Rules and Regulations. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
66,213 words·~301 min read·
/register/2008/04/07/08-1110A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 67 Monday, April 7, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0403; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-166-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and MD-11F Airplanes Equipped With General Electric CF6-80C2 Series Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. This proposed AD would require revising the airplane flight manual to advise the flightcrew to use certain procedures during descent in certain icing conditions. This proposed AD results from reports of several in-flight engine flameouts, including multiple dual engine flameout events, in ice-crystal icing conditions. We are proposing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has the proper procedures to follow in certain icing conditions. These certain icing conditions could cause a multiple engine flameout during flight without the ability of the engines to be relit, and consequent forced landing of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone
(562)627-5262; fax
(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0403; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-166-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion We have received reports indicating that there have been six (two dual) engine flameout events on McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 airplanes, in ice-crystal icing conditions during descent. These airplanes were equipped with General Electric
(GE)CF6-80C2 series engines. Each flameout was in or near convective weather with ice-crystal icing; this type of icing does not appear on radar due to its low reflectivity, and neither the airplane ice detectors nor visual indications indicate the presence of this type of icing conditions. Therefore, it is usually undetected by the flightcrew. These conditions can cause ice crystals to accumulate in the core flow path of the engine during low-power conditions, such as idle or idle descent. The accumulated ice sheds during throttle increase and is ingested into the engine, causing the combustor to flameout resulting in an in-flight flameout and potential damage to the high pressure compressor due to ice impact. Activating the anti-ice system increases the flameout margin and reduces the potential for multiple engine flameouts by increasing bleed flow and engine idle speed. However, in some of the subject engine flameouts, the anti-ice was already on when the engines flamed out. In each event, the engines relit and continued to operate normally for the remainder of the flight. Having the igniters on is necessary to ensure that the engine will relight quickly. This condition, if not corrected, could result in a multiple engine flameout during flight without the ability of the engines to be relit, and consequent forced landing of the airplane. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require revising the airplane flight manual
(AFM)to advise the flightcrew to use certain procedures during descent in certain icing conditions. Interim Action We consider this proposed AD interim action. If final action is later identified, we might consider further rulemaking then. Costs of Compliance There are about 118 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost AFM revision 1 $80 $0 $80 70 $5,600 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **McDonnell Douglas** : Docket No. FAA-2008-0403; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-166-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 22, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes, certified in any category, equipped with General Electric CF6-80C2 series engines. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of several in-flight engine flameouts, including multiple dual engine flameout events, in ice-crystal icing conditions. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has the proper procedures to follow in certain icing conditions. These certain icing conditions could cause a multiple engine flameout during flight without the ability of the engines to be relit, and consequent forced landing of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM)Revision
(f)Within 14 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the Limitations Section of the McDonnell Douglas MD-11/MD-11F AFM to include the following statement. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. “Prior to reducing thrust for descent in visible moisture when TAT is 6 °C and below, the ENG IGN OVRD switch and the ENG, WING, and TAIL ANTI-ICE switches must be placed in the ON position.” Note 1: When a statement identical to that in paragraph
(f)of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 27, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-7151 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0402; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-165-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Airplanes and Model 767 Airplanes Equipped With General Electric CF6-80C2 and CF6-80A Series Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 747 airplanes and Model 767 airplanes. This proposed AD would require revising the airplane flight manual to advise the flightcrew to use certain procedures during descent in certain icing conditions. This proposed AD results from reports of several in-flight engine flameouts, including multiple dual engine flameout events and one total power loss event, in ice-crystal icing conditions. We are proposing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has the proper procedures to follow in certain icing conditions. These certain icing conditions could cause a multiple engine flameout during flight without the ability of the engines to be relit, and consequent forced landing of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Langsted, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6500; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0402; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-165-AD,” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion We have received reports indicating that there have been several in-flight engine flameout events, including one dual event, on Model 767 airplanes and four dual events on Model 747 airplanes, in ice-crystal icing conditions at altitudes between 13,000 and 36,000 feet during descent. These airplanes were equipped with General Electric
(GE)CF6-80C2 series engines. Each flameout event was in or near convective weather with ice-crystal icing; this type of icing does not appear on radar due to its low reflectivity, and neither the airplane ice detector nor visual indications indicate the presence of icing conditions. Therefore, it is often undetected by the flightcrew. These conditions can cause ice crystals to accumulate in the core flow path of the engine during low-power conditions, such as idle or idle descent. The accumulated ice sheds during throttle increase and is ingested into the engine, causing the combustor to flameout resulting in an in-flight flameout and potential damage to the high pressure compressor due to ice impact. The GE CF6-80C2 and CF6-80A series engines models have similar compressor designs. Activating the engine anti-ice increases the flameout margin and reduces the potential for multiple engine flameouts by increasing bleed flow and idle speed. Engine anti-ice also assists with relighting the engines by turning on the igniters on airplanes that are not equipped with autorelight. However, in several of the subject engine flameout events, the engine anti-ice was already on when the engines flamed out. In each flameout event, the engines relit and continued to operate normally for the remainder of the flight. The requirement to activate the engine anti-ice prior to descent in visible moisture with total air temperature less than 10 °Celsius
(C)and greater than −40 °C already exists for airplanes that are not equipped with a primary in-flight ice detection system, which is designed to automatically activate wing anti-ice and engine anti-ice when the airplane is in icing conditions. However, the primary in-flight ice detection system does not detect ice-crystal icing; therefore, the engine anti-ice would not be activated during these icing encounters. There is no requirement to activate engine anti-ice at temperatures below −40 °C, and this proposed AD would require activation of engine anti-ice at temperatures below −40 °C. This condition, if not corrected, could result in a multiple engine flameout during flight without the ability of the engines to be relit, and consequent forced landing of the airplane. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the(se) same type design(s). This proposed AD would require revising the airplane flight manual
(AFM)to advise the flightcrew to use certain procedures during descent in certain icing conditions. Interim Action We consider this proposed AD interim action. If final action is later identified, we might consider further rulemaking then. Costs of Compliance There are about 1,064 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost AFM revision 1 $80 $0 $80 340 $27,200 Authority for this Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0402; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-165-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 22, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 747 airplanes and Model 767 airplanes, certified in any category, equipped with General Electric CF6-80C2 or CF6-80A series engines. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of several in-flight engine flameouts, including multiple dual engine flameout events and one total power loss event, in ice-crystal icing conditions. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has the proper procedures to follow in certain icing conditions. These certain icing conditions could cause a multiple engine flameout during flight without the ability of the engines to be relit, and consequent forced landing of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM)Revision
(f)Within 14 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the Limitations Section of the Boeing 747 or 767 AFM, as applicable, to include the following statement. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. “Prior to descent in visible moisture and TAT less than 10 °C, including SAT less than −40 °C, nacelle anti-ice switch must be in the ON position.” *Note 1:* When a statement identical to that in paragraph
(f)of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 27, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-7153 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0406; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-196-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above that would supersede an existing AD. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: During routine visual inspection, a crack has been found in the wing MLG (main landing gear) rib 5 forward attachment lug on two A310 in-service aircraft. Laboratory examination of one of the cracked ribs confirmed that the crack is due to the presence of pitting corrosion in the forward lug holes. Also on both aircraft medium to heavy corrosion was found in the forward lugs on the opposite wing after removal of the bushes. This situation if not detected, could affect the structural integrity of the MLG attachment. * * * The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0406; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-196-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion On December 7, 2006, we issued AD 2007-02-09, Amendment 39-14896 (72 FR 2612, January 22, 2007). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on the products listed above. Since we issued AD 2007-02-09, the type certificate holder has developed a new inspection using ultrasonic techniques. We have determined that the existing AD must be superseded to add repair or replacement of cracked main landing gear
(MLG)Rib 5, provide the new inspection as an option, and reduce the applicability of the AD to exclude airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2090 has been done. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0195, dated July 19, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: During routine visual inspection, a crack has been found in the wing MLG (main landing gear) rib 5 forward attachment lug on two A310 in-service aircraft. Laboratory examination of one of the cracked ribs confirmed that the crack is due to the presence of pitting corrosion in the forward lug holes. Also on both aircraft medium to heavy corrosion was found in the forward lugs on the opposite wing after removal of the bushes. This situation if not detected, could affect the structural integrity of the MLG attachment. As an interim measure, Airbus published Alert Service Bulletin
(ASB)A310-57A2088 to introduce a repetitive detailed visual inspection
(DVI)of the forward attachment lug of MLG Rib 5. EASA issued Emergency Airworthiness Directive
(EAD)2006-0335-E [which corresponds to FAA AD 2007-02-09] to require the accomplishment of this repetitive DVI. In order to ensure the detection of any crack at an early stage in the forward lug of the RH (right-hand) and LH (left-hand) MLG Rib 5 aft bearing attachment, the Type Certificate holder has developed a new inspection by means of ultrasonic method. For the reasons described above, this new inspection program is rendered mandatory by this AD, which cancels and replaces the requirement of EAD 2006-0335-E. The corrective action includes repairing or replacing MLG Rib 5, as applicable. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletins A310-57-2090, Revision 01, dated December 19, 2007, and A310-57-2091, including Appendix 01, dated May 22, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a **NOTE** within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 68 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $27,200, or $400 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-14896 (72 FR 2612, January 22, 2007) and adding the following new AD: **Airbus** : Docket No. FAA-2008-0406; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-196-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by May 7, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)The proposed AD supersedes AD 2007-02-09, Amendment 39-14896. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A310 airplanes, certificated in any category, all certified models, all serial numbers; except for those where LH (left-hand) and RH (right-hand) wing MLG (main landing gear) rib 5 forward lugs have been repaired by installation of oversized interference fit bushings as per Airbus Repair Instruction R57249121, or which have had Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2090 (AIRBUS modification 13329) embodied in service. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 57: Wings. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: During routine visual inspection, a crack has been found in the wing MLG (main landing gear) rib 5 forward attachment lug on two A310 in-service aircraft. Laboratory examination of one of the cracked ribs confirmed that the crack is due to the presence of pitting corrosion in the forward lug holes. Also on both aircraft medium to heavy corrosion was found in the forward lugs on the opposite wing after removal of the bushes. This situation if not detected, could affect the structural integrity of the MLG attachment. As an interim measure, Airbus published Alert Service Bulletin
(ASB)A310-57A2088 to introduce a repetitive detailed visual inspection
(DVI)of the forward attachment lug of MLG Rib 5. EASA issued Emergency Airworthiness Directive
(EAD)2006-0335-E [which corresponds to FAA AD 2007-02-09] to require the accomplishment of this repetitive DVI. In order to ensure the detection of any crack at an early stage in the forward lug of the RH (right-hand) and LH (left-hand) MLG Rib 5 aft bearing attachment, the Type Certificate holder has developed a new inspection by means of ultrasonic method. For the reasons described above, this new inspection program is rendered mandatory by this AD, which cancels and replaces the requirement of EAD 2006-0335-E. The corrective action includes repairing or replacing MLG Rib 5, as applicable. Restatement of Requirements of AD 2007-02-09
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) of this AD in accordance with the instructions defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57A2088, dated November 6, 2006.
(1)Before the accumulation of 12,000 total flight cycles, or within 14 days after February 6, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-02-09), whichever occurs later: Perform a detailed visual inspection of the LH and RH wing MLG rib 5 aft bearing forward lugs.
(2)If any crack is detected at LH and/or RH aft bearing forward lug, contact Airbus and proceed with the replacement before next flight.
(3)Repeat the inspection at intervals not exceeding 100 flight cycles. New Requirements of this AD: Actions and Compliance
(g)Unless already done, before the accumulation of 12,000 total flight cycles or before the accumulation of 12,000 flight cycles on MLG Rib 5, or within 14 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs latest: Perform either a detailed visual inspection
(DVI)or an ultrasonic inspection of the LH and RH MLG Rib 5 aft bearing forward lug for cracks, in accordance with the instructions defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2091, including Appendix 01, dated May 22, 2007. If a MLG Rib 5 has been replaced on one side only, then the RH and LH must be considered separately. Doing this inspection ends the requirements of paragraph
(f)for that MLG Rib 5 only. Note 1: The ultrasonic inspection will detect any crack at an early stage and will limit the risk of extensive repairs. This earlier crack detection is not possible with the DVI.
(1)If no crack is detected during any inspection required by paragraph
(g)of this AD: Repeat the applicable inspection at the time specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i)Repeat the DVI thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 flight cycles.
(ii)Repeat the ultrasonic inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 825 flight cycles.
(2)Replacement of the MLG Rib 5 in accordance with the instructions defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2090, Revision 01, dated December 19, 2007, ends the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD for that MLG Rib 5 only.
(3)If any crack is detected during the DVI required by paragraph
(g)of this AD: Before further flight, contact Airbus for replacement instructions and replace before further flight. If MLG Rib 5 is not replaced in accordance with the instructions defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2090, Revision 01, dated December 19, 2007; repeat the applicable inspection in paragraph
(g)of this AD at the time specified in the applicable paragraph.
(4)If any crack is detected during the ultrasonic inspection required by paragraph
(g)of this AD, before further flight, accomplish the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(4)(i) or (g)(4)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i)If any crack is not visible on MLG Rib 5: Before further flight, repair MLG Rib 5 using Repair Instruction R572-49121, Issue C, dated May 2007. After embodiment of Repair Instruction R572-49121, no further actions are required by this AD and Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2091, including Appendix 01, dated May 22, 2007, for that MLG Rib 5 only.
(ii)If any crack is visible on MLG Rib 5: Before further flight, contact Airbus for rib replacement instructions, and replace before further flight. If MLG Rib 5 is not replaced in accordance with the instructions defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2090, Revision 01, dated December 19, 2007, repeat the applicable inspection in paragraph
(g)of this AD at the time specified. Accomplishing the replacement defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2090 ends the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD for that MLG Rib 5 only. FAA AD Differences Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: Although the MCAI or service information allows flight with cracks on aft bearing forward lugs for a certain period of time, this AD requires replacing MLG Rib 5 before further flight if any crack is found. Although the MCAI or service information specifies submitting an inspection report sheet to Airbus, this AD would not require that action. Other FAA AD Provisions
(h)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(i)Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0195, dated July 19, 2007, and Airbus Service Bulletins A310-57-2090, Revision 01, dated December 19, 2007, and A310-57-2091, including Appendix 01, dated May 22, 2007, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 27, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-7163 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0407; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-002-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes. This proposed AD would require inspecting the drive assembly of the aft elevator standby loop for interference between the clevis and bolt of the bellcrank assembly, correct orientation of the pull-pull cable clevis bolt, and excessive freeplay of the bellcrank assembly bearing, and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD would also require modifying the pull-pull cable clevis in the drive assembly of the aft elevator standby loop for certain airplanes. This proposed AD results from a report of an aborted takeoff due to a control column disconnect. We are proposing this AD to prevent binding of the bolt that connects the cable 264A clevis to the bellcrank assembly against the adjacent (upper) clevis of the pull-pull cable assembly. This binding condition could result in slow airplane rotation or a control column disconnect during takeoff and a runway excursion if takeoff must be aborted. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Rathfelder, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone
(562)627-5229; fax
(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0407; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-002-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion We received a report of an aborted takeoff due to a control column disconnect. A cable in the fuselage drive assembly of the aft elevator standby loop was in intermittent contact with the adjacent clevis. Investigation revealed that the bolt connecting the cable 264A clevis to the bellcrank assembly within the drive assembly of the aft elevator standby loop may bind against the adjacent upper clevis of the pull-pull cable assembly. Further investigation revealed that one of the bolts of the drive assembly of the aft elevator standby loop and pull-pull cable clevis might be installed “head up” adding to the potential binding condition. The “head up” installation is not in accordance with design requirements. In addition, the bellcrank bearing had excessive freeplay due to corrosion that contributed to the binding condition. This binding condition, if not corrected, could result in slow airplane rotation or a control column disconnect during takeoff and a runway excursion if takeoff must be aborted. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-27A0039, dated December 6, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for a general visual inspection of the drive assembly of the aft elevator standby loop for interference between the clevis and bolt of the bellcrank assembly, correct orientation of the pull-pull cable clevis bolt, and excessive freeplay of the bellcrank assembly bearing, and corrective actions if necessary. The service bulletin also describes procedures for modifying the pull-pull cable clevis in the drive assembly of the aft elevator standby loop on certain airplanes. If any interference, incorrect orientation, or excessive freeplay is found, the corrective actions include rotating cable segment 264A, changing the bellcrank assembly bearing, and rotating the pull-pull cable clevis. For Group 1, Configuration 1 and 2: The compliance time for performing the inspection is within 3,000 flight hours or 27 months after the service bulletin date, whichever occurs first. For Group 1, Configuration 1: The compliance time for accomplishing the modification is within 27 months after the service bulletin date. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 123 airplanes of U.S. registry. It would take about 1 work-hour per product to do the proposed inspection. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD to the U.S. operators to be $9,840, or $80 per product. It would take about 4 work-hours per product to do the proposed modification. Required parts would cost about $163 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD to the U.S. operators to be $59,409, or $483 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **McDonnell Douglas:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0407; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-002-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by May 22, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-27A0039, dated December 6, 2007. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of an aborted takeoff due to a control column disconnect. We are issuing this AD to prevent binding of the bolt that connects the cable 264A clevis to the bellcrank assembly against the adjacent (upper) clevis of the pull-pull cable assembly. This binding condition could result in slow airplane rotation or a control column disconnect during takeoff and a runway excursion if takeoff must be aborted. Compliance
(e)Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. Inspection/Corrective Actions
(f)At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-27A0039, dated December 6, 2007; except, where the service bulletin specifies a compliance time after the date on the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD: Do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
(1)For all airplanes: Do a general visual inspection of the drive assembly of the aft elevator standby loop for interference between the clevis and bolt of the bellcrank assembly, correct orientation of the pull-pull cable clevis bolt, and excessive freeplay of the bellcrank assembly bearing. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
(2)For airplanes identified in the service bulletin as Group 1, Configuration 1: Modify the pull-pull cable clevis in the drive assembly of the aft elevator standby loop. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: David Rathfelder, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone
(562)627-5229; fax
(562)627-5210; has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 28, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-7183 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 303 Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission” or “FTC”), pursuant to a Petition filed by Mohawk Industries, Inc. (“Mohawk”), E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”), and PTT Poly Canada (“PTT Canada”) (hereinafter “Petitioners”), solicited comments on whether the Commission should: amend Rule 7(c) of the Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (“Textile Rules”) to establish a new generic fiber subclass name and definition within the existing definition of “polyester” for a specifically proposed subclass of polyester fibers made from poly(trimethylene terephthalate) (“PTT”); amend Rule 7(c) to broaden or clarify its definition of “polyester” to describe more accurately the PTT fiber; or retain Rule 7(c)’s definition of “polyester.” The Commission received comments through November 12, 2007. Based on those comments, the Commission is reopening the comment period for an additional 30 days. DATES: Comments will be accepted until May 5, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to “16 CFR Part 303—Textile Rule 8, Mohawk, DuPont, and PTT Canada Comment, Matter No. P074201” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex K), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. Because paper mail in the Washington area and at the FTC is subject to delay, please consider submitting your comment in electronic form, as prescribed below. Comments containing any material for which confidential treatment is requested, however, must be filed in paper (rather than electronic) form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). 1 The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. 1 The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted or denied by the Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. *See* Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). Comments filed in electronic form (except comments containing any confidential material) should be submitted to the FTC by clicking on the following Web link: *https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-Mohawk, DuPontandPTTCanadaComment* and following the instructions on the Web-based form. You may also visit *http://www.regulations.gov* to read this request for public comment, and may file an electronic comment through that Web site. The FTC will consider all comments that *www.regulations.gov* forwards to it. The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed in paper or electronic form, will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at *http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm.* As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC Web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy at *http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janice Podoll Frankle, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580;
(202)326-3022. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a **Federal Register** Notice, 2 the Commission solicited comments on whether to amend Rule 7(c) of the Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (“Textile Rules”) to establish a new generic fiber subclass name and definition within the existing definition of “polyester.” Specifically, the Commission asked whether it should establish a new subclass of polyester fibers made from PTT. At the close of the comment period on November 12, 2007, the Commission had received 49 comments. 3 With the exception of one comment, from INVISTA S. r.l. (“INVISTA”), 4 all of the commenters stated that they favored amending the Textile Rules to add a generic fiber subclass designation for PTT. 2 72 Fed. Reg. 48,600 (Aug. 24, 2007). 3 The 49 comments can be found at: *http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/textile-mohawk/index.shtm* 4 INVISTA’s comment can be found at: *http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/textile-mohawk/532047-00053.pdf* The Commission received INVISTA’s comment opposing the Petition three days prior to the close of the 75 day comment period. Thus, the public had only limited opportunity to review and respond to it. 5 INVISTA’s comment, which includes additional testing comparing PTT with conventional polyester (“PET”), calls into question the merits of the Petition, and raises issues worthy of additional time for public review and comment. 5 Prior to the comment period closing, the Commission did not receive any comments responding to INVISTA’s comment. INVISTA’s comment states that Petitioners failed to meet the Commission’s standard for establishing a new generic fiber subclass for PTT. Under the Commission’s standard, a new generic fiber subclass is appropriate if it:
(1)has the same general chemical composition as an established generic fiber category, and
(2)has distinctive properties of importance to the general public as a result of a new method of manufacture or substantially differentiated physical characteristics, such as fiber structure. 6 INVISTA argues that Petitioners failed to satisfy the second prong of this standard for two reasons. 6 The Commission articulated a standard for establishing a new generic fiber subclass in the “lyocell” proceeding (16 CFR 303.7(d)). There, the Commission noted that: Where appropriate, in considering applications for new generic names for fibers that are of the same general chemical composition as those for which a generic name already has been established, rather than of a chemical composition that is radically different, but that have distinctive properties of importance to the general public as a result of a new method of manufacture or their substantially differentiated physical characteristics, such as their fiber structure, the Commission may allow such fiber to be designated in required information disclosures by either its generic name or, alternatively, by its “subclass” name. The Commission will consider this disposition when the distinctive feature or features of the subclass fiber make it suitable for uses for which other fibers under the established generic name would not be suited, or would be significantly less well suited. 60 FR 62352, 62353 (Dec. 6, 1995). First, INVISTA asserts that because PTT performed differently than PET on such a small percentage of performance characteristics important to consumers (two out of 10), 7 PTT is not sufficiently distinctive. Thus, INVISTA argues, the Petition is “fatally flawed” and the Commission cannot conclude that PTT fibers are “significantly better suited” than PET fibers in carpet applications. 7 As set forth in Table 1 of the Petition, consumer survey evidence indicates these carpet performance characteristics are: common spills and pet accidents can be easily removed; carpet is durable; dirt and soil can be easily removed; areas where spills have been cleaned will not be visible; stain resistant properties will not diminish over time; soil resistant properties will not diminish over time; carpet color will stay the same and will not fade; heavy soil and most stains can be removed from the carpet with water; carpet pile will not shed or fuzz; and carpet is soft. Second, even if superiority as to only two of the top 10 carpet applications could satisfy the standard, INVISTA argues that the Petition does not substantiate the assertion that PTT is superior to PET. With regard to carpet durability, INVISTA states that Petitioner’s test was inadequate because:
(1)Petitioners used the Hexapod Wear Test, a relatively light-duty test of the performance of PET and PTT, and did not use the Vettermann Drum test, which INVISTA alleges better simulates how carpet holds up under actual use;
(2)INVISTA’s own testing using the Vettermann Drum test showed no meaningful difference between PET and PTT; 8 and
(3)Petitioners compared finer, lighter weight PET fibers with thicker, heavier weight PTT fibers, thus making a meaningful comparison impossible. 8 INVISTA submitted additional durability and appearance testing comparing PTT and PET carpets which it argued showed that “PTT performed very much like PET.” Only one other commenter, Independent Textile Testing Service, Inc. (“Independent”), stated that it had tested PTT. Independent stated that over the past 10 years it had been involved in extensive testing of the PTT fiber pertaining to carpet usage and that its testing included pedestrian traffic, soiling, staining, static, and colorfastness. Independent said that PTT performed much better than PET in foot traffic ratings and concluded that it would benefit the consumer to know that there were distinct differences between PET and PTT. Independent’s comment can be found at: *http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/textile-mohawk/532047-00047.htm.* INVISTA also argues that the Petition does not substantiate the assertion that PTT is superior with respect to softness. INVISTA states that rather than submitting any test results or survey data indicating how soft PTT fibers feel to consumers in actual carpet application, Petitioners presented “irrelevant” laboratory testing regarding deflection properties. 9 INVISTA argues that Petitioners failed to show that such testing reveals differences meaningful to consumers evaluating the softness of carpets. INVISTA relies on a similar analysis to argue that the Petitioners failed to demonstrate that PTT fabrics are softer than PET fabrics. 10 9 The Petition states that a very useful measure of the difference in yarn softness is the force or stress required to deflect or strain a fiber a given distance. 10 Concerning both carpet and apparel applications, INVISTA also argues that the Petition failed to address how different manufacturing techniques affect softness. INVISTA states that the Petition failed to address the possibility that the same level of softness provided by PTT could be achieved using PET fibers and different manufacturing techniques. Furthermore, INVISTA contends that the Petition does not substantiate the assertion that PTT is superior with respect to stretch with recovery of apparel products. INVISTA argues that Petitioners failed to present the results of any reliable testing methodology showing that PTT fibers “recover” from stretching better than PET fibers. INVISTA states that Petitioners’ testing for stretch and recovery was flawed, in part, because Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the amount of tension used in the test simulates the tension applied in actual consumer use of garments. INVISTA’s comment discusses another reason why it believes the Commission should deny the Petition. Specifically, INVISTA states that two of Petitioners’ three suggested new generic subclass names for PTT “appear to be intentionally designed to create confusion with existing INVISTA trademarks.” 11 11 INVISTA argues that Petitioners’ proposed names “resisoft” and “durares” are “alarmingly similar” to INVISTA’s ResisTech® and DuraTech® brand names, respectively. INVISTA raises arguments that merit further discussion. 12 Because Petitioners and other interested parties had limited opportunity to review and comment on INVISTA’s comment prior to the close of the public comment period, a full discussion of the issues has been impossible. Therefore, the Commission has decided to reopen the comment period for 30 days. The Commission believes that the benefit of enhancing the record by reopening the comment period outweighs any delay stemming from reopening the comment period. 12 In addition to these arguments, INVISTA dismisses as irrelevant Petitioners’ argument that it might be difficult to recycle PTT and PET together due to their different properties and that the subclass designation would help recyclers separate PTT from PET fibers to avoid any such difficulty. List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 303 Labeling, Textile, Trade Practices. Authority: Sec. 7(c) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (15 U.S.C. 70e(c)). By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark Secretary [FR Doc. E8-7179 Filed 4-4-07: 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-S DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-127391-07] RIN 1545-BH02 Guidance Under Section 664 Regarding the Effect of Unrelated Business Taxable Income on Charitable Remainder Trusts; Hearing AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document cancels a public hearing on proposed rulemaking providing guidance under Internal Revenue Code section 664 on the tax effect of unrelated business taxable income
(UBTI)on charitable remainder trusts. DATES: The public hearing, originally scheduled for April 11, 2008, at 10 a.m., is cancelled. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Hurst of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), at *Richard.A.Hurst@irscounsel.treas.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of public hearing that appeared in the **Federal Register** on Friday, March 7, 2008 (73 FR 12313), announced that a public hearing was scheduled for April 11, 2008, at 10 a.m., in the auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The subject of the public hearing is under section 664 of the Internal Revenue Code. The public comment period for these regulations will be expired on May 6, 2008. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the hearing were due on March 28, 2008. The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to submit an outline of the topics to be addressed. As of Monday, March 31, 2008, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for April 11, 2008, is cancelled. Cynthia Grigsby, Acting Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E8-7225 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 31 [REG-111583-07] RIN 1545-BG50 Employment Tax Adjustments; Hearing AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document cancels a public hearing on proposed rulemaking relating to employment tax adjustments and employment tax refund claims. DATES: The public hearing, originally scheduled for April 17, 2008, at 10 a.m., is cancelled. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Hurst of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), at *Richard.A.Hurst@irscounsel.treas.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of public hearing that appeared in the **Federal Register** on Monday, December 31, 2007 (72 FR 74233), announced that a public hearing was scheduled for April 17, 2008, at 10 a.m., in the auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The subject of the public hearing is under sections 6011, 6205, 6302, 6402, 6413, and 6414 of the Internal Revenue Code. The public comment period for these regulations expired on March 27, 2008. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the hearing were due on March 27, 2008. The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to submit an outline of the topics to be addressed. As of Friday, March 28, 2008, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for April 17, 2008, is cancelled. Cynthia Grigsby, Acting Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E8-7224 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 48 CFR Part 1633 RIN 3206-AL35 Federal Employees Health Benefits Acquisition Regulation: Board of Contract Appeals AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)is issuing a proposed rule to remove the designation of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Acquisition Regulation (FEHBAR). The ASBCA designation is no longer appropriate since the creation of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2006. DATES: *Effective Date:* Effective May 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments, identified by RIN 3206-AL35, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: marguerite.martel@opm.gov.* Include RIN 3206-AL35 in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:* 202-606-0633. • *Mail:* Marguerite Martel, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3415, Washington, DC 20415. 202-606-0004. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)for this rulemaking. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Contract Disputes Act (41 U.S.C. 601-613)
(CDA)allows Federal Government contractors, including carriers participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefits
(FEHB)Program, to appeal official decisions made by a contracting officer to an agency board of contract appeals. Prior to the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2006 (NDAA), the CDA authorized each agency to create their own board or, in the alternative, to designate another agency's board for this purpose. Previously, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) served as the agency board of contract appeals for appeals between FEHB carriers and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The NDAA of 2006, in addition to eliminating agency board designation authority, dismantled most existing agency boards, creating as a replacement the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals
(CBCA)with authority extending to most civilian agencies, including OPM. Accordingly, the CBCA has now replaced the ASBCA as the venue for claims brought under the Act for the FEHB Program. OPM is updating the FEHBAR to reflect this change in the law. Collection of Information Requirement This rulemaking makes a minor clarifying amendment to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Acquisition Regulations. The rule does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements that meet the definition of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995's term “collection of information,” which means obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless of form or format, calling for either answers to identical questions posed to, or identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons, other than agencies, instrumentalities, or employees of the United States; or answers to questions posed to agencies, instrumentalities, or employees of the United States which are to be used for general statistical purposes. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies with revenues of $11.5 million or less in any one year. This rulemaking affects FEHB Program carriers and their contractual arrangements that exceed the dollar threshold. Therefore, I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Regulatory Impact Analysis We have examined the impact of this proposed rule as required by Executive Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review), the RFA (September 16, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 12866 (as amended by Executive Order 13258, which merely assigns responsibility of duties) directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis
(RIA)must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any one year). This rule is not considered a major rule, as defined in title 5, United States Code, section 804(2), because we estimate it will affect only FEHB carriers. Any resulting economic impact would not be expected to exceed the dollar threshold. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Review This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866. List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 1633 Government employees, Government procurement, Health insurance. Office of Personnel Management. Linda M. Springer, Director. Accordingly, by the authority of 5 U.S.C. 8913; 41 U.S.C. 401 *et seq.* ; 48 CFR 1.301, OPM is amending chapter 16 of title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations by removing part 1633: PART 1633—[REMOVED AND RESERVED] [FR Doc. E8-7152 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 48 CFR Part 2133 RIN 3206-AL46 Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Federal Acquisition Regulation: Board of Contract Appeals AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)is issuing a proposed rule to remove the designation of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) from the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Federal Acquisition Regulation (LIFAR). The ASBCA designation is no longer appropriate since the creation of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2006. DATES: *Effective Date:* Effective May 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments, identified by RIN 3206-AL46, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: marguerite.martel@opm.gov.* Include RIN 3206-AL46 in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:* 202-606-0633. • *Mail:* Marguerite Martel, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3415, Washington, DC 20415. 202-606-0004. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)for this rulemaking. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Contract Disputes Act (41 U.S.C. 601-613)
(CDA)allows Federal Government contractors, including carriers participating in the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) Program, to appeal official decisions made by a contracting officer to an agency board of contract appeals. Prior to the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2006 (NDAA), the CDA authorized each agency to create their own board or, in the alternative, to designate another agency's board for this purpose. Previously, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) served as the agency board of contract appeals for appeals between the FEGLI carrier and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The NDAA of 2006, in addition to eliminating agency board designation authority, dismantled most existing agency boards, creating as a replacement the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals
(CBCA)with authority extending to most civilian agencies, including OPM. Accordingly, the CBCA has now replaced the ASBCA as the venue for claims brought under the Act for the FEGLI Program. OPM is updating the LIFAR to reflect this change in the law. Collection of Information Requirement This rulemaking makes a minor clarifying amendment to the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Federal Acquisition Regulations. The rule does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements that meet the definition of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995's term “collection of information,” which means obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless of form or format, calling for either answers to identical questions posed to, or identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons, other than agencies, instrumentalities, or employees of the United States; or answers to questions posed to agencies, instrumentalities, or employees of the United States which are to be used for general statistical purposes. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies with revenues of $11.5 million or less in any one year. This rulemaking affects FEGLI life insurance carriers and their contractual arrangements that exceed the dollar threshold. Therefore, I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Regulatory Impact Analysis We have examined the impact of this proposed rule as required by Executive Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review), the RFA (September 16, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 12866 (as amended by Executive Order 13258, which merely assigns responsibility of duties) directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis
(RIA)must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any one year). This rule is not considered a major rule, as defined in title 5, United States Code, section 804(2), because we estimate it will affect only FEGLI life insurance carriers. Any resulting economic impact would not be expected to exceed the dollar threshold. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Review This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866. List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 2133 Government employees, Government procurement, Health insurance. Office of Personnel Management. Linda M. Springer, Director. Accordingly, by the authority of 5 U.S.C. 8716; 41 U.S.C. 401 *et seq.* ; 48 CFR 1.301, OPM is amending chapter 16 of title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations by removing part 2133: PART 2133—[REMOVED AND RESERVED] [FR Doc. E8-7155 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P 73 67 Monday, April 7, 2008 Notices AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Notice of Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to OMB for Review SUMMARY: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has submitted the following information collection to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 10413. Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Comments should be sent via e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* or fax to 202-395-7285. Copies of submission may be obtained by calling
(202)712-1365. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Number:* OMB 0412-0035. *Form Number:* AID 1550-2. *Title:* PVO Initial and Annual Registration Form. *Type of Submission:* Renewal of Information Collection. *Purpose:* USAID is required to collect information regarding the financial support of private and voluntary organizations registered with the Agency. The information is used to determine the eligibility of PVOs to receive USAID funding. *Annual Reporting Burden:* *Respondents:* 533. *Total annual responses:* 533. *Total annual hours requested:* 1,599 hours. Dated: March 28, 2008. Joanne Paskar, Chief, Information and Records Division, Office of Administrative Services, Bureau for Management. [FR Doc. E8-7015 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6116-02-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2008-0038] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Phytosanitary Export Certification AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations for the issuance of phytosanitary certificates for plants or plant products being exported to foreign countries. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2008-0038* to submit or view comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send two copies of your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0038, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0038. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on regulations for phytosanitary export certification for plants or plant products being exported to foreign countries, contact Mr. Marcus McElvaine, Senior Export Specialist, Phytosanitary Issues Management, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 140, Riverdale, MD 20737;
(301)734-8414. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Phytosanitary Export Certification. *OMB Number:* 0579-0052. *Type of Request:* Extension of approval of an information collection. *Abstract:* The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), among other things, provides export certification services to assure other countries that the plants and plant products they are receiving from the United States are free of plant pests specified by the receiving country. It should be noted that our regulations do not require that we engage in export certification activities. We perform this work as a service to exporters who are shipping plants or plant products to countries that require phytosanitary certification as a condition of entry. To request that we perform a phytosanitary inspection, an exporter must complete and submit an Application for Inspection and Certification of Plants and Plant Products for Export (PPQ Form 572). After assessing the condition of the plants or plant products intended for export (i.e., after conducting a phytosanitary inspection), an inspector (who may be an APHIS employee or a State or county plant regulatory official) will issue an internationally recognized phytosanitary certificate (PPQ Form 577), a phytosanitary certificate for reexport (PPQ Form 579), or an export certificate for processed plant products (PPQ Form 578). These forms are critical to our ability to certify plants and plant products for export. Without them, we would be unable to conduct an export certification program. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.241330049 hours per response. *Respondents:* U.S. growers, shippers, and exporters; State and county plant regulatory officials. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 13,000. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 187.38461538. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 2,436,000. Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 587,880 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of April 2008. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E8-7191 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2008-0028] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Endangered Species Regulations and Forfeiture Procedures AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations to protect endangered species of terrestrial plants and with regulations concerning procedures related to the forfeiture of plants or other property. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2008-0028* to submit or view comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send two copies of your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0028, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0028. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on regulations to protect endangered species of terrestrial plants and concerning forfeiture procedures, contact Dr. John Veremis, National CITES Coordinator, Plant Safeguarding and Pest Identification, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 52, Riverdale, MD 20737;
(301)734-8891. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS* Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Endangered Species Regulations and Forfeiture Procedures. *OMB Number:* 0579-0076. *Type of Request:* Extension of approval of an information collection. *Abstract:* Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA)is responsible for enforcing provisions of the Act and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) that pertain to the importation, exportation, or reexportation of plants. As part of this mission, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), USDA, administers regulations at 7 CFR part 355, “Endangered Species Regulations Concerning Terrestrial Plants.” In accordance with these regulations, any individual, nursery, or other entity wishing to engage in the business of importing, exporting, or reexporting terrestrial plants listed in the CITES regulations at 50 CFR 17.12 or 23.23 must obtain a protected plant permit from APHIS. Such entities include importers, exporters, or reexporters who sell, barter, collect, or otherwise exchange or acquire terrestrial plants as a livelihood or enterprise engaged in for gain or profit. The requirement does not apply to persons engaged in business merely as carriers or customhouse brokers. To obtain a protected plant permit, entities must complete an application (PPQ Form 621) and submit it to APHIS for approval. When a permit has been issued, the plants covered by the permit may be imported into the United States, exported, or reexported, provided they are accompanied by documentation required by the regulations and provided all other conditions of the regulations are met. Effectively regulating entities who are engaged in the business of importing, exporting, or reexporting endangered species of terrestrial plants requires the use of this application process, as well as the use of other information collection activities, such as notifying APHIS of the impending importation, exportation, or reexportation of the plants, marking containers used for the importation, exportation, and reexportation of the plants, and creating and maintaining records of importation, exportation, and reexportation. APHIS also administers regulations at 7 CFR part 356, “Forfeiture Procedures,” which sets out procedures for the forfeiture of plants or other property by entities in violation of the Endangered Species Act or the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371 *et seq.* ). Entities whose property is subject to forfeiture may file with APHIS a waiver of forfeiture procedures, a claim of ownership or interest in the seized property and a bond, a request for bonded release of property, a petition for remission or mitigation of forfeiture, or a request for release of property. The information provided by these information collection activities is critical to APHIS' ability to carry out its responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act and the Lacey Act. These responsibilities include monitoring importation, exportation, and reexportation activities involving endangered species of plants, as well as the investigation of possible violations and the forfeiture of plants or other property. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.1039962 hours per response. *Respondents:* U.S. importers, exporters, and reexporters of endangered species of terrestrial plants. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 16,584. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 4.9476. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 82,051. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 8,533 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of April 2008. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E8-7193 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [CA650-08-5101-ER-B294-P] Angeles National Forest, CA; Ridgecrest Field Office, CA; Barren Ridge Renewable Transmission Project AGENCY: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare a joint Environmental Impact Statement/Report for the Barren Ridge Renewable Transmission Project. SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service (Forest Service), the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)and the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) will prepare a joint Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)and Environmental Impact Report
(EIR)for the proposed Barren Ridge Renewable Transmission Project. This action is in response to LADWP's application to the Forest Service for a special use authorization and amendments to existing special use authorizations, and application to BLM for a right-of-way grant and amendments to existing right-of-way grants. It has been determined that this project is a major federal action which may have a significant impact upon the environment. Therefore, the appropriate environmental analysis document is an EIS/EIR. The EIS/EIR would describe and analyze potential environmental impacts from the proposed project/action and the range of reasonable alternatives. LADWP proposes the following:
(1)Construction of a 230 kilovolt
(kV)transmission line from the existing Barren Ridge Switching Station to Haskell Canyon on double circuit structures;
(2)addition of a 230 kV circuit on existing double circuit structures from Haskell Canyon to the Castaic Power Plant;
(3)upgrading of the existing Owens Gorge-Rinaldi (OG-RIN) 230 kV Transmission Line with larger capacity conductors between the Barren Ridge Switching Station and Rinaldi Substation;
(4)construction of a new electrical switching station within Haskell Canyon near the southern boundary of the Angeles National Forest. This notice initiates the public participation and scoping process for the EIS/EIR and also serves as an invitation for other interested agencies, individuals, organizations and Native American Tribes to provide comments on the scope and content of the EIS/EIR. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis are requested by May 7, 2008. Seven public scoping meetings are planned to provide information about the proposed project/action and to allow people to comment on the proposed project/action. The draft EIS/EIR is expected to be published in July 2009 and the final EIS/EIR is expected in January 2010. ADDRESSES: To request a copy of the draft or final EIS/EIR, and/or to send written comments, and/or to be added to the project mailing list, please write to the Forest Service/BLM/LADWP c/o POWER Engineers, Inc., 731 E. Ball Rd., Suite 100, Anaheim, CA 92805. E-mail communications are also welcome; however, please remember to include your name and a return address in the email message. E-mail messages should be sent to *BRRTP@powereng.com* . Information about the applications and the environmental review process will be posted on the Internet at: *http://ladwp.com/barrenridge* . This site will be used to post all public documents during the environmental review process and to announce upcoming public meetings. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for dates and addresses of future public meetings. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information related to the project please contact the lead agency project managers. For National Forest System lands, contact Marian Kadota, Planning Forester, Adaptive Management Services Enterprise Team Forest Service, 1072 Casitas Pass Road #288, Carpinteria, CA 93013; phone and fax:
(805)220-6388 or e-mail to *mkadota@fs.fed.us* . For public lands managed by the BLM, contact Linn Gum, Chief, Lands & Minerals, Ridgecrest Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 300 S. Richmond Road, Ridgecrest, CA 93555; fax:
(760)384-5499 or e-mail to *Linn_Gum@ca.blm.gov* . For non-federal lands, contact Chuck Holloway, LADWP, 111 North Hope Street, Room 1044, Los Angeles, CA 90012; fax:
(213)367-3582 or e-mail to *charles.holloway@ladwp.com* . Project information can also be requested by leaving a voice message to the Project Information Hotline at
(877)440-3592. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose and Need for Action The primary purpose and need for the proposed project is to meet the State of California's Renewable Portfolio Standard
(RPS)goals and reduce the environmental impacts associated with greenhouse gases
(GHG)and emissions of other air pollutants. Current LADWP RPS goals call for 20% renewable energy by 2010 and 35% by 2020. GHG goals are set for CO <sup>2</sup> emission reductions of 35% below 1990 levels by 2030. In order to reach these goals, additional transmission capacity is necessary for the City of Los Angeles to reach and integrate the many proposed renewable energy projects located in the Mojave Desert and Owens Valley areas of Southern California. LADWP is developing two wind projects that would total 270 MW combined in the mountains northeast of Tehachapi. Furthermore, LADWP currently has several interconnection requests for approximately 1200 megawatts
(MW)of renewable energy within the same geographical area. These renewable projects are proposed to interconnect to, or deliver power through, the Barren Ridge Switching Station which is being constructed approximately 12 miles north of Mojave on the Owens Gorge-Rinaldi line (OG-RIN) to interconnect LADWP's Pine Tree Wind Development Project. The existing OG-RIN 230 kV transmission line, which has a 400 MW transfer capacity, currently is loaded with 160 MW of electrical load leaving only 240 MW of excess capacity. Maximizing the capacity of the existing OG-RIN corridor is the second need for the project to not only meet the current interconnection requests, but to utilize future renewable energy sources in this area which are projected by the California Energy Commission at over 4000 MW of wind and over 2000 MW of solar. The third purpose of the project is to increase system reliability and flexibility. A new switching station would help LADWP meet NERC and WECC reliability requirements while providing greater flexibility in the utilization of both the proposed wind and solar energy within their electrical system. Last, there is a need for LADWP to increase the efficient utilization of the Castaic Power Plant. The power plant is a pump-storage generation facility that would be used to integrate the intermittent renewable energy (wind, solar). This will allow LADWP to utilize its power plants transmission network in a more efficient manner as well as reduce its power system losses. The Forest Service and BLM need is to respond to the applications from LADWP for a Special Use Authorization (50-year term), Right of Way Grant, and amendments to existing authorizations/grants. Proposed Action LADWP is proposing the following components to meet the purpose and need of the project: • Construct approximately 60 miles of a new 230 kV double circuit structure system from the Barren Ridge Switching Station to Haskell Canyon. This proposed line would cross approximately 13 miles of National Forest System lands and four miles of public lands managed by the BLM; • Install approximately 12 miles of a 230 kV circuit onto existing double circuit transmission line structures from Haskell Canyon to the Castaic Power Plant. This proposed line would cross approximately four miles of National Forest System lands and less than one mile of public lands managed by the BLM; • Reconductor the existing OG-RIN Transmission Line with larger capacity conductors from the Barren Ridge Switching Station to the Rinaldi Substation located in the San Fernando Valley. Approximately 13 miles of National Forest System lands and four miles of BLM lands would be affected by the reconductoring. • Construct the new Haskell Switching Station on LADWP-owned property north of Santa Clarita and just south of the Angeles National Forest managed lands. Possible Alternatives The Forest Service, BLM, and LADWP have identified preliminary alternatives to the proposed project/action: • No-Action Alternative—the proposed project would not be constructed and no expansion or upgrade activities would occur. • The following routing alternatives for construction of the proposed double circuit 230 kV transmission towers from Barren Ridge Switching Station to Haskell Canyon are being considered: ○ From the Barren Ridge Substation through the Antelope Valley, one alternative route was identified along the LADWP aqueduct. ○ From the Antelope Valley to the proposed Haskell Switching Station, three alternative routes were identified:
(1)Corridor along LADWP aqueduct and generally following the Interstate 5 corridor parallel to several existing transmission lines south to the Castaic Power Plant,
(2)corridor along SCE's Antelope-Pardee 500 kV Transmission Line through Bouquet Canyon, or
(3)Minimal-National Forest System lands route through Mint Canyon parallel to several existing transmission lines. • An alternative that would consider the authorized width on National Forest System lands less than the 200-foot corridor proposed. Lead and Cooperating Agencies The Forest Service, BLM, and LADWP are joint lead agencies in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.5(b), and are responsible for the preparation of the EIS/EIR. The Forest Service and BLM will serve as co-lead agencies under NEPA for preparation of the EIS. The LADWP will serve as the lead agency under CEQA for preparation of the EIR. Scoping will determine if additional cooperating agencies are needed. Responsible Official The Forest Service responsible official for the preparation of the EIS/EIR is Jody Noiron, Forest Supervisor, Angeles National Forest, 701 N. Santa Anita Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006. The BLM responsible official for the preparation of the EIS/EIR is Hector Villalobos, Field Office Manager, Ridgecrest Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 300 S. Richmond Road, Ridgecrest, CA 93555. Nature of Decision To Be Made The Forest Supervisor will decide whether or not to authorize a 50-year term Special Use Authorization for an approximate 13-mile, 200-foot-wide right-of-way for construction, operation and maintenance of a 230 kV transmission line parallel to the existing OG-RIN transmission line route (or alternative route) constructed on new double circuit structures and amend two existing Special Use Authorizations for:
(1)The conductoring of the empty position of one of the existing Castaic Power Plant 230 kV double-circuit transmission line towers from the Castaic Power Plant to Haskell Canyon (approximately 4 miles across National Forest System lands), and
(2)the replacement of conductors on the OG-RIN 230 kV transmission line (approximately 13 miles across National Forest System lands). The authorizations could include ancillary improvements on National Forest System lands needed to maintain the transmission system (i.e. double circuit towers, roads, communication equipment). The Forest Supervisor will only make a decision regarding the proposed project on National Forest System lands. The BLM Ridgecrest Field Office Manager would have several authorizations to be made as part of the project. The BLM Field Office Manager would decide whether to authorize a Right-Of-Way Grant for an approximate 4-mile, 200-foot-wide right-of-way for construction, operation and maintenance of a 230 kV transmission line parallel to the existing OG-RIN transmission line route (or alternative route) constructed on new double circuit structures. Additional authorizations to be made by the Field Office Manager include revising existing Right-Of-Way Grants for:
(1)The conductoring of the empty position of one of the existing Castaic Power Plant 230 kV double-circuit transmission line towers from the Castaic Power Plant to Haskell Canyon (less than 1 mile across public lands managed by BLM), and
(2)the replacement of conductors on the OG-RIN 230 kV transmission line (approximately 4 miles across public lands managed by BLM). The authorizations would include ancillary improvements on public lands needed to maintain the transmission system (i.e. double circuit towers, roads, communication equipment). Scoping Process The lead agencies will be seeking information, issues, comments and assistance from Federal, State and local agencies, Native American tribes, and other individuals and organizations that may be interested in or affected by the proposed project. This input will be used in preparation of the Draft EIS/EIR. Seven scoping meetings are proposed to provide information about the proposed project to the public and to allow people to comment on the proposed project. The scoping meetings will be held on the following dates, times, and locations: 1. April 22, 2008, Open House 5:30-8:30 p.m., Presentation at 7 p.m., Santa Clarita Activity Center, 20880 Centre Point Parkway, Santa Clarita, CA. 2. April 23, 2008, Open House 5:30-8:30 p.m., Presentation at 7 p.m., Agua Dulce Women's Club, 33201 Agua Dulce Canyon, Agua Dulce, CA. 3. April 24, 2008, Open House 5:30-8:30 p.m., Presentation at 7 p.m., Castaic Middle School, 28900 Hillcrest Parkway, Castaic, CA. 4. April 28, 2008, Open House 5:30-8:30 p.m., Presentation at 7 p.m., Hughes-Elizabeth Lakes Union School, 16633 Elizabeth Lake Road, Lake Hughes, CA. 5. April 29, 2008, Open House 5:30-8:30 p.m., Presentation at 7 p.m., Frazier Mountain High School, 700 Falcon Way, Lebec, CA. 6. April 30, 2008, Open House 5:30-8:30 p.m., Presentation at 7 p.m., Hillview School, 40525 Peonza Lane, Palmdale, CA. 7. May 1, 2008, Open House 5:30-8:30 p.m., Presentation at 7 p.m., California City Middle School, 9736 Redwood Blvd., California City, CA 93505. All public meetings will be announced at least 15 days prior to the event through the local newspapers, the FS Web site *http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/angeles/projects/* and the BLM Web site *http://www.ca.blm.gov/ridgecrest* . In addition to the ongoing public participation process, formal opportunities for public participation would be provided upon publication of the Draft EIS/EIR. Preliminary Issues The environmental studies to be conducted as part of the EIS/EIR review process will identify potential impacts associated with the proposed project. However, based on previous projects of similar type, size, and scope, the following are preliminary issues that would likely be evaluated in the draft EIS/EIR: Visual resources; air quality; agriculture; biological resources; cultural and paleontological resources; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use, recreation, and planning; noise; and transportation. Other potential impacts to be evaluated include forest management related impacts and impacts to the management and use of public lands; and electric and magnetic fields and health effects. Permits or Licenses Required A 50-year term Special Use Authorization by the Forest Supervisor of the Angeles National Forest and Right-Of-Way Grant from the BLM Ridgecrest Field Office Manager will authorize LADWP for the construction, maintenance, and use of the new 230 kV transmission line on double circuit towers. Existing Special Use Permits and Right-Of-Way Grants would be amended for authorization of the replacement, maintenance, and use of electrical conductors associated with the OG-RIN 230 kV transmission line, and for the construction, maintenance and use of a second electrical circuit on existing double circuit structures from the Castaic Power Plant. Additional permits may be required by LADWP to construct the project. These could include: Section 404 Permit by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation Administration Permit for Construction or Alteration, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit issued by California's Regional Water Quality Control Board, Streambed Alteration Agreement issued by the California Department of Fish and Game, Permit to Construct issued by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Encroachment Permit issued by California Department of Transportation, and Encroachment Permits issued by Kern and Los Angeles Counties. Comment Requested This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the EIS/EIR. The Lead Agencies are seeking public and agency comment on the proposed project/action to identify major issues to be analyzed in depth and assistance in identifying potential alternatives to be evaluated. Comments received on this notice, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered as part of the public record on this proposed project/action, and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR part 215. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA)permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Lead Agencies will inform the requester of the decision regarding the request for confidentiality. Where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted, without names and addresses, within a specified number of days. Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review A draft EIS/EIR will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the Draft EIS/EIR will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the **Federal Register** . The Lead Agencies believe, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft EIS/EIR must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC* , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft EIS/EIR stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final EIS/EIR may be waived or dismissed by the courts. *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel* , 803 F2.d 1016, 1022 (9th Circ. 1986) and *Wisconsin Heritages, Inc* v. *Harris* , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Lead Agencies at a time when they can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final EIS/EIR. To assist the Lead Agencies in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS/EIR should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft EIS/EIR. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft EIS/EIR or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection. Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21; BLM Handbook H-1790-1, Section V. Dated: March 27, 2008. Jody Noiron, Angeles Forest Supervisor, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Dated: March 28, 2008. Hector Villalobos, Field Office Manager, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. [FR Doc. E8-6897 Filed 4-2-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Proposed CERCLA Settlement Agreement; Silver Bow County, MT AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; request for public comment. SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of an administrative settlement with the owners of an 18-acre parcel (the Settling Parties) within the Beal Mine site in Silver Bow County, Montana. The settlement requires the Settling Parties to convey the parcel to the United States. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue the Settling Parties pursuant Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), with regard to the Beal Mine Site. For thirty
(30)days following the date of publication of this notice, the United States will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The United States will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at the Butte Ranger District/Supervisor's Office Annex of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, 1820 Meadowlark Lane, Butte, MT 59701. A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from Gary E. Howard at the Butte Ranger District/Supervisor's Office Annex at
(406)494-0228 or from Kirk Minckler with USDA's Office of the General Counsel,
(303)275-5549. Comments should reference the Revelation Lode Parcel, Silver Bow County, Montana, and should be addressed to Mr. Howard at the Butte Ranger District/Supervisor's Office Annex. The United States' response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the Butte Ranger District/Supervisor's Office Annex. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information contact Gary E. Howard, Butte Ranger District/Supervisor's Office Annex, Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest, 1820 Meadowlark Lane, Butte, MT 59701, phone
(406)494-0228 or Kirk Minckler, USDA Office of the General Counsel, 740 Simms Street, Room 309, Golden, CO 80401, phone
(303)275-5549. Dated: March 21, 2008. Thomas L. Tidwell, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. [FR Doc. E8-6853 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M 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:* U.S. Census Bureau. *Title:* Special Census Program. *Form Number(s):* SC-1, SC-1 SUPP, SC-1 (Phone/WYC), SC-2, SC-116, SC-351, SC-920, SC-921(HU), SC-921(SP). *OMB Control Number:* 0607-0368. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Burden Hours:* 19,143. *Number of Respondents:* 293,687. *Average Hours per Response:* 4 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* Governmental units requiring current population statistics between decennial censuses request that the Census Bureau conduct special censuses. Many states distribute funds based on current population statistics. In addition, special census data are used by the local jurisdictions to plan new schools, transportation systems, housing programs, and water treatment facilities. The Special Census Program operates as a generic OMB clearance, including a library of forms and the operational procedures that will be used for the many special censuses we anticipate conducting through June 2009. The Census Bureau will establish a reimbursable agreement with a variety of potential special census customers. Census will submit for OMB's review and approval, under cover of a change worksheet, any special-purpose questions requested by customers to be added to special census questionnaires. Local jurisdictions use special census data to apply for available funds from both the state and Federal government. Many states distribute these funds based on current population statistics. This fact, along with local population shifts or annexations of territory, prompts local officials to request special censuses. In addition, special census data are used by the local jurisdictions to plan new schools, transportation systems, housing programs, water treatment facilities, etc. Some jurisdictions believe that additional data are required for proper planning and others must have the additional data to qualify for some sources of funding. For these reasons, local officials request special purpose questions. The Census Bureau also uses special census data as part of its local population estimates calculation and to update the Census Bureau's Master Address File
(MAF)and Topographically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) System. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Frequency:* One time. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *Legal Authority:* Title 13, United States Code, section 196. *OMB Desk Officer:* Brian Harris-Kojetin,
(202)395-7314. 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 Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB Desk Officer either by fax (202-395-7245) or e-mail ( *bharrisk@omb.eop.gov* ). Dated: April 1, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-7097 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Current Population Survey
(CPS)Voting and Civic Engagement Supplements AGENCY: U.S. Census Bureau. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before June 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Tim Marshall, U.S. Census Bureau, 7H106C, Washington, DC 20233-8400 at
(301)763-3806 (or via the Internet at *Tim.J.Marshall@census.gov* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The U.S. Census Bureau plans to request clearance for the collection of data concerning the Voting and Civic Engagement Supplements to be conducted in conjunction with the November 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS). The Census Bureau sponsors the Voting Supplement questions, which have been requested biennially since 1964. The Civic Engagement Supplement will be conducted at the request of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). The voting supplement has provided statistical information for tracking historical trends of voter and nonvoter characteristics in each Presidential or Congressional election since 1964. The data collected from this supplement relates demographic characteristics (age, sex, race, education, occupation, and income) to voting and nonvoting behavior. The November CPS supplement is the only source of data that provides a comprehensive set of voter and nonvoter characteristics distinct from independent surveys, media polls, or other outside agencies. Federal, state, and local election officials use these data to formulate policies relating to the voting and registration process. College institutions, political party committees, research groups, and other private organizations also use the voting and registration data. The civic engagement supplement will provide information on the extent to which American communities are places where individuals are civically active. It will also provide information on the number of Americans who are active in their communities, communicating with one another on issues of public concern, and interacting with public institutions and private enterprises. The information will also provide the number of Americans who engage in activities that promote positive relationships with those of equal and differing socio-economic or professional levels. This survey will be the only source of nationally-representative data on such information as: level of participation in organized groups, extent of political action and knowledge, extent of connections with other community members, and how often individuals get news and information from various media sources. When combined with demographic characteristics (age, sex, race, education, occupation, income), the data can provide information on the relationship between these characteristics and the level of civic engagement in the United States. Government agency analysts and private, state and local leaders will use this data to compare levels specific to their geographic area to the national level of civic engagement, and to formulate policies that foster healthy communities. II. Method of Collection The voting and civic engagement supplements will be collected by both personal visit and telephone interviews in conjunction with the regular November 2008 CPS interview process. All interviews are conducted using computer-assisted interviewing. III. Data *OMB Control Number:* 0607-0466. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 48,000. *Estimated Time per Response:* 9 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 7,200. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $0. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *Legal Authority:* Title 13, U.S.C., Section 182, and Title 29, U.S.C., Sections 1-9. IV. Request for Comments *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: April 1, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-7108 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-552-802, A-570-893 Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the People’s Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) received timely requests to conduct administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”). The anniversary month of these orders is February. In accordance with the Department’s regulations, we are initiating these administrative reviews. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 2008 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Manning or Howard Smith, Office 4, telephone:
(202)482-5253 or
(202)482-5193 (Vietnam); or Scot Fullerton, Office 9, telephone:
(202)482-1386 (PRC), AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), during the anniversary month of February, for administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the PRC covering multiple entities. The Department is now initiating these administrative reviews of the orders covering those entities. INITIATION OF REVIEW In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the PRC. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews on the companies listed below not later than March 9, 2009. Antidumping Duty Proceeding Period to be Reviewed SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM: 1 , 2 02/01/2007 - 01/31/2008 Frozen Warmwater Shrimp A-552-802 • AAAS Logistics • Agrimex • Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. • Amerasian Shipping Logistics Corp. • American Container Line • An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company (Agifish) • An Xuyen • Angiang Agricultural Technology Service Company • Aquatic Products Trading Company • Bac Lieu Fisheries Company Limited • Bac Lieu Fisheries Company Limited (“Bac Lieu”) • Bentre Aquaproduct Imports & Exports • Bentre Forestry and Aquaproduct Import-Export Company (“FAQUIMEX”) • Bentre Frozen Aquaproduct Exports •Bentre Seafood Joint Stock • Beseaco • Binh Dinh Fishery Joint Stock • C P Livestock • C.P. Vietnam Livestock Co. Ltd. • C.P. Vietnam Livestock Co., Ltd. • Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (“SEAPRIMEXCO”) • Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (“SEAPRIMEXCO”) • Ca Mau Seaproducts Exploitation and Service Corporation (“SES”) • Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint Stock Company (“CADOVIMEX”) • Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint-Stock Company (“Cadovimex-Vietnam”) • Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation (“Cafatex Corp.”) • Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation (“CAFATEX CORP.”) • Cai Doi Vam Seafood Import-Export Company (Cadovimex) • Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise Company (“Camranh Seafoods”) • Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation (“CAMIMEX”) • Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation, or Camau Seafood Factory No. 4 (“CAMIMEX”) • Camau Seafood Fty • Camranh Seafoods • Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Product Import Export Company (“CATACO”) • Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Products Import Export Company (“CATACO”) • Can Tho Agricultural Products • Can Tho Seafood Exports • Cantho Animal Fisheries Product Processing Export Enterprise (Cafatex) • Cantho Imp & Exp Seafood Join, a.k.a. Caseamex • Cautre Enterprises • Chun Cheng Da Nang Co., Ltd. • Co Hieu • Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation (“COFIDEC”) • Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation (Cofidec) • Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation (Cofidec) • Coastal Fishery Development • Cong Ty Do Hop Viet Cuong • Cuu Long Seaprodcuts Limited (Cuu Long Seapro) • Cuulong Seaproducts Company (“Cuu Long Seapro”) • Cuulong Seaproducts Company (“Cuulong Seapro”) • Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (“Seaprodex Danang”) • Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (and its affiliates) (“Seaprodex Danang”) • Dao Van Manh • Dong Phuc Huynh • Dragon Waves Frozen Food Fty. • Duyen Hai Bac Lieu Company (“T.K. Co.”) • Duyen Hai Foodstuffs Processing Factory (“COSEAFEX”) • Frozen Fty • Frozen Seafoods Factory No. 32 • Frozen Seafoods Fty • General Imports & Exports • Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. • Grobest & I-Mei Industry Vietnam •Hacota • Hai Ha Private Enterprise • Hai Thuan Export Seaproduct Processing Co., Ltd. • Hai Viet • Hai Viet Corporation (“HAVICO”) • Hanoi Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (“Seaprodex Hanoi”) • Hatrang Frozen Seaproduct Fty • Hoa Nam Marine Agricultural • Hoan An Fishery • Hoan Vu Marine Product Co., Ltd. • Hua Heong Food Ind Vietnam • Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation (“Incomfish”) • Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation (“INCOMFISH”) • Khanh Loi Trading • Kien Gang Sea Prodcuts Import - Export Company (Kisimex) • Kien Gang Seaproduct Import and Export Company (“KISIMEX”) • Kim Anh Co., Ltd. • Konoike Vinatrans Logistics • Lamson Import-Export Foodstuffs Corporation • Long An Food Processing Export Joint Stock Company (“LAFOOCO”) • Lucky Shing • Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company • Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company (“Minh Hai Jostoco”) • Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company (“Minh Hai Jostoco”) • Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company (“Sea Minh Hai”) • Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company (“Seaprodex Minh Hai”) • Minh Hai Sea Products Import Export Company (Seaprimex Co) • Minh Phat Seafood • Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd. • Minh Phu Seafood Corp. • Minh Phu Seafood Corporation • Minh Phu Seafood Export Import Corporation (and affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.) • Minh Phu Seafood Export Import Corporation (and its affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.) (collectively “Minh Phu Group”) • Minh Qui Seafood • Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. • Nam Hai • Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise • Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise • Ngoc Sinh Seafoods • Nha Trang Company Limited • Nha Trang Fisheries Co. Ltd. • Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company (“Nha Trang Fisco”) • Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company (“Nha Trang FISCO”) • Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (“Nha Trang Seafoods”) • Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (“NHA TRANG SEAFOODS”) • Pataya Food Industry (Vietnam) Ltd. • Phat Loc Seafood • Phu Cuong Seafood Processing & Import-Export Co., Ltd. • Phu Cuong Seafood Processing and Import-Export Co., Ltd. • Phung Hung Private Business • Phuong Nam Co. Ltd. • Phuong Nam Seafood Co. Ltd. • Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trading Import and Export Co., Ltd. • Saigon Orchide • Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (“Fimex VN”) • Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (“FIMEX”) • Sea Product • Sea Products Imports & Exports • Seafood Company Zone II (“Thusaco2”) • Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company No.9 (previously Seafood Processing Imports Exports) • Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory • Seaprodex • Seaprodex Hanoi • Seaprodex Min Hai • Seaprodex Quang Tri • Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company (“Stapimex”) • Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import-Export Company (“STAPIMEX”) • Sonacos • Song Huong ASC Import-Export Company Ltd. • Song Huong ASC Joint Stock Company • Special Aquatic Products Joint Stock Company (“Seaspimex”) • SSC • T & T Co., Ltd. • Tacvan Frozen Seafoods Processing Export Company • Taydo Seafood Enterprises • Thami Shipping & Airfreight • Thang Long • Thanh Doan Seaproducts Import • Thanh Long • Thien Ma Seafood • Tho Quang Seafood Processing & Export Company • Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation • Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation (and its affiliates) • Tourism Material and Equipment Company (Matourimex Hochiminh City Branch) • Truc An Company • Trung Duc Fisheries Private Enterprise • UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Company • UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Company • V N Seafoods • Vien Thang Private Enterprise • Viet Foods Co., Ltd. • Viet Foods Co., Ltd. (“Viet Foods”) • Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd. a/k/a Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd. (Fish One) • Viet Hai Seafoods Company Ltd. (“Vietnam Fish One Co. Ltd.”) • Viet Hai Seafoods Company Ltd. (Vietnam Fish One) • Viet Nhan Company • Vietfracht Can Tho • Vietnam Fish-One Co., Ltd. • Vietnam Northern Viking Technologie Co. • Vietnam Northern Viking Technology Co. Ltd. • Vietnam Tomec Co., Ltd. • Vilfood Co • Vinh Hoan Co., Ltd • Vinh Loi Import Export Company (“VIMEX”) • Vinh Loi Import Export Company (“Vimexco”) • Vita • Western Seafood Processing and Exporting Factory 1 If one of the listed companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam that have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single Vietnam-wide entity of which the named exporter is a part. 2 Some companies appear to be listed twice, but there are two addresses provided in the administrative review requests for similar named companies and therefore, we are listing them separately. PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 02/01/2007 - 01/31/2008 Frozen Warmwater Shrimp A-570-893 • Allied Pacific (H.K.) Co. Ltd. • Allied Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhangjiang) Co., Ltd. • Allied Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd. • Allied Pacific Food (Dalian) Co., Ltd • Ammon International • Anhui Fuhuang Chaohu Sanzhen C • Anhui Huaxiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. • Anqiu Jiayuan Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. • Aquafreezer Company • Aquatic Foodstuffs FTY • Aquatic Products Processing Factory of China National Zhoushan Marine Fisheries Company • Asian Seafood (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd. • Babcock & Wilcox • Bao Xian Company Ltd. • Baofa Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Beihai Hongen Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Beihai Qinguo Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. • Beihai Tashare Seafood Co., Ltd. • Beihai Wanjing Marin Products Co., Ltd. • Beihai Zhengwu Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Beihai Zhengwu Industry Co., Ltd. • Beilian Foods Industrial Co., Ltd. • Cangnan Fengrun Freezing Plant • Changle Jiacheng Food Co., Ltd. • Chaoyang Qiaofeng Group Co., Ltd. (Shantou Qiaofeng (Group) Co., Ltd.) (Shantou/Chaoyang Qiaofeng) • Chaozhou Huahai Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Chaozhou Huahai Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. Fengxi Plant • China National Fisheries Yantai Marine Fisheries Corp. Fishery Products Processing Factory • Chung Wan Enterprises • Chungshan Shinyo Marine Products Co., Ltd. • Citic Heavy Machinery • CNF Zhanjiang (Tonglian) Fisheries Co., Ltd. • Dafu Foods Industry • Dalian Evergreen • Dalian Ftz Sea-Rich International Trading Co., Ltd. • Dalian Juxin Aquatic Food Company, Ltd. • Dalian Ohbun Food Co., Ltd. • Dalian Shan Li Food • Dalian Shanhai Seafood • Dalian Tongyuan Foodstuffs Co., Ltd • Dandong Taihua Foodstuffs Co., Ltd • Danzhou Zhulian Freezing Co., Ltd. • Dhin Foong Trdg • Dong Guan Hai Huang Food Co., Ltd. • Donggang Hongfeng Foods Freeze • Donggang Sanlong Sea Produces Co., Ltd. • Dongri Aquatic Products Freezing Plants • Dongshan Dongsheng Food Co., Ltd. • Dongshan Dongwang Aquatic Products Freezing Co., Ltd. • Dongshan Dongxiecheng Seafoods Co., Ltd. • Dongshan Dongxing Aquatic Processing Co., Ltd. • Dongshan Huachang Foodstuff Co., Ltd. • Dongshan Xinfu Aquatic Processing Co., Ltd. • Dongshan Xinhefa Co., Ltd. • Dongshan Xinhefa Food • E.S. Foods •East Spark Logistics • Fangchenggang City Fangcheng District Forestry Development Co., Ltd. • Fenghua Hailiqu Frozen Corporation • Foshan City Shunde District Yang Sei Seafoods Co., Ltd. (Seafood Workshop) • Foshan Seafood Imp and Exp Co., Ltd., Seariver Seafood Foodstuff Factory • Fuchang Aquatic Products • Fujian Chaohui Intl • Fujian Meihua Aquatic Processing Factory • Fujian Mingwei • Fujian Provincial Meihua Aquat • Fujian Western Gulf Seafood Co., Ltd. • Fuqing Chaohui Aquatic Food Trdg • Fuqing City Huasheng Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. • Fuqing Dongwei Aquatic Products Industry Co., Ltd. • Fuqing Longwei Aquatic Foodstuff Co., Ltd. • Fuqing Maowang Seafood Developing Co., Ltd. • Fuqing Minhua Trade Co., Ltd. • Fuqing Xuhu Aquatic Food Trdg • Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Food Co., Ltd • Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Fuzhou Hongli Food Co., Ltd. • Fuzhou Mandy Foods Industries Co., Ltd. • Fuzhou Rixing Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. • Gallant Ocean (Nanhai), Ltd. • Gallant Ocean International • Gallant Seafoods • General (Xiamen Tongan) Food Industry Co., Ltd • Go Harvest Aquatic Products • Gold Star Fishery Zhoushan Co., Ltd. • Gourmet Food (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd. • Grand Harvest Seafoods (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd. • Guangdong Foshan Aquatic Products • Guangxi Cereals Oils and Foodstuffs Imp./Exp. Beihai Aquatic Products Cold Processing Factory • Guangxi Zhengwu Marine Ind • Guangzhou Lingshan Aquatic Products • Guangzhou Lingshan Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Hai Li Aquatic Co., Ltd. Zhao An, Fujian • Hai Pa Wang (Shantou) Foods Co., Ltd. (Seafood Workshop) •Haikui Aquatic Products • Haili Aquatic Co., Ltd. Zhaoan Fujian • Hainan Brich Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Hainan Cereals Oils and Foodstuff Imp. & Exp. Co. Freezing Factory • Hainan Dazhong Ocean Industry Co., Ltd. •Hainan Dongfang Dongxin Aquatic Development Co., Ltd. • Hainan Evernew Foods Co., Ltd. • Hainan Fruit Vegetable Food Allocation Co., Ltd. • Hainan Gaoyuan Foods Co., Ltd. • Hainan Golden Spring Foods Co., Ltd. • Hainan Golden Spring Foods Co., Ltd./Hainan Brich Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Hainan Hailisheng Food Co., Ltd. • Hainan Hualu Food Freezing Co., Ltd. • Hainan Jiadexin Foodstuff • Hainan Jiadexin Foodstuff Co., Ltd. • Hainan North Aquatic Co., Ltd. • Hainan Quebec Ocean Fishing Co., Ltd. • Hainan Ruiying Food • Hainan Sanya Yuanheng Aquatic Food Co., Ltd • Hainan Seaberry Seafoods • Hainan Sinalog Intl. Logistics • Hainan Sky-Blue Ocean Foods Co., Ltd. • Hainan Taisheng Fishery Co., Ltd • Hainan Wenchang Yongli Fishery Trading Co., Ltd. • Hainan Xiangtai Fishery Co., Ltd. • Hainan Zhongyi Frozen Food Co., Ltd. • Haiyang Gold Sun Food Processing Co., Ltd. • Haizhou Aquatic • Hangzhou Tianhai Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. • Harvest Aquatic Products • Hefei Meiling Washing Machine • Hilltop International • Homey Dongfang Aquatic Foods Co., Ltd. • Hong Hu Dei Young Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Hogiya Seafoods • Homon Ind Dalian • Hongzhou Aquatic Products Industry Co., Ltd., Shantou • Huahai Frozen Food • Huangshi Lianhai Foodstuffs Gr • Hubei Sanwuchun Foodstuff Manufacturing Co., Ltd. • Hunan Best Foods • I T Logistics • Intl Economic Techical • Jiachang Aquatic Product Co., Ltd. Longhai • Jiangmen Kings Food Waihai Branch Ltd. • Jiangmen Yue Fung Marine Products Co., Ltd. • Jiangsu Holly • Jiangsu Jiushoutang Organisms-Manufacturers • Jiangsu Younger Foods • Jiangzhou Tianhe Fishery Products Co., Ltd. • Jiansheng Aquatic Product • Jiaonan City Aquatic Cold Storage Factory • Jinfu Trading Co., Ltd. • Jinhang Aquatic Industry • Jintown Enterprises • Kaifeng Ocean Sky Industry Co., Ltd. • King Bay Seafood Co., Ltd. • King Royal Investments, Ltd. • King Royal Investments, Ltd. • Laiyang Hengrun Foodstuff • Laiyang Luhua Foodstuffs • Laizhou Xincheng Food Col., Ltd. • Lee Shing Food (Dongguan) Co., Ltd. • Leizhou Yuyuan Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Leizhou Zhulian Frozen Food Co., Ltd. • Liangcheng (Longhai) Freezing Co. Ltd. • Long Sheng Trend Wide (Yuhuan) Seafood Co., Ltd. • Longhai Gelin Seafoods Co., Ltd. • Longhai Jiarong Foods Co., Ltd. • Longhai Xinlianda Freezing Foods Co., Ltd. • Longkou Jiabao Aquatic Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. • Longsheng Aquatic Products • Luk Ka Paper Industry • Maoming Changxing Foods • Maoming Jiahui Foods Co., Ltd. • Marnex • Meizhou Aquatic • Meizhou Aquatic Products Quick-Frozen Industry Co., Ltd. Shantou • Michael Lloyd Verm • Meizhou Aquatic Products Quick-Frozen Industry Co., Ltd. Shenping Shantou • Mingfeng • Minnan Aquatic Development Co., Ltd. Jinjiang City • Momoya Zhujiang Foods Industrial Co., Ltd. • Muping Weiye Foods Co., Ltd. • Nanhai Katolee Foods Co., Ltd. • Ningbo Arts & Crafts Import and Export • Ningbo Dayu Food Co., Ltd. • Ningbo Fat Chef Food Co., Ltd • Ningbo Hengkang Food • Ningbo Jiuzhou Food Co., Ltd. • Ningbo Today Food Co., Ltd • Ningbo Wuling Taihsin Foods • Ningbo Yuzhimei Seafoods Plant • North Supreme Seafood (ZheJiang) Co., Ltd • North Supreme Seafood (Zhuhai) Co., Ltd. • Ocean (Tianjin) Corporation Ltd. • Ocean Freezing Industry & Trade General • Olanya • Penglai Huaguang Foodstuff Co., Ltd. • Penglai Jinglu Fishery Co., Ltd. • Penglai Jinglu Fishery Co., Ltd. Processing Factory • Penglai Jinming Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Penglai Meibo Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. • Perfection Logistics Service • PingYang Xinye Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Pingye Foreign Transportation • Power Dekor Group Co., Ltd. • Qianjiang Heyi Aquatic Products and Foodstuff Co., Ltd. • Qianjiang Laike Seafood Co., Ltd. • Qingdao A&K Foods Col., Ltd. • Qingdao Anke Industrial Co., Ltd. • Qingdao Biwan Foods Co., Ltd. • Qingdao Biwan Marine Products Co., Ltd. • Qingdao Canning & Foodstuffs • Qingdao Chaoyang Foods Col., Ltd. • Qingdao Dayang Jian Foodstuffs • Qingdao Dong Gang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. • Qingdao Dongwon F & B Co., Ltd. • Qingdao Gabsan Trdg • Qingdao Kangda Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. No. 2 Refigeration Factory • Qingdao Kangda Haiqing Foods Co. Ltd. • Qingdao Katokichi Foodstuff Co., Ltd. • Qingdao Rongli Aquatic Foods Co. Ltd. • Qingdao Sanyang Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Qingdao Sohshoku Refrigeration and Processing Co., Ltd. • Qingdao Superior Foods Co., Ltd. • Qingdao Tsukiji Suisan Co., Ltd. • Qingdao Twins Co., Ltd. • Qingdao Wanfang Foodstuff, Ltd. • Qingdao Xinhaifeng Foods Co., Ltd. • Qingdao Xuri Foodstuffs • Qingdao Yilufa Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. • Qingdao Yuanxing Foods Processing Plant • Qingdao Yudong Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. • Qingdao Zhengjin West Coast Aquatic Products Processing Plant • Qinhuangdao Jiangxin Aquatic Food • Quanzhou Yisheng Gifts • Qunfa Seafood • Raoping County Longfa Seafoods Co., Ltd. • Raoping Jialong Freeze Food Co., Ltd. • Raoping Jianli Foods Co., Ltd. • Raoping Yongliang Foodstuffs Factory Co., Ltd. (Seafood Workshop) • Raoping Yuanteng Frozen Food Co., Ltd. • Red Garden Food • Red Garden Foodstuff • Regal Integrated Marine Resour • Rich Shipping • Rixiang Ocean Foodstuff Co., Ltd. Shishi • Rizhao Changhua Aquatic Foodstuff • Rizhao Huayang Farming Aquatic Processing Co., Ltd. • Rizhao Rirong Aquatic Products and Foods Co., Ltd. • Rizhao Smart Foods • Rongcheng Lijiang Aquatic and Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. • Rongcheng Tongda Aquatic Food • Rongcheng Yinhai Aquatic • Round the World Logistics • Ruian Huasheng Aquatic Products • Rushan Huagreat Aquatic Products Co. Ltd. • Sahndong Huashijia Foods • San Francisco Bay Brand Far East • Sanya Branch of Zhanjiang Runhai Food Co., Ltd. • Sanya Dongji Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Sanya Shengda Seafood Co., Ltd. • Sanya Yuantiao Aquatic Products Trading Co., Ltd. • Savvy Seafood Inc. • Science & Technology Development • Sea Mart • Sea to Sea Seafood • Sealord North America • Second Aquatic Food • SH Linghai Fisheries Trdg • Shandong Chengshun Farm Produce Trd • Shandong Foodstuffs Imp and Exp Corp. Qingdao Refigeration Plant • Shandong Huashijia Foods • Shandong Longkou Aquatic Product Comprehensive Corporation • Shandong Oriental Ocean Sci-Tech Co., Ltd. Refrigerating and Processing Factory • Shandong Rizhao Sanfod Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. • Shandong Rushan Weimei Foodstuffs • Shandong Sanfod Nissui Co., Ltd. • Shandong Yongkang Food Co. Ltd. • Shanghai Haidell Foods Co., Ltd • Shanghai Ho Ho Food Factory • Shanghai Linghai Fisheries Economic and Trading Co. • Shanghai Royal Dragon Seafoods • Shantou Chaoyang Zhansheng Freeze Factory • Shantou City Qiaofeng Group • Shantou City Qiaofeng Group Co., Ltd. • Shantou Freezing Aquatic Product Food Stuffs Co. • Shantou Freezing Factory • Shantou Haimao Foodstuffs Factory Co., Ltd. • Shantou Haixiang Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Shantou Haiyou Aquatic Foodstuff Co., Ltd. • Shantou Jiazhou Foods Industry Co., Ltd. • Shantou Jinfa Seafood Co., Ltd. • Shantou Jinhang Aquatic Industry Co., Ltd. • Shantou Jinping District Mingfeng Quick-Frozen Factory • Shantou Jinyuan District Mingfeng Quick-Frozen Factory • Shantou Long Feng Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Shantou Longfeng Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.) • Shantou Longfeng Foodstuff Co., Ltd. • Shantou Longsheng Aquatic Product • Shantou Longsheng Aquatic Product Foodstuff Co., Ltd. • Shantou Nichi Len Foods Co., Ltd. • Shantou Ocean Freezing Industry and Trade General Corporation • Shantou Red Garden Food Processing Co., Ltd. • Shantou Red Garden Foodstuff • Shantou Ruiyuan Industry Co., Ltd. • Shantou SEZ Dafeng Aquatic Product Enterprise Co., Ltd. • Shantou SEZ Xu Hao Fastness Freeze Aquatic Factory Co., Ltd. • Shantou Sez Xuhoa Fastness Freeze Aquatic Factory Co. • Shantou Shengping District Yongping Shengnanhe Aquatic Products Process Facotry • Shantou Shengping Jiacheng Aquatic Product Foodstuff Quick-Frozen Factory • Shantou Shengping Oceanstar Business Co., Ltd. • Shantou Wanya Food Factory Co., Ltd. • Shantou Wanya Foods Fty. Co., Ltd. (Branch Factory) • Shantou Yuexing Enterprise Company • Shanwei Cathay Food Industries Ltd. • Shanwei Good Harvest Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Shaotou Ocean Freezing Industry and Trade General Corporation • Sharewin Intl Cargo Agent • Shenzhen Allied Aquatic Products • Shishi Zhengyuan Aquatic Product Science & Technology Development Co., Ltd. • Silvertie Holding • Sinda Intl Trdg • Sino Champion • Sky Blue Ocean Foods • Spectrum Plastics • St City Qiaofeng Group • ST Wanya Foods Fty • Suqian Foreign Trdg • T.H. • Taiwan Titan Enterprises • Taizhou Lingyang Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Taizhou Zhonghuan Industrial Co., Ltd. • Tangshan Dongguang Foods Co., Ltd • Thai Royal Frozen Food Zhanjiang Co., Ltd. • The Aquaculture Processing Factory of Doumen Aquatic Products Import Co., Guangdong • The Freezing Plant of Guangdong Shantou Aquatic Product Imp. and Exp. Co. • The Second Aquatic Food • The Second Aquatic Foodstuffs Factory Shandong Hisea Group • Tianhe Hardware & Rigging • Tianjin Dongjiang Food • Tianjin Smart Gulf Foodstuffs Co., Ltd • Tien Jiang Enterprises • TingFond Aquatic Food Development Co., Ltd. Guangzhou • Top One Intl • Universal Freight Systems • Weifang Taihua Food • Weifang Yongqiang Food Ind • Weihai Weidongri Comprehensive Food Co., Ltd. • Weishan Zhaozhong Lake Foodstuffs • Wenling Hotai Marine Processing Corp. • Wenling Jiaoshan Fishing Harbour Freezing Plant • Wenling Shatou Seafood Cold Storage Plant • Wenling Xingdi Aquatic Products • Wenling Xingdi Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Xiamen Sungiven Imports & Exports • Xiangshan Haiyang Food Co., Ltd • Xiangshan Huayi Seafood Co., Ltd. • Xiangshan South Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. • Xiantao Mianyang Sanzheng Foods Co., Ltd. • Xiashan Cold Storage Plant of Zhanjiang Foodstuffs I/E Co. of Guangdong • Xinxing Aquatic Products Processing Factory • Xuwen Hailang Breeding Co., Ltd. • Yancheng Haiteng Aquatic Products & Foods Co., Ltd • Yancheng Sea & Garden Beauty Foods Co., Ltd. • Yangjiang City Yelin Hoitat Quick Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd. • Yangjiang Jiangcheng Huanghai Marine Food Enterprises Co., Ltd. • Yangxi Add Host Aquatic Product Processing Factory • Yantai Aquatic Products Supplying and Marketing Co., Aquatic Products Fazhan Branch • Yantai Aquatic Products Supplying and Marketing Co., Aquatic Products Haifa Food Branch • Yantai Dachen Food Products Co., Ltd. • Yantai Defeng Aquatic Product Co., Ltd. • Yantai Development Area Yulong Foods Co. Ltd. • Yantai Foreign Trade No. 2 Refrigerator Factory • Yantai Fubao Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. • Yantai Guangyuan Foods Co • Yantai Haide Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Yantai Haihe Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. • Yantai Haixing Fishery Products Co., Ltd. • Yantai Huake Foodstuffs Co. Ltd. • Yantai Jinpeng Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. • Yantai Lianfa Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Yantai Liming Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Yantai Longda Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. • Yantai Longxiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. • Yantai Luxing Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. • Yantai M and K Foods Col., Ltd. • Yantai Pengfu Fishery Products Co., Ltd. • Yantai Sealucky Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. • Yantai Tangmu Seafood Products Co., Ltd. • Yantai Wei-Cheng Food Co., Ltd. • Yantai Xingyang Aquatic & Foods Co., Ltd. • Yantai Xinlai Trade • Yantai Xinxing Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. • Yantai Xuehai Foodstuffs • Yantai Xuehai Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. • Yantai Yuyuan Aquatic Products Co. Ltd. • Yantai Zhaoyang Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Yantai Zhengwang Seafood Co., Ltd. • Yantai Zhicheng Aquatic Product Co., Ltd. • Yelin Enterprise Co., Ltd. Hong Kong • Yelin Frozen Seafood Co.21 • Yuhuan Minzhu Freezing Plant • Zhan Jiang Green Environmental Protection Aquatic Foods Co., Ltd. • Zhangjiang Bobogo Ocean Co., Ltd. • Zhangjiang Jinguo Seafood Co., Ltd. • Zhangzhou Changshan Haizhiwei Frozen Food Co. • Zhangzhou Hsien-pin Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. • Zhangzhou Oceanrich Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. • Zhangzhou Quanfeng Foods Development Co., Ltd. • Zhangzhou Yuanxin Foodstuff Co. Ltd • Zhanjiang Allied Pacific Aquaculture Co., Ltd. • Zhanjiang Allied Pacific Aquaculture Co., Ltd. • Zhanjiang Baohui Sea Products PTE Co., Ltd. • Zhanjiang Baoli Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Zhanjiang Bo Bo Go Ocean Co., Ltd. • Zhanjiang Dongyang Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Zhanjiang East Sea Kelon Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Zhanjiang Evergreen Aquatic Product Science and Technology Co., Ltd. • Zhanjiang Fuchang Aquatic Product Freezing Plant • Zhanjiang Fuchang Aquatic Products • Zhanjiang Go-harvest Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Zhanjiang Guotong Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Zhanjiang Haizhou Aquatic Product • Zhanjiang Hi Press Machine Eqp • Zhanjiang Longwei Aquatic • Zhanjiang Newpro Foods Co., Ltd. • Zhanjiang Puxin Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Zhanjiang Regal Integrated Marine Resources • Zhanjiang Runhai Foods Co., Ltd • Zhanjiang Siyu Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Zhanjiang Universal Seafood Corp. • Zhanjiang Yueshui Fishery Co., Ltd. • Zhejiang Cereals Oils & Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp. Yueqing Cooperative Cold Storage Plant • Zhejiang Cereals, Oils & Foodstuff Import & Export Co., Ltd. • Zhejiang Daishan Baofa Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Zhejiang Dayang Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Zhejiang Evergreen Aquatic Pro • Zhejiang Evernew Seafood Co., Ltd. • Zhejiang Evernew Seafood Co., Ltd. Cold Storage Plant • Zhejiang Haizhiwei Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Zhejiang Iceman Foods • Zhejiang New Century Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. • Zhejiang New Century Imp. & Exp. Group Co. Ltd. Seafood Factory • Zhejiang Ocean Fisheries Group Ningbo Seafood Processing Co., Ltd. Corp Food Plant • Zhejiang Taizhou Haierbao Aquatic Products Co., Ltd • Zhejiang Tongxinrong Seafood Co., Ltd. • Zhejiang Xingyang Import & Exports • Zhejiang Xintianjiu Sea Products Co., Ltd. • Zhejiang Zhenglong Foodstuffs Co., Ltd • Zhejiang Zhongda • Zhejiang Zhoufu Food Co., Ltd • Zhejiang Zhoushan Haisilk Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Zhenjiang Evergreen Aquatic Products Science & Technology Co., Ltd. • Zhenye Aquatic & Cool Storage • Zhongshan Daisheng Frozen Food Company Ltd. • Zhongshan Fishery and Agricultural Products Freezing Factory Co., Ltd. • Zhongshan Metro Frozen Food Co., Ltd. • Zhoushan • Zhoushan Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Co., Ltd. • Zhoushan Changguo Foods Co., Ltd • Zhoushan City Shengtai Aquatic Co., Ltd. • Zhoushan Diciyuan Aquatic Products • Zhoushan Diciyuan Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Zhoushan Dinghai Hongxin Aquatic Products Coldstorage Plant • Zhoushan Gangming Foods Co., Ltd. • Zhoushan Guotai Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Zhoushan Guotai Fisheries Co., Ltd. • Zhoushan Haichang Food Co., Ltd. • Zhoushan Haizhou Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. Foods Processing Factory • Zhoushan Huading Seafood Co., Ltd • Zhoushan Industrial Co., Ltd. • Zhoushan Industrial Co., Ltd. Cold Storage Factory • Zhoushan Jingzhou Aquatic Foods Co., Ltd. • Zhoushan Jinyuan Aquatic Foods Co., Ltd. • Zhoushan Lizhou Fishery Co., Ltd. • Zhoushan Penglai Aquatic Co., Ltd. • Zhoushan Putuo Dongyu Frozen Aquatic Products Co., Ltd • Zhoushan Putuo Huafa Sea Products Co., Ltd. • Zhoushan Putuo Zhuohai Marine Products Co., Ltd. • Zhoushan Qiangren Imp & Exp • Zhoushan Thousand-Islands Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Zhoushan Toka Foods Co., Ltd. • Zhoushan Xifeng Aquatic Co., Ltd. • Zhoushan Yueyang Food Co., Ltd. • Zhoushan Zaohai Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. • Zhoushan Zhenyang Developing Co., Ltd. • ZJ CNF Sea Products Engineering Ltd. Viet Nhan Company 3 If one of the listed companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC that have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC-wide entity of which the named exporter is a part. 4 Some companies appear to be listed twice, but there are two addresses provided in the administrative review requests for similar named companies and therefore, we are listing them separately. 5 Domestic producers requested a review of Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Products Co., Ltd., a company that was excluded from the antidumping duty order. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 5149 (February 1, 2005). Since this company was excluded from the order, we are not initiating an administrative review for Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. 6 As the Department stated in *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 73 FR 6477 (February 4, 2008), “ for any party the Department was unable to locate in prior segments, the Department will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location.” Domestic producers requested an administrative review for five companies that the Department was unable to locate in prior segments. Therefore, the Department is not initiating an administrative review with respect to Formosa Plastics, Fuqing Chaohui Aquatic Food Co., Ltd., Round the Ocean Logistics, Seatrade International, and ZJ CNF Sea Products Engineering Ltd. NOTICE OF NO SHIPMENTS The companies on which we are initiating these reviews should notify the Department within 30 days of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** if they had no shipments of the merchandise under consideration during the POR. SEPARATE RATES In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department’s policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ *Sparklers* ”), as amplified by *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People’s Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2,1994) (“ *Silicon Carbide* ”). In accordance with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* government control over export activities. In order for exporters or producers to obtain separate rate status in NME administrative reviews, the Department requires parties to submit a separate-rate status application or certification. *See* Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations Involving Non-Market Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005), available on the Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. Due to the large number of firms requesting/being requested for an administrative review in these proceedings, the Department is requiring all firms listed above that wish to qualify for separate-rate status in these administrative reviews to complete, as appropriate, either a separate-rate status application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate-rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on the Department’s website at http://www.trade.gov/ia on the date of publication of this **Federal Register** . In responding to the certification, please follow the “Instructions for Filing the Certification” in the Separate Rate Certification. Separate Rate Certifications are due to the Department no later than April 27, 2008. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Certification applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers who purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States. For entities that have not previously been assigned a separate rate, to demonstrate eligibility for such, the Department requires a Separate Rate Status Application. The Separate Rate Status Application will be available on the Department’s website at http://www.trade.gov/ia on the date of publication of this **Federal Register** . In responding to the Separate Rate Status Application, refer to the instructions contained in the application. Separate Rate Status Applications are due to the Department no later than May 27, 2008. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate Status Application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States. SELECTION OF RESPONDENTS Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the subject merchandise. Where it is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act permits the Department to examine either
(1)a sample of exporters, producers or types of products that is statistically valid based on the information available at the time of selection; or
(2)exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of the subject merchandise from the exporting country that can be reasonably examined. Due to the large number of firms requested for an administrative review and the Department’s experience regarding the resulting administrative burden to review each company for which a request has been made, the Department is considering exercising its authority to limit the number of respondents selected for review using one of the two methods described above. For these administrative reviews, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review (“POR”). The Department intends to place the CBP data on the record of this proceeding on the date of publication of this notice. We intend to make our decisions regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this **Federal Register** notice. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and the selection of respondents within seven days of publication of this **Federal Register** notice. NOTIFICATION This notice constitutes public notification to all firms requested for review and seeking separate-rate status in the administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the PRC that they must submit a separate-rate status application or certification, as appropriate, within the time limits established in this notice of initiation of administrative reviews in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. The Department will not give consideration to any Separate Rate Certification or Separate Rate Status Application made by parties who fail to timely submit the requisite Separate Rate Certification or Application. All information submitted by respondents in these administrative reviews is subject to verification. To complete these segments within the statutory time frame, the Department will be limited in its ability to extend deadlines on the above submissions. As noted above, the Separate Rate Certification and the Separate Rate Status Application will be available on the Department’s website at http://www.trade.gov/ia on the date of publication of this notice. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department’s website at http://www.trade.gov/ia. This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: March 31, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-7206 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-549-502) Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, in response to a request from Allied Tube and Conduit Corporation and Wheatland Tube Company (collectively, petitioners). This review covers the period March 1, 2006 through February 28, 2007. We preliminarily determine that U.S. sales of subject merchandise have been made by Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd. below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the export price
(EP)and the NV. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. *See* the “Preliminary Results of Review” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 2008 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Myrna Lobo, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.; telephone:
(202)482-5255 OR
(202)482-2371, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 11, 1986, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand* . 51 FR 8341 (March 11, 1986). On March 2, 2007, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order covering the period March 1, 2006 through February 28, 2007. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* 72 FR 9505 (March 2, 2007). The petitioners filed a timely request for an administrative review of the antidumping order with respect to exports by Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd. (Saha Thai) during the period of review (POR). The Department published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on April 27, 2007. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 72 FR 92086. We received timely responses to our questionnaires on July 23, 2007, February 19, 2008, and March 5, 2008. The Department intends to request further clarification from Saha Thai on a few minor issues for which the information on the record of this administrative review is not completely clear. Scope of the Order The products covered by this antidumping order are certain welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The subject merchandise has an outside diameter of 0.375 inches or more, but not exceeding 16 inches. These products, which are commonly referred to in the industry as “standard pipe” or “structural tubing” are hereinafter designated as “pipes and tubes.” The merchandise is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085 and 7306.30.5090. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for the convenience and purposes of CBP, our written description of the scope is dispositive. Analysis Date of Sale Saha Thai reported contract date as the date of sale for U.S. sales. The Department considers invoice date to be the presumptive date of sale ( *see* section 351.401(i)) of the Department's regulations). For purposes of this review, we examined whether invoice date or another date better represents the date on which the material terms of sale were established. The Department examined sales documentation, including contracts and invoices, provided by Saha Thai for its U.S. sales and found that the material terms of sale are set on the contract date and that there are no changes outside the parameters set forth in the contract between contract date and invoice date. We preliminarily determine that contract date is the appropriate date of sale for U.S. sales in this administrative review because it better represents the date upon which the material terms of sale were established. This is consistent with the most recently completed administrative reviews of this order. *See CircularWelded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 54266 FR (September 14, 2006) ( *2004-2005 AR Final Results* ). In the home market, the date of invoice is when the material terms of sale are established. Therefore, we are using the invoice date as the date of sale for home market sales. Export Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), export price is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser prior to the date of importation. We classified all of Saha Thai's sales to its U.S. customers as EP sales because, as in previous segments of the proceeding, we found that Saha Thai is not affiliated with its distributors, which are the first purchasers in the United States. *See, e.g., 2004-2005 AR Final Results.* In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions from the gross unit price for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, foreign inland insurance, ocean freight, lighterage charges, bill of lading fees, U.S. brokerage and handling charges, and U.S. duties. Section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act states that EP should be increased by the amount of any import duties “imposed by the country of exportation which have been rebated, or which have not been collected by reason, of the exportation of the subject merchandise to the United States...” Saha Thai claimed an adjustment to EP for the amount of duties exempted on its imports of inputs into a bonded warehouse. In determining whether an adjustment should be made to EP for this exemption, we look for a reasonable link between the duties imposed and those rebated or exempted. We do not require that the imported input be traced directly from importation through exportation. We do require, however, that the company meet our “two-pronged” test in order for this addition to be made to EP. The first element is that the import duty and its rebate or exemption be directly linked to, and dependent upon, one another; the second element is that the company must demonstrate that there were sufficient imports of the imported material to account for the duty drawback or exemption granted for the export of the manufactured product. *See, e.g., 2004-2005 AR Final Results and Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 61649 (October 20, 2004); see also Mittal Steel USA Inc. v. United States* , Slip Op. 07-117 (CIT 2007); and *Rajinder Pipes Ltd. v. United States* , 70 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 (CIT 1999). For these preliminary results, we are not making an upward adjustment to export price for duty drawback or exemption, because Saha Thai has not clearly demonstrated how it met the second prong of our “two-pronged” test. While Saha Thai provided data regarding imports into its bonded warehouse, its questionnaire response did not demonstrate that this imported material was sufficient to account for the total of the import duties exempted for the export of the manufactured product. However, the Department intends to provide Saha Thai with an opportunity to explain why the documentation it has already provided satisfies the second prong of our “two-pronged” test and is sufficient to allow this adjustment for the final results of this review. Normal Value *Home Market Viability* : In accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act, to determine whether there was sufficient volume of sales in the home market and/or a third country market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared Saha Thai's volume of home market sales of foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the Act and section 351.404(b) of the Department's regulations, because the volume of Saha Thai's home market sales of foreign like product was greater than five percent of the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determine that the home market is viable. Therefore, we used home market sales as the basis for NV in accordance with section 773(a)(1). *Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test* : The Department's practice with respect to the use of home market sales to affiliated parties for NV is to determine whether such sales are at arm's-length prices. To examine whether home market sales were made at arm's length, we compared the starting price of sales to affiliated customers to the starting price of sales to unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and packing. Where the price to the affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the same or comparable merchandise to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated parties were at arm's length. *See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). In accordance with the Department's practice, in our margin analysis, we included only those sales to affiliated parties that were made at arm's length. Where the affiliated party transactions did not pass the arm's-length test, these sales were excluded from the NV calculation. For each affiliated reseller, we requested Saha Thai to report the first sale to an unaffiliated customer. When the affiliated reseller did not pass the arm's-length test, we included the sale by the affiliated reseller to the first unaffiliated customer in our margin analysis instead of the Saha Thai sales to the affiliated reseller that were not made at arm's-length. *COP Analysis* : In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, in this POR, there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Saha Thai had made home market sales at prices below its cost of production
(COP)because in the 2004-2005 administrative review (the most recently completed administrative review) there were sufficient Saha Thai sales that failed the cost test that the Department disregarded them in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. *See 2004-2005 AR Final Results* . In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of Saha Thai's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus administrative expenses, and interest expenses. We made some minor adjustments to Saha Thai's COP data as reported in its March 3, 2008 section D supplemental questionnaire response. For our complete analysis, *see* “Analysis Memorandum of Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd. for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand for the period 03/01/2006 through 02/28/2007,” ( *Preliminary Analysis Memorandum* ) dated concurrently with this notice. *Cost Test* : In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we compared the COP to the home market sales price (less any applicable movement charges and discounts) of the foreign like product on a product-specific basis in order to determine whether home market sales had been made at prices below COP. In determining whether to disregard sales below COP, the Department examined whether such sales were
(1)in substantial quantities and
(2)not at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the ordinary course of trade. In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product were at prices below the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product that were not made in “substantial quantities.” When 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product during the period of review were at prices less than COP, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C)of the Act, we determined such sales to have been made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time. In such cases, based on weighted-average costs in the cost reference period, we determined that these sales were made at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on this test, we disregarded sales below cost. *Home Market Price* : To calculate Saha Thai's home market net price, we deducted discounts, inland freight, and warehousing where appropriate. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and section 351.410(c) of the Department's regulations, we made a circumstance of sale adjustment for home market and U.S. credit expenses, as well as U.S. bank fees. In addition, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. In addition, where applicable, we made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to physical characteristics pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and section 351.410 of the Department's regulations. Level of Trade Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade
(LOT)as the EP. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sale in the comparison market, or when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP sales, we examine stages in the marketing and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects the price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at different levels of trade in the country in which NV is determined, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and under section 351.410(c) of the Department's regulations. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa* , 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997). For the U.S. market, Saha Thai reported only one LOT for its EP sales. For its home market sales, Saha Thai reported that its sales to unaffiliated customers were at the same level of trade as its U.S. sales. However, Saha Thai reported that, if the Department used the downstream sales of any of its affiliated resellers, these sales were made at a distinct level of trade, and Saha Thai's home market would consist of two levels of trade. For Saha Thai's sales made through affiliated resellers, we consider the relevant functions to be the selling functions of both the producer and the reseller (i.e., the cumulative selling functions along the chain of distribution) for purposes of comparing the selling activities related to each affiliate's sale with those related to the producer's sale to its unaffiliated customers. If the reseller performs selling functions that add substantial selling activity in making the sale, we may find that sales by the reseller are made at a different LOT than the sales made by the producer. Saha Thai provided information about the affiliated resellers' marketing and selling functions performed for its sales to unaffiliated customers. This information is sufficient to conduct an analysis of whether Saha Thai's sales in the home market were made at more than one LOT. For those affiliated resellers whose sales did not pass the arm's length test, we have analyzed the information that Saha Thai provided regarding the marketing and selling functions for both Saha Thai and the affiliated resellers. Based on this analysis, we have concluded that Saha Thai's home market sales were made at two distinct levels of trade: sales directly from Saha Thai to its unaffiliated customers and sales from Saha Thai through its affiliated resellers to unaffiliated customers. For our complete analysis, *see Preliminary Analysis Memorandum; see also Circular Welded Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 54266 (September 14, 2006). We also find that all U.S. sales are made at one LOT. Furthermore, we find that the U.S. sales are at the same LOT as Saha Thai's home market sales to unaffiliated customers. *See* “Level of Trade” section in the *Preliminary Analysis Memorandum* . Because we have preliminarily determined that there are two distinct levels of trade in the home market (LOT 1 and LOT 2) and that the LOT in the U.S. market matches LOT 1 in the home market, we examined whether an LOT adjustment is warranted for those U.S. sales for which there might not be a match in the home market at LOT 1. In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(ii) of the Act, such an adjustment is warranted when the difference in LOT is demonstrated to affect price comparability, based on a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at different levels of trade in the home market (the basis for NV). Our comparison of the prices at the two LOTs in the home market (the basis for NV) shows that there is a pattern of price differences and an LOT adjustment is warranted where there are no matches for U.S. sales at the same LOT in the home market. *See id* . Therefore, we made an LOT adjustment in instances when U.S. sales are being matched with home market sales at LOT 2. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions pursuant to section 351.415 of the Department's regulations based on rates certified by the Federal Reserve. Preliminary Results of Review Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent) Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd. 3.87 Assessment The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in accordance with section 351.212 of the Department's regulations. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions for Saha Thai directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). 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. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for any intermediate company involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, *see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 239254 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit rates will be effective with respect to all shipments of subject merchandise from Saha Thai entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)for Saha Thai, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior 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 subject merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer of the subject merchandise is a firm covered by this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate shall be the “all other” rate established in the LTFV investigated, which is 15.67 percent. These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Public Comment Pursuant to section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations, the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of publication of this notice. Pursuant to section 351.309 of the Department's regulations, interested parties may submit written comments in response to those preliminary results. Unless extended by the Department, case briefs are to be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, are to be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:
(1)statement of the issues; and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with section 351.303(f) of the Department's regulations. Also, pursuant to section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Parties will be notified of the time and location. The Department will publish the final results of the administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief, no later than 120 days after publication of the preliminary results, unless extended. *See* section 351.213(h) of the Department's regulations. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations 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. This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 31, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-7200 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-533-820) Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Extension of Time Limits for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy Zhang, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1168. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 2, 2007, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India, covering the period December 1, 2005, to November 30, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 72 FR 5005 (February 2, 2007). On December 31, 2007, the Department published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review for certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India. *See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 74267 (December 31, 2007). The final results of this review are currently due no later than April 29, 2008. Extension of Time Limit of Final Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue 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 that time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the final results to a maximum of 180 days. *See also* 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). We determine that it is not practicable to complete the final results of this review within the original time limit. Petitioners requested additional time to review the verification reports and submit case briefs. Accordingly, we amended the schedule for interested parties to submit case briefs and rebuttal briefs, which are now due on Friday, April 4, 2008, and Friday, April 11, 2008, respectively. The Department is extending the final results by 15 days, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, to allow sufficient time to analyze interested parties' case briefs and rebuttal briefs. The final results are now due no later than May 14, 2008. This extension is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: April 1, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-7201 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-552-801 Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 2008. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“Department”) has determined that two requests for new shipper reviews (“NSR”) of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets (“fish fillets”) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”), received on February 25, 2008, meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation. The period of review (“POR”) for these two NSR is August 1, 2007 January 31, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Walker, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: 202-482-0413. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The notice announcing the antidumping duty order on fish fillets from Vietnam was published in the **Federal Register** on August 12, 2003. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 68 FR 47909 (August 12, 2003). 1 On February 25, 2008, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(c), the Department received NSR requests from Asia Commerce Fisheries Joint Stock Company (“Acom”) and Hiep Thanh Seafood Joint Stock Company (“Hiep Thanh”). Both companies certified that they are the producers and exporters of the subject merchandise upon which the requests were based. 1 Therefore, a semi-annual request for a NSR, based on the annual anniversary month, August, was due to the Department by February 29, 2008. *See* 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1). On February 28, 2008, the Department requested that Acom and Hiep Thanh adequately summarize the proprietary information in their NSR requests or provide a clear explanation as to why the information is not capable of summarization. *See* the Department's February 28, 2008, letters to Acom and Hiep Thanh. In addition, on February 28, 2008, the Department requested a clarification of information contained within Hiep Thanh's NSR request. On February 29, 2008, Acom and Hiep Thanh submitted public versions which adequately summarized their proprietary information and provided explanations as to why certain proprietary information is not capable of summarization. Moreover, on March 3, 2008, Hiep Thanh clarified certain information contained within its NSR request. In addition, Hiep Thanh provided additional information on March 14, 2008. Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Acom and Hiep Thanh certified that they did not export fish fillets to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”). In addition, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Acom and Hiep Thanh certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, they have never been affiliated with any Vietnamese exporter or producer who exported fish fillets to the United States during the POI, including those not individually examined during the investigation. As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Acom and Hiep Thanh also certified that their export activities were not controlled by the central government of Vietnam. In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Acom and Hiep Thanh submitted documentation establishing the following:
(1)the dates on which Acom and Hiep Thanh first shipped fish fillets for export to the United States and the date on which the fish fillets were first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption;
(2)the volume of their first shipment; and
(3)the date of their first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. The Department conducted U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) database queries in an attempt to confirm that Acom and Hiep Thanh's shipments of subject merchandise had entered the United States for consumption and that liquidation of such entries had been properly suspended for antidumping duties. The Department also examined whether the CBP data confirmed that such entries were made during the NSR POR. The information we examined was consistent with that provided by Acom and Hiep Thanh. Initiation of New Shipper Reviews Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), the Department finds that Acom and Hiep Thanh meet the threshold requirements for initiation of a NSR for the shipments of fish fillets from Vietnam they produced and exported. *See* “Memorandum to File from Paul Walker, Senior Case Analyst, Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of AD New Shipper Review for Asia Commerce Fisheries Joint Stock Company,” (March 26, 2008): *see also* “Memorandum to File from Paul Walker, Senior Case Analyst, Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of AD New Shipper Review for Hiep Thanh Seafood Joint Stock Company,” (March 26, 2008). The Department intends to issue the preliminary results of these NSRs no later than 180 days from the date of initiation, and final results no later than 270 days from the date of initiation. *See* section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. On August 17, 2006, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (“H.R. 4”) was signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4 temporarily suspends the authority of the Department to instruct CBP to collect a bond or other security in lieu of a cash deposit in new shipper reviews. Therefore, the posting of a bond under section 751(a)(B)(iii) of the Act in lieu of a cash deposit is not available in this case. Importers of fish fillets from Vietnam manufactured and/or exported by Acom and Hiep Thanh must continue to post cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties on each entry of subject merchandise at the current Vietnam-wide rate of 63.88 percent. Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in this NSR should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: March 26, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-7218 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-351-838, A-331-802, A-533-840, A-549-822 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India and Thailand: Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“Department”) received timely requests to conduct administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (“shrimp”) from Brazil, Ecuador, India and Thailand. The anniversary month of these orders is February. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221, we are initiating these administrative reviews. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Johnson at
(202)482-4929 (Brazil), David Goldberger at
(202)482-4136 (Ecuador), Elizabeth Eastwood at
(202)482-3874 (India), and Irina Itkin at
(202)482-0656 (Thailand), AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department received timely requests from the petitioner 1 , the Louisiana Shrimp Association (“LSA”), and certain individual companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), during the anniversary month of February 2008, for administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, and Thailand. The Department is now initiating administrative reviews of these orders covering 43 companies for Brazil, 81 companies for Ecuador, 336 companies for India, and 165 companies for Thailand, as noted in the “Initiation of Reviews” section of this notice. 1 The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee. In accordance with the Department's recent statement in its notice of opportunity to request administrative reviews ( *see Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 73 FR 6477, 6478 (February 4, 2008)), we have not initiated administrative reviews with respect to those companies which the Department was unable to locate in prior segments and for which no new information as to the party's location was provided by the requestor. We have also not initiated administrative reviews with respect to those companies we previously determined to be duplicates or to no longer exist. See “Initiation of Reviews,” “Incomplete Requests for Review,” and “Requests for Review of Non-Existent Companies” sections of this notice for country-specific lists of the companies for which we did not initiate an administrative review. Initiation of Reviews In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), we are initiating administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India and Thailand. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews by February 28, 2009. BRAZIL Antidumping Duty Proceeding Period to be Reviewed Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp, A-351-838 2/1/07 - 1/31/08 Acarau Pesca Distr. de Pescado Imp. e Exp. Ltda. Amazonas Industria Alimenticias SA Aquacultura Fortaleza Aquafort SA Aquática Maricultura do Brasil Ltda. /Aquafeed do Brasil Ltda. - Note 1 Artico S/A Bramex Brasil Mercantil Ltda. Camanor - Produtos Marinhos Ltda. Cida Central de Ind. E Distribuicao de Alimentos Ltda.- Note 2 Compescal - Comércio de Pescado Aracatiense Ltda. Compex Industria E Comercio de Pesca E Exportacao Ltd. Dafruta Ind. & Comercio Empaf Empresa de Armazenagem Frigorifica Ltda./Maricultura Netuno SA - Note 3 Esperanca Pescados Intermarin Servicios Nauticos Ipesca ITA Fish - S.W.F. Importacao e Exportacao Ltda. ITA Fish Transp. Comercio Pesca J K Pesca Ltda. Leardini Pescados Ltda. Lusomar Maricultura Ltda. Maricultura Rio Grandense Maricultura Tropical Marine Maricultura do Nordeste SA - Note 4 MM Monteiro Pesca E Exportacao Ltda. Mucuripe Pesca Ltda., Epp. Natal Pesca Norte Pesca SA Orion Pesca Ltda. Pesqueira Maguary Ltda. - Note 5 Potiguar Alimentos do Mar Ltda. Potipora Aquacultura Ltda. Qualimar Comercio Importaçao E Exportacao Ltda. Santa Lavinia Comercio e Exportacio Ltda. Seafarm Criacao E Comercio de Produtos Aquaticos Ltda. Secom Aquicultura Comercio E Industria SA Silva Embarcacao SM Pescados Indústria Comrcio E Exportaç o Ltda. Note 6 Sohagro Marina do Nordeste SA Tecmares Maricultura Ltda. Terracor Tdg. Exp. E Imp. Ltda. Torquato Pontes Pescados SA Tropical Pesca Ltda. Valenca da Bahia Maricultura SA Note 1 - In the 2004-2006 administrative review, the Department found that Aquática Maricultura do Brasil Ltda. and Aquafeed do Brasil Ltda. comprised a single entity. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 52061, 52064 (Sept. 12, 2007) ( *Brazil Final Results AR1* ). Absent information to the contrary, we intend to continue to treat these companies as a single entity for purposes of the 2007-2008 administrative review. Note 2 - We received a request for an administrative review of Cida Central de Ind. e Distribuicao de Alimentos Ltda. and of Cida Central de Industria. The latter company name, which was accompanied by an incomplete address in the review request, was determined in the 2006-2007 administrative review to be a variation of the name Cida Central de Ind. e Distribuicao de Alimentos Ltda. *See Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India and Thailand* , 72 FR 17100, 17109 (Apr. 6, 2007) (2006-2007 Administrative Review Initiation Notice). Therefore, we are initiating the 2007-2008 administrative review only with respect to Cida Central de Ind. e Distribuicao de Alimentos Ltda. Note 3- We received a request for an administrative review of Empaf - Empresa de Armazenagem Frigorifica Ltda. (“Empaf”) and Maricultura Netuno S.A. (“Maricultura Netuno”). In the original investigation, we found that Empaf and Maricultura Netuno comprised a single entity. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil* , 69 FR 76910 (Dec. 23, 2004). In the 2006-2007 administrative review, we preliminarily determined that Netuno Alimentos S.A. is the successor in interest to Empaf. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 73 FR 12081 (Mar. 6, 2008). If the Department continues to make this finding in the final results of the 2006-2007 administrative review, we will rescind this review with respect to Empaf, and treat Netuno Alimentos S.A. and Maricultura Netuno as a single entity for purposes of the 2007-2008 administrative review, absent evidence to the contrary. Note 4 - We received requests for review of Marine Maricultura do Nordeste SA, and Marine Maricultura do Nordeste with two different addresses. In the 2004-2006 administrative review, we confirmed that Marine Maricultura do Nordeste SA is the correct company name, and that the company operated from two locations. *See Brazil Final Results AR1* , 72 FR at 52062. Therefore, we are initiating the 2007-2008 administrative review only with respect to Marine Maricultura do Nordeste SA. Note 5 - We received two review requests for Pesquira Maguary Ltda. with two different addresses. Information obtained in the 2006-2007 administrative review indicated that the two addresses apply to the same company. *See* Memorandum to the File entitled “Placement of Information from the 2006-2007 Administrative Review on the Record of the 2007-2008 Administrative Review,” dated March 31, 2008. Therefore, we have included this company only once for purposes of initiation of the 2007-2008 administrative review. Note 6 - We received two review requests for SM Pescados Industria Comercio E Exportacao Ltda, both with virtually the same address. Therefore, we are including this company only once for purposes of initiation of the 2007-2008 administrative review. ECUADOR Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp, A-331-802 2/1/07- 8/14/07 Agricola e Industrial Ecuaplantation SA ^ Agrol SA Alberto Xavier Mosquera Rosado Alquimia Marina SA Babychic SA Biolife SA Braistar Camaronera Jenn Briann Camarones Comar Cia Ltda. ^ Doblertel SA Dumary SA Dunci SA El Rosario Ersa SA Empacadora Bilbo SA (Bilbosa) Empacadora del Pacifico SA (EDPACIF SA)^ Empacadora Dufer Cia. Ltda. (DUFER) Empacadora Grupo Gran Mar (Empagran) SA^ Empacadora Nacional CA Empacadora y Exportadora Calvi Cia. Ltda. Emprede SA Estar CA Exporclam SA Exporklore SA Exportadora Bananera Noboa Exportadora de Productos de Mar (Produmar) Exportadora del Oceano (Oceanexa) CA Exportadora Langosmar SA Exportadora del Oceano Pacifico SA (OCEANPAC) Exports Langosmar SA Fortumar Ecuador SA Gambas del Pacifico SA Gondi SA Hector Canino Marty Hectorosa SA Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscila SA (Santa Priscila) Inepexa SA Jorge Luis Benitez Lopez^ Karpicorp SA Luis Loaiza Alvarez Mardex Cia. Ltda. Marine Marines CA Mariscos de Chupadores Chupamar Mariscos del Ecuador C. Ltda. (Marecuador) ^ Natural Select SA Negocios Industriales Real Nirsa SA (NIRSA) Novapesca SA Ocean Fish Oceaninvest SA Oceanmundo SA Oceanpro SA Operadora y Procesadora de Productos Marinos SA (Omarsa) Oyerly SA P.C. Seafood SA Pacfish SA^^ PCC Congelados & Frescos SA Pescazul SA Peslasa SA Phillips Seafoods of Ecuador CA (Phillips) Pisacua SA Procesadora del Rio SA (Proriosa) ^^ Productos Cultivados del Mar Proc. Productos Cultivados del Mar Proculmar Cia. Ltda. Productos del Mar Santa Rosa Cia. Ltda. (Promarosa) ^ Promarisco SA Propemar SA Provefrut Rommy Roxana Alvarez Anchundia Sea Pronto Hector Marty Canino (Sea Pronto) Sociedad Atlantico Pacifico SA Sociedad Nacional de Galapagos SA (SONGA) Soitgar SA Studmark SA Tecnica y Comercio de la Pesca CA (TECOPESCA) ^ Tolyp SA Trans Ocean Transcity SA Transmarina CA Transocean Ecuador SA Uniline Transport System ^ The petitioner's and/or respondents' requests for review included certain companies with similar names. For purposes of initiation, we have treated these companies as the same entity and initiated the review on the correct company names based on information obtained in the 2004-2006 or 2006-2007 administrative review. *See 2006-2007 Administrative Review Initiation Notice* , 72 FR at 17109, and Memorandum to the File entitled “Placement of Information from the 2006-2007 Administrative Review on the Record of the 2007-2008 Administrative Review,” dated March 31, 2008. ^^ The petitioner's requests for review included certain companies with the same or similar names but different addresses. For purposes of initiation, we have treated these companies as the same entity and initiated the review on the correct company names based on information obtained in the 2004-2006 or 2006-2007 administrative review. See 2006-2007 Administrative Review Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 17109, and Memorandum to the File entitled “Placement of Information from the 2006-2007 Administrative Review on the Record of the 2007-2008 Administrative Review,” dated March 31, 2008. INDIA Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp, A-533-840 2/1/07 - 1/31/08 Abad Fisheries Accelerated Freeze-Drying Co. A.S. Marine Industries Pvt. Ltd. Adani Exports Ltd Aditya Udyog Agri Marine Exports Ltd. AL Mustafa Exp & Imp Alapatt Marine Exports All Seas Marine P. Ltd. Allana Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. Allanasons Ltd. Alsa Marine & Harvests Ltd. Ameena Enterprises AMI Enterprises Amison Foods Ltd. Amison Seafoods Ltd. Amulya Sea Foods Anand Aqua Exports Ananda Aqua Exports
(P)Ltd. Ananda Foods Andaman Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. Angelique Intl Anjaneya Seafoods Anjani Marine Traders Apex Exports # Aqua Star Marine Foods Arsha Seafood Exports Pvt. Ltd. ASF Seafoods Asvini Exports Asvini Fisheries Limited ## / ###### Asvini Fisheries Private Limited ## Aswin Associates Ashwini Frozen Foods Avanti Feeds Limited Ayshwarya Seafood Private Limited Baby Marine (Eastern) Exports Baby Marine Exports Baby Marine International Baby Marine Products Baby Marine Sarass Balaji Seafood Exports I Ltd. Baraka Overseas Traders Bell Foods (Marine Division) Bharat Seafoods Bhatsons Aquatic Products Bhavani Seafoods Bhisti Exports Bijaya Marine Products Bilal Fish Suppliers Blue Water Foods & Exports P. Ltd. Bluefin Enterprises Bluepark Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. BMR Exports Britto Exports C P Aquaculture (India) Ltd. Calcutta Seafoods Calcutta Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. Capital Freezing Complex Capithan Exporting Co. Castlerock Fisheries Ltd. Cham Exports Ltd. Cham Ocean Treasures Co., Ltd. Cham Trading Organization Chand International Chemmeens
(Regd)Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div.) Choice Canning Company Choice Trading Corporation Pvt. Ltd. # Coastal Corporation Ltd. Cochin Frozen Food Exports Pvt. Ltd. Corlim Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. Coreline Exports Danda Fisheries Dariapur Aquatic Pvt. Ltd. Deepmala Marine Exports Devi Fisheries Limited Devi Marine Food Exports Private Limited ### Devi Sea Foods Limited Dhanamjaya Impex P. Ltd. Diamond Seafoods Exports ####### Digha Seafood Exports Dorothy Foods Edhayam Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. ####### El-Te Marine Products Esmario Export Enterprises Excel Ice Services/Chirag Int'l Exporter Coreline Exports Falcon Marine Exports Limited ###### Firoz & Company Five Star Marine Exports Private Limited Forstar Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. Freeze Engineering Industries (Pvt. Ltd.) Frigerio Conserva Allana Limited Frontline Exports Pvt. Ltd. G A Randerian Ltd. G.KS Business Associates Pvt. Ltd. Gadre Marine Exports Gajula Exim P. Ltd. Galaxy Maritech Exports P. Ltd. Gausia Cold Storage P. Ltd. Gayatri Seafoods Geo Aquatic Products
(P)Ltd. Geo Seafoods Global Sea Foods & Hotel Ltd. Goan Bounty Gold Farm Foods
(P)Ltd. Golden Star Cold Storage Gopal Seafoods Grandtrust Overseas
(P)Ltd. Gtc Global Ltd. GVR Exports Pvt. Ltd. HA & R Enterprises HIC ABF Special Foods Pvt. Ltd. Hanswati Exports P. Ltd. Haripriya Marine Export Pvt. Ltd. Hindustan Lever, Ltd. Hiravata Ice & Cold Storage Hiravati Exports Pvt. Ltd. Hiravati International Pvt. Ltd. # HMG Industries Ltd. Honest Frozen Food Company IFB Agro Industries Limited # India CMS Adani Exports India Seafoods Indian Aquatic Products Indian Seafood Corporation Indo Aquatics Innovative Foods Limited Interfish International Freezefish Exports InterSea Exports Corporation Interseas ITC Ltd. J R K Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. Jagadeesh Marine Exports Jaya Satya Marine Exports Jaya Satya Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. Jayalakshmi Sea Foods Private Limited Jinny Marine Traders Jiya Packagings K R M Marine Exports Ltd. K V Marine Exports # Kadalkanny Frozen Foods ####### Kader Exports Private Limited ### Kader Investment and Trading Company Private Limited ### Kalyanee Marine Kaushalya Aqua Marine Product Exports Pvt. Ltd. Kay Kay Exports Keshodwala Foods Key Foods King Fish Industries Kings Marine Products # Koluthara Exports Ltd. Konark Aquatics & Exports Pvt. Ltd. Konkan Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. L.G Seafoods Lakshmi Marine Products Lansea Foods Pvt. Ltd. Laxmi Narayan Exports Lewis Natural Foods Ltd. Liberty Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. Liberty Oil Mills Ltd. ### Libran Cold Storages
(P)Ltd. Lotus Sea Farms Lourde Exports M K Exports M. R. H. Trading Company Magnum Estate Private Limited Magnum Export Magnum Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. Malabar Arabian Fisheries Malabar Marine Exports) Malnad Exports Pvt. Ltd. Mamta Cold Storage Mangala Marine Exim India Private Ltd. ###### Mangala Sea Products Manufacturer Falcon Marine Exports Marina Marine Exports Marine Food Packers Meenaxi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Miki Exports International MSC Marine Exporters MTR Foods Mumbai Kamgar MGSM Ltd. N.C. Das & Company Naga Hanuman Fish Packers Naik Frozen Foods Naik Ice & Cold Storage Naik Seafoods Ltd. Nas Fisheries Pvt Ltd. National Seafoods Company National Steel National Steel & Agro Ind. Navayuga Exports Ltd. # / ###### Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited New Royal Frozen Foods NGR Aqua International Nila Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. Noble Aqua Pvt. Ltd. Nsil Exports Omsons Marines Ltd. Overseas Marine Export Padmaja Exports Partytime Ice Pvt Ltd. Penver Products
(P)Ltd. Philips Foods India Pvt Ltd. Pijikay International Exports P Ltd. Pisces Seafood International Premier Exports International Premier Marine Foods Premier Marine Products ### Premier Seafoods Exim
(P)Ltd. R. F. Exports R K Ice & Cold Storage Raa Systems Pvt. Ltd. Rahul Foods
(GOA)Rahul International Raj International Raju Exports Ramalmgeswara Proteins & Foods Ltd. Rameshwar Cold Storage Ram's Assorted Cold Storage Ltd. Raunaq Ice & Cold Storage Ravi Frozen Foods Ltd. Raysons Aquatics Pvt. Ltd. Razban Seafoods Ltd. RBT Exports Regent Marine Industries Relish Foods Riviera Exports Pvt. Ltd. Rohi Marine Private Ltd. Royal Cold Storage India P Ltd. # Royal Link Exports Rubian Exports Ruby Marine Foods Ruchi Worldwide RVR Marine Products Private Limited ###### S A Exports S Chanchala Combines S K Exports
(P)Ltd. SLS Exports Pvt. Ltd. S S International S & S Seafoods Sabri Food Products Safa Enterprises Sagar Foods Sagar Grandhi Exports Pvt. Ltd. Sagar Samrat Seafoods Sagarvihar Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. #### Sai Sea Foods Sai Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. # Sai Sea Foods a.k.a. Sai Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. Salet Seafoods Pvt Ltd. Samrat Middle East Exports
(P)Ltd. Sanchita Marine Products P Ltd Sandhya Aqua Exports Pvt. Ltd. Sandhya Aqua Exports Sandhya Marines Limited Santhi Fisheries & Exports Ltd. Sarveshwari Ice & Cold Storage P Ltd. Satya Seafoods Private Limited Satyam Marine Exports Sawant Food Products Sea Rose Marines
(P)Ltd. Seagold Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Sealand Fisheries Ltd. Seaperl Industries Selvam Exports Private Limited # Sharat Industries Ltd.###### Shimpo Exports Shipper Exporter National Steel Shippers Exports Shroff Processed Food & Cold ZStorage P Ltd. Siddiq Seafoods Silver Seafood Sita Marine Exports Skyfish Sonia Fisheries Sourab Sprint Exports Pvt. Ltd. ###### Sreevas Export Enterprises Sri Chandrakantha Marine Exports, Ltd. ######## Sri Sakkthi Cold Storage Sri Sakthi Marine Products P Ltd. Sri Satya Marine Exports Sri Sidhi Freezers & Exporters Pvt. Ltd. Sri Venkata Padmavathi Marine Foods Pvt. Ltd. SSF Ltd. Star Agro Marine Exports Private Limited Star Fish Exports Sterling Foods Sun Bio-Technology Ltd. Supreme Exports Surya Marine Exports ##### Suryamitra Exim
(P)Ltd. ##### Suvarna Rekha Exports Private Limited Suvarna Rekha Marines P Ltd. TBR Exports Pvt Ltd. Teekay Maine P. Ltd. The Canning Industries (Cochin) Ltd. The Waterbase Limited Theva & Company ####### Tejaswani Enterprises Tony Harris Seafoods Ltd. Tri Marine Foods Pvt. Ltd. Trinity Exports Tri-Tee Seafood Company Triveni Fisheries P Ltd. Ulka Seafoods
(P)Ltd. Uniroyal Marine Exports Ltd. Universal Cold Storage Private Limited ### / ###### Upasana Exports Usha Seafoods V Marine Exports V.S Exim Pvt Ltd. Vaibhav Sea Foods Varnita Cold Storage Veejay Impex Veraval Marines & Chemicals P Ltd. Victoria Marine & Agro Exports Ltd. Vijayalaxmi Seafoods Vinner Marine Vishal Exports Wellcome Fisheries Limited Winner Seafoods Z A. Food Products # We have received multiple review requests for companies with the same name but different addresses. For purposes of initiation, we have treated these companies as separate entities, pending resolution of the issue as to whether these comprise distinct entities (or whether they are multiple locations of the same entity). ## In the 2006-2007 administrative review, the Department preliminarily found that Asvini Fisheries Private Limited is the successor-in-interest to Asvini Fisheries Limited. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 73 FR 12103, 12105-06 (Mar. 6, 2008) (2006-2007 *Indian Shrimp Preliminary Results* ). If the Department continues to make this finding in the final results of the 2006-2007 administrative review, we will rescind this review with respect to Asvini Fisheries Limited. ### In the 2004-2006 administrative review, the Department found that the following companies comprised a single entity: Devi Marine Food Exports Private Limited, Kader Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, Kader Exports Private Limited, Liberty Frozen Foods Private Limited, Liberty Oil Mills Limited, Premier Marine Products, and Universal Cold Storage Private Limited. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 52055, 52058 (Sept. 12, 2007). Absent information to the contrary, we intend to continue to treat these companies as a single entity for purposes of this administrative review. #### In the 2004-2006 administrative review, Sagarvihar Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. informed the Department that it is now doing business as Indepesca Overseas Pvt. Ltd. However, in the course of that review, the petitioner withdrew its review request for Sagarvihar Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India; Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 41419, 41421 (July 21, 2006). Therefore, the Department will only include Sagarvihar Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. in this review (via its exports under the name Indepesca Overseas Pvt. Ltd.) if it determines that Indepesca Overseas Pvt. Ltd. is the successor in interest to this company. ##### In the 2006-2007 administrative review, the Department preliminarily found that Suryamitra Exim
(P)Ltd. is the successor-in-interest to Surya Marine Exports. *See 2006-2007 Indian Shrimp Preliminary Results* , 73 FR at 12106. If the Department continues to make this finding in the final results of the 2006-2007 administrative review, we will rescind this review with respect to Surya Marine Exports. ###### The petitioner's request for review included certain companies with similar names. For purposes of initiation, we have treated these companies as the same entity based on information obtained in the 2004-2006 or 2006-2007 administrative review. *See* the March 31, 2008, memorandum from Elizabeth Eastwood to the File entitled, “Placing Public Information from the 2004-2006 and 2007-2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews on the Record of the 2007-2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India.” For RVR Marine Products Private Limited, Sprint Exports Pvt. Ltd., and Universal Cold Storage Private Limited, see *Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India; Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 73 FR 6125, 6127 (Feb. 1, 2008) ( *Indian Shrimp Rescission FR* ). ####### In the 2006-2007 administrative review, the Department found that the following companies comprised a single entity: Diamond Seafoods Exports, Edhayam Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., Kadalkanny Frozen Foods, and Theva & Company. *See 2006-2007 Indian Shrimp Preliminary Results* , 73 FR at 12106. Absent information to the contrary, we intend to continue to treat these companies as a single entity for purposes of this administrative review. ######## The petitioner's request for review included the company Sri Chandrakantha Marine Exports, Ltd. For purposes of initiation, we have initiated a review on the correct company name ( *i.e.* , Sri Chandrakantha Marine Exports), but have not initiated a review on the duplicate name ( *i.e.* , Sri Chandrakantha Marine Exports, Ltd.) based on information on the record of this review. *See* the March 27, 2008, memorandum from Elizabeth Eastwood to the File entitled, “2007-2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Clarification of the Name and Address of Sri Chandrakantha Marine Exports.” THAILAND Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp, A-549-822 2/1/07 - 1/31/08 ACU Transport Co., Ltd. Andaman Seafood Co., Ltd.* Ampai Frozen Food Co., Ltd. Anglo-Siam Seafoods Co., Ltd. Applied DB Ind A.S. Intermarine Foods Co., Ltd. Asia Pacific (Thailand) Co., Ltd.*** Asian Seafoods Coldstorage Public Co., Ltd. Asian Seafoods Coldstorage (Suratthani) Co., Ltd. Assoc. Commercial Systems A. Wattanachai Frozen Products Co., Ltd. Bangkok Dehydrated Marine Product Co., Ltd. Bright Sea Co., Ltd. C P Mdse C Y Frozen Food Co., Ltd. Chaiwarut Co., Ltd. Chaivaree Marine Products Co., Ltd. Chanthaburi Seafoods Co., Ltd.*/****** Chanthaburi Frozen Food Co., Ltd.* Charoen Pokphand Foods Public Co., Ltd. Chonburi L C Chue Eie Mong Eak Ltd. Part. Core Seafood Processing Co., Ltd. Crystal Seafood Daedong (Thailand) Co. Ltd. Daiei Taigen (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Daiho (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Dynamic Intertransport Co., Ltd. Earth Food Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Euro-Asian International Seafoods Co., Ltd.* F.A.I.T. Corporation Limited Far East Cold Storage Co., Ltd. Findus (Thailand) Ltd. Fortune Frozen Foods (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Frozen Marine Products Co., Ltd. Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Gallant Ocean Seafood Corporation Good Fortune Cold Storage Co., Ltd. Good Luck Product Co., Ltd. Grobest Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. Gulf Coast Crab Intl H.A.M. International Co., Ltd. Haitai Seafood Co., Ltd. Heng Seafood Limited Partnership Heritrade Co., Ltd. HIC (Thailand) Co., Ltd. High Way International Co., Ltd. I.T. Foods Industries Co., Ltd. Inter-Oceanic Resources Co., Ltd. Inter-Pacific Marine Products Co., Ltd.******* Intersia Foods Co., Ltd. K .D. Trading Co., Ltd. K Fresh KF Foods K.L. Cold Storage Co., Ltd. Kiang Huat Sea Gull Trading Frozen Food Public Co., Ltd. Kingfisher Holdings Ltd. Kibun Trdg Klang Co., Ltd.******** Kitchens of the Ocean (Thailand) Ltd. Kongphop Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. Kosamut Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. Lee Heng Seafood Co., Ltd. Leo Transports Li-Thai Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. Lucky Union Foods Co., Ltd.******* Maersk Line MKF Interfood
(2004)Co., Ltd. Magnate & Syndicate Co., Ltd. Mahachai Food Processing Co., Ltd. Marine Gold Products Limited May Ao Co., Ltd. May Ao Foods Co., Ltd. Merkur Co., Ltd. Ming Chao Ind Thailand N&N Foods Co., Ltd. Namprik Maesri Ltd. Part. Narong Seafood Co., Ltd.***** Nongmon SMJ Products NR Instant Produce Co., Ltd. Ongkorn Cold Storage Co., Ltd. Pacific Queen Co., Ltd. Pakfood Public Company Limited*** Penta Impex Co., Ltd. Phattana Frozen Food Co., Ltd.* Phattana Seafood Co., Ltd.* Pinwood Nineteen Ninety Nine Piti Seafoods Co., Ltd. Premier Frozen Products Co., Ltd. Preserved Food Specialty Co., Ltd. Queen Marine Food Co., Ltd. Rayong Coldstorage
(1987)Co., Ltd. S&D Marine Products Co., Ltd. S&P Aquarium S&P Syndicate Public Company Ltd. S. Chaivaree Cold Storage Co., Ltd. S.C.C. Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd.* SCT Co., Ltd. S. Khonkaen Food Industry Public Co., Ltd.***** SMP Foods Products Co., Ltd.***** Samui Foods Company Limited Sea Bonanza Food Co., Ltd.***** Sea Wealth Frozen Food Co., Ltd. Seafoods Enterprise Co., Ltd. Seafresh Fisheries Seafresh Industry Public Co., Ltd. Search & Serve Shianlin Bangkok Co., Ltd. Siam Canadian Foods Co., Ltd. Siam Food Supply Co., Ltd. Siam Intersea Co., Ltd. Siam Marine Products Co. Ltd. Siam Ocean Frozen Foods Co. Ltd. Siam Union Frozen Foods Siamchai International Food Co., Ltd. Sky Fresh Co., Ltd. Smile Heart Foods Co. Ltd. Songkla Canning PCL Southport Seafood Star Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. STC Foodpak Ltd. Suntechthai Intertrading Co., Ltd. Surapon Foods Public Co., Ltd. Surapon Nichirei Foods Co., Ltd. Surapon Seafood Surat Seafoods Co., Ltd. Suratthani Marine Products Co., Ltd.****** Suree Interfoods Co., Ltd. T.S.F. Seafood Co., Ltd. Tanaya International Co., Ltd. Takzin Ssmut*** Teppitak Seafood Co., Ltd. Tey Seng Cold Storage Co., Ltd. Tep Kinsho Foods Co., Ltd. Thai-Ger Marine Co., Ltd. Thai Agri Foods Public Co., Ltd. Thai Excel Foods Co., Ltd. Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. Thai International Seafoods Co., Ltd.* Thai Mahachai Seafood Products Co., Ltd. Thai Ocean Venture Co., Ltd. Thai Patana Frozen Thai Prawn Culture Center Co., Ltd. Thai Royal Frozen Food Co. Ltd. Thai Spring Fish Co., Ltd. Thai Union Frozen Products Public Co., Ltd.**** Thai Union Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd.**** Thai World Imports & Exports Thai Yoo Ltd., Part. Thailand Fishery Cold Storage Public Co., Ltd.*/******* The Siam Union Frozen Food Co., Ltd. The Union Frozen Products Co., Ltd.******* Trang Seafood Products Public Co., Ltd. Transamut Food Co., Ltd. Tung Lieng Trdg United Cold Storage Co., Ltd. V Thai Food Product Wales & Co. Universe Ltd.* Wann Fisheries Co., Ltd. Xian-Ning Seafood Co., Ltd. Y2K Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.* Yeenin Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. YHS Singapore Pte ZAFCO TRDG * In the original investigation and the 2006-2007 administrative review of this proceeding, the Department found that the following companies comprised a single entity: Andaman Seafood Co., Ltd., Chanthaburi Seafood Co., Ltd., Chanthaburi Frozen Foods Co., Ltd., Euro-Asian International Seafoods Co., Ltd., Intersia Foods Co, Ltd. (formerly Y2K Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.), Phattana Frozen Food Co., Ltd., Phattana Seafood Co., Ltd., S.C.C. Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd., Thai International Seafoods Co., Ltd., Thailand Fishery Cold Storage Public Co., Ltd., and Wales & Co. Universe Ltd. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand* , 69 FR 76918, 76920 (Dec. 23, 2004) ( *Thai Shrimp Final LTFV Determination* ). Absent information to the contrary, we intend to continue to treat these companies as a single entity for purposes of this administrative review. *** In the 2004-2006 administrative review of this proceeding, the Department found that the following companies comprised a single entity: Pakfood Public Company Limited, Asia Pacific (Thailand) Co., Ltd. and Takzin Samut Company Limited. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 52065 (Sept. 12, 2007). Absent information to the contrary, we intend to continue to treat these companies as a single entity for purposes of this administrative review. **** In the 2006-2007 administrative review of this proceeding, the Department preliminarily found that the following companies comprised a single entity: Thai Union Frozen Products Co., Ltd. and Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 73 FR 12088 (Mar. 6, 2008) ( *Thai Shrimp 06-07 Prelim* ). If the Department makes a final determination that these companies comprise a single entity in the 2006-2007 administrative review, we will also treat these companies as a single entity for purposes of this administrative review, absent information to the contrary. ***** The petitioner's request for review included certain companies with identical/similar names but different addresses. For purposes of initiation, we have treated these companies as the same entity based on information obtained in the 2004-2006 administrative review. *See 2006-2007 Administrative Review Initiation Notice* , 72 FR at 17107. ****** The petitioner's request for review included certain companies with identical names but different addresses. For purposes of initiation, we have treated these companies as separate entities. ******* The petitioner's request for review included certain companies with duplicate names. We have initiated a review on the correct company names ( *i.e.* , Chanthaburi Seafoods Co., Ltd., Thailand Fishery Cold Storage Public Co., Ltd., Inter-Pacific Marine Products Co., Ltd., Lucky Union Foods Co., Ltd., and The Union Frozen Products Co., Ltd.), but have not initiated a review on the duplicate names ( *i.e.* , Chantaburi Seafood Co., Ltd., Fishery Cold Storage Public, International Pacific Marine Products, Lucky Union Foods, and Union Frozen Products) based on information obtained in the 2006-2007 administrative review and information on the record of this review. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand; Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 50931, 50932 (Sept. 5, 2007); *Thai Shrimp 06-07 Prelim* , 73 FR at 12090; and the March 21, 2008, memorandum from Irina Itkin to the File entitled, “2007-2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Clarification of Names and Addresses for Certain Companies for Which the Petitioners Requested a Review” (Thai Shrimp Clarification memo). ******** The petitioner's request for review included certain companies with identical names but different addresses. For purposes of initiation, we have treated these companies as the same entity based on information on the record of this proceeding. See the Thai Shrimp Clarification memo. Incomplete Requests for Review We have not initiated administrative reviews with respect to the companies listed below which the Department was unable to locate in prior segments and for which no new information as to the party's location was provided by the requestor. *See, e.g., 2006-2007 Administrative Review Initiation Notice* , 72 FR at 17110. BRAZIL Camexim Captura Mec Exports Imports ECUADOR Brimon SA INDIA AMI Food Products Atta Export Brilliant Exports Fernando Intercontinental Hanjar Ice and Cold Storage I Ahamed & Company KNR Marine Exports Nezami Rekha Sea Food Royal Cold Storage (India) Pvt. Ltd. S B Agro (India) Ltd. Sharon Exports Sheimar Seafoods Ltd. Sree Vaialakshrm Exports Swarna Seafoods Ltd. Wisdom Marine Exports THAILAND None. Requests for Review of Non-Existent Companies We have not initiated administrative reviews with respect to the companies listed below for India, which the Department determined in the 2006-2007 administrative review no longer exist. *See Indian Shrimp Rescission FR* , 73 FR at 6127. INDIA Coastal Trawlers, Ltd. Haripriya Marine Food Exports KRM Group Pronto Foods Pvt. Ltd. Saanthi Seafoods Ltd. Notice of No Sales The companies on which we are initiating this review should notify the Department within 30 days of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** if they had no shipments, entries, or sales of the merchandise under consideration during the POR. Selection of Respondents Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the subject merchandise. Where it is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise because of the large number of such companies, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act permits the Department to limit its examination to either:
(1)a sample of exporters, producers or types of products that is statistically valid based on the information available at the time of selection; or
(2)exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of subject merchandise from the exporting country that can be reasonably examined. Due to the large number of firms requested for these administrative reviews and the resulting administrative burden to review each company for which a request has been made, the Department is exercising its authority to limit the number of respondents selected for review. *See* section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. In selecting the respondents for individual review, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to release the CBP data under administrative protective order
(APO)to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of this **Federal Register** notice, and to make our decisions regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within 10 days of publication of this **Federal Register** notice. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department's website at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo.* This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: March 31, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-7222 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-549-817) Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In accordance with section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216(b), United States Steel Corporation (petitioner) filed a request for the Department of Commerce (the Department) to initiate a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from Thailand. Petitioner alleges that Sahaviriya Steel Industries Public Company Limited (SSI), a Thai hot-rolled steel producer previously revoked from the antidumping duty order, has resumed sales at prices below normal value (NV). Petitioner notes that SSI agreed in writing to reinstatement in the antidumping duty order if it was found to have resumed dumping, and contends that SSI violated this agreement by selling hot-rolled steel at less than NV in the United States subsequent to its revocation from the order. Therefore, petitioner requests that the Department reinstate the antidumping duty order with respect to SSI. The Department finds the information submitted by petitioner sufficient to warrant initiation of a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Thailand with respect to SSI. In this changed circumstances review, we will determine whether SSI sold hot-rolled steel at less than NV subsequent to its revocation from the order. If we determine in this changed circumstances review that SSI sold hot-rolled steel at less than NV and resumed dumping, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to suspend liquidation of all entries of hot-rolled steel manufactured and exported by SSI. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Bailey or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0193 and
(202)482-3019, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 29, 2001, the Department published the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Thailand. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Thailand* , 66 FR 59562 (November 29, 2001) ( *Hot-Rolled Steel Order* ). In November of 2004, in the course of the 2003 - 2004 administrative review, SSI requested revocation of the *Hot-Rolled Steel Order* with respect to its sales of subject merchandise. *See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Thailand; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke and Rescind in Part* , 70 FR 73197 (December 9, 2005). In its revocation request, SSI agreed to immediate reinstatement in the *Hot-Rolled Steel Order* , so long as any producer or reseller is subject to the order, should the Department determine that SSI “sold the subject merchandise at less than normal value.” *See* SSI's November 30, 2004, letter to the Department requesting revocation. On May 17, 2006, the Department revoked the antidumping duty order with respect to SSI after having determined that SSI sold the merchandise at not less than normal value for a period of at least three consecutive years. 1 *See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 28659 (May 17, 2006) (Revocation). 1 The three administrative reviews forming the basis of the revocation are: 1) the May 3, 2001, through October 31, 2002, review, *Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Thailand: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 19388 (April 13, 2004) (first administrative review); 2) the November 1, 2002 through October 31, 2003, review, *Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 18349 (April 7, 2004) (second administrative review); and 3) the November 1, 2003, through October 31, 2004, review, *Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 28659, (May 17, 2006). On November 8, 2006, petitioner submitted an allegation arguing that SSI has resumed dumping hot-rolled steel in the United States since revocation from the *Hot-Rolled Steel Order* , and requested a changed circumstances review. *See* Petitioner's November 8, 2006, letter to the Department. Petitioner requested that the Department reinstate the *Hot-Rolled Steel Order* with respect to SSI's exports to the United States of hot-rolled steel produced by SSI. Petitioner used constructed value
(CV)as normal value
(NV)claiming it could not find home market prices of hot-rolled steel for SSI. The Department requested additional information from petitioner on December 1, 2006, December 22, 2006, February 1, 2007, and December 11, 2007. Petitioner filed responses to the Department's request for additional information on December 5, 2006, January 12, 2007, February 26, 2007, and January 29, 2008, respectively. In its February 1, 2007, request for additional information, the Department requested that petitioner update its U.S., home market, and cost data for SSI for the period October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006. *See* the Department's February 1, 2007, request for additional information at question 1. In its February 26, 2007, response, petitioner updated its request by using the time period October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006, for its margin analysis as requested by the Department. Petitioner also utilized a Kim Eng Live (Kelive) Market Analysis report dated February 14, 2007, to value slab for use in CV because it could not find home market or third country prices for hot-rolled steel for the period October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006, to use as the basis for NV. *See* Exhibit 2, pages 1-4 of petitioner's February 26, 2007, submission. On May 11, 2007, the Department met with petitioner to discuss its request for a changed circumstances review for SSI. On September 27, 2007, petitioner submitted slab cost data for SSI from two sources independent of Kelive Market Analysis. On November 20, 2007, the Department released to parties information regarding its inquiries into petitioner's use of slab cost from a February 14, 2007, Kim Eng Live (Kelive) Market Analysis. *See* the Department's November 20, 2007, Memorandum to the File and accompanying email attachments. On December 11, 2007, the Department requested that petitioner update its changed circumstances review request to use more contemporaneous information for its margin analysis ( *i.e.* , July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007). Additionally, the Department requested that petitioner update its request for the October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006, period using the two sources of data provided in its September 27, 2007, submission to value steel slab. *See* the Department's December 11, 2007, request for additional information at question 1. In its January 29, 2008, response, petitioner updated its review request pursuant to the requests of the Department. On March 5, 2008, petitioner explained that it could not locate home market or third country prices for hot-rolled steel for the period July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, to use as the basis for NV. On January 17, 2007, February 22, 2007, and February 5, 2008, SSI submitted letters to the Department requesting that it be granted an Administrative Protective Order
(APO)in order to have access to proprietary information submitted by petitioner. On February 16, 2007, March 2, 2007, and February 14, 2008, respectively, the Department responded to these requests, explaining, in part, that the Department could not grant APO access pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 351.104(a) to SSI because a changed circumstances review had not been initiated. *See* the Department's February 16, 2007, March 2, 2007, and February 14, 2008, letters to SSI. On December 12, 2006, January 4, 2007, January 17, 2007, March 7, 2007, March 28, 2007, April 5, 2007, April 10, 2007, November 28, 2007, February 12, 2008, and March 21, 2008, SSI filed letters contesting petitioner's request for a changed circumstances review. SSI asserts that section 751(b) of the Act, the statutory provision governing changed circumstance reviews, does not cover reinstatement of a revoked company into an antidumping duty order. SSI argues that a changed circumstances review of affirmative dumping or injury determinations is allowed, but that the statute does not mention the reinstatement of a previously revoked company. SSI maintains that once an antidumping duty order is revoked, whether in whole or in part, the underlying injury and dumping determinations no longer apply to the merchandise that has been revoked, and that the Department relinquishes jurisdiction over the merchandise covered. SSI argues that section 751(b) of the Act grants authority to the Department and the International Trade Commission
(ITC)to conduct changed circumstance reviews of a final affirmative determination that resulted in an antidumping duty order provided there are sufficient changed circumstances to warrant a review of such determination. Citing 19 USC 1673, SSI argues that the only two affirmative final determinations that result in an antidumping order are:
(1)a final dumping determination by the Department in a less-than-fair value investigation, and
(2)a final injury determination by the ITC. SSI contends that the statute does not grant authority to the Department to review a determination to revoke an order, in addition to a final affirmative determination that resulted in an order. SSI further argues that section 751(d)(1) of the Act is the only other section of the statute referencing section 751(b), but that it too fails to mention reinstatement of an order. SSI argues that the Court of International Trade's (CIT's) decision in *Asahi Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. v. United States* , 727 F. Supp. 625 (CIT 1989) ( *Asahi* ), prevents the Department from reinstating an order against merchandise that was previously revoked. SSI contends that the CIT in *Asahi* determined that revocation of the order renders the order non-operative and that it cannot be reinstated because of the necessity of an ITC injury finding to accompany the dumping determination by the Department. *See Asahi* , 727 F. Supp at 628. SSI contends that the Department regulation in affect now is essentially the same regulation in affect at the time of *Asahi* , in that both regulations require immediate reinstatement of the order if it resumes dumping. SSI further contends that the CIT determined that the Department may not condition a party's exclusion from an antidumping duty order on its agreement to be brought within the order, as only the statute provides the authority to impose duties. *See Chang Tieh Ind. Co. V. United States* , 850 F. Supp. 141, 149 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1993). SSI maintains that in previous cases, rather than reinstating the original antidumping duty order with respect to revoked companies, the Department initiated a new investigation against the companies in question. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Orange Juice from Brazil* , 71 FR 2183 (January 13, 2006) ( *Orange Juice from Brazil* ), and *Final Determination; Antidumping Duty Investigation of Pads for Woodwind Instruments from Italy Manufactured by Music Center s.n.c. di Luciano Pisoni and Luciem s.n.c. di Danilo Pisoni & C.* , 58 FR 42295 (August 9, 1993). SSI argues that the Department's regulations do not specify the circumstances under which it will consider reinstatement, nor the type of investigation that will precede reinstatement. SSI contends that the new regulation, similar to the regulation in effect at the time of the *Asahi* case, remains silent on the interrelationship between reinstatement and the existing framework for imposing duties and that the problems raised in *Asahi* still exist in the current “reinstatement” regulations. SSI argues that since the statute does not address reinstatement of a company into an antidumping duty order, as a matter of law, the only way SSI's exports may be subject to antidumping duties would be if the Department initiated a new investigation that leads to an antidumping determination by the Department and an injury determination by the ITC. SSI contends that, should the Department determine that it possesses the legal authority to conduct a changed circumstances review, it must impose a rigorous evidentiary standard. SSI argues that the statute and regulations require the Department to find that the request “shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review,” and “whether the continued application of the antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to offset dumping”; *i.e.* , the Department must find proof that the company involved is engaging in a pattern of dumping and that dumping is likely in the future. Additionally, in its January 4, 2007, comments, SSI argues that the Department's regulations require a party to certify that it will not dump after revocation of the antidumping duty order. SSI notes that revocation occurred with the publication of the revocation notice in the **Federal Register** on May 17, 2006, five months after the December 2005 shipment listed in petitioner's November 8, 2006, and revised February 26, 2007, submissions. Therefore, SSI argues that it is not bound by the certification as it did not apply to the sale in question. SSI further notes that the preliminary decision was made after the sale in question was shipped and had no affect on SSI's decision to sell in the United States. SSI argues that the CIT's decision in *Sebacic Acid from China* (USITC 3775 May 2005) does not support petitioner because the case sunsetted immediately following the final results and was never tested in court. SSI also contends that in *Silicon Metal from Brazil* , the Department postponed initiating a changed circumstances review in order to allow the case to sunset. *See Silicon Metal from Brazil: Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order* , 71 FR 76635 (December 21, 2006) ( *Silicon Metal from Brazil* ). SSI also maintains that the Department has passed the 45-day deadline mandated in the regulations for initiating a changed circumstances review and therefore cannot do so now. SSI further contends that the Department could have reversed its decision in the preliminary results that led to the revocation, resulting in the December 2005 sale being reviewed in a subsequent review process and not escaping review as petitioner claims. SSI explains that if the Department had denied SSI's revocation request for the final results of the 03-04 administrative review, and in turn conducted an administrative review for the 04-05 period for SSI, the December 2005 entry would have been captured in the review process. In its January 17, 2007 comments, SSI argues that the plain language of the statute refers to a party certifying not to dump after the revocation, with no mention of dumping after the effective date of revocation. SSI notes that the statute speaks to the facts of the case as they existed at the time of sale, not at time of the revocation, which occurred in May of 2006. Rebuttal Comments On December 21, 2006, January 12, 2007, March 23, 2007, April 2, 2007, and April 9, 2007, petitioner filed rebuttal comments to SSI's comments. Petitioner argues that in *Sebacic Acid from China* , the Department rejected arguments similar to SSI's contentions regarding the Department's legal authority to reinstate the order. *See Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review and Reinstatement of the Antidumping Duty Order* , 70 FR 16218 (March 30, 2005) ( *Sebacic Acid from China* ). Petitioner also argues that SSI's contention, that the Department impose a rigorous evidentiary standard for initiation for a changed circumstances review, is incorrect. Petitioner claims that the Department should not impose a higher standard for a respondent with a prior history of dumping than it would for a respondent without a prior history of dumping. Petitioner maintains that the standard for initiation of a changed circumstances review should be lower than that for an investigation. However, regardless of the standard, petitioner claims that it has demonstrated that SSI has resumed dumping. Petitioner argues that SSI's claim, that reinstatement of an order requires petitioner to establish that the reinstatement be necessary to “otherwise offset dumping,” is incorrect. Petitioner maintains that the requirement of “otherwise necessary to offset dumping” only appears as a caveat in the Department's regulations regarding partial revocation of an antidumping duty order, with no similar requirement in an initiation for a changed circumstances review. Allegation of Resumed Dumping On December 1, 2006, the Department sent a letter to petitioner requesting additional information concerning the U.S., home market, and cost data provided by petitioner in its November 8, 2006, submission. Petitioner provided its response on December 5, 2006. On December 22, 2006, the Department requested additional information from petitioner concerning its submissions of November 8, 2006, and December 5, 2006. Petitioner submitted its response to our second request for additional information on January 12, 2007. Initially, the Department instructed petitioner to base its allegation on sales and cost information for the period October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006, which petitioner did in its February 26, 2007, submission. Finally, on December 11, 2007, the Department instructed petitioner to base its allegation on sales and cost information for the period July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007 ( *i.e.* , the POR), which petitioner did in its January 29, 2008, response. In its January 29, 2008, submission, petitioner provided price quotes concerning SSI's sales activity in the U.S. and cost information for its NV
(CV)calculation, and argued that SSI had sold hot-rolled steel at less than NV during the period July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007. The allegation of resumed dumping upon which the Department has based its decision to initiate a changed circumstances review is detailed below. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to NV and U.S. price are discussed in greater detail in the *Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist* dated concurrently with this notice. Should the need arise to use any of this information as facts available under section 776 of the Act, we may reexamine the information and revise the margin calculation, if appropriate. 1. Export Price
(EP)Petitioner based its calculation of U.S. price upon import statistics obtained from the United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census IM-145 import data for 14 different HTS numbers of hot-rolled steel commonly sold in the United States, depending on the source and the time period used. *See* Attachment II of the *Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist* , dated March 21, 2008, for the margin ranges. Petitioner obtained and compared bill of lading summaries from Trade Intelligence PIERS, which is specific to SSI, with quantities from IM-145 data in order to isolate those specific shipments of subject merchandise from SSI. Petitioner divided the entered value by the reported quantity and made no adjustments. 2. Normal Value Normal Value
(NV)The petitioner was unable to obtain SSI's home market or third country prices for the proposed 05-06 and 06-07 PORs. *See* petitioner's February 26, 2007, and March 5, 2008, submissions. Therefore, the petitioner based normal value for sales made by SSI in the United States during the proposed PORs on CV. 3. Constructed Value Price-to-Constructed Value Comparisons Because petitioner could not obtain home market or third country pricing information for SSI, petitioner calculated normal value based on a constructed value and provided a comparison of U.S. price to CV. *See* Exhibit 2 pages 1-4 of petitioner's February 26, 2007, submission for the 05-06 period and pages 2-5 of petitioner's March 5, 2008, submission for the 06-07 period. Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM), selling, general, and administrative (SG&A), financial expenses, packing expenses, and profit. Petitioner calculated COM based on its own production experience, adjusted for known differences between costs incurred to produce hot-rolled carbon steel flat products in the United States and in Thailand. Petitioner calculated the COM as the sum of raw materials, direct labor, electricity, natural gas, manufacturing overhead, and depreciation expenses. To calculate SG&A, petitioner relied upon the amounts reported in SSI's 2006 calendar year unconsolidated financial statements. To calculate interest expense, petitioner relied upon the amounts reported in the 2006 calendar year consolidated financial statements of SSI. For packing cost, petitioner did not include any amount. Consistent with section 773(e)(2) of the Act, petitioner included in CV an amount for profit. For profit, petitioner relied upon the amounts reported in SSI's 2006 calendar year unconsolidated financial statements. *See* the Initiation Checklist. 4. Alleged Margins of Dumping Based upon the information summarized above, petitioner argues that SSI has resumed dumping hot-rolled steel. Depending upon the HTS number of the hot-rolled steel, petitioner estimates margins of 2.91 percent to 19.64 percent using the first source of data provided by petitioner, and 2.00 percent to 23.89 percent using the second source of data provided by petitioner, for the 05-06 period. Estimated dumping margins range from 0.60 percent to 26.24 percent using the first source of data provided by petitioner, and 0.78 percent to 28.22 percent for the second source of data provided by petitioner, for the 06-07 period. *See Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist* , dated March 21, 2008, for the first and second sources of data used to value SSI's steel slab. Scope of the Review For purposes of this review, the products covered are certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate ( *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 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this review. Specifically included within the scope of this review are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy
(HSLA)steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. Steel products to be included in the scope of this review, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products in which: i) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; ii) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and iii) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this review unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of this review: - Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, *e.g.* , American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM)specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506). - of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron & Steel Institute
(AISI)grades of series 2300 and higher. - Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS. - Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS. - Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent. - ASTM specifications A710 and A736. - USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500). - All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507). - Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTSUS. The merchandise subject to this review is currently classified in the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products covered by this review, including: vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and CBP purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive. Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review We find petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to initiate a changed circumstances review in which we will determine whether SSI has resumed dumping sufficient to warrant reinstatement within the order of hot-rolled steel from Thailand. * See Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist * , dated March 21, 2008. SSI argues that in *Asahi* the CIT ruled that the Department is not permitted by the statute to reinstate a revoked order without a new injury finding by the ITC. SSI also contends that the Department has no authority to reinstate a revoked order, and has further argued that the statutory provision governing changed circumstance reviews does not cover an attempt to reinstate a revoked company into an antidumping duty order. For the reasons outlined below, we disagree with SSI. Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act, the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of a request “from an interested party for review of an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order.” Petitioner's allegation, with supporting documentation, that SSI has resumed dumping hot-rolled steel subsequent to its revocation from the order is an appropriate basis for a changed circumstances review. The Department's authority to reinstate a revoked company into an antidumping duty order derives from sections 751(b) and
(d)of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(b) and (e). In particular, the Department's authority to partially revoke an order is expressed in section 751(d) of the Act. The statute, however, provides no detailed description of the criteria, procedures or conditions relating to the Department's exercise of this authority. Accordingly, the Department has issued regulations setting forth in detail how the Department will exercise the authority granted to it under the statute. In particular, the Department has reasonably interpreted the authority to partially revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to a particular company it finds to be no longer dumping to include the authority to impose a condition that the partial revocation may be withdrawn ( *i.e.* , the company may be reinstated) if dumping is resumed during a time in which an antidumping order continues to exist. To interpret the statute otherwise would permit the Department to abdicate its responsibility to ensure that injurious dumping is remedied by imposition of offsetting antidumping duties. Therefore, our determination to conduct this changed circumstances review to determine whether SSI should be reinstated under the *Hot-Rolled Steel Order* is supported by the statute and regulations. Additionally, as noted by the petitioner, conducting a changed circumstances review pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act to determine whether to reinstate a company previously revoked from an antidumping duty order is consistent with the agency's practice. *See Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Reinstatement of the Antidumping Order* , 70 FR 16218 (March 30, 2005). Moreover, we find that SSI's reliance on *Asahi* , to support its assertion that the Department lacks legal authority to reinstate a company in an antidumping duty order, is misplaced. The CIT in *Asahi* was reviewing an earlier regulation (19 CFR 353.54(e)(1988)), which stated: Before the Secretary may tentatively revoke a Finding or an Order or terminate a suspended investigation pursuant to paragraph
(a)of this section, the parties who are subject to the revocation or the termination must agree in writing to an immediate suspension of liquidation and reinstatement of the Finding or Order or continuation of the investigation, as appropriate, if circumstances which indicate that the merchandise thereafter imported into the United States is being sold at less than fair value. Opportunity for interested parties to present views with respect to the tentative revocation will be provided. 19 CFR 353.54(e)(1988). The CIT in *Asahi* acknowledged that the purpose of the 1988 regulation was to discourage the resumption of dumping after revocation, and that there were policy concerns about having to undertake an entirely new investigation. *See Asahi* , 727 F. Supp. at 628. The CIT found that the old regulation was so ambiguous as to make the standard of reinstatement conjectural. *Id* . However, the CIT did not address whether reinstatement could be accomplished through an amendment to 19 CFR 353.54, or through a new regulatory provision. *Id* . We find that our current regulation governing reinstatement (as did the earlier 1988 regulation) addresses the concerns enumerated by the CIT in *Asahi* . This regulation places exporters and producers which the Department has previously found to be dumping on notice that they are subject to immediate reinstatement once they are revoked from an order, if the Secretary later concludes they have resumed dumping. 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i)(B) and (e). Indeed, revoked companies agree in writing to immediate reinstatement upon a finding of resumed dumping. 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i)(B) and 351.222(e)(1). The present regulation makes clear that reinstatement can only occur as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order. Several other companies remain subject to the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Thailand. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 72 FR 73315 (December 27, 2007). Thus, the ITC's determination that subject merchandise sold at less than NV is injurious to the domestic industry continues to support application of antidumping duties to subject merchandise sold at less than NV. *See Hot-Rolled Steel Order* . Moreover, any guidance provided by *Asahi* must be read in light of general principles of administrative law. One such basic principle of administrative law is that an administering agency must abide by its own rules to safeguard expectations. Thus, section 351.222(b)(2)(i)(B) of the Department's regulations suggests that a partial revocation determination is not a dispositive administrative pronouncement. Such a conclusion logically follows from the terms of the regulation, which directs the Department to rescind its partial revocation determination and to reinstate the revoked company under the existing antidumping duty order. In the instant case, the order on hot-rolled steel from Thailand has not been revoked. The Department's partial revocation with respect to SSI was expressly conditioned upon the possibility of reinstatement should dumping resume. The Department's regulation is reasonable because it imposes a reasonable condition upon partial revocation which is limited to circumstances under which the statute authorizes the Department to impose antidumping duties to remedy injurious dumping of subject merchandise. SSI's claim that the Department's reinstatement regulation has no statutory authority is without merit. Specifically, SSI implies that the Act requires an injury determination by the ITC prior to the imposition of an order, and that, because the order on hot-rolled steel from Thailand has been partially revoked as to SSI, a new petition must be filed with respect to SSI, and separate affirmative determinations must be made by the ITC and the Department concerning injury and dumping. We disagree. In the instant case, the Department made its final determination of dumping and the ITC made its final injury determination. *See Hot-Rolled Steel Order* . Additionally, the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Thailand remains in place. Therefore, the ITC has found that dumping of hot-rolled steel from Thailand causes material injury to the domestic industry; that finding was undisturbed by the partial revocation of SSI. Further, that revocation was premised on the absence of dumping rather than the absence of injury and was expressly conditioned on the possibility of reinstatement should dumping resume. The partial revocation of the order with respect to SSI did not nullify the validity of the underlying injury and less than fair value determinations that resulted in the issuance of an antidumping duty order which remains in force, particularly when the partial revocation is the result of behavior subsequent to those earlier determinations. The ITC's injury determination, furthermore, does not examine the injury caused by discrete companies, but rather the injury caused by all dumped exports originating in a particular exporting country. Even if one or more exporters in that country may have been revoked from the order on the basis of absence of dumping, all dumped exports of subject merchandise from that country continue to cause or threaten material injury, pursuant to the ITC's affirmative injury determination. Thus, unless all exporters are revoked from the order, the order continues to exist, as does the potential for reinstatement. SSI itself agreed to such a reinstatement as a condition of its partial revocation, if the Department were to conclude that it has sold the merchandise at below NV. Specifically, SSI filed a certification from a company official pursuant to the Department's regulations that it agreed to the immediate reinstatement in the order, so long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Secretary concludes that, subsequent to the revocation, it sold hot-rolled steel at less than NV. Thus, a new injury finding specific to SSI is neither necessary nor appropriate for reinstatement pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(h)(2)(i)(B). The standard for initiation of a changed circumstances review under 751(b) of the Act is whether a request from an interested party for a review of a final affirmative determination that resulted in an antidumping duty order, a suspension agreement, or a final affirmative determination shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of such determination or agreement. The information submitted by petitioner in its letters of November 8, 2006, December 5, 2006, January 12, 2007, and February 26, 2007, September 27, 2007, and January 29, 2008, concerning SSI's COP and U.S. sales activity, suggest SSI may have resumed dumping subsequent to SSI's revocation from the order. Depending on the source of data used to value SSI's steel slab prices, petitioner alleges underselling of hot-rolled steel by SSI in the United States at prices between 2.00 and 23.89 percent below NV during the 05-06 period, and 0.60 percent and 28.22 percent below NV during the 06-07 period. The Department finds that the petitioner's changed circumstances request, which suggests a resumption of dumping, satisfies that standard for initiating. Based on the foregoing, we find that petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to initiate a changed circumstances review to examine SSI's pricing and determine whether SSI has resumed dumping sufficient to reinstate the company within the order of hot-rolled steel from Thailand. For purposes of this initiation, the evidence provided by petitioner indicates that SSI may have resumed dumping in not just one, but two periods. This evidence further supports the Department's determination to initiate a review to determine whether in fact SSI has resumed dumping. Period of Changed Circumstances Review The Department expects to request data from SSI for the July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007 period in order to determine whether SSI has resumed dumping sufficient to warrant reinstatement within the order of hot-rolled steel from Thailand. Public Comment The Department will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of preliminary results of changed circumstances review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 351.221(c)(3)(i), which will set forth the Department's preliminary factual and legal conclusions. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. The Department will issue its final results of review in accordance with the time limits set forth in 19 CFR 351.216(e). This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b) of the Department's regulations. Dated: March 28, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-7204 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION (C-580-851) Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Subler at
(202)482-0189 or David Neubacher at
(202)482-5823; AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 25, 2007, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the countervailing duty order on dynamic random access memory semiconductors from the Republic of Korea, covering the period January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 72 FR 54428 (September 25, 2007). On December 14, 2007, the petitioner alleged that Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., received new subsidies. Statutory Time Limits Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) to issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and the final results of review within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results This administrative review is extraordinarily complicated due to the complexity of the countervailable subsidy practices found in the investigation and the new subsidy allegations. Because the Department requires additional time to review, analyze, and possibly verify the information, and to issue supplemental questionnaires, if necessary, it is not practicable to complete this review within the originally anticipated time limit ( *i.e.* , by May 2, 2008). Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results by 90 days to not later than July 31, 2008, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 31, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-7212 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-570-851) Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People(s Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 2008. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) has received a request from Zhangzhou Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Golden Banyan”), 1 a producer and exporter of preserved mushrooms, to conduct a new shipper review (“NSR”) of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”). Since this request meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation, the Department is initiating a NSR of Golden Banyan, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(d). 1 Zhangzhou Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Industrial Co., Ltd., has applied to the Zhangzhou Municipal Industrial and Commercial Administrative Bureau (“Commercial Administrative Bureau”) to change its name to Fujian Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Industrial Co., Ltd. On December 21, 2007, the Commercial Administrative Bureau granted Golden Banyan advanced approval for the company’s requested name change. However, Golden Banyan is still waiting for the name change to apply to the company’s business license and certificate of approval. Accordingly, Golden Banyan submitted its request for a new shipper review under both the company’s current and pending corporate names. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Higgins; AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0679. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 19, 1999, the Department published the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC. *See Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People(s Republic of China* , 64 FR 8308 (February 19, 1999). Thus, the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC has a February anniversary month. The Department received a request for a NSR from Golden Banyan on February 29, 2008, which is during the annual anniversary month. Golden Banyan identified itself as a producer and exporter of preserved mushrooms. Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Golden Banyan certified that it did not export preserved mushrooms to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”). Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Golden Banyan also certified that it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer that exported preserved mushrooms to the United States during the POI. Furthermore, the company also certified that its export activities are not controlled by the government of the PRC, satisfying the requirement of 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Golden Banyan submitted documentation establishing the date on which the subject merchandise was first entered for consumption in the United States, the volume of that first shipment and any subsequent shipments, and the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. The Department queried the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) entry database, which confirmed that Golden Banyan had officially entered subject merchandise into the United States via assignment of an entry date in the Customs database by CBP. The Department issued Golden Banyan a supplemental questionnaire, focused on inconsistencies we observed between information supplied in Golden Banyan’s NSR request and the CBP data, on March 11, 2008. On March 20, 2008, the Department received a timely response from Golden Banyan to the supplemental questionnaire. We note that although Golden Banyan submitted documentation regarding the volume of its shipment and the date of their first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States, our customs query shows that Golden Banyan’s shipment entered the United States shortly after the anniversary month. Under 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii), when the sale of the subject merchandise occurs within the period of review (“POR”), but the entry occurs after the normal POR, the POR may be extended unless it would be likely to prevent the completion of the review within the time limits set by the Department’s regulations. The preamble to the Department’s regulations states that both the entry and the sale should occur during the POR, and that under “appropriate” circumstances the Department has the flexibility to extend the POR. *See* Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27319-27320 (May 19, 1997). In this instance, Golden Banyan’s shipment entered a few days into the month following the end of the POR. The Department does not find that this delay prevents the completion of the review within the time limits set by the Department’s regulations. Initiation of Review Based on the information on the record, and in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we have determined that Golden Banyan has met the statutory and regulatory requirements for the initiation of a NSR. Therefore, we are initiating a NSR for Golden Banyan. See Memorandum to the File, from Shawn Higgins, International Trade Compliance Analyst, through Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, Office 4, AD/CVD Operations, “Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People(s Republic of China,” dated March 31, 2008. We intend to issue the preliminary results of this review not later than 180 days after the date on which this review is initiated, and the final results of this review within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results are issued. *See* section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act; 19 CFR 351.214(h)(i). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(A), the POR for a NSR initiated in the month immediately following the anniversary month will be the twelve-month period immediately preceding the anniversary month. As discussed above, under 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii), when the sale of the subject merchandise occurs within the POR, but the entry occurs after the normal POR, the POR may be extended. Therefore, the POR for the NSR of Golden Banyan is February 1, 2007, through February 29, 2008. In cases involving non-market economies, the Department requires that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate provide evidence of *de jure* and *de facto* absence of government control over the company(s export activities. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People(s Republic of China* , 61 FR 19026, 19027 (April 30, 1996). Accordingly, we will issue a questionnaire to Golden Banyan, including a separate rates section. The review will proceed if the responses provide sufficient indication that Golden Banyan is not subject to either *de jure* or *de facto* government control with respect to its exports of preserved mushrooms. However, if Golden Banyan does not demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate, then the company will be deemed not separate from other companies that exported during the POI and the NSR will be rescinded as to the company. On August 17, 2006, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 4) was signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4 temporarily suspends the authority of the Department to instruct CBP to collect a bond or other security in lieu of a cash deposit in NSRs. Therefore, the posting of a bond or other security under section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e) in lieu of a cash deposit is not available in this case. Importers of subject merchandise produced and exported by Golden Banyan must continue to pay a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties on each entry of subject merchandise at the current PRC-wide rate of 198.63 percent. Interested parties that require access to proprietary information in this NSR should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.214, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: March 31, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-7208 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-351-840 Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioners and two producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain orange juice
(OJ)from Brazil with respect to two producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States. This is the first period of review (POR), covering August 24, 2005, through February 28, 2007. We have preliminarily determined that sales to the United States have been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In addition, we have preliminarily determined to rescind the review with respect to one company because it had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 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 In March 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order on certain orange juice from Brazil. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Orange Juice from Brazil* , 71 FR 12183 (Mar. 9, 2006) ( *OJ Order* ). Subsequently, on February 2, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order of certain orange juice from Brazil for the period August 24, 2005, through February 28, 2007. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 72 FR 9505 (Feb. 2, 2007). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on March 12 and 14, 2007, the Department received requests to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on OJ from Brazil from Fischer S/A - Agroindustria (Fischer) and Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. (Cutrale), respectively. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on March 30, 2007, the petitioners (Florida Citrus Mutual, A. Duda & Sons, Citrus World Inc., and Southern Gardens Citrus Processing Corporation), also requested that the Department conduct an administrative review for Cutrale and Fischer, as well as for one additional producer/exporter, Coinbra-Frutesp (SA)/Louis Dreyfus Citrus (Coinbra-Frutesp). In April 2007, the Department initiated an administrative review for each of these companies. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 72 FR 20986 (Apr. 27, 2007). Also in April 2007, we issued questionnaires to them. On May 1, 2007, Coinbra-Frutesp informed the Department that it made no entries of subject merchandise during the POR. We confirmed this claim with CBP information; therefore, we are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to this company. For further discussion, see the “Partial Rescission of Review” section of this notice, below. On May 21 and 22, 2007, we received responses to section A of the questionnaire ( *i.e.* , the section covering general information) from Cutrale and Fischer, respectively. We received responses to sections B and C of the questionnaire ( *i.e.* , the sections covering sales in the home market and United States) from Fischer on June 1, 2007, and from Cutrale on June 12, 2007. We received responses to section D of the questionnaire ( *i.e.* , the section covering cost of production (COP)/constructed value (CV)) from Cutrale on June 12, 2007, and from Fischer on June 25, 2007. From August 2007 through March 2008, we issued supplemental sales and cost questionnaires to Cutrale and Fischer. We received responses to these questionnaires from September 2007 through March 2008. On September 11, 2007, in a separate segment of this proceeding, the Department initiated a changed circumstances review for Fischer to determine whether a change in the company's corporate organization in December 2006 was significant enough to warrant treating the company as a new entity (or alternatively to find that the new company was the successor-in-interest to Fischer). *See Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Orange Juice from Brazil* , 72 FR 51798 (Sept. 11, 2007). On October 22, 2007, the Department determined that the new company, Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria and Agricultura (Fischer Comercio), is the successor-in-interest to Fischer. *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Orange Juice from Brazil* , 72 FR 59512 (Oct. 22, 2007). Therefore, we have treated these two companies as the same entity in this administrative review. On November 13, 2007, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results in this review until no later than March 31, 2007. *See Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Notice of Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review* , 72 FR 63874 (Nov. 13, 2007). Scope of the Order The scope of this order includes certain orange juice for transport and/or further manufacturing, produced in two different forms:
(1)Frozen orange juice in a highly concentrated form, sometimes referred to as frozen concentrated orange juice for manufacture (FCOJM); and
(2)pasteurized single-strength orange juice which has not been concentrated, referred to as not-from-concentrate (NFC). At the time of the filing of the petition, there was an existing antidumping duty order on frozen concentrated orange juice
(FCOJ)from Brazil. *See Antidumping Duty Order; Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil* , 52 FR 16426 (May 5, 1987). Therefore, the scope of this order with regard to FCOJM covers only FCOJM produced and/or exported by those companies which were excluded or revoked from the pre-existing antidumping order on FCOJ from Brazil as of December 27, 2004. Those companies are Cargill Citrus Limitada (Cargill), Coinbra-Frutesp, Cutrale, Fischer, and Montecitrus Trading S.A. Excluded from the scope of the order are reconstituted orange juice and frozen concentrated orange juice for retail (FCOJR). Reconstituted orange juice is produced through further manufacture of FCOJM, by adding water, oils and essences to the orange juice concentrate. FCOJR is concentrated orange juice, typically at 42 Brix, in a frozen state, packed in retail-sized containers ready for sale to consumers. FCOJR, a finished consumer product, is produced through further manufacture of FCOJM, a bulk manufacturer's product. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 2009.11.00, 2009.12.25, 2009.12.45, and 2009.19.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive. Rather, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Partial Rescission of Review As noted above, on May 1, 2007, Coinbra-Frutesp informed the Department that it had no entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We have confirmed this with CBP. See the Memorandum to the File from Elizabeth Eastwood entitled, “Placing Customs Entry Data on the Record of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Orange Juice from Brazil,” dated March 31, 2008. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with the Department's practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our review with respect to Coinbra-Frutesp. *See, e.g., 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). Comparisons to Normal Value To determine whether sales of OJ by Cutrale and Fischer to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared constructed export price
(CEP)to the NV, as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we compared the CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section below. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by Curtrale and Fischer covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), we compared U.S. sales of OJ to sales of OJ in the home market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to the month of the first U.S. sale until two months after the last U.S. sale. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondents in the following order of importance: product type and organic designation. Where there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise made in the ordinary course of trade, we made product comparisons using CV. Constructed Export Price For all U.S. sales made by Cutrale and Fischer, we used the CEP methodology specified in section 772(b) of the Act because the subject merchandise was sold for the account of these respondents by their U.S. subsidiaries in the United States to unaffiliated purchasers. A. Cutrale In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated CEP for those sales where the merchandise was first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter. In this case, we are treating all of Cutrale's U.S. sales as CEP sales because they were made in the United States by Cutrale's U.S. affiliates on behalf of Cutrale, within the meaning of section 772(b) of the Act. We based CEP on the packed delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. For sales made pursuant to futures contracts, we adjusted the reported gross unit price ( *i.e.* , the notice price) to include gains and losses incurred on the futures contract which resulted in the shipment of subject merchandise. All other gains and losses related to futures trading activities have been included in indirect selling expenses. Where appropriate, we included as part of the starting price certain additional revenue items received from the customer. Also where appropriate, we made adjustments for billing adjustments, discounts, and rebates. In addition, we made deductions for movement expenses, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, foreign warehousing expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, ocean freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. customs duties (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees) offset by U.S. duty drawback and customs duty reimbursements, U.S. inland freight expenses ( *i.e.* , freight from port to warehouse), and U.S. warehousing expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses ( *i.e.* , bank charges, commissions, imputed credit expenses, and repacking), and indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs, gains and losses on “rolled over” futures contracts, and other indirect selling expenses). We recalculated inventory carrying costs using the manufacturing costs reported in Cutrale's most recent COP database, adjusted as noted in the “Calculation of Cost of Production” section of this notice, below. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using the expenses incurred by Cutrale and its U.S. affiliates on their sales of the subject merchandise in the United States and the profit associated with those sales. B. Fischer In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated CEP for those sales where the merchandise was first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter. In this case, we are treating all of Fischer's U.S. sales as CEP sales because they were made in the United States by Fischer's U.S. affiliate on behalf of Fischer, within the meaning of section 772(b) of the Act. We based CEP on the packed delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we made adjustments for billing adjustments and rebates. We made deductions for movement expenses, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight expenses, foreign warehousing expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, ocean freight expenses, bunker fuel surcharges, marine insurance expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. customs duties (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees) offset by U.S. duty drawback and customs duty reimbursements, U.S. inland freight expenses ( *i.e.* , freight from port to warehouse or to customer), and U.S. warehousing expenses. In accordance with sections 772(d)(1) and
(2)of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses (i.e., additional processing expenses, imputed credit expenses, and repacking), and indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs and other indirect selling expenses). Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using the expenses incurred by Fischer and its U.S. affiliate on their sales of the subject merchandise in the United States and the profit associated with those sales. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability and Selection of Comparison Markets In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. We determined that the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product for both respondents was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. B. Level of Trade Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade
(LOT)as the export price
(EP)or CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. *Id. See also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (Nov. 19, 1997) ( *Plate from South Africa* ). In order to determine whether the comparison market sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( *i.e.* , the chain of distribution), including selling functions, class of customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales ( *i.e.* , NV based on either home market or third country prices), 1 we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. *See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States* , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 1 Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, general and administrative (G&A) expenses, and profit for CV, where possible. When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability ( *i.e.* , no LOT adjustment was practicable), the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. *See Plate from South Africa* , 62 FR at 61732-33. In this administrative review, we obtained information from each respondent regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported home market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by each respondent for each channel of distribution. Company-specific LOT findings are summarized below. 1. Cutrale Cutrale reported that it made CEP sales through one channel of distribution in the United States ( *i.e.* , sales via affiliated resellers) and thus the selling activities it performed did not vary by the type of customer. We examined the selling activities performed for this channel and found that Cutrale performed the following selling functions: customer contact and price negotiation; order processing; arranging for freight and the provision of customs clearance/brokerage services; and inventory maintenance. These selling activities can be generally grouped into four core selling function categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing; 2) freight and delivery; 3) inventory maintenance and warehousing; and 4) warranty and technical support. Accordingly, based on the core selling functions, we find that Cutrale performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, and inventory maintenance and warehousing for U.S. sales. Because all sales in the United States are made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market. With respect to the home market, Cutrale reported that it made sales through one channel of distribution ( *i.e.* , direct sales to soft drink manufacturers). We examined the selling activities performed for home market sales, and found that Cutrale performed the following selling functions: sales forecasting, strategic planning, order processing, limited advertising, engineering services/technical assistance, inventory maintenance and post-sale warehousing, guarantees, and packing. Accordingly, based on the core selling functions, we find that Cutrale performed sales and marketing, inventory maintenance and warehousing, and warranty and technical support for home market sales. Because all home market sales are made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the home market for Cutrale. Finally, we compared the CEP LOT to the home market LOT and found that the core selling functions performed for U.S. and home market customers do not differ significantly. Therefore, we determine that sales to the U.S. and home markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and as a result, neither an LOT adjustment nor a CEP offset is warranted for Cutrale. We note that, while Cutrale is claiming a CEP offset in this proceeding, Cutrale itself admits that there are no significant differences between its sales process during the period of investigation of the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation and the POR. *See* Cutrale's May 15, 2007, section A supplemental response at page 3. Consequently, because no compelling evidence exists that Cutrale's sales process changed during the POR of this administrative review, we continue to find that no CEP offset is warranted for Cutrale, as we did in the LTFV investigation. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination: Certain Orange Juice from Brazil* , 70 FR 49557, 49563 (Aug. 24, 2005) ( *LTFV Preliminary Determination* ), unchanged in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Orange Juice from Brazil* , 71 FR 2183 (Jan. 13, 2006) ( *LTFV Final Determination* ). 2. Fischer Fischer reported that it made CEP sales through one channel of distribution in the United States ( *i.e.* , sales via an affiliated reseller) and thus the selling activities it performed did not vary by the type of customer. We examined the selling activities performed for this channel and found that Fischer performed the following selling functions: customer contact and price negotiation; order processing; arranging for freight and the provision of customs clearance/brokerage services; and inventory maintenance. These selling activities can be generally grouped into four core selling function categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing; 2) freight and delivery; 3) inventory maintenance and warehousing; and 4) warranty and technical support. Accordingly, based on the core selling functions, we find that Fischer performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, and inventory maintenance and warehousing for U.S. sales. Because all sales in the United States are made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market. With respect to the home market, Fischer reported that it made sales through one channel of distribution and that the selling activities it performed did not vary by the type of customer. We examined the selling activities performed for home market sales, and found that Fischer performed the following selling functions: customer contact and price negotiation; order processing; arranging for freight; cold storage and inventory maintenance; and packing services. Accordingly, based on the core selling functions, we find that Fischer performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, and inventory maintenance and warehousing for home market sales. Because all home market sales are made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the home market for Fischer. Finally, we compared the CEP LOT to the home market LOT and found that the core selling functions performed for U.S. and home market customers do not differ significantly. Therefore, we determine that sales to the U.S. and home markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and as a result, neither an LOT adjustment nor a CEP offset is warranted for Fischer. C. Cost of Production Analysis We found that both Cutrale and Fischer had made sales below the COP in the LTFV investigation, the most recently completed segment of this proceeding as of the date the questionnaire was issued in this review, and such sales were disregarded. For Fischer, see *LTFV Preliminary Determination* , 70 FR at 49564; unchanged in *LTFV Final Determination* . For Cutrale, see the Memorandum to the File from Elizabeth Eastwood entitled, “Placing Sucocitrico Cutrale S.A.'s Comparison Market Program from the Final Determination of the Less Than Fair Value Investigation on the Record of the 2005-2007 Administrative Review of Certain Orange Juice from Brazil,” dated March 31, 2008. Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Cutrale and Fischer made home market sales at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in the current review period. 1. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the respondents' COPs based on the sum of their costs of materials and conversion for the foreign like product, plus amounts for G&A expenses and interest expenses ( *see* “Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices” section, below, for treatment of home market selling expenses). The Department relied on the COP data submitted by each respondent in its most recently submitted cost database for the COP calculation, except for the following instances: a. Cutrale i. In accordance with the transactions disregarded rule, *i.e.* , section 773(f)(2) of the Act, we adjusted Cutrale's cost of manufacturing to reflect the market value of oranges that were purchased from an affiliate. ii. We revised the calculation of the financial expense ratio to include all financial expenses and net foreign exchange gains and losses from the consolidated financial statements of Cutrale's highest level parent company in the numerator of the calculation and to reduce the denominator of the calculation by the revenue from the sales of by-products. iii. We revised the calculation of the G&A expense ratio to include the cost of sales related to cattle in the denominator and to reduce the denominator by the revenue from the sales of by-products. For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum from James Balog, Senior Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Sucocitrico Cutrale Ltda,” dated March 31, 2008. b. Fischer i. The Department values the self-produced agricultural input used in the production of subject merchandise by multiplying the average per-unit cost to produce the input during the 12-month growing season by the quantity of the self-produced agricultural input used in the production of subject merchandise. In this segment of the proceeding, Fischer did not value the self-produced oranges used in the production of subject merchandise per the Department's normal methodology. Instead, Fischer valued the self-produced oranges used in the production of subject merchandise by dividing the total POR agricultural cost by the associated harvested quantity as opposed to dividing the 12-month growing season cost by the harvested quantity during the growing season. Because Fischer's reporting methodology of self-produced oranges is conservative and does not understate the cost of self-produced oranges, as neutral facts available, we have relied upon the reported cost of self-produced oranges for the preliminary results. However, the appropriate methodology for calculating the cost of self-produced oranges in this case and in future reviews is to calculate the average per-unit cost to produce oranges during the 12-month growing season that most appropriately matches the POR. ii. We revised Fischer's reported product-specific manufacturing costs to allocate the common material and conversion costs to FCOJM, “Dairy Pak” orange juice (“Dairy Pak”), and NFC based on the relative quantity of finished production of each type of orange juice converted into an equivalent brix level. We note that Fischer allocated these costs to FCOJM, “Dairy Pak,” and NFC based on the relative quantities of orange inputs used in the production of each type of orange juice. iii. We revised Fischer's G&A expense ratio to include a provision for losses on fruit contracts and labor claims, as well as expenses other than depreciation incurred by a collapsed affiliated entity during the 2006 fiscal year. Finally, we excluded by-product costs, packing, freight, storage, and other movement expenses from the cost of goods sold denominator of the G&A expense ratio. For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum from Sheikh M. Hannan, Senior Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Fischer S/A - Agroindustria,” dated March 31, 2008. 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the home market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether the sales prices were below the COP. For purposes of this comparison, we used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The prices (inclusive of billing adjustments, where appropriate) were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses and packing expenses, revised where appropriate, as discussed below under the “Price-to-Price Comparisons” section. 3. Results of the COP Test In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and
(B)or the Act: 1) whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and 2) whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Where less than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product, because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time and in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we disregard the below-cost sales when: 1) they were made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities,” in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C)of the Act, and 2) based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of Cutrale's and Fischer's home market sales were at prices less than the COP and, in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For those U.S. sales of subject merchandise for which there were no useable home market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared CEPs to the CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. *See* “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value” section below. D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices 1. Cutrale For Cutrale, we calculated NV based on ex-factory prices to unaffiliated customers. We included warehousing revenue in the starting price. We made adjustments, where appropriate, to the starting price for Brazilian taxes and billing adjustments in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act. We made deductions from the starting price for home market credit expenses (offset by interest revenue) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. Where applicable, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset any commission paid on a U.S. sale by reducing the NV by the amount of home market indirect selling expenses and inventory carrying costs, up to the amount of the U.S. commission. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, where appropriate, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B)of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 2. Fischer We calculated NV based on delivered prices to unaffiliated customers. We made adjustments, where appropriate, to the starting price for discounts in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We made adjustments, where appropriate, to the starting price for Brazilian taxes in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act. We deducted foreign inland freight expenses and inland insurance expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, we made deductions under section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act for credit expenses (offset by interest revenue). Finally, we deducted home market packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B)of the Act. E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, for those OJ products for which we could not determine the NV based on comparison-market sales, either because there were no useable sales of a comparable product or all sales of the comparable products failed the COP test, we based NV on CV. Section 773(e) of the Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported merchandise, plus amounts G&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. For Fischer, we calculated the cost of materials and fabrication based on the methodology described in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section, above. We based G&A and profit for Fischer on the actual amounts incurred and realized by it in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the home market, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. We made adjustments to CV for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting comparison market direct selling expenses from CV. *See* 19 CFR 351.410(c). Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of the Review We preliminarily determine that weighted-average dumping margins exist for the respondents for the period August 24, 2005, through February 28, 2007, as follows: Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. 0.51 Fischer S/A Agroindustria/Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura 2.46 Disclosure and Public Hearing The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: 1) a statement of the issue; 2) a brief summary of the argument; and 3) a table of authorities. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room 1870, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: 1) the party's name, address and telephone number; 2) the number of participants; and, 3) a list of issues to be discussed. *Id.* Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to this review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. We will calculate importer-specific *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the sales which entered value was reported. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above *de minimis* . 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 minimi* s. *See* 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 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) ( *Assessment Policy Notice* ). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in this final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary ( *e.g.* , a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. *See Assessment Policy Notice* for a full discussion of this clarification. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, *de minimi* s within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; 2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, 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 original 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 16.51 percent, the all-others rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. *See OJ Order,* 71 FR at 12184. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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. This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221. Dated: March 31, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-7220 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Coral Reef Conservation Program Administration AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Bill Millhouser, 301-713-3155, ext. 189 or *Bill.Millhouser@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000
(Act)was passed to provide a framework for conserving coral reefs. The Coral Reef Conservation Grant Program, under the Act, provides funds to broad-based applicants with experience in coral reef conservation to conduct activities to protect and conserve coral reef ecosystems. The information submitted is used to determine:
(1)Whether the applicant qualifies for a waiver of matching funds, and
(2)if a proposed project is consistent with the coral reef conservation priorities of authorities with jurisdiction over the area where the project will be carried out. II. Method of Collection The information may be submitted via e-mail or fax. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0448. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* State, local or tribal government; federal government; not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 53. *Estimated Time Per Response:* Matching funds waiver request, 30 minutes; Proposal comment, 1 hour and 30 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 106. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $600. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: April 1, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-7096 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Erik Zlokovitz,
(301)713-2328, or *Erik.Zlokovitz@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The marine recreational anglers are surveyed for catch and effort data, fish biology data, and angler socioeconomic characteristics. These data are required to carry out provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* ), as amended, regarding conservation and management of fishery resources. II. Method of Collection Information is collected by telephone interviews and on-site intercept interviews. A random-digit-dialing telephone survey of coastal zone households is used to collect data on the proportion of marine fishing households and the number of shore and private/rental boat fishing trips by residents of those households. Directory-based surveys of boat operators and licensed saltwater anglers collect data on the number of for-hire fishing trips and the number of fishing trips by licensed anglers, respectively. On-site intercept interviews of marine recreational anglers are conducted to collect data on the catch per trip by species. Data on fishing effort and number of trips from the telephone surveys are combined with the catch per unit effort data from the on-site intercept data to generate recreational catch estimates. Supplemental surveys collect economic data about marine recreational fishing. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0052. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households, business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 838,193. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 7 minutes for fishing households; 1 minute for non-fishing households; 30 seconds for non-households; 4 minutes, 30 seconds for intercepted anglers; 1 minute, 30 seconds for intercept survey verification calls; 3 minutes for supplemental economic data from fishing households; 8 minutes for supplemental economic data from intercepted anglers and Telephone Follow-Up survey; 15 minutes for Economic Intercept and Mail Follow-Up Survey; 7 minutes for For-Hire Telephone Survey of Angler Fishing; 60 minutes for Economic For-hire In-person survey; 8 minutes for Economic Telephone Survey of For-hire Businesses; and 1 minute for Biological Data Collection. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 46,296. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $0. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: April 1, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-7109 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Alaska Region Logbook Family of Forms AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Patsy A. Bearden,
(907)586-7008 or *patsy.bearden@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Alaska Region manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ)off Alaska under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska and the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council prepared the FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The regulations implementing the FMP are at 50 CFR part 679. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements at 50 CFR part 679 form the basis for this collection of information. NMFS, Alaska Region requests information from participating groundfish participants. This information, upon receipt, results in an increasingly more efficient and accurate database for management and monitoring of the groundfish fisheries of the EEZ off Alaska. II. Method of Collection Paper logbooks, electronic reports, and telephone calls are required from participants, and methods of submittal include the Internet and facsimile transmission of paper forms. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0213. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,132. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 18 minutes for Catcher Vessel trawl gear daily fishing logbook (DFL); 28 minutes for Catcher Vessel longline and pot gear DFL; 30 minutes for Catcher/processor trawl gear daily cumulative production logbook (DCPL); 41 minutes for Catcher/processor longline and pot gear DCPL; 31 minutes for Shoreside processor DCPL; 31 minutes for Mothership DCPL; 8 minutes for Shoreside Processor Check-in/Check-out Report; 7 minutes for Mothership or Catcher/processor Check-in/Check-out Report; 11 minutes for Product transfer report; 17 minutes for Weekly Production Report; 11 minutes for Daily Production Report; 5 minutes to electronically submit the Weekly Production Report; 5 minutes to electronically submit the Check-in/Check-out Report; 35 minutes for Weekly Cumulative Mothership ADF&G Fish Tickets; 14 minutes for U.S. Vessel Activity Report; and 23 minutes for buying station report. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 35,504. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $187,000. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: April 1, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-7110 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Observer Notification Requirements AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and the respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230 (or via Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instruments and instructions should be directed to Craig Cockrell,
(301)713-2347 or *craig.cockrell@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Under current regulations, the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)may select for observer coverage any fishing trip by a vessel that has a permit for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS), notifies vessel owners, in writing, when their vessels have been selected. The owners of those vessels are then required to notify NMFS before commencing any fishing trip for Atlantic HMS. The notification allows NMFS to arrange for observer placements and assignments. The vessels are selected randomly from a list of active vessels that have reported landings of targeted species during the previous year. Observers are placed aboard vessels to collect, among other things, information on species caught, catch disposition, gear, effort, and bycatch. The information is used in stock assessments to estimate rates of bycatch of non-targeted and protected species such as sea turtles, and to improve overall management of the fishery. A Biological Opinion
(BiOp)issued on June 1, 2004, under the Endangered Species Act, requires a minimum of eight percent observer coverage in the pelagic longline fishery. In order to better monitor incidental landings of bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico during bluefin tuna spawning season, pelagic longline vessels fishing in the gulf will be subject to 100 percent observer coverage from March 9-June 9 (41 vessels). The shark bottom longline observer program has set a target of five percent observer coverage in the shark bottom longline fishery. A BiOp issued in October 2003 requires NMFS to maintain or increase this level of observer coverage. Additionally, upcoming management measures will establish a shark research fishery including approximately 10 vessels with 100 percent coverage throughout the year. Observer coverage for the shark gillnet fishery fluctuates from approximately 50 percent to 100 percent, depending on the time of year. Although technically not required, vessels operating in other HMS fisheries may be selected for observer coverage depending on factors including limited funding. The burden estimates include a ten percent adjustment upward from current levels to account for future expansion of observer coverage other fisheries. II. Method of Collection The notification may be made by phone, fax, or in writing prior to each trip for which a vessel is selected. A form is provided by NMFS for written responses. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0374. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 241. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 2 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 166 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $2,488. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: April 1, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-7111 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG63 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 18 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of intent
(NOI)to prepare a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS); notice of scoping meetings; request for comments. SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) intends to prepare a DEIS to assess the impacts on the natural and human environment of the management measures proposed in its revised draft Amendment 18 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). DATES: Written comments on the scope of issues to be addressed in the DEIS must be received by 5 p.m., eastern time, on May 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • E-mail: 0648-XG63@noaa.gov. • Fax: 727-824-5308, Attn: Kate Michie. • Mail: Kate Michie, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.Scoping documents are available at the Council's Web site at *www.safmc.net* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: 843-571-4366, toll free 1-866-SAFMC-10; fax: 843-769-4520; e-mail: *Kim.Iverson@safmc.net* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The snapper-grouper fishery off the South Atlantic states in the exclusive economic zone is managed under the FMP. Following Council preparation, the FMP was approved and implemented by NMFS under that authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) in March of 1983. An NOI for Amendment 18 was published January 22, 2008 (73 FR 3701); however, the plan amendment contained in that notice considered the implementation of a limited access privilege
(LAP)program for the commercial snapper-grouper fishery in the South Atlantic. The Council has postponed consideration of a LAP program to a future amendment, and different actions are now being considered in Amendment 18. This NOI seeks public comment on the new Amendment 18 and associated DEIS. The reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act of 2006 requires regional fishery management councils to establish annual catch limits
(ACLs)for each stock/stock complex and accountability measures to ensure these ACLs are not exceeded. Among other things, Amendment 18 addresses these requirements for South Atlantic red snapper. A stock assessment has been completed for red snapper through the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process, which indicates the stock is undergoing overfishing and is overfished. The stock assessment will be reviewed by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC)at its June 8 10, 2008, meeting. If the SSC agrees with the SEDAR determination, the Council will continue development of Amendment 18. To prevent overfishing, the Council intends to set biological parameters in Amendment 18 for red snapper, consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These parameters include maximum sustainable yield, optimum yield (OY), minimum stock size threshold, and maximum fishing mortality rate threshold, which are used to help rebuild overfished stocks. The Council is required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act to implement rebuilding plans for overfished species. Amendment 18, and the associated DEIS, would also specify a rebuilding plan for the red snapper stock and consider various management measures to end overfishing. Some of the possible management measures the Council could consider include: quotas, seasonal closures (for both commercial and recreational fisheries), area closures, size limit modifications, and bag limit adjustments. These measures would help to increase the biomass of overfished red snapper and at the same time help to achieve OY for the fishery. The Council will review public comments and the SSC's determinations at its June 9 13, 2008, meeting and decide whether or not to continue preparation of the DEIS. If the Council does prepare a DEIS, a comment period is planned, which will include public hearings to receive comments. A **Federal Register** notice will announce the availability of the DEIS associated with this amendment, as well as a 45-day public comment period, pursuant to regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and to NOAA's Administrative Order 216-6. The Council will consider public comments received on the DEIS in developing the final environmental impact statement (FEIS), and before voting to submit the final amendment to NMFS for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. NMFS will announce in the **Federal Register** the availability of the final amendment and FEIS for public review during the Secretarial review period, and will consider all public comments prior to final agency action to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the final amendment. Scoping Meetings, Times, and Locations All scoping meetings will begin at 3 p.m. The meetings will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for information packets or for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Wednesday, May 7, 2008—Key Largo Grande, 97000 South Overseas Highway, Key Largo, FL 33037; phone: 866-597-5397. Friday, May 9, 2008—Radisson Resort at the Port, 8701 Astronaut Boulevard, Cape Canaveral, FL 32920; phone: 321-784-0000. Monday, May 12, 2008—Mighty Eighth Air Force Museum, 175 Bourne Avenue, Pooler, GA 31322; phone: 912-748-8888. Tuesday, May 13, 2008—Town and Country Inn, 2008 Savannah Highway, Charleston, SC 29407; phone: 843-571-1000. Thursday, May 16, 2008—Sheraton New Bern, 100 Middle Street, New Bern, NC 18560; phone: 252-638-3585. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: March 31, 2008. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-7213 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF67 Schedule for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops; Changing the Location of an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop; Correction AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public workshops; correction. SUMMARY: Due to unanticipated construction activity at the North Tampa Branch Library, NMFS is changing the location of its April 24, 2008, Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop that published in the **Federal Register** on March 4, 2008. The May and June workshop locations remain unchanged. Shark dealers are required to attend a workshop to meet new regulatory requirements and maintain valid permits. The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops are mandatory for all federally permitted Atlantic shark dealers. Additional free workshops will be held in 2008 and announced in the **Federal Register** . DATES: The dates and times for the Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops have not been changed and will be held April 24, May 22, and June 19, 2008. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further details. ADDRESSES: The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held in Tampa, FL; Wilmington, NC; and Jefferson, LA. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the corrected Tampa, FL, workshop location. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Fairclough by phone:(727) 824-5399, or by fax:
(727)824-5398. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Correction In the **Federal Register** of March 4, 2008, in FR Doc. E8-4126, on page 11622, in the first column, correct the location of the first workshop listed under the heading “Workshop Dates, Times, and Locations” to read: Workshop Dates, Times, and Locations 1. April 24, 2008, from 10:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. Town 'N Country Regional Public Library, Thompson Center Waters Complex, 5455 West Waters Avenue - Suite 208, Tampa, FL 33634. Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop Effective December 31, 2007, an Atlantic shark dealer may not receive, purchase, trade, or barter for Atlantic shark unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate is on the premises of each business listed under the shark dealer permit (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). Dealers who attend and successfully complete a workshop will be issued a certificate for each place of business that is permitted to receive sharks. Dealers may send a proxy to an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, however, if a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer must designate a proxy for each place of business covered by the dealer's permit. Only one certificate will be issued to each proxy. A proxy must be a person who: is currently employed by a place of business covered by the dealer's permit; is a primary participant in the identification, weighing, and/or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and fills out dealer reports. Additionally, after December 31, 2007, an Atlantic shark dealer may not renew a Federal shark dealer permit unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate for each business location has been submitted with the permit renewal application. Sixteen free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops were held in 2007. The workshop schedules, registration information, and a list of frequently asked questions regarding these workshops are posted on the internet at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/workshops* . Registration To register for a scheduled Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, please contact Eric Sander by email at *esander@peoplepc.com* or by phone at
(386)852-8588. Registration Materials To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following items to the workshop: Atlantic shark dealer permit holders must bring proof that the individual is an agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable permit, and proof of identification. Atlantic shark dealer proxies must bring documentation from the shark dealer acknowledging that the proxy is attending the workshop on behalf of the Atlantic shark dealer, a copy of the appropriate permit, and proof of identification. Workshop Objectives The shark identification workshops are designed to reduce the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks reported in the dealer reporting form and increase the accuracy of species-specific dealer-reported information. Reducing the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks will improve quota monitoring and the data used in stock assessments. These workshops will train shark dealer permit holders or their proxies to properly identify Atlantic shark carcasses. Dated: April 1, 2008. Alan D. Risenhoover Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-7230 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). *Title:* Recording Assignments. *Form Number(s):* PTO-1594, PTO-1595. *Agency Approval Number:* 0651-0027. *Type of Request:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Burden:* 181,695 hours annually. *Number of Respondents:* 363,388 responses per year. *Avg. Hours Per Response:* The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately 30 minutes (0.5 hours) to prepare and submit a patent or trademark assignment recordation request. *Needs and Uses:* Under 35 U.S.C. 261 and 262 and 15 U.S.C. 1057 and 1060, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) records patent and trademark assignment documents that show the transfer of ownership of applications, patents, and trademark registrations from one entity to another. The USPTO provides cover sheets to ensure all the necessary assignment data is submitted for accurate recording. In order to file a request to record an assignment, the respondent must submit an appropriate cover sheet along with copies of the assignment documents to be recorded and payment of the appropriate fee. The recorded documents are available for public inspection, except for those documents that are sealed under secrecy orders or related to unpublished patent applications. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; businesses or other for-profits; and not-for-profit institutions. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by any of the following methods: *E-mail: Susan.Fawcett@uspto.gov.* Include “0651-0027 copy request” in the subject line of the message. *Fax:* 571-273-0112, marked to the attention of Susan Fawcett. *Mail:* Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before May 7, 2008 to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. Dated: April 1, 2008. Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division. [FR Doc. E8-7171 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0155] Submission for OMB Review; Prohibition on Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR)Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement regarding prohibition on acquisition of products produced by forced or indentured child labor. A request for public comments was published in the **Federal Register** at 72 FR 67920 on December 3, 2007. No comments were received. DATES: Submit comments on or before: May 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), General Services Administration, Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0155, Prohibition on Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor, in all correspondence. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Mr. Ernest Woodson, Contract Policy Division, GSA
(202)501-3775. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose This information collection complies with Executive Order 13126, Prohibition on Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor, signed by the President on June 12, 1999. Executive Order 13126 requires that this prohibition be enforced within the federal acquisition system by means of:
(1)A provision that requires the contractor to certify to the contracting officer that the contractor or, in the case of an incorporated contractor, a responsible official of the contractor has made a good faith effort to determine whether forced or indentured child labor was used to mine, produce, or manufacture any product furnished under the contract and that, on the basis of those efforts, the contractor is unaware of any such use of child labor; and
(2)A provision that obligates the contractor to cooperate fully in providing reasonable access to the contractor's records, documents, persons, or premises if reasonably requested by authorized officials of the contracting agency, the Department of the Treasury, or the Department of Justice, for the purpose of determining whether forced or indentured child labor was used to mine, produce, or manufacture any product furnished under the contract. The information collection requirements of the Executive Order are evidenced via the certification requirements delineated at FAR 22.1505, 52.212-3, 52.222-18, and 52.222-19. To eliminate some of the administrative burden on offerors who must submit the same information to various contracting offices, the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) decided to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR)to require offerors to submit representations and certifications electronically via the Business Partner Network (BPN), unless certain exceptions apply. Online Representations and Certifications Application
(ORCA)is the specific application on the BPN to replace the paper based Representations and Certifications (Reps and Certs) process. The change to the FAR is being accomplished by FAR Case 2002—024. The clearance associated with this case referenced this OMB Control No. 9000-0155 and reduced the hours of burden by 35%—attributable to mandated use of ORCA. This reduction is already reflected in the figures below. B. Annual Reporting Burden *Respondents:* 500. *Responses Per Respondent:* 1. *Hours Per Response:* 0.325. *Total Burden Hours:* 162. *OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS:* Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone
(202)501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0155, Prohibition on Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor, in all correspondence. Dated: April 1, 2008. Al Matera, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. [FR Doc. E8-7197 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0035] Federal Acquisition Regulation; Information Collection; Claims and Appeals AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR)Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning claims and appeals. The clearance currently expires on May 31, 2008. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Submit comments on or before June 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0035, Claims and Appeals, in all correspondence. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Meredith Murphy, Contract Policy Division, GSA,
(202)208-6925. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose It is the Government’s policy to try to resolve all contractual issues by mutual agreement at the contracting officer’s level without litigation. Contractor’s claims must be submitted in writing to the contracting officer for a decision. Claims exceeding $100,000 must be accompanied by a certification that
(1)the claim is made in good faith;
(2)supporting data are accurate and complete; and
(3)the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the Government is liable. Contractors may appeal the contracting officer’s decision by submitting written appeals to the appropriate officials. B. Annual Reporting Burden *Respondents* : 4,500. *Responses Per Respondent* : 3. *Annual Responses* : 13,500. *Hours Per Response* : 1. *Total Burden Hours* : 13,500. *Obtaining Copies of Proposals* : Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone
(202)501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0035, Claims and Appeals, in all correspondence. Dated: April 1, 2008 Al Matera, Director,Office of Acquisition Policy. [FR Doc. E8-7203 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [DoD-2007-OS-0136] Defense Transportation Regulation, Part IV AGENCY: Department of Defense; United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM). ACTION: Notice; correction. SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is correcting a Notice to Defense Transportation Regulation, Part IV that appeared on April 1, 2008 (73 FR 17327). The document corrects the docket number and comment period. DATES: This correction is effective April 1, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jim Teague, United States Transportation Command, TCJ5/4-PT, 508 Scott Drive, Scott Air Force Base, IL 62225-5357;
(618)229-1985 or Ms. Rosia Lindsey, Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, SDDC-PPP-OPS, 709 Ward Drive, Bldg. 1990, Scott Air Force Base, IL 62225;
(618)220-5484. Correction In the **Federal Register** of April 1, 2008, in FR Doc. E8-6660. on page 17327, correct the docket number and public comment period to read as follows: 1. “[DoD-2007-OS-0137]” is corrected to read “[DoD-2007-OS-0136]”. 2. The comment period is corrected to read “June 6, 2008”. Dated: April 1, 2008. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-7158 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Board of Regents of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences AGENCY: Department of Defense; Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USU). ACTION: Quarterly Meeting Notice. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended) announcement of the following meeting: *Name of Committee:* Board of Regents of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. *Date of Meeting:* Friday, May 16, 2008. *Location:* Board of Regents Conference Room (D3001), Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, 4301 Jones Bridge Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. *Time:* 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. *Purpose of the Meeting:* Meetings of the Board of Regents assure that USU operates in the best traditions of academia. An outside Board is necessary for institutional accreditation. *Agenda:* The actions that will take place include the approval of minutes from the Board of Regents Meeting held February 5, 2008; acceptance of administrative reports; approval of faculty appointments and promotions; and the awarding of post-baccalaureate degrees as follows: Doctor of Medicine, Master of Science in Nursing, and masters and doctoral degrees in the biomedical sciences and public health. The President, USU; Dean, USU School of Medicine; Acting Dean, USU Graduate School of Nursing; Director, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute; and Director, U.S. Military Cancer Institute will also present reports. These actions are necessary for the University to pursue its mission, which is to provide outstanding health care practitioners and scientists to the uniformed services. *Meeting Accessibility:* Pursuant to Federal statute and regulations (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165) and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first-come basis. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the Board of Regents. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement to the Designated Federal Officer at the address detailed above. If such statement is not received at least 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, it may not be provided to or considered by the Board of Regents until its next open meeting. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the Board of Regents Chairman and ensure such submissions are provided to Board of Regents Members before the meeting. After reviewing the written comments, submitters may be invited to orally present their issues during the May 2008 meeting or at a future meeting. *For Further Information and Base Access Procedures Contact:* Janet S. Taylor, Designated Federal Officer. Dated: April 1, 2008 L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD. [FR Doc. E8-7154 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice Announcing OMB Approval of Information Collection AGENCY: Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education. ACTION: Notice announcing OMB Approval of Information Collection. SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the collection of information identified in this notice, following the Department's submission of a request for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). This notice describes the information collection that has been approved, the OMB control number of that collection, and the current expiration date of the collection. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Dean, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 11152, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-7240. Telephone:
(202)245-7828 or via Internet: *Mike.Dean@ed.gov.* If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to any of the contact people listed in this section. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA and its implementing regulations require Federal agencies to display OMB control numbers and inform respondents of their legal significance after OMB has approved an agency's information collections. In accordance with those requirements, the Department notifies the public that the following information collection has been approved (or re-approved) by OMB following the Department's submission of an information collection request (ICR): • OMB Control No. 1830-0567, Measuring Educational Gain in the National Reporting System for Adult Education. The expiration date for this information collection is February 28, 2011. Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Dated: April 2, 2008. Troy R. Justesen, Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education. [FR Doc. E8-7215 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notice AGENCY: United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC). ACTION: Notice of Virtual Public Forum for EAC Standards Board. Date & Time: Monday, April 21, 2008, 9 a.m. EDT through Friday, April 25, 2008, 5 p.m. EDT. Place: EAC Standards Board Virtual Meeting Room at *http://www.eac.gov.* Once at the main page of EAC's Web site, viewers should click the link to the Standards Board Virtual Meeting Room. The virtual meeting room will open on Monday, April 21, 2008, at 9 a.m. EDT and will close on Friday, April 25, 2008, at 5 p.m. EDT. The site will be available 24 hours per day during that 5-day period. Purpose: The EAC Standards Board will review and provide comment on eight draft chapters of the Election Management Guidelines. The draft chapters contain recommendations and best practices regarding: Absentee voting and vote by mail; acceptance testing; ballot building; contingency planning and change management; developing an audit trail; polling place and vote center management; pre-election and parallel testing; and uniformed and overseas voters. The EAC Standards Board Virtual Meeting Room was established to enable the Standards Board to conduct business in an efficient manner in a public forum, including being able to review and discuss draft documents, when it is not feasible for an in-person board meeting. The Standards Board will not take any votes or propose any resolutions during the 5-day forum of April 21-25, 2008. Members will post comments about the eight draft chapters of the Election Management Guidelines This activity is open to the public. The public may view the proceedings of this special forum by visiting the EAC Standards Board Virtual Meeting Room at *http://www.eac.gov* at any time between Monday, April 21, 2008, 9 a.m. EDT and Friday, April 25, 2008, 6 p.m. EDT. The public also may view the draft chapters of the Election Management Guidelines, which will be posted on EAC'S Web site beginning April 21, 2008. The public may file written statements to the EAC Standards Board at *standardsboard@eac.gov.* Data on EAC's Web site is accessible to visitors with disabilities and meets the requirements of section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Person To Contact For Information: Bryan Whitener, Telephone:
(202)566-3100. Caroline Hunter, Vice-Chair, U.S. Election Assistance Commission. [FR Doc. E8-7135 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-KF-M DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY National Coal Council AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the National Coal Council (NCC). Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stats. 770) requires notice of these meetings be announced in the **Federal Register** . DATES: May 22, 2008, 9 a.m-12 Noon. ADDRESSES: DoubleTree Hotel, 1515 Rhode Island Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Kane, Phone:
(202)586-4753, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Washington, DC 20585. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Purpose of the Committee:* The purpose of the National Coal Council is to provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on matters related to coal and coal industry issues. The purpose of this meeting is to recognize the important contributions that the NCC has made to the Department and other Federal agencies over the past years. Tentative Agenda ○ Welcome and Call to Order by Ms. Georgia Nelson, Chair. ○ Remarks by Secretary of Energy, Samuel W. Bodman (Invited). ○ Council Business. Finance Report by Committee Chairman Richard Eimer. Secretary's Report by NCC Secretary Larry Grimes. Reporting Nominating Committee by Committee Chairman Steve Leer. Election of Officers for 2008-2009 Term. ○ Presentation by Bill Fang, EEI Deputy General Counsel, on Climate Change Legislative Proposals and Potential Economic Impacts. ○ NCC Study Presentation by Study Work Group Chairman Mark David Goss. ○ Other Business. ○ Adjourn. *Public Participation:* The meeting is open to the public. The Chairman of the NCC will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Robert Kane at the address or telephone number listed above. You must make your request for an oral statement at least five business days prior to the meeting, and reasonable provisions will be made to include the presentation on the agenda. Public comment will follow the 10 minute rule. Transcripts: The transcript will be available for public review and copying within 30 days at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Issued in Washington, DC on April 2, 2008. Rachel Samuel, Deputy Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-7164 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY National Coal Council AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the National Coal Council. Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires notice of these meetings be announced in the **Federal Register** . DATES: Thursday, May 1, 2008, 10 a.m.-3 p.m. (CDT). ADDRESSSES: Hilton St. Louis at the Ball Park, One S. Broadway Street, St. Louis, MO. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Kane, Phone:
(202)586-4753, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Washington, DC 20585. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Purpose of the Committee:* The purpose of the National Coal Council is to provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on matters relating to coal and coal industry issues: Tentative Agenda ○ Call to Order and Opening Remarks by the Chair. ○ Approval of Draft Agenda. ○ Discussion of Draft Study Requested by Secretary Samuel W. Bodman by Letter Dated October 12, 2007. ○ Action on Draft Study. ○ Other Business. ○ Adjourn. *Public Participation:* The meeting is open to the public. The Chairman of the NCC will conduct the meeting to facilitate orderly business. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Mr. Robert Kane at the address and telephone number listed above. You must make your request for an oral statement at least five business days prior to the meeting, and reasonable provisions will be made to include the presentation on the agenda. Public comment will follow the 10 minute rule. *Minutes:* The minutes will be available for public review and copying within 30 days at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Issued in Washington, DC on April 2, 2008. Rachel Samuel, Deputy Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-7166 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 1888-025] York Haven Power Company; York Haven Power Company, LLC; Notice of Application for Transfer of License, and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests March 28, 2007. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Application Type:* Transfer of License. b. *Project No.:* 1888-025. c. *Date Filed:* March 24, 2008. d. *Applicants:* York Haven Power Company. (Transferor) York Haven Power Company, LLC (Transferee). e. *Name and Location of Project:* York Haven Hydroelectric Project is located on the Susquehanna River in Lancaster and York Counties Pennsylvania. f. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r. g. *Applicant Contacts:* For the transferor: Mr. Michael E. Haddad, York Haven Power Company, C/O Hunton & Williams LLP, 1900 K Street, NW., Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20006-1500. For the transferee: Mr. Michael E. Haddad, York Haven Power Company, C/O Hunton & Williams LLP, 1900 K Street, NW., Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20006-1500 h. *FERC Contact:* Robert Bell at
(202)502-6062. i. *Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene:* 15 days after the issuance date of this notice. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the Project Number on any comments or motions filed. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing a document with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the documents on that resource agency. j. *Description of Application:* Applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for the York Haven Hydroelectric Project from York Haven Power Company, to York Haven Power Company, LLC. k. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number (P-2512) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the addresses in item g above. l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. m. *Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene* —Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. n. *Filing and Service of Responsive Documents* —Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, OR “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and eight copies to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicants specified in the particular application. o. *Agency Comments* —Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicants. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicants' representatives. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-7105 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC Docket No. PF08-9-000] Notice of Pre-Filing Environmental Review for the Ruby Pipeline Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings; Ruby Pipeline, LLC March 28, 2008. On January 31, 2008, the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) initiated its pre-filing environmental review of the Ruby Pipeline Project, planned by Ruby Pipeline, LLC (Ruby). FERC staff is now beginning to obtain and evaluate information for the preparation of an environmental impact statement
(EIS)that will assess and disclose the environmental impacts of the project, which would involve construction and operation of facilities by Ruby in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. These facilities would consist of about 680 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline, 2 new compressor stations, and related appurtenant facilities. The EIS will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine if the project is in the public convenience and necessity. This notice announces the opening of a scoping period that will be used to gather environmental input from the public and agencies during the early stages of the project. Comments may be submitted either in written form or verbally. In lieu of or in addition to sending written comments, you are invited to attend the public scoping meetings scheduled in the project area. Further instructions on how to submit written comments and additional details of the public scoping meetings are provided in the *Public Participation* section of this notice. The scoping period will close on April 30, 2008. WEEK 1 April 15, 2008—Elko, Nevada, Hilton Garden Inn, 3650 East Idaho St.,
(775)777-1200. April 16, 2008—Kemmerer, Wyoming, Kemmerer Senior Center, 105 JC Penney Drive,
(307)877-3806. April 17, 2008—Brigham City, Utah, Box Elder High School Auditorium, 380 South 600 West,
(435)734-4840. WEEK 2 April 22, 2008—Malin, Oregon, Malin Community Hall, 2307 Front Street,
(541)947-2258. April 23, 2008—Lakeview, Oregon, Elks Lodge, 323 N. F Street,
(541)947-2258. April 24, 2008—Winnemucca, Nevada, Winnemucca Convention Center, 50 W. Winnemucca Blvd.,
(775)23-5071. These meetings are designed to provide state and local agencies, interested groups, affected landowners, and the general public with an opportunity to offer comments on the project and on the environmental issues they believe should be addressed in the EIS. A transcript of each meeting will be made so that your comments will be accurately recorded. All meetings are scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. in each respective time zone. All public meetings will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at *http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx* along with other related information. Comments collected during scoping will be a valuable part of the Pre-Filing Process and will help us 1 determine which issues/impacts need to be evaluated in the EIS. As more details of the project route and design become available, additional scoping may be warranted and the public will be provided with additional opportunities to comment. 1 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects. A “Pre-Filing Process” Has Begun The Commission is initiating its National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)review for the Ruby Pipeline Project prior to receiving Ruby's formal application. This Pre-Filing Process allows interested stakeholders to become involved early in the project planning with the intent of identifying and resolving issues before a formal application is filed with the FERC. A docket number (PF08-9-000) has been established to place information filed by Ruby and related documents issued or received by the Commission into the public record. 2 Once a formal application is filed with the FERC, a new docket number will be established. 2 To view information in the docket, follow the instructions for using the eLibrary link at the end of this notice. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)is participating as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS because the project would cross federally administered lands in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. The U.S. Forest Service
(USFS)is also participating as a cooperating agency because the project would cross the Cache and Fremont-Winema National Forests in Utah and Oregon, respectively. As a cooperating agency, the BLM intends to adopt the EIS per Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 1506.3 to meet its responsibilities under NEPA regarding Ruby's application for a Right-of-Way Grant and Temporary Use Permit for crossing federally administered lands, including the Cache and Fremont-Winema National Forests. The concurrence or non-concurrence of the USFS would be considered in the BLM's decision as well as impacts on resources and programs, and the proposed project's conformance with land use plans. With this notice, we are asking other federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues in the project area to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EIS. These agencies may choose to participate once they have evaluated Ruby's proposal relative to their responsibilities. Agencies which would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing comments described later in this notice. We encourage government representatives to notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern. This notice is being sent to potentially affected landowners along and adjacent to the project route and within 0.5 mile of proposed compressor station sites; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; local libraries and newspapers; and other interested parties. To assist potentially affected landowners, a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the potential use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ). Summary of the Proposed Project Ruby is proposing to construct a new pipeline system in order to transport natural gas reserves in the Rocky Mountain region to the growing markets in the Western United States. Specifically, Ruby is proposing to construct the following facilities: • Approximately 680 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline between the Opal Hub in Lincoln County, Wyoming and the Malin Hub in Klamath County, Oregon; • Two new compressor stations located in Lincoln County, Wyoming and Elko County, Nevada; • 5 metering facilities; • 40 mainline block valves; and • 10 pig launcher/receivers facilities. 3 3 A pipeline “pig” is a device designed to internally clean or inspect the pipeline. A pig launcher/receiver is an aboveground facility where pigs are inserted or retrieved from the pipeline. A map depicting the general location of project facilities is shown in Figure 1. 4 Ruby has identified a preferred project route, which is shown on the map as a dark solid line. Ruby had originally considered a more northern route coming out of Wyoming, as shown on the map as a dotted red line. Although no longer preferred by Ruby, we are currently including the northern route in our evaluation as a route alternative. 4 Figure 1 (general project map) is not being printed in the **Federal Register** . Copies are available on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *www.ferc.gov* ) at the “eLibrary” link or from the Commission's Public Reference Room at
(202)502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the *Additional Information* section at the end of this notice. The project map was sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail. Requests for detailed maps of the proposed facilities should be made directly to Ruby by calling 1-877-598-5263 (toll free) or 719-520-4450. The project, if completed, would have a capacity for transporting approximately 1.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. Ruby anticipates filing its formal application with the FERC in January 2009 and would request approval such that the proposed facilities are put into service in the first quarter of 2011. By this schedule, construction of the Ruby Pipeline Project would begin in the first or second quarter of 2010. Land Requirements for Construction Ruby would use a nominal 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the project. Additional work area would be required at certain feature crossings ( *e.g.* , waterbodies, wetlands, roads, and railroads), staging areas, pipe yards, contractor's yards, and widening of certain access roads. Based on preliminary information, we estimate that construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 12,000 acres of land. Of the 12,000 acres, about 8,000 acres would be temporarily disturbed and about 4,000 acres would be permanently maintained for operation of the pipeline within a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way and as aboveground facility sites. Following construction, all temporary workspaces would be restored and allowed to revert to former use. About 60 percent of the proposed route would cross federally administered land managed by the BLM or USFS. The EIS Process The FERC will be the lead federal agency for the preparation of the EIS. As noted above, the BLM and USFS will be cooperating agencies. NEPA requires the FERC to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act. NEPA also requires us to identify and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This is the “scoping” process referred to earlier. The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on important environmental issues and reasonable alternatives. By this Notice, we are requesting agency and public comments on the scope on the issues to be addressed in the EIS. All comments received will be considered during the preparation of the EIS. We have already started to meet with Ruby personnel, agencies, and other interested stakeholders to discuss the project and identify issues/impacts and concerns. Between February 19 and March 18, 2008, representatives of FERC staff participated in public open houses sponsored by Ruby in the project area. FERC staff explained the NEPA environmental review process to interested stakeholders and noted comments related to the project. Our independent analysis of the issues will be included in a draft EIS. The draft EIS will be mailed to federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; affected landowners; other interested parties; local libraries and newspapers; and the FERC's official service list for this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review of the draft EIS. We will consider all timely comments on the draft EIS and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. Public Participation You are encouraged to become involved in this process and provide your specific comments or concerns about Ruby's planned project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. If you wish to mail comments, please carefully follow these instructions: • Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.; Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. • Label one copy of your comments for the attention of Gas 1, DG2E; and • Reference Docket No. PF08-9-000 on the original and both copies. • Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC, on or before April 30, 2008. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Internet Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the link to “ *Documents and Filings* ” and “ *eFiling* .” eFiling is a file attachment process and requires that you prepare your submission in the same manner as you would if filing on paper, and save it to a file on your computer's hard drive. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “ *Sign up* ” or “ *eRegister* .” You will be asked to select the type of filing you are making. This filing is considered a “Comment on Filing.” In addition, there is a “ *Quick Comment* ” option available, which is an easy method for interested persons to submit text only comments on a Project. The Quick-Comment User Guide can be viewed at *www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/quick-comment-guide.pdf* . Quick Comment does not require a FERC eRegistration account; however, you will be asked to provide a valid e-mail address. All comments submitted under either eFiling or the Quick Comment option are placed in the public record for the specified docket or Project number(s). Comments submitted electronically must be submitted by April 30, 2008. Availability of Additional Information Additional information about the Project is available from the FERC's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208-FERC or on the FERC Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search,” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field ( *i.e.* , PF08-9). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet Web site also provides access to the text of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. In addition, the FERC now offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. To register for this service, go to the eSubscription link on the FERC Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp* ). Information concerning the involvement of the BLM in the EIS process may be obtained from Mark Mackiewicz, PMP, National Project Manager, at
(435)636-3616. Information concerning the involvement of the USFS may be obtained from Catherine Callaghan at the Fremont-Winema National Forest at
(541)947-2151, and David Ream
(801)236-3400 at the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-7104 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD08-1-004] Review of Cost Submittals by Other Federal Agencies for Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act; Notice Requesting Questions and Comments on Fiscal Year 2007 Other Federal Agency Cost Submissions March 28, 2008. In its Order On Rehearing Consolidating Administrative Annual Charges Bill Appeals And Modifying Annual Charges Billing Procedures (109 FERC 61,040), the Commission set forth an annual deadline for Other Federal Agencies
(OFAs)to submit their costs related to Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act. The Commission required the OFAs to submit their costs by December 31st of each fiscal year
(FY)using the OFA Cost Submission Form. The order also announced that a technical conference would be held for the purpose of reviewing the submitted cost forms and detailed supporting documentation. On March 27, 2008, the Commission held a technical conference to review the FY 2007 OFA cost submissions, which was attended by OFAs and licensees. As of the date of this notice, the Commission has not received any further information that would change the analysis or figures discussed during the Technical Conference. Within three weeks of the date of this notice, interested parties may file their specific questions and comments on the FY 2007 OFA cost submissions with the Commission under Docket No. AD08-1-004. Once filed, the Commission will forward the questions and comments to the OFAs for response. Anyone with questions pertaining to the technical conference or this notice should contact Fannie Kingsberry at
(202)502-6108 (via e-mail at *fannie.kingsberry@ferc.gov* ), or Norman Richardson at
(202)502-6219 (via e-mail at *norman.richardson@ferc.gov* ). Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-7106 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0126; FRL-8551-7] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1692.06, OMB Control Number 2060-0340 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request
(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0126, to:
(1)EPA online using *http://www.regulations.gov* (our preferred method), or by e-mail to *docket.oeca@epa.gov,* or by mail to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; and
(2)OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: María Malavé, Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division (Mail Code 2223A), Office of Compliance, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202)564-7027; fax number:
(202)564-0050; e-mail address: *malave.maria@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On March 9, 2007 (72 FR 10735), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0126, which is available for public viewing online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is
(202)566-1927. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *http://www.regulations.gov,* to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov,* as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* *Title:* NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries (Renewal). *ICR Numbers:* EPA ICR Number 1692.06, OMB Control Number 2060-0340. *ICR Status:* This ICR is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2008. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Petroleum Refineries, published at 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, were proposed on July 15, 1994, and promulgated on August 18, 1995. These regulations apply to the following existing and new petroleum refining process units and emission points located at refineries that are major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs): Miscellaneous process vents, storage vessels, wastewater streams and treatment operations, equipment leaks, gasoline loading racks, and marine vessel loading operations. These regulations also apply to storage vessels and equipment leaks associated with bulk gasoline terminals or pipeline breakout stations that are related to an affected petroleum refinery. New facilities include those that commenced construction or reconstruction after the date of proposal. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC. In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all sources subject to NESHAP. In addition, respondents are required to comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in the following rules: either 40 CFR part 61, subpart VV or 40 CFR part 63, subpart H for equipment leaks (which includes an initial report and semiannual summaries of leak detection and repair); 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF for wastewater operations; portions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart R for gasoline loading racks; and 40 CFR part 63, subpart Y for marine tank vessel loading operations. Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)regional office. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 320 (rounded) hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Petroleum refineries that are major sources of HAP emissions *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 134 *Frequency of Response:* Annual, semiannual, on occasion, and quarterly *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 411,889 hours *Estimated Total Annual Costs:* There are $37,026,877 in labor costs and no annualized capital/startup or O&M costs *Changes in the Estimates:* The increase of 1,835 hours in labor burden to industry compared to the most recently approved ICR is due to various revisions and refinements to the calculation of burden hours for ongoing recordkeeping and reporting as applied to the existing respondents. The revisions and refinements made to the calculation of burden hours also caused an increase in labor burden cost to the regulatory agencies when compared to the figures in the most recently approved ICR. Dated: March 31, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-7207 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0059; FRL-8551-6] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1947.04, OMB Control Number 2060-0471 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request
(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0059, to
(1)EPA online using *http://www.regulations.gov* (our preferred method), or by e-mail to *regulations.oeca@epa.gov* , or by mail to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and
(2)OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202)564-4113; fax number:
(202)564-0050; e-mail address: *williams.learia@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On March 9, 2007 (72 FR 10735), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0059, which is available for public viewing online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is
(202)566-1927. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *http://www.regulations.gov* , to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov* , as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* *Title:* NESHAP for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production (Renewal). *ICR Numbers:* EPA ICR Number 1947.04, OMB Control Number 2060-0471. *ICR Status:* This ICR is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2008. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production were proposed on May 26, 2000 (65 FR 34252), and promulgated on April 21, 2001. These standards apply to any existing, reconstructed, or new vegetable oil production process, which are defined as a group of continuous process equipment used to remove oil from oilseeds through direct contact with an organic solvent such as n-hexane. The term “oilseed” refers to the following agricultural products: corn germ, cottonseed, flax, peanut, rapeseed (source of canola oil), safflower, soybean, and sunflower. A vegetable oil production process is only subject to the regulation if it is a major source of hazardous air pollutant
(HAP)emissions, or is collocated with other sources that are individually or collectively a major source of HAP emissions. Notification reports are required upon the construction, reconstruction, or modification of any vegetable oil production processor. Also required is one-time-only initial notification for existing, new and reconstructed sources, and notification of an actual startup date. Annual compliance reports are required, along with a deviation report, an immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction
(SSM)report, and a periodic SSM report. Affected entities must retain reports and records for five years. Owners or operators of solvent extraction for vegetable oil production facilities subject to the rule must maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG, as authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined to be private. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 185 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Solvent extraction for vegetable oil production. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 101. *Frequency of Response:* Annually, initially and occasionally. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 39,385. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $2,512,947 in labor costs. There are no annualized capital/startup and annual O&M costs associated with this ICR. *Changes in the Estimates:* There is no change in the labor hours or cost in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two considerations. First, the regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three years. Secondly, the growth rate for the industry is very low, negative or non-existent, so there is no significant change in the overall burden. Since there are no changes in the regulatory requirements and there is no significant industry growth, the labor hours and cost figures in the previous ICR are used in this ICR and there is no change in burden to industry. Dated: March 31, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-7210 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8552-2] Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to State Operating Permit for Kerr-McGee Gathering, LLC—Frederick Compressor Station AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of final action. SUMMARY: This document announces that the EPA Administrator has responded to a citizen petition asking EPA to object to an operating permit issued by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Specifically, the Administrator has granted the January 3, 2007 petition, submitted by Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action (Petitioner), to object to January 1, 2007 operating permit issued to Kerr-McGee Gathering to operate the Frederick Natural Gas Compressor Station (Kerr-McGee-Frederick Station). Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (Act), Petitioners may seek judicial review of those portions of the petitions, which EPA denied in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit. Any petition for review shall be filed within 60 days from the date this notice appears in the **Federal Register** , pursuant to section 307 of the Act. ADDRESSES: You may review copies of the final Order, the petition, and other supporting information at the EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the copies of the final order, the petition, and other supporting information. You may view the hard copies Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. If you wish to examine these documents, you should make an appointment at least 24 hours before the visiting day. Additionally, the final order for Kerr-McGee-Frederick Station is available electronically at: *http://www.epa.gov/region7/programs/artd/air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/kerrmcgee_frederick_decision2007.pdf.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Law, Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance, EPA, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,
(303)312-7015, *law.donald@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Act affords EPA a 45-day period to review, and object to as appropriate, a Title V operating permits proposed by State permitting authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator, within 60 days after the expiration of this review period, to object to a Title V operating permit if EPA has not done so. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the State, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issue arose after this period. The EPA received a petition from Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action dated January 3, 2007, requesting that EPA object to the issuance of the Title V operating permit to Kerr-McGee Gathering, LLC for the operation of the Frederick Natural Gas Compressor Station for the following reasons:
(I)The Title V permit failed to assure compliance with PSD requirements because CDPHE failed to consider whether emissions from adjacent and interrelated pollutant emitting activities triggered PSD review, specifically Kerr-McGee owned natural gas wells that supply gas to the Frederick Station;
(II)in light of CDPHE's failure to consider PSD compliance, it is likely that the Title V permit must include a compliance schedule;
(III)CDPHE failed to respond to significant comments submitted by the Petitioner during the Title V public comment period; and
(IV)CDPHE failed to consider adjacent and interrelated pollutant emitting activities in defining the “source” subject to Title V. On February 7, 2008, the Administrator issued an order granting the petition. The order explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion to grant the petition for objection. Dated: March 27, 2008. Stephen S. Tuber, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. E8-7211 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1196; FRL-8551-8] Recent Postings of Broadly Applicable Alternative Test Methods AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: This notice announces the broadly applicable alternative test method approval decisions the EPA has made under and in support of New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS)and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) in 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each alternative test method approval document is available on EPA's Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/approalt.html.* For questions about this notice, contact Jason M. DeWees, Air Quality Assessment Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (E143-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 919-541-9724; fax number: 919-541-0516; e-mail address: *dewees.jason@epa.gov.* For technical questions about individual alternative test method decisions, refer to the contact person identified in the individual approval documents. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Notice Apply to Me? This notice will be of interest to entities regulated under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63, and State, local, Tribal agencies, and EPA Regional Offices responsible for implementation and enforcement of regulations under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63. B. How Can I Get Copies Of this Information? You may access copies of the broadly applicable alternative test method approval documents from the EPA's Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/approalt.html.* II. Background This notice identifies EPA's broadly applicable alternative test method approval decisions issued between February 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007, under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), 40 part 60, and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), 40 CFR parts 61 and 63 (see Table 1). Source owners and operators may voluntarily use these broadly applicable alternative test methods. Use of these broadly applicable alternative test methods does not change the applicable emission standards. As explained in a previous **Federal Register** notice published at 72 FR 4257, 1/30/07, the EPA Administrator has the authority to approve the use of alternative test methods to comply with requirements under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63. This authority is found in sections 60.8(b)(3), 61.13(h)(1)(ii), and 63.7(e)(2)(ii). Over the years, we have performed thorough technical reviews of numerous requests for alternatives and modifications to test methods and procedures. Based on these experiences, we have found that often these changes or alternatives would be equally valid and appropriate to apply to other sources within a particular class, category, or subcategory. Consequently, we have concluded that where a method modification or a change or alternative is clearly broadly applicable to a class, category, or subcategory of sources, it is both more equitable and efficient to approve its use for all appropriate sources and situations at the same time. It is important to clarify that alternative methods are not mandatory but permissive. Sources are not required to employ such a method but may choose to do so in appropriate cases. By electing to use an alternative method, the source owner or operator consents to thereafter demonstrating compliance with applicable requirements based on the results of the alternative method until approved to do so otherwise. The criteria for approval and procedures for submission and review of broadly applicable alternative test methods are outlined at 72 FR 4257, 1/30/07. EPA will continue to announce approvals for broadly applicable alternative test methods on the EPA's Web site *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/approalt.html* and intends to publish a notice annually that summarizes approvals for broadly applicable alternative test methods. This notice comprises a summary of six such approval documents added to our technology transfer network from February 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007. The alternative test number, the reference method affected, sources affected, and modification or alternative method allowed are listed in *Table 1* of this notice. Complete copies of these approval documents can be obtained from the EPA's Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/approalt.html.* If you are aware of reasons why a particular alternative test method approval that we issue should not be broadly applicable, we request that you make us aware of the reasons within 60 days of the **Federal Register** notice announcing the broad approval, and we will revisit the broad approval. Any objection to a broadly applicable alternative test method as well as the resolution of that objection will be announced on the EPA's Web site *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/approalt.html* and in the subsequent **Federal Register** notice. If we should decide to retract a broadly applicable test method, we would continue to grant case-by-case approvals, as appropriate, and would (as States, local and Tribal agencies and EPA Regional Offices should) consider the need for an appropriate transition period for users either to request case-by-case approval or to transition to an approved method. Dated: March 28, 2008. Jennie N. Edmonds, Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. TABLE 1.—Approved Alternative Test Methods and Modifications To Test Methods Under Appendices A or B In CFR 60, 61, and 63 Made Between February 2007 and December 2007 Alternative No. As an alternative or modification to . . . For . . . You may . . . Alt-032 Default thermal efficiency values in Subpart AAA in § 60.536(i)(3). Wood Stoves affected under the NSPS for Residential Wood Heaters in 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAA. Use CSA B415.1 test protocol for determination of actual thermal efficiency rating in lieu of default values. Alt-034 Method 23—Determination of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans from Municipal Waste Combustors. Sources subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum Production. Omit the sample gas filtration temperature sensor; Omit the methylene chloride rinse; and Use a Teflon coated stainless steel nozzle in gas streams less than 290°C (554°F). Alt-035 Method 308—Procedure for Determination of Methanol Emission from Stationary Sources. Sources subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart S, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Pulp and Paper Industry. Use NCASI Method CI/SG/PULP-94.03 in lieu of Method 308. Alt-036 Method 23—Determination of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans from Municipal Waste Combustors. Sources subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry. Substitute the toluene rinse for the methylene chloride rinse; and Combine all fractions including the toluene rinse before analysis. Alt-037 Method 18—Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography. Sources subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Pharmaceutical Production. Use Method 320 in lieu of Method 18 to demonstrate by definition (§ 63.536) that a vent is not a process vent because it is emitting less than 50 ppmv of HAPs. Alt-038 Method 18—Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography. Sources subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Cellulose Products Manufacturing. Use Method 320 in lieu of Method 18 to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU. [FR Doc. E8-7199 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION Farm Credit Administration Board; Regular Meeting AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board). Date and Time: The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on April 10, 2008, from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roland E. Smith, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board,
(703)883-4009, TTY
(703)883-4056. ADDRESSES: Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are: Open Session A. Approval of Minutes • March 13, 2008 B. New Business—Regulations • Farmer Mac Risk-Based Capital Stress Test Revisions (Version 3.0)—Final Rule • Financing for Processing or Marketing Operations—Final Rule C. Reports • Auditors' Report on FCSBA FY 2007 Financial Statements Closed Session * * Session Closed-Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(8) and (9). • OSMO Supervisory and Oversight Activities Dated: April 1, 2008. Roland E. Smith, Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. [FR Doc. 08-1110 Filed 4-3-08; 2:19 pm]
Connectionstraces to 44
Traces to 44 documents
register
U.S. Code
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Enforcement§ 70e
- Purposes§ 3501
- Regulations§ 8913
- Regulations§ 8716
- Congressional findings and declaration of purposes and policy§ 1531
- Definitions§ 3371
- Settlements§ 9622
- Liability§ 9607
- Federal agency responsibilities§ 3506
- Antidumping duties imposed§ 1673
- Findings, purposes and policy§ 1801
- Ownership; assignment§ 261
- Certificates of registration§ 1057
- Open meetings§ 552b
CFR
- May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that set out in the airworthiness directive?§ 39.19
- The public record.§ 4.9
- Generic names and definitions for manufactured fibers.§ 303.7
- Administrative review of orders and suspension agreements under section 751(a)(1) of the Act.§ 351.213
- Review procedures.§ 351.221
- Access to business proprietary information.§ 351.305
- New shipper reviews under section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act; expedited reviews in countervailing duty proceedings.§ 351.214
- Changed circumstances review under section 751(b) of the Act.§ 351.216
- Record of proceedings.§ 351.104
- Revocation of orders; termination of suspended investigations.§ 351.222
- Comparison of normal value with export price (constructed export price).§ 351.414
- Calculation of export price and constructed export price; reimbursement of antidumping and countervailing duties.§ 351.402
- Levels of trade; adjustment for difference in level of trade; constructed export price offset.§ 351.412
- Differences in circumstances of sale§ 351.410
- Differences in physical characteristics.§ 351.411
- In general.§ 351.401
- Conversion of currency.§ 351.415
- Disclosure of calculations and procedures for the correction of ministerial errors.§ 351.224
- Written argument.§ 351.309
- Hearings.§ 351.310
- 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
- Filings and Other Submissions.§ 385.2001
- Method of notice; dates established in notice (Rule 210).§ 385.210
statutes-at-large
39 references not yet in our index
- 14 CFR 39
- 16 CFR 303
- 72 FR 48
- 26 CFR 1
- 26 CFR 31
- 48 CFR 1633
- 41 USC 601-613
- Pub. L. 96-354
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 41 USC 401
- 48 CFR 1.301
- 48 CFR 2133
- 7 CFR 355
- 50 CFR 17.12
- 7 CFR 356
- 40 CFR 1501.5(b)
- 36 CFR 215
- 7 CFR 1.27(d)
- 435 U.S. 519
- 490 F. Supp. 1334
- 40 CFR 1503.3
- 40 CFR 1501.7
- Pub. L. 104-13
- 70 F. Supp. 2d 1350
- 727 F. Supp. 625
- 850 F. Supp. 141
- 19 CFR 353.54(e)(1988)
- 19 CFR 353.54
- 243 F.3d 1301
- 50 CFR 679
- 41 CFR 102
- Pub. L. 92-463
- 16 USC 791a-825r
- 5 CFR 1320.12
- 5 CFR 1320.8(d)
- 40 CFR 9
- 40 CFR 63
- 40 CFR 61
- 40 CFR 60
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
SCOTUS435 U.S. 519
F. Supp.490 F. Supp. 1334
F. Supp.70 F. Supp. 2d 1350
Cites 83 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources