SF-424A, *Budget—Non-Construction Programs* (for each year of the project period) Form SF-424B, *Assurances—Non-Construction Programs* Form SF-LLL, *Disclosure of Lobbying Activities* (if applicable) (Form SF-LLL can be accessed at EDA's Internet Web site at *www.eda.gov* and at *www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/grants_forms.html* .) Form CD-511, *Certification Regarding Lobbying* (Form CD-511 can be accessed at the Department of Commerce's Forms Management Internet Web site at *http://ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Electronic_Forms/index.htm* .) *Project Narrative.* The Project Narrative must provide both an overall three-year operational plan and scope of work for the entire fiscal years 2008 through 2010 project period, and a detailed operational plan and scope of work for the initial year of the project period. For each subsequent year of the project period, each TAAC will execute an amendment to the cooperative agreement and submit an updated Project Narrative that reflects changes to and trends within the TAAC's service region. The Project Narrative must provide for a three-year scope of work and a timeline for project implementation during the three-year project period. The Project Narrative must include the following items, which should be presented to EDA in the following format: Cover Page Section 1. Organizational History and Capability a. *Overview.* Briefly state the purpose of the submission and the TAAC's federal funding request and proposed matching funds, if applicable. b. *Organization and Staffing.* Submit a staffing plan listing all positions that will be charged to the federal and non-federal (if applicable) portion of the budget for each project year. The staffing plan must include position titles, maximum annual salaries, and the total amount of annual salaries that will be charged to the TAAF Program. The total amount of annual salaries that will be charged to the Program must be consistent with the amount reflected on the “Personnel” budget line-item (found in “Section B—Budget Categories” of Form SF-424A) for each project year. In addition, identify each TAAC employee, describe their specific role with reference to TAAC operations, and provide a brief overview of each employee's most pertinent experience. In addition, the resume, curriculum vitae, or other statement of qualifications for each employee must be included as an attachment. If the TAAC plans to hire employees during the project period, provide a staffing plan for filling any vacancies or new positions. c. *History and Accomplishments.* Provide a narrative overview of the history of the TAAC and the TAAC's accomplishments in providing assistance to import-impacted firms under past cooperative agreements with EDA. Discuss the TAAC's capacity and experience in providing assistance under the TAAF Program. d. *Organizational Form or Affiliated or Sponsoring Institution, if applicable.* Detail the organizational context in which the TAAC will provide technical assistance under the TAAF Program. If the TAAC is affiliated with another entity, such as a university or a nonprofit, include the TAAC's placement within the organizational structure of that entity and explain how this affiliation may impact the cooperative agreement with EDA and the provision of assistance to import-impacted firms. Section 2. Service Region, Needs of Service Region, and Target Audience a. *Definition of Service Region.* Define the TAAC's geographic service region. b. *Existing Conditions within Service Region* . Detail the economic development needs, issues, and opportunities of the TAAC's service region, focusing on import-impacted industries and firms. c. *Target Firms and Industries.* Identify target import-impacted firms and industries within the TAAC's geographic service region. d. *Presentation.* Maps and other graphic representations that accurately portray the current condition of the TAAC's service region are welcome and encouraged. e. *Accuracy and Timeliness of Information* . All information presented in the application must be pertinent, accurate and current. This section in particular must contain accurate data and estimates provided by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the U.S. Census Bureau, or other similar governmental agency that compiles socioeconomic data that is current as of the date of the application. Additional pertinent, accurate and current data, information, analyses and estimates from reputable non-governmental sources may also be provided, but such data cannot serve as a substitute for governmental data. Since the goal of the TAAF Program is to address the existing conditions of import-impacted firms, the use of outdated data is not acceptable and will be considered nonresponsive. If an application contains out-of-date data, EDA may reject the application and choose to re-solicit applications on a competitive basis. Section 3. TAAC Business Plan and Anticipated Impacts and Benefits Outline the scope of work to be undertaken by the TAAC during the three-year project period. This section must be organized into the following five elements:
(i)TAAC program management;
(ii)TAAC business plan;
(iii)timeline and benchmarks for program implementation;
(iv)TAAC outreach strategy; and
(v)plan to coordinate with Trade Adjustment Assistance Programs operated by the Department of Labor
(DOL)to provide the most value to firms and maximize the benefit of each federal dollar. Pertinent details on the above-listed elements of the TAAC's scope of work are set out below. a. *TAAC Program Management* . Provide a plan for the TAAC's overall fiscal and TAAF Program management to ensure the TAAC's accountability for federal funds. In general, TAACs use federal funds to enter into contracts to meet the needs of client-firms. Therefore, this plan must include the TAAC's procurement code of conduct and procedures. Recipients of federal assistance that are institutions of higher education, hospitals, and other nonprofit and commercial organizations must have:
(i)Written standards of conduct governing the performance of its employees engaged in the award and administration of contracts; and
(ii)Written procurement procedures. *See* 15 CFR 14.42 and 14.44 for more information on these requirements. b. *TAAC Business Plan.* Describe how the TAAC plans to provide assistance to import-impacted firms and how the TAAC plans to partner or coordinate with other organizations to provide effective assistance and leverage federal dollars. c. *Timeline and Benchmarks for Program Implementation.* Provide a three-year timeline for Program implementation, which includes significant milestones and accomplishments. The TAAC also must submit a timeline for the initial year of the project period detailing over the course of that year the activity, timeline, and benchmarks for the implementation of the TAAF Program. This initial year timeline must include the current status of any pending certifications, APs, or other client-firm assistance; the projected number of firms that the TAAC will contact; the projected number of petitions for certification that the TAAC will submit for EDA approval; the projected number of APs that will be submitted for EDA's approval; the projected number of projects that will be proposed in APs; and the number of projects that the TAAC anticipates client-firms will complete. These projections should be based on the TAAC's analysis of need in its geographic service region and its experience operating the TAAF Program. d. *TAAC Outreach Strategy.* Detail how the TAAC will provide information about assistance services in the TAAC's geographic service region. Examples of TAAC information and literature provided to potential client-firms and other outreach strategies are welcome and encouraged. e. *Plan for Coordination with DOL.* Detail how the TAAC will coordinate with Trade Adjustment Assistance Programs operated by DOL under the Trade Act to provide comprehensive assistance to import-impacted firms and employees, avoid duplicative effort, and maximize federal dollars. *Budget and Budget Narrative.* Applicants must submit a separate budget on Form SF-424A and a budget narrative for each year of the three-year project period. The budget must include columns reflecting the federal, non-federal cash, non-federal in-kind (if applicable) and total amounts allocated to each budget line-item for each project year. Applicants should use the budget categories identified in “Section B—Budget Categories” of Form SF-424A, with sub-categories and explanations as necessary. The allowability of costs incurred depends upon the classification of the TAAC and is determined in accordance with the requirements set out in 2 CFR Part 220, “ *Cost Principles for Educational Institutions (OMB Circular A-21)* ;” 2 CFR Part 225, “ *Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments (OMB Circular A-87)* ;” or 2 CFR Part 230, “ *Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations (OMB Circular A-122)* ,” as applicable. Generally, allowable costs include salaries, supplies, and other expenses that are reasonable and necessary for successful completion of the scope of work. 1. *Budget Narrative* . The budget for each year must include a brief narrative describing each budget line-item. For budget planning purposes, applicant TAACs should assume flat funding for the three-year project period. 2. *Facilities and Administrative Costs.* If indirect or facilities and administrative costs (replacing the term “indirect costs” for institutions of higher education) are included in the budget, the applicant must include a copy of its current Indirect or Facilities and Administrative Cost Rate Agreement or documentation applying for an Indirect or Facilities and Administrative Cost Rate Agreement. Applicants that do not have a current Indirect or Facilities and Administrative Cost Rate Agreement negotiated and approved by the Department of Commerce (or by the applicable cognizant federal agency) may propose indirect or facilities and administrative costs in their budget. However, any TAAC without a currently approved Indirect or Facilities and Administrative Cost Rate Agreement must prepare and submit an indirect or facilities and administrative cost allocation plan and rate proposal as required by 2 CFR Part 220 (OMB Circular A-21), 2 CFR Part 225 (OMB Circular A-87), or 2 CFR Part 230 (OMB Circular A-122), as applicable. The allocation plan and the rate proposal must be submitted to the Department of Commerce's Office of Acquisition Management (or applicable cognizant federal agency) within 90 days from the award start date. The maximum dollar amount of allocable indirect or facilities and administrative costs for which EDA will reimburse a recipient shall be the lesser of the:
(i)Line-item amount for the federal share of indirect or facilities and administrative costs contained in the EDA-approved budget for the award; or
(ii)federal share of the total allocable indirect or facilities and administrative costs of the award based on the cost rate approved by the Department of Commerce (or applicable cognizant federal agency), provided that the cost rate is current at the time the costs were incurred and provided that the rate is approved on or before the award end date. *See* Paragraph 5 (Indirect Costs) of the *Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements* (69 FR 78389). The TAAC should include a statement in the budget narrative indicating whether it does not have, or has not applied for, an Indirect or Facilities and Administrative Cost Rate Agreement. 3. *Program Income.* If the operation of the TAAC is expected to generate “program income” (as defined in 15 CFR 14.24 or 24.25, as applicable), such amounts must be accounted for in the project budget and must be added to those budget line-items pertaining to direct Program delivery. Program Requirements for TAACs The TAACs are advised to carefully read the following paragraphs that detail programmatic and administrative requirements to be included in each TAAC's fiscal years 2008-2010 cooperative agreement with EDA. Some of the requirements set out below are currently required of TAACs and some are new requirements. Petitions for Certification of Eligibility. 1. *Petition for Certification Template.* Petitions for certification of eligibility must be made by completing and submitting Form ED-840P, which will be provided to TAACs as a portable document format
(PDF)document. The TAAF Program Worksheet also is attached as Exhibit C to this program announcement. EDA strongly encourages TAACs to complete and submit the TAAF Program Worksheet along with each petition for certification. The worksheet is formatted as a fillable PDF document, and will help EDA expedite the TAAC's petitions. 2. *Submission of Petitions.* All TAAF Program documentation and submissions must be made electronically. Petitions for certification must be submitted to EDA's TAAF mailbox at *taac@eda.doc.gov* in PDF format. Each petition shall include all information needed for EDA to assess the petition. Each PDF document included in a petition must use a descriptive file name that includes both the name of the TAAC and the name of the petitioning firm. 3. *Employment Data.* Each TAAC shall require any firm applying for certification to retrieve and submit the most currently available documentation of the firm's required quarterly employee contribution to social security and Medicare under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act
(FICA)or the Self-Employment Contributions Act so that the TAAC and EDA can confirm the firm's level of employment. This documentation must be scanned or saved electronically and included in each firm's petition for certification. 4. *Customer Interviews.* To help evaluate whether a firm has been trade-impacted, the firm must provide a list of four important current or recent customers. Each TAAC must interview at least two of these customers to determine if and why each customer has decreased purchases from the firm. A synopsis of each customer interview conducted in the course of a firm petition, whether or not the customer has adjusted its purchasing patterns because of import competition, must be included in the petition. The synopsis shall include all information necessary for EDA to make the statutory findings that imports contributed importantly to the decline in employment and sales or production (e.g., what factors affected the amount of purchases the customer made from the firm, whether the customer is purchasing imported products in lieu of the firms products, and the length of time the customer has been purchasing imported products). 5. *The TAAC Director's Certification of Customer Interviews.* Each TAAC Director is responsible for ensuring that the representations made in a certification petition are complete and accurate to the best knowledge of the TAAC and must certify to that effect. Failure to exercise due diligence to ensure that a firm's representations are accurate constitutes a material breach of the TAAC's cooperative agreement with EDA. EDA will issue a deficiency memorandum to a TAAC each time the TAAC submits a certification with inaccurate or inadequate information. *See* the paragraph below for more information on EDA's consideration of deficiency memoranda. *Adjustment Proposals:* The AP is the tool through which a client-firm should begin to reestablish competitive advantage. Each AP is to be developed by the TAAC in consultation with and submitted on behalf of a client-firm. Each AP shall contain sufficient information and detail to allow EDA to make the determination that the AP:
(i)Is reasonably calculated to contribute materially to the economic adjustment of the client-firm (i.e., that such proposal will constructively assist the firm to establish a competitive position in the same or a different industry);
(ii)Gives adequate consideration to the interests of a sufficient number of separated workers of the client-firm; and
(iii)Demonstrates that the client-firm will make all reasonable effort to use its own resources for its recovery. *See* 13 CFR 315.16. 1. *AP Template.* The AP template and accompanying instructions are included in this program announcement as Exhibit D. While each AP must be tailored to the specific needs of the client-firm, the template will provide a standard format to help TAACs and contractors produce APs that effectively assist firms and meet EDA requirements. EDA strongly encourages TAACs and contractors to use the AP template in providing assistance to firms. The template is formatted as a fillable PDF document and it will assist EDA Program staff to expeditiously review APs. 2. *Submission of APs.* All APs must be submitted electronically to EDA as a single PDF document at *taac@eda.doc.gov* . The PDF document must include all information needed for EDA to evaluate the AP. 3. *Assistance Cost Limits.* As noted above under “Cost Sharing Requirement,” a client-firm must pay at least 25 percent of the cost of the preparation of its AP. A client-firm that requests $30,000 or less in total assistance to implement an approved AP must pay at least 25 percent of the cost of that assistance. A client-firm that requests more than $30,000 in total assistance in its approved AP must pay at least 50 percent of the cost of that assistance. The total amount of assistance provided to a client-firm in an AP is generally limited to $150,000 ($75,000 EDA funds and $75,000 client-firm funds). Assistance that exceeds this limit may be provided only with EDA's prior written approval. Limitations specific to a particular TAAC will be set out in the cooperative agreement between EDA and the TAAC. Also, the procurement agreement among the TAAC, the client-firm, and the contractor providing assistance should describe clearly applicable cost limitations. *See* 13 CFR 315.6(c)(2). 4. *Procurement of Assistance under APs.* Each TAAC must have written procurement procedures. These procedures must require, in part, that solicitations for services, including services to create or implement an AP, must include: a. A clear and accurate description of the technical requirements for the material, product, or service to be procured. In competitive procurements, such a description shall not contain features which unduly restrict competition; b. Requirements that the bidder/offeror must fulfill and all other factors to be used in evaluating bids or proposals; c. A description, whenever practicable, of technical requirements in terms of functions to be performed or performance required, including the range of acceptable characteristics or minimum acceptable standards; d. The specific features of “brand name or equal” descriptions that bidders are required to meet when such items are included in the solicitation; e. The acceptance, to the extent practicable and economically feasible, of products and services dimensioned in the metric system of measurement; and f. Preference, to the extent practicable and economically feasible, for products and services that conserve natural resources and protect the environment and are energy efficient. 5. *Sole-Sourcing of AP Projects.* As required by federal acquisition regulations, a TAAC shall select contractors providing services under an AP via an open bid process that the TAAC ensures is free from conflicts of interest. Each TAAC shall maintain a list of each contractor that produces, consults, provides services under, receives federal funds through, or is any way involved in the creation or implementation of an AP for a client-firm. The TAAC shall provide EDA with this list on request. The identity of each contractor that produces, consults on, provides services under, receives federal funds through, or is in any way involved in the creation or implementation of an AP must be disclosed and easily identifiable on the document. As noted above, all APs must be submitted to EDA electronically. Identification of consulting firms shall include Employer Identification Numbers
(EINs)and Data Universal Number System
(DUNS)numbers. If the procurement of services to create or implement an AP exceeds $100,000 (the current simplified acquisition threshold), the TAAC shall, on request, make available for EDA pre-award review and procurement documents, such as the requests for proposals or invitations for bids and independent cost estimates. EDA may ask the TAAC to make available information about its procurement practices if the procurement was awarded without competition or if only one bid or offer was received in response to a solicitation or if a proposed contract modification changed the scope of a contract or increased the contract amount by more than $100,000. *See* 15 CFR 14.40-14.48 or 24.36, as applicable, for more information on these requirements. 6. *Implementation of and Changes to APs.* APs should be designed to address a client-firm's current conditions so that the firm can better compete in the future. To ensure that approved APs are effective tools for economic recovery, the firm should begin implementing the AP expeditiously, generally within six months of EDA's approval, subject to the availability of funds. Each TAAC is responsible for facilitating its client-firms' implementation of their APs and providing as much assistance as possible. If active steps towards implementing an approved AP, as determined by EDA, are not taken within six months of EDA's approval, the TAAC must provide an explanation of the delay to EDA. Each TAAC must monitor client-firms' implementation of APs and provide updates on implementation in the TAAC's regular report to EDA. However, in accordance with Department of Commerce regulations, TAACs may not charge a fee for such monitoring. *See* the paragraph below on the prohibition on charging a monitoring fee. The following are details on allowable adjustments to APs: a. *Amended APs.* If a certified firm does not satisfactorily demonstrate progress toward implementing its approved AP within six months of approval, EDA will assume the projects contained in the approved AP are no longer current and it will be the firm's fiscal responsibility to either amend the AP by updating it, or to demonstrate to EDA that the projects in the AP continue to meet the firm's current needs and will meet the AP criteria as set out at 13 CFR 315.16(c); and b. *Revised APs.* If EDA approves an AP for a certified firm that has a total cost that is less than the maximum amount of assistance set out in the cooperative agreement between EDA and the TAAC, and the firm successfully implements or demonstrates progress towards implementing its AP, the TAAC, with EDA's prior written approval, may revise it by adding projects to the AP up to the maximum amount of assistance as set out in the cooperative agreement between EDA and the TAAC. 7. *Prohibition on Monitoring Fees Charged by a TAAC.* TAACs frequently subcontract with third parties to provide services under APs. Department of Commerce award recipients are responsible for monitoring subcontractor performance. See 15 CFR 14.51 or 24.40, as applicable. A TAAC may not assess a fee under the award or otherwise attempt to generate program income via any other charge or fee for monitoring contractor performance. In addition, a TAAC may not assess either client-firms or EDA a fee for monitoring client-firm progress in implementing an AP. *See* 15 CFR 14.51 or 24.40, as applicable, and 13 CFR 315.6(c)(2), which sets out matching share requirements to be paid by client-firms for the preparation of APs. Except as provided in paragraph 3 of this section (“Assistance Cost Limits”) above, TAACs may not assess fees in connection with the program. 8. *Firms' Responsibility to Implement APs.* Certified firms have five years from the date of EDA's approval of an AP to complete work on that AP. Generally, EDA will not consider requests to implement an AP beyond five years from the date of EDA's approval of the AP. Any request for an extension beyond five years must demonstrate an exceptional need and justifiable extenuating circumstances for the delay. Program Performance Assessment: EDA will assess program performance to ensure that the TAAF Program accomplishes its purposes and that federal funds are put to their most productive use. EDA will evaluate each TAAC using the following criteria to help determine the funding level for the TAAC's funding periods within a project period. 1. *Quality of TAAC Submissions.* TAAC Directors are responsible for the quality of submissions to EDA. All submissions should be timely, proof-read, complete, and accurate, and should not cause EDA to undertake additional background work to assess the quality and validity of the information submitted. 2. *Deficiency Citations.* EDA will issue a deficiency memorandum whenever it determines that a petition, AP, or other TAAC submission is not timely, proof-read, complete, accurate, or otherwise causes EDA to undertake additional background work to assess the quality and validity of the information submitted. The number and substance of deficiency memoranda issued to a TAAC during each year of the TAAC's project period will be considered when EDA assesses the TAAC's performance and will have an impact upon TAAC funding for subsequent project periods. If repeated or major deficiencies are identified through EDA's assessment of the quality of the TAAC's submissions, EDA will take steps to protect the federal interest under the award, including suspension and termination. 3. *Services to Client-Firms.* EDA must ensure that funds appropriated to assist trade-impacted firms are put to their highest and best use. To that end, EDA will examine the percentage of the total amount awarded to each TAAC that is delivered to firms as client services. EDA will notify each TAAC of the target percentage. Percentages higher than the target indicate that the TAAC should re-evaluate its expenditure of award funds. 4. *Collaboration.* EDA will examine evidence of the TAAC's collaboration with DOL Trade Adjustment Assistance Programs to ensure that both EDA and DOL funds are leveraged to the maximum extent possible. 5. *Firm Survey.* Following the completion and delivery of an AP to a client-firm and the implementation of each project or service proposed in an approved AP, the TAAC will provide the firm with a survey to help assess the effectiveness of and the firm's satisfaction with the assistance provided. EDA will provide this survey to the TAACs, and will review service delivery periodically based in part on this survey. Financial Management 1. *TAAC Budget.* The budget is the financial expression of the TAAC's planned program execution. The TAAC's budget is submitted on the Form SF-424A, “ *Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs* ,” both for an original award (i.e., a three-year project period) and for each amendment to the original award. 2. *Changes to the TAAC Budget.* A TAAC shall not transfer funds across direct cost categories if the federal share of the project exceeds $100,000 and the cumulative amount of such transfers exceeds 10% of the total federal and non-federal amount of the award. In addition, a TAAC must receive EDA's written approval if the transfer implicates a change in project scope or objective or if the transfer is of amounts budgeted for indirect costs to absorb increases in direct costs, or vice versa. *See* 15 CFR 14.25 or 24.30, as applicable. 3. *Payment.* A TAAC may request an advance or reimbursement of award funds from EDA to cover costs incurred in providing assistance to client-firms and to pay for reasonable and necessary TAAC administrative expenses. Department of Commerce regulations authorize EDA to advance funds to a TAAC as long as the TAAC maintains: a. Written procedures that minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds to and the disbursement by the TAAC; and b. Financial management systems that meet the standards for fund control and accountability set out at 15 CFR 14.21. Advances are limited to the minimum amounts needed for project costs and must be timed in accordance with the actual, immediate cash requirements of the TAAC in carrying out project needs. The timing and amount of advances shall be as close as is administratively feasible to the actual disbursement by the TAAC for direct project costs and the proportionate share of allowable indirect costs. The TAAC must submit each request for award funds to EDA using Form SF-270, “ *Request for Advance or Reimbursement,* ” in accordance with these requirements. Each request shall be sufficient to meet the TAAC's reasonably anticipated needs for the upcoming 30 days or to cover the TAAC's expenditures for the most recently past 30 days, if the TAAC receives a reimbursement of award funds. If the TAAC does not meet the Department of Commerce's requirements for advance payment of award funds, EDA may decide to make payments solely through reimbursement. *See* 15 CFR 14.22 or 24.21, as applicable. 4. *Supporting Documentation for Requests for Advances or Reimbursements.* Pursuant to EDA's duty of responsible stewardship over federal funds, if EDA has reasonable concerns regarding a TAAC's submitted Form SF-270, EDA may request the TAAC to submit an expense report with supporting documentation that fully explains the TAAC's request for an advance or reimbursement. The report shall be in the same format as the budget submitted as the TAAC's controlling budget, and shall show the original budget, the budget for the upcoming 30 days for which the advance is requested, and expenses incurred year to date. EDA is in the process of developing an expense report template to provide to each TAAC. 5. *Financial Reporting.* Each TAAC shall submit Form SF-269, “ *Financial Status Report,* ” to EDA quarterly to report the status of unreimbursed obligations. This report will provide information on the amount of allowable project expenses that have been incurred, but not claimed for reimbursement by the recipient. When EDA advances funds to a TAAC, the TAAC also must submit Form SF-272, “ *Report of Federal Cash Transactions,* ” to EDA quarterly to monitor advances to a disbursement by the TAAC. EDA may require the TAAC to forecast federal funds requirements in the “Remarks” section of the report. When practical and deemed necessary, EDA also may require the TAAC to report on advances received in excess of three days and provide short narrative explanations on actions taken by the TAAC to reduce excess balances in the “Remarks” section of the SF-272. The first submission of Forms SF-269 and SF-272, if applicable, shall be as of March 30 of each year and shall be submitted to EDA no later than April 30 of each year; the second report shall be as of June 30 of each year and shall be submitted to EDA not later than July 30 of each year; the third report shall be of September 30 and shall be submitted to EDA not later than October 30 of each year; and the fourth report shall be of December 30 of each year and shall be submitted to EDA no later than January 30 of the following year. EDA may require TAACs that receive advances totaling $1 million or more per year to submit Form SF-272 on a monthly basis. *See* 15 CFR 14.52 or 24.41, as applicable. 6. *End-of-Year Submission of Budget.* Within 90 days of the end of the TAAC's annual funding period under its award, the TAAC shall submit an analysis of the TAAC's prior year budget as planned versus implemented that clearly identifies, justifies, and explains any differences between planned costs and actual costs, any transfers among cost categories, and any other changes that took place during the year. 7. *Audit Requirements.* Organization-wide or program-specific audits shall be performed in accordance with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996, as implemented by OMB Circular A-133, “ *Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations,* ” and the related “ *Compliance Supplement.* ” TAACs typically expend federal awards of $500,000 or more in a fiscal year and thus are required to have an audit conducted for that year in accordance with the requirements contained in OMB Circular A-133. Each TAAC associated with a university is responsible for instructing the auditor to address the operations and controls of the sponsored programs or similar university office. Audit findings shall specifically address the operations and controls of the sponsored programs or similar office of the university. A copy of the audit must be submitted to the Bureau of the Census at the following address: Federal Audit Clearinghouse, 1201 E. 10th Street, Jeffersonville, IN 47132. In addition, each TAAC must submit the TAAC's currently valid audit required under OMB Circular A-133 to EDA headquarters within 30 days of completion of the audit. The address for OMB Circular A-133 audit submissions is: Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, William P. Kittredge, Ph.D., 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 7009, Washington, DC 20230. *TAAC Administrative Requirements:* Each TAAC will maximize coordination with the other TAACs and relevant organizations to avoid duplication of services offered by other organizations. Additionally, TAACs shall adhere to the minimum administrative guidelines detailed below. In reviewing performance, EDA will evaluate the TAACs on their adherence to these guidelines as well as their performance in assisting firms, since TAAC administration is key to effective firm assistance. The Director of each TAAC is expected to ensure compliance with these guidelines. 1. *TAAC Operation and Management.* TAACs provide assistance to a wide range of production and manufacturing firms experiencing difficulty in adjusting to the global marketplace. These firms provide jobs and capital that are vital to State, local, and national economic well-being. Therefore, each TAAC is expected to be managed professionally and to be capable of responding flexibly to client-firms. a. *Forty-Hour Customary Workweek.* For each week of the calendar year, each TAAC shall be open to the public during workdays and hours customary to each TAAC's geographic service region, for not less than a 40-hour, Monday through Friday workweek. Each TAAC Director shall work a 40-hour workweek during the business hours customary to each TAAC's geographic service region. If TAAC workload demands additional hours or a firm requires additional assistance, the TAAC shall include flexibility in its budget to remain open for the period needed to resolve the workload or firm issues. b. *Consistent Contact with EDA.* During each TAAC's customary business hours, EDA must have a direct line contact phone number and e-mail address for each TAAC Director. If the TAAC Director is on official travel status that is being charged to the award, TAAC staff shall be able to provide EDA with contact information for the Director, including the name of the hotel at which the Director is staying and a telephone number at which the Director can be reached. c. *TAAC Facilities and Resources.* TAAC facilities and resources shall not be used for any activities inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the award to the TAAC. TAAC offices, addresses, and telephone numbers are not to be listed in any manner that would cause a reasonable person to misconstrue the TAAC office as a residence or other place of business. TAAC employees are prohibited from using the TAAC address for any purpose other than those described in the cooperative agreement and award scope of work. EDA will be the sole interpreter of those provisions. d. *TAAC Staff Training.* Each TAAC Director is responsible for training TAAC staff to deliver services to client-firms. When the TAAC Director is absent for any reason, there shall be a TAAC staff member responsible for maintaining consistent TAAC operations in the Director's absence. e. *TAAC Boards and Other Management or Governing Body.* The TAAC Director is responsible for ensuring that each member of the TAAC's Board of Directors (or other management or governing body) is aware of EDA's conflicts of interest rules and that actual or apparent conflicts of interest are avoided. If a conflict is discovered, the TAAC Director is responsible for promptly resolving the matter through disqualification, divestiture, waiver or other appropriate measures. *See* 13 CFR 300.3 (for the definition of “Interested Party”) and 302.17. 2. *Travel.* A TAAC's travel costs are allowable only to the extent that they are necessary as determined by EDA and otherwise allowable under relevant Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)cost principles. A TAAC must provide receipts and documentation of travel-related expenses and any airfare costs must not exceed the customary standard commercial airfare (coach or equivalent). If EDA determines that a TAAC is in persistent noncompliance with the applicable cost principles that govern travel costs, EDA reserves the right to use the reimbursement method to cover all travel costs incurred by the TAAC or to take such other action as EDA deems appropriate. *TAAF Program Promotion:* Promoting the TAAF Program helps ensure that a wide variety of trade-impacted firms receive assistance. Therefore, the TAAF Program's status as a federally funded program and EDA as the funding agency must be prominently featured on all public information, including press releases, Web sites, program brochures, and reports released by the TAAC, including APs. *No Obligation for Future Funding:* As provided in the *Department of Commerce Standard Terms and Conditions for Financial Assistance Awards* (May 2007), if an applicant is awarded funding, neither the Department of Commerce nor EDA is under any obligation to provide any additional future funding in connection with that award or to make any future award(s). Amendment or renewal of an award to increase funding or to extend the period of performance is at the sole discretion of the Department of Commerce and of EDA. *Past Performance and Non-Compliance with Award Provisions:* Unsatisfactory performance under prior federal awards, such as audit reports with findings of reportable conditions and material weaknesses, may result in an application or a funding period extension not being considered. Failure to comply with any or all of the provisions of an award may have a negative impact on future funding by the Department of Commerce (or any of its operating units) and may be considered grounds for any combination or all of the following actions: temporarily withholding payments pending correction of the deficiency; disallowance of all or part of the cost of the activity or action not in compliance; wholly or partially suspending or terminating the current award; withholding further awards; changing the method of payment from advance to reimbursement only; or the imposition of other special award conditions unique to the circumstances at hand. *See* 15 CFR 14.14 and 14.62 or 24.12 and 24.43, as applicable. *Program Teleconferences:* EDA headquarters will hold a teleconference to provide general program information and information regarding this program announcement during the week of February 11, 2008. The exact date, time, registration information, and protocols for the teleconference will be provided to participants in advance of the call. Classification *Paperwork Reduction Act:* This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms
(SF)SF-424, SF-424A, SF-424B, and SF-LLL, and ED-900A has been approved by OMB under the respective OMB Control Numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0610-0094. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. *The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements:* The administrative and national policy requirements for all Department of Commerce awards, contained in the *Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements* (69 FR 78389), are applicable to this program announcement. *Executive Order 12866:* This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. *Executive Order 13132 (Federalism):* It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. *Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act:* Prior notice and an opportunity for public comments are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for rules concerning grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared. Dated: January 30, 2008. Benjamin Erulkar, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development. [FR Doc. E8-2133 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-24-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting The Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC) will meet on February 20 and 21, 2008, 9 a.m., at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR), Building 33, Cloud Room, 53560 Hull Street, San Diego, California, 92152. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to information systems equipment and technology. Wednesday, February 20 Open Session 1. Welcome and Introduction. 2. Quantum Computing. 3. Lasers Lithography. 4. 3-D Semiconductor Technology. 5. Discussion: Wassenaar Proposals for 2008. 6. Discussion: APP Review. 7. Bio-metric Technology. Thursday, February 21 Closed Session 8. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at *Yspringer@bis.doc.gov,* no later than February 13, 2008. A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that public presentation materials or comments be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Springer. The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on January 31, 2008, pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting concerning trade secrets and commercial or financial information deemed privileged or confidential as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and the portion of the meeting concerning matters the disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of an agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public. For more information, call Yvette Springer at
(202)482-2813. Dated: February 1, 2008. Teresa Telesco, Acting Committee Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E8-2150 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-821-808] Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the Russia; Preliminary Results of Administrative Review of the Suspension Agreement AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review of the Suspension Agreement on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the Russia. SUMMARY: In response to a request from Nucor Corporation (Nucor), a domestic interested party, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the Russian Federation (the Agreement) for the period January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006, to review the current status of the Agreement and compliance with the Agreement by Joint Stock Company Severstal (Severstal). For the reasons stated in this notice, the Department preliminarily determines that Severstal is in compliance with the Agreement. The preliminary results are set forth in the section titled “Preliminary Results of Review,” infra. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit comments are requested to provide:
(1)a statement of the issues, and
(2)a brief summary of the arguments. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 6, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally C. Gannon or Jay Carreiro, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone:
(202)482-0162 or
(202)482-3674. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 20, 2002, the Department signed an agreement under section 734(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), with Russian steel producers/exporters, including Severstal, which suspended the antidumping duty investigation on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate (CTL plate) from Russia. *See Suspension of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the Russian Federation* , 68 FR 3859 (January 27, 2003) ( *Suspension Agreement* ). On January 3, 2007, Nucor submitted a request for an administrative review pursuant to *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 72 FR 99 (January 3, 2007). On March 14, 2007, and October 5, 2007, the Department issued its Questionnaire and Supplemental Questionnaire, respectively, to Severstal. Severstal submitted its responses on April 20, 2007, and October 26, 2007, respectively. On October 1, 2007, the Department postponed the preliminary results of this review until January 31, 2008. *See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Administrative Review of the Suspension Agreement on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Russia* , 72 FR 55744 (October 1, 2007). Scope of Review The products covered by the Agreement are hot-rolled iron and non-alloy steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain iron and non-alloy steel flat-rolled products not in coils, of rectangular shape, hot-rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 mm or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness. Included as subject merchandise in this petition are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross- section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling”)--for example, products which have been bevelled or rounded at the edges. This merchandise is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTS)under item numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000. Excluded from the subject merchandise within the scope of this Agreement is grade X-70 plate. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Period of Review The period of review
(POR)is January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006. Preliminary Results of Review Section 751(a)(1)(C) of the Act specifies that the Department shall “review the current status of, and compliance with, any agreement by reason of which an investigation was suspended.” In this case, the Department and Severstal signed the Agreement, which suspended the underlying antidumping duty investigation, on December 20, 2002. Pursuant to the Agreement, each signatory producer/exporter individually agrees to make any necessary price revisions to eliminate completely any amount by which the normal value
(NV)of the subject merchandise exceeds the U.S. price of its merchandise subject to the Agreement. *SeeSuspension Agreement* , 68 FR at 3860-61. For this purpose, the Department determines, on a semi-annual basis and as requested by a signatory, the NV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, and U.S. price in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Further, the Department calculates the NV for purposes of the Agreement by adjusting the constructed value; in effect, any expenses uniquely associated with the covered products sold in the domestic market are subtracted from the constructed value, and any such expenses which are uniquely associated with the covered products sold in the United States are added to the constructed value to calculate the NV. *See Suspension Agreement* at Appendix A. On March 14, 2007 and October 5, 2007, the Department issued its questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire, respectively, to Severstal. Severstal submitted its responses on April 20, 2007 and October 26, 2007, respectively. Neither Nucor nor any other interested party has submitted comments to date. Our review of the information submitted by Severstal indicates that the company has adhered to the terms of the Agreement. In its questionnaire response, Severstal describes the system which it and its U.S. sales arm, Severstal Export GmbH, have established to ensure that each product sold to the United States is sold at or above the relevant NV. *See Severstal Questionnaire Response* , pages 7-9. Severstal indicates that it is committed to compliance with the Agreement and that its system of compliance has worked well since it began shipping subject merchandise under the Agreement. Severstal further indicates that neither it nor any of its affiliates made any sales of the subject merchandise into the United States below the appropriate NVs during the POR. *See Severstal Questionnaire Response* , page 9. In response to the Department's questionnaire, Severstal states that it did not sell the subject merchandise during the POR to customers in Canada or other third countries that was destined for the United States and is not aware of any such sales. *See Severstal Questionnaire Response* , page 10. The Department finds no evidence in the information submitted of any discrepancies in Severstal's exports to the United States, either directly or through third countries, which would constitute a violation of the Agreement. Furthermore, the Department examined Severstal's reported sales and cost information covering the POR for purposes of calculating and releasing requested NVs to Severstal on December 20, 2006, and June 20, 2007. See December 20, 2006, letter from Ronald K. Lorentzen to JSC Severstal with attachments. See also June 20, 2007, letter from Ronald K. Lorentzen to JSC Severstal with attachments. The Department also verified Severstal's reported sales covering the period from January 1, 2006, through June 30, 2006, in October 2006. See “Sales Verification Report” Memorandum from Jonathan Herzog through Judith Wey Rudman to Case File (November 16, 2006). Therefore, in light of the record evidence described above, we preliminarily determine that Severstal has been in compliance with the Agreement. Public Comment An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 C.F.R. 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date per 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. *See* 19 C.F.R. 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 C.F.R. 351.309(d). Parties who submit comments in these proceedings are requested to provide:
(1)a statement of the issue;
(2)a brief summary of the argument; and
(3)a table of authorities. Further, parties submitting case briefs and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such briefs on diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised in any written comments or at a hearing, if requested, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: January 31, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-2176 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-807] Polyethylene Terephthalate Film Sheet and Strip from the Republic of Korea: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 6, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Heaney or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4475 or
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 2, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the changed circumstances review in the antidumping duty order of polyethylene terephthalate film sheet and strip from the Republic of Korea. *See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film Sheet and Strip from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Intent to Reinstate Kolon Industries, Inc. in the Antidumping Duty Order, (Preliminary Results)* 72 FR 56048 (October 2, 2007). The current deadline for the final results of this review is January 30, 2008. Extension of Time Limits for Final Results In our *Preliminary Results* , we indicated we would issue the final results of this changed circumstances review within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results were published. However, it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period. Accordingly, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302(b), we are extending the time limit by 60 days. The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete this review within the original time frame. In order to evaluate fairly the issues raised by Petitioners (DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc., SKC Inc., and Toray Plastics (America) Inc.) and Kolon Industries, Inc., in their respective case and rebuttal briefs, we are extending the time frame for completion of this review. These issues include the appropriate model matching procedures to employ in this changed circumstances review, and whether the Department should employ investigation or administrative review methodologies in calculating dumping margins. Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.302(b), the Department is extending the time period for issuing the final results of review by 60 days. Therefore, the final results will be due no later than March 30, 2008. As March 30, 2008 falls on a Sunday, our final results will be issued no later than Monday March 31, 2008. This notice is published in accordance with section 771(i) of the Tariff Act, as amended. Dated: January 30, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-2179 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-832] Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 6, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hua Lu, 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)482-6478. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 1, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** a notice for an opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 72 FR 23796 (May 1, 2007). As a result of a request for a review and a one year deferral filed by Tianjin Magnesium International Co., Ltd. (“TMI”) on May 30, 2007, and a request for a review filed by Shanxi Datuhe Coke & Chemicals Co., Ltd. (“Datuhe”) on May 31, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of an administrative review ( *i.e.* , Datuhe) and deferral of initiation of administration review with respect to TMI for the period May 1, 2006, through April 30, 2007. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part and Deferral of Administrative Review* , 72 FR 35690 (June 29, 2007). Upon learning that the domestic interested party did not receive notice of TMI's request for a deferral, we extended the time period for the domestic interested party to object. The domestic interested party did object. Consequently, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213 (c), we determined not to defer the review for TMI. *See* memorandum to the file from Hua Lu, Case Analyst, through Robert Bolling, Granting Petitioner An Extension of Time to File An Objection to Respondent's Deferral Request, dated September 26, 2007. The preliminary results of review are currently due no later than January 31, 2008. Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary Results. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”), requires the Department to issue preliminary results within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and the final results within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the 245-day time period to a maximum of 365 days. We determine that completion of the preliminary results of this review within the 245-day period is not practicable because the Department requires additional time to analyze information pertaining to the respondents' sales practices, factors of production, and to issue and review responses to supplemental questionnaires. Because it is not practicable to complete this review within the time specified under the Act, we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of review by 90 days until April 30, 2008, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results. This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). Dated: January 31, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-2178 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-831] Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Final Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 3, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (SSSSC) from Taiwan (72 FR 43236). This review covers three producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States. The period of review
(POR)is July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. We are rescinding the review with respect to nine companies because these companies had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: February 6, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone
(202)482-3874. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This review covers three producers/exporters. These companies are Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (Chia Far), PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd. (PFP Taiwan) and Yieh Trading Corp. (also known as Yieh Corp.). On August 3, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSSSC from Taiwan. *See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 43236 (Aug. 3, 2007) ( *Preliminary Results* ). We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. In September 2007, we received case and rebuttal briefs from the petitioners 1 ( *i.e.* , Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, United Auto Workers Local 3303 (formerly Butler Armco Independent Union), United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, and Zanesville Armco Independent Organization) and Chia Far, the sole respondent participating in this review. 1 We note that, on October 16, 2007, we rejected the petitioners' case and rebuttal briefs because of the improper bracketing ( *i.e.* , claims for treatment as business proprietary information) of public information. *See* the September 26, 2007, memorandum from Elizabeth Eastwood to the file entitled, “Conversation with Counsel for Chia Far industrial Factory Co., Ltd., Regarding the Bracketing of Information Contained in the Petitioners' September 10, 2007, and September 17, 2007, Submissions in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan.” The petitioners resubmitted properly-bracketed versions of both their case and rebuttal briefs on October 18, 2007. The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Scope of the Order The products covered by the order are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( *e.g.* , cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing. The merchandise subject to the order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 7219.13.00.81, 7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive. Excluded from the scope of the order are the following:
(1)Sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled,
(2)sheet and strip that is cut to length,
(3)plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more),
(4)flat wire ( *i.e.* , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and
(5)razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. *See* Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d). Also excluded from the scope of the order are certain specialty stainless steel products described below. Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness
(Hv)of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors. Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length. Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of the order. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron. Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of the order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as Arnokrome III. 2 2 Arnokrome III is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering Company. Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM)specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as Gilphy 36. 3 3 Gilphy 36 is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System
(UNS)as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as Durphynox 17. 4 4 Durphynox 17 is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of the order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools ( *e.g.* , carpet knives). 5 This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as GIN4 Mo. The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is GIN5 steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, GIN6. 6 5 This list of uses is illustrated and provided for descriptive purposes only. 6 GIN4 Mo, GIN5 and GIN6 are the proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. Period of Review The POR is July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. Partial Rescission of Review Nine of the companies that responded to the Department's questionnaire stated that they had no shipments/entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR. These companies are:
(1)Chain Chon Industrial Co., Ltd.;
(2)Chien Shing Stainless Co.;
(3)China Steel Corporation;
(4)Goang Jau Shing Enterprise Co., Ltd.;
(5)Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd.; 6) Tang Eng Iron Works;
(7)Yieh Loong Enterprise Co. Ltd.;
(8)Yieh Mau Corp.; and
(9)Yieh United Steel Corporation. We have confirmed this with data obtained from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with the Department's practice, we are rescinding our review with respect to these companies. *See* , *e.g.* , *Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 72 FR 52065 (Sept. 12, 2007) (administrative review rescinded for companies that demonstrated they had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR); *Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in Part* , 70 FR 67665, 67666 (Nov. 8, 2005) (administrative review rescinded for companies that demonstrated they had no shipments during the POR). Emerdex Companies The Department finds that it is appropriate to rescind the instant review with respect to the Emerdex Companies named by the petitioners in their review request because the Department found in the 2003-2004 administrative review of this order that the Emerdex companies are U.S. entities. *See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 45521, 45524-45525 (Aug. 9, 2006) (unchanged in *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 75504 (Dec. 15, 2006)). We note that the petitioners in the instant review have not provided any additional information demonstrating that the Emerdex companies for which they have requested a review are located in Taiwan. Consequently, consistent with the Department's findings in the prior review, we are rescinding this review with regard to the Emerdex companies. Facts Available In the preliminary results, we determined that, in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of facts available was appropriate as the basis for the dumping margins for PFP Taiwan and Yieh Corp. because these companies failed to respond to the Department's requests for information. *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 43239-40. Section 776(a) of the Act, provides that the Department will apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia* , necessary information is not available on the record or an interested party:
(1)Withholds information that has been requested by the Department;
(2)fails to provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner requested by the Department;
(3)significantly impedes a proceeding; or
(4)provides such information, but the information cannot be verified. In August 2006, the Department requested that all companies subject to review respond to the Department's questionnaire. The original deadline to file a response was September 1, 2006. Because PFP Taiwan did not respond to this request for information, on September 7, 2006, the Department issued a letter to PFP Taiwan affording it a second opportunity to respond to the Department's request for information. However, PFP Taiwan also did not respond to this second questionnaire. On July 31, 2007, the Department placed documentation on the record confirming delivery of the questionnaire to this company. *See* the July 31, 2007, Memorandum to the File from Elizabeth Eastwood, Senior Analyst, entitled, “Confirmation of Delivery of the Questionnaire in the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan.” Furthermore, one additional company, Yieh Corp., claimed that it made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. However, according to data obtained from CBP, it appeared that Yieh Corp. shipped subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. On January 29, 2007, we placed copies of the entry documentation related to these shipments on the record of this proceeding. *See* the January 29, 2007, Memorandum to the File from Jill Pollack, Senior Analyst, entitled, “2005-2006 Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Entry Documents from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).” On February 1, 2007, we requested that Yieh Corp. explain why it did not report the entries in question, and on March 5, 2007, Yieh Corp. responded by stating that it had inadvertently overlooked the entries. Therefore, again on May 24, 2007, we informed Yieh Corp. that it was required to respond to the Department's questionnaire. However, Yieh Corp. failed to file a response. By failing to respond to the Department's questionnaire, PFP Taiwan and Yieh Corp. withheld requested information and significantly impeded the proceeding. Therefore, as in the preliminary results, the Department finds that the use of total facts available for PFP Taiwan and Yieh Corp. is appropriate pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(C)of the Act. *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 43239-40. Adverse Facts Available In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for information. *See* , *e.g.* , *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India* , 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (Sept. 13, 2005); *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil* , 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1 (1994), at 870. Furthermore, “affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). *See also* , *Nippon Steel Corp.* v. *United States* , 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ( *Nippon* ). We find that PFP Taiwan and Yieh Corp. did not act to the best of their abilities in this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because they failed to respond to the Department's requests for information. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting facts otherwise available. *See Nippon* , 337 F.3d at 1382-83. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as adverse facts available
(AFA)information derived from:
(1)The petition;
(2)the final determination in the investigation;
(3)any previous review; or
(4)any other information placed on the record. The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among the possible sources of information, has been to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances* , 67 FR 55792, 55796 (Aug. 30, 2002); *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan* , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 1998). In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to induce cooperation, we have assigned a rate of 21.10 percent, which is the highest appropriate dumping margin assigned in this or any prior segment of the proceeding, to PFP Taiwan and Yieh Corp. The Department finds that this rate is sufficiently high as to effectuate the purpose of the AFA rule ( *i.e.* , we find that this rate is high enough to encourage participation in future segments of this proceeding in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act). For the reasons stated in the *Preliminary Results,* we continue to find that the information upon which this margin is based has probative value and thus satisfies the corroboration requirements of section 776(c) of the Act. *See Preliminary Results,* 72 FR at 43240. Cost of Production As discussed in the preliminary results, we conducted an investigation to determine whether Chia Far made home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR at prices below its costs of production
(COP)within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. For these final results, we performed the cost test following the same methodology as in the *Preliminary Results.* We found that more than 20 percent of Chia Far's sales of a given product during the reporting period were at prices less than the weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these below-cost sales were made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. *See* sections 773(b)(2)(B)-(D) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we found that Chia Far made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of trade. Consequently, we disregarded the below-cost sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review, and to which we have responded, are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (Decision Memo) accompanying this notice, which is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/.* The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations for Chia Far. These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memo. Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages exist for the period July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006: *Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter Margin Percentage* Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd., 1.41, PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd., 21.10, Yieh Trading Corp./Yieh Corp. 21.10. Assessment The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* duty assessment rates for Chia Far based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties,* 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. This clarification will also apply to POR entries of subject merchandise produced by companies for which we are rescinding the review based on certifications of no shipments, because these companies certified that they made no POR shipments of subject merchandise for which they had knowledge of U.S. destination. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. Cash Deposit Requirements Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of SSSSC from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, *de minimis* within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the cash deposit will be zero;
(2)for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 12.61 percent, the “All Others” rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From United Kingdom, Taiwan, and South Korea,* 64 FR 40555, 40557 (July 27, 1999) . These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant 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. Notification to Interested Parties This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: January 30, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix—Issues in Decision Memorandum 1. Unreported Sales 2. Home Market Rebates 3. Affiliation Between Chia Far Industrial Co. Ltd. and Lucky Medsup 4. Lucky Medsup's U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses 5. Cost of Manufacturing 6. Clerical Error in the Preliminary Results 7. Affiliated Party Purchases [FR Doc. E8-2181 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN: 0648-XF48 North Pacific 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 North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Scallop Plan Team will meet in Anchorage, AK. DATES: The meeting will be held on February 21, 2008, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. and February 22, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held a the Captain Cook Hotel, 939 W 5th Avenue, Club Room 2, 10th Floor, Anchorage, AK 99501 *Council address* : North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diana Stram, Council staff; telephone:
(907)271-2809. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The agenda will include: Elect officers and discuss additional membership needs; discussion of current and future scallop survey techniques; central region assessment techniques, plans and management; review Status of Statewide Scallop Stocks and compile SAFE Report; discussion of ageing techniques and documentation issues; discussion of economics of the scallop fishery; and review and revise research priorities. 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 This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at
(907)271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date. Dated: February 1, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-2119 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary; Defense Science Board AGENCY: Department of Defense. ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting Date Change. SUMMARY: On *Wednesday, 2 January 2008 (73 FR 173)* the Department of Defense announced a closed meeting of the Defense Science Board
(DSB)Winter Quarterly. The meeting dates have been revised from February 6-7, 2008 to March 12-13, 2008. The meeting will be held at the Pentagon. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debra Rose, Executive Officer, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B888A, Washington, DC 20301-3140, via e-mail at *debra.rose@osd.mil* , or via phone at
(703)571-0084. Dated: January 30, 2008. C.R. Choate, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 08-513 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 20
Traces to 20 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
- TAAC selection and operation.§ 315.4
- Certification requirements.§ 315.6
- The role and geographic coverage of the TAACs.§ 315.5
- Definitions.§ 300.3
- Hearings.§ 351.310
- Written argument.§ 351.309
- Extension of time limits; return of untimely filed or unsolicited material.§ 351.302
- Administrative review of orders and suspension agreements under section 751(a)(1) of the Act.§ 351.213
- Assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties; provisional measures deposit cap; interest on certain overpayments and underpayments.§ 351.212
- De minimis net countervailable subsidies and weighted-average dumping margins disregarded.§ 351.106
- Calculation of export price and constructed export price; reimbursement of antidumping and countervailing duties.§ 351.402
- Access to business proprietary information.§ 351.305
17 references not yet in our index
- 7 CFR 1794
- 13 CFR 315
- 15 CFR 14.42
- 2 CFR 220
- 2 CFR 225
- 2 CFR 230
- 15 CFR 14.24
- 13 CFR 315.16
- 15 CFR 14.40-14
- 13 CFR 315.16(c)
- 15 CFR 14.51
- 15 CFR 14.25
- 15 CFR 14.21
- 15 CFR 14.22
- 15 CFR 14.52
- 15 CFR 14.14
- 337 F.3d 1373
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of Intent To Hold Public Scoping Meeting and Prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA)
F. App'x337 F.3d 1373
Cite7 CFR 1794
Cite13 CFR 315
Cites 37 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources