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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2008-06-09 · Office of Community Services, ACF, DHHS · Notices

Notices. Notice To Award a Program Expansion Supplement

32,076 words·~146 min read·/register/2008/06/09/08-1333

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P 73 111 Monday, June 9, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of Community Services [CFDA#: 53.570] Notice To Award a Program Expansion Supplement AGENCY: Office of Community Services, ACF, DHHS. ACTION: Notice To Award a Program Expansion Supplement. *Legislative Authority:* Sections 678A(a)(1)(A) of the Community Services Block Grant
(CSBG)Act of 1981, (Pub. L. 97-35) as amended by the Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational Services (COATES) Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998, (Pub. L. 105-285) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services
(HHS)to use a percentage of appropriated funds for training technical assistance, planning, evaluation, performance measurement, monitoring, assistance for States in carrying out corrective actions and the correction of programmatic deficiencies of eligible entities under the CSBG Act. *Amount of Award:* $50,926. *Project Period:* 9/30/2007-9/29/2008. Summary This notice announces that the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Community Services intends to award a single-source program expansion to Community Action Program Legal Services, Inc (CAPLAW) located in Boston, MA in the amount of $50,926. This award will enhance CAPLAW's ability to advise and educate Community Action Agencies on legal issues with regard to effective operation and management. State agencies administering the CSBG program would be provided legal advice. This is particularly critical at this time due to the increased emphasis by funding sources on compliance with federal grants requirements and to changes in laws applicable to Community Action Agencies and programs they administer. CAPLAW would use the increased funding to hire an additional full-time attorney and an additional part-time staff person to handle communications and other administration. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Yolanda J. Butler, Deputy Director, Office of Community Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20047. Telephone: 202-401-9333 Dated: June 2, 2008. Josephine Robinson, Director, Office of Community Services. [FR Doc. E8-12806 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2008-0013] Notice of Determination of Pest-Free Areas Within the States of Ceará and Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that we are recognizing 7 municipalities in the State of Ceará and 13 municipalities in the State of Rio Grande do Norte as pest-free areas for the South American cucurbit fly. Based on our review of the documentation submitted by Brazil's national plant protection organization, which we made available to the public for review and comment through a previous notice, the Administrator has determined that those municipalities meet the criteria in our regulations for recognition as pest-free areas. DATES: *Effective Date:* June 9, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Juan A. Román, Import Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, Plant Health Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301)734-8758. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56 through 319.56-47, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States. Section 319.56-4 of the regulations contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely imported subject to one or more of the designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph
(b)of that section. One of the designated phytosanitary measures is that the fruits or vegetables are imported from a pest-free area in the country of origin that meets the requirements of § 319.56-5 for freedom from that pest and are accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate stating that the fruits or vegetables originated in a pest-free area in the country of origin. Under the regulations in § 319.56-5, APHIS requires that determinations of pest-free areas be made in accordance with the criteria for establishing freedom from pests found in International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures
(ISPM)No. 4, “Requirements for the Establishment of Pest-Free Areas.” The international standard was established by the International Plant Protection Convention of the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization and is incorporated by reference in our regulations in 7 CFR 300.5. In addition, APHIS must also approve the survey protocol used to determine and maintain pest-free status, as well as protocols for actions to be performed upon detection of a pest. Pest-free areas are subject to audit by APHIS to verify their status. In accordance with that process, we published a notice 1 in the **Federal Register** on March 3, 2008 (73 FR 11382-11383, Docket No. APHIS-2008-0013), in which we announced the availability, for review and comment, of a commodity import evaluation document in which we examined the survey protocols and other information provided by Brazil relative to its system to establish freedom, phytosanitary measures to maintain freedom, and system for the verification of the maintenance of freedom. We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending on May 2, 2008. We received five comments by that date, from a produce wholesaler, a fresh fruit importer, two melon producers/exporters, and the director of a Brazilian fruit fly rearing facility. All of the commenters supported the recognition of the 7 municipalities in the State of Ceará and 13 municipalities in the State of Rio Grande do Norte as pest-free areas for the South American cucurbit fly ( *Anastrepha grandis* ). 1 To view the notice, the pest risk analysis, and the comments we received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2008-0013.* In accordance with § 319.56-5(c), we are announcing the Administrator's determination that the municipalities of Aracati, Icapuí, Itaiçaba, Jaguaruana, Limoeiro do Norte, Quixeré, and Russas in the State of Ceará and the municipalities of Açu, Afonso Bezerra, Alto do Rodrigues, Areia Branca, Baraúna, Camaubais, Grossos, Ipanguaçu, Mossoró, Porto do Mangue, Serra do Mel, Tibau, and Upanema in the State of Rio Grande do Norte meet the criteria of § 319.56-5(a) and
(b)with respect to freedom from *A. grandis* . Accordingly, we are recognizing those municipalities as pest-free areas for *A. grandis* and have added them to the list of pest-free areas. You may view the list of pest-free areas on the Internet by going to *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/index.shtml* and selecting the link for designated pest-free areas under the heading “Plant Importation Manuals.” Done in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of June 2008. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E8-12855 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* Economic Development Administration (EDA). *Title:* Revolving Loan Fund Reporting and Compliance Requirements. *Form Number(s):* ED-209 (replaces ED-209S and ED-209A), ED-209I. *OMB Approval Number:* 0610-0095. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 3,679. *Number of Respondents:* 584. *Average Hours Per Response:* ED-209, 2 hours and 54 minutes; and ED-209I, 15 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The mission of the Economic Development Administration
(EDA)is to lead the federal economic development agenda by promoting innovation and competitiveness, preparing American regions for growth and success in the worldwide economy. One of EDA's seven economic development programs is the Revolving Loan Fund
(RLF)Program. EDA may award competitive grants to units of local government, state governments, institutions of higher education, public or private non-profit organizations, district organizations, and tribal governments to establish RLFs. Following grant award and fulfillment of EDA's pre-disbursement requirements, an RLF grantee may disburse grant funds to make loans at interest rates that are at or below current market rate to small businesses or to businesses that cannot otherwise borrow capital. As the loans are repaid, the grantee uses a portion of interest earned to pay for administrative expenses and adds remaining principal and interest repayments to the RLF's capital base to make new loans. The information contained in the ED-209, ED-209I, and RLF Plan, submitted by the grantee, will be used by EDA personnel to monitor the compliance of RLF grantees with legal and programmatic requirements, and to ensure that EDA exercises adequate fiduciary responsibility over its portfolio. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations; not-for-profit institutions; state, local or tribal government. *Frequency:* Semi-annually. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Roster,
(202)395-3897. 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 David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number
(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: June 4, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-12801 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-34-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-832 Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: 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 the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) covering the period May 1, 2006, through April 30, 2007. We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the period of review (“POR”), for which the importer-specific assessment rates are above *de minimis* . Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 9, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Degnan or Robert Bolling, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0414 and
(202)482-3434, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 1, 2007, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from the PRC for the period May 1, 2006, through April 30, 2007. * See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity to Request Administrative Review * , 72 FR 23796. On May 25, 2005, US Magnesium LLC (“US Magnesium” or “Petitioner”) requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Tianjin Magnesium International, Co.'s (“TMI's”) exports of pure magnesium to the United States during the period May 1, 2006, through April 30, 2007. On May 30, 2007, TMI filed a request for review of its exports, and requested a one-year deferral 1 of initiation contending that because TMI began shipping late in the POR, consolidating its shipments with the next review would be more efficient than conducting two reviews. On May 31, 2007, Shanxi Datuhe Coke & Chemicals Co., Ltd. (“Datuhe”) requested that the Department conduct an administration review of its sales of pure magnesium to the United States during the POR. On June 20, 2007, TMI filed a letter stating the deferral should be granted as there was no objection by any party within the 15-day regulatory deadline. On June 28, 2007, Economic Consulting Services LLC (“ECS”) submitted a letter stating that, as the lead firm representing Petitioner, it had not been served with TMI's request for an administrative review and deferral of that review, and was not aware of this request until TMI's June 20, 2007, submission. ECS stated it has long been the lead representative for Petitioner and, because it was not notified of TMI's deferral request, asked that the Department:
(1)reject TMI's request for the deferral as improperly served; or
(2)grant US Magnesium an extension of time to file an objection to TMI's deferral request. On June 29, 2007, we initiated an administrative review of the order on pure magnesium with respect to Datuhe, but deferred initiating a review with respect to TMI because no party objected to TMI's deferral request within 15 days. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 72 FR 35690. On July 6, 2007, TMI responded to ECS's request, stating that:
(1)it properly served the *legal* representative of US Magnesium ( *i.e.* , King & Spalding); as ECS is not the *legal* representative, it has no standing to make a valid claim regarding service; and
(2)as the May 25, 2007, request for review was submitted by ECS, not a legal representative of the domestic party, the request should be removed from the record. On September 26, 2008, the Department issued a memorandum granting Petitioner an extension of time to file an objection to the request of TMI to defer the initiation of the administrative review with respect to TMI. *See* Memorandum to the File: “Granting Petitioner an Extension of Time to File an Objection to Respondent's Deferral Request,” dated September 26, 2007. On September 28, 2007, Petitioner objected to TMI's deferral request. On January 28, 2008, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review of pure magnesium from the PRC for the period May 1, 2006, through April 30, 2007, with respect to TMI. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 73 FR 4831. 1 Under 19 CFR 351.213(c), “the Secretary may defer the initiation of an administrative review, in whole or in part, for one year if: the review request is accompanied by a request to defer, and no party (i.e., exporter, producer, importer or domestic interested party) objects to the deferral.” Additionally, 19 CFR 351.213(c)(2), states objections to deferrals must be submitted within 15 days after the end of the anniversary month. On September 4, 2007, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to Datuhe. On October 2, 2007, and October 25, 2007, Datuhe submitted its questionnaire responses. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Datuhe on January 8, 2008, to which Datuhe responded on February 8, 2008. On May 9, 2008, the Department issued the second supplemental questionnaire to Datuhe and received a response on May 15, 2008. On September 27, 2007, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to TMI. On November 8, 2007, and December 11, 2007, TMI submitted its questionnaire responses. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to TMI on January 31, 2008, to which TMI responded on March 6, 2008. On January 18, 2008, the Department issued a request for interested parties to submit comments on surrogate country selection and surrogate values (“SV”). TMI and Datuhe submitted surrogate country comments on February 15, 2008. Additionally, Petitioner submitted surrogate country comments on February 15, 2008. TMI, Datuhe and Petitioner submitted surrogate value comments on March 3, 2007. In March and April 2008, TMI, Datuhe and Petitioner submitted additional and rebuttal surrogate value information. On February 6, 2008, the Department published a notice in the **Federal Register** extending the time limit for the preliminary results of review from January 31, 2008, until no later than April 30, 2008. *See Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 73 FR 6931 (February 6, 2008). Additionally, on May 5, 2008, the Department published a notice in the **Federal Register** extending the time limit for the preliminary results of review from April 30, 2008, until no later May 30, 2008. *See Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 73 FR 24572 (May 5, 2008). Period of Review The POR is May 1, 2006, through April 30, 2007. Scope of Order Merchandise covered by this order is pure magnesium regardless of chemistry, form or size, unless expressly excluded from the scope of this order. Pure magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium and produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Pure primary magnesium is used primarily as a chemical in the aluminum alloying, desulfurization, and chemical reduction industries. In addition, pure magnesium is used as an input in producing magnesium alloy. Pure magnesium encompasses products (including, but not limited to, butt ends, stubs, crowns and crystals) with the following primary magnesium contents:
(1)Products that contain at least 99.95%% primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “ultra pure” magnesium);
(2)Products that contain less than 99.95%% but not less than 99.8%% primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “pure” magnesium); and
(3)Products that contain 50%% or greater, but less than 99.8%% primary magnesium, by weight, and that do not conform to ASTM specifications for alloy magnesium (generally referred to as “off-specification pure” magnesium) . “Off-specification pure” magnesium is pure primary magnesium containing magnesium scrap, secondary magnesium, oxidized magnesium or impurities (whether or not intentionally added) that cause the primary magnesium content to fall below 99.8%% by weight. It generally does not contain, individually or in combination, 1.5%% or more, by weight, of the following alloying elements: aluminum, manganese, zinc, silicon, thorium, zirconium and rare earths. Excluded from the scope of this order are alloy primary magnesium (that meets specifications for alloy magnesium), primary magnesium anodes, granular primary magnesium (including turnings, chips and powder) having a maximum physical dimension ( *i.e.* , length or diameter) of one inch or less, secondary magnesium (which has pure primary magnesium content of less than 50%% by weight), and remelted magnesium whose pure primary magnesium content is less than 50%% by weight. Pure magnesium products covered by this order are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.20.00, 8104.30.00, 8104.90.00, 3824.90.11, 3824.90.19 and 9817.00.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive. Nonmarket-Economy-Country Status In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (“NME”) country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review* , 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003). None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated normal value (“NV”) in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries. Surrogate Country When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV on the NME producer's Factors of Production (“FOP”). The Act further instructs that valuation of the FOPs shall be based on the best available information in a surrogate market economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. *See* Section 773(c)(1) of the Act. When valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market economy countries that are:
(1)at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and
(2)significant producers of comparable merchandise. *See* Section 773(c)(4) of the Act. Further, the Department normally values all FOPs in a single surrogate country. *See* 19 CFR 351.308(c)(2). The sources of the surrogate values (“SV”) are discussed under the “Normal Value” section below and in the Memorandum to the File, “Factors Valuations for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review,” dated May 30, 2008 (“Factor Valuation Memorandum”), which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Room 1117 of the main Department building. In examining which country to select as its primary surrogate for this proceeding, the Department first determined that India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Colombia, and Thailand are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. *See* Memorandum to Robert Bolling, Program Manager, From Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, “Administrative Review of Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries,” dated December 20, 2007, which is on file in the CRU. Once the economically comparable countries have been identified, we select an appropriate surrogate country by determining whether one of these countries is a significant producer of comparable merchandise and whether the data for valuing FOPs is both available and reliable. On January 18, 2008, the Department issued a request for interested parties to submit comments on surrogate country selection. TMI submitted surrogate country comments on February 15, 2008. Datuhe also submitted surrogate country comments on February 15, 2008 (“Datuhe's Surrogate Country Letter”). Additionally, Petitioner submitted surrogate country comments on February 15, 2008 (“Petitioner's Surrogate Country Letter”). TMI argues that India is the appropriate surrogate country for the PRC because India is comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic development as is demonstrated by the Department's consistent use of India as a surrogate country in recent antidumping investigations and reviews involving the PRC. TMI also states India has been consistently found to be a “significant producer” of comparable merchandise, and the existence of a well-developed comparable industry in India producing comparable merchandise supports the selection and use of India as the appropriate surrogate country. Datuhe asserts that India is the appropriate surrogate country for the PRC because India is comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development based on per-capita gross national income (“GNI”). Datuhe also stated that while India is not a significant producer of the identical merchandise, pure magnesium, neither are any of the other potential surrogates as identified by the Department. Datuhe continues by stating that India is a significant producer of aluminum, which it claims is comparable merchandise, based on the fact that both products:
(a)are light metals;
(b)are electricity-intensive;
(c)are produced by similar processes; and
(d)share some common end uses. 2 Datuhe points out that, by contrast, three of the other potential surrogate countries are not recognized as producers of aluminum and the fourth country, Indonesia, only produces a fraction of India's production. Finally, Datuhe claims that factors data from India are available, reliable, and contemporaneous. 2 Datuhe's Surrogate Country Letter at 3. Petitioner contends that the Department should select India as the surrogate country in this administrative review because India is at a level of economic development that is comparable to the PRC based on per-capita GNI and India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. Petitioner states that among the five countries considered to be comparable to China in terms of economic development, the only possible producer of primary magnesium is Southern Magnesium & Chemicals Ltd (“Southern Magnesium”), which is located in India. However, Petitioner notes that Southern Magnesium has either downsized or ceased its magnesium production operations. Petitioner continues by stating that to the best of its knowledge, none of the other four countries identified by the Department are producers of magnesium. However, Petitioner notes that India is a significant producer of aluminum, and the Department previously has determined aluminum production to be “most comparable” to magnesium production. 3 Further, Petitioner claims that while Indonesia produced aluminum, the production level was far below that of India. The remaining potential surrogate countries (Philippines, Colombia, and Thailand) are not aluminum producers. Finally, Petitioner concludes that India is the best available surrogate country because of the availability and quality of data to value the FOPs. 3 Petitioner's Surrogate Country Letter at 4. After evaluating interested parties' comments, the Department determined that India is the appropriate surrogate country to use in this review pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act based on the following facts: 1) India is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC; and 2) India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. Furthermore, we have reliable data from India that we can use to value the FOPs. 4 We have obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever possible. 5 4 *See* Letter from TMI dated March 17, 2008, Surrogate Value Data Submission at Exhibit SV-21G. 5 *See* Factor Valuation Memorandum. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in an antidumping review, interested parties may submit within 20 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results additional publicly available information to value the FOPs. 6 6 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final results of this review, interested parties may submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted by an interested party less than ten days before, on, or after the applicable deadline for submission of such factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. The Department generally cannot accept the submission of additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative SV information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). *See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part* , 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Separate Rates In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation 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. Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* government control over export activities. 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 further developed in the *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* ”). However, if the Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate-rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government control. Both respondents stated that they are either joint ventures between Chinese and foreign companies or are wholly Chinese-owned companies. Therefore, the Department must analyze whether these respondents can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* government control over export activities. a. Absence of De Jure Control The Department considers the following *de jure* criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate:
(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;
(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and
(3)other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 7 7 *See Sparklers* , 56 FR at 20589. The evidence provided by the respondents supports a preliminary finding of *de jure* absence of government control based on the following:
(1)an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporters' business and export licenses;
(2)there are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and
(3)and there are formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. b. Absence of De Facto Control Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to *de facto* government control of its export functions:
(1)Whether the export prices are set by or are subject to the approval of a government agency;
(2)whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements;
(3)whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and
(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. 8 The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. 8 *See Silicon Carbide* , 59 FR at 22586-87; *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China* , 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department conducted separate-rates analyses for Datuhe and TMI. The evidence placed on the record of this review by the respondents demonstrates an absence of *de jure* and *de facto* government control with respect to each of the exporters' exports of the merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in *Sparklers* and *Silicon Carbide* . Therefore, we have determined that Datuhe and TMI have demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate. Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of pure magnesium to the United States by TMI were made at less than NV, we compared Export Price (“EP”) and Constructed *Export Price* (“CEP”) to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “ *Normal Value* ” sections of this notice. Export Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under section 772(c) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for TMI's U.S. sales because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to importation and because CEP was not otherwise indicated. We compared NV to individual EP transactions, in accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act. Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is 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 of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772
(c)and (d). In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP for Datuhe's sales because it sold subject merchandise to its affiliated company in the United States, which in turn sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. customers. We compared NV to individual EP and CEP transactions, in accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act. Datuthe We calculated CEP for Datuhe based on delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the U.S. sales price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. Customs duty, where applicable, U.S. inland freight from port to the warehouse and U.S. inland freight from the warehouse to the customer. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department deducted credit expenses, inventory carrying costs and indirect selling expenses from the U.S. price, all of which relate to commercial activity in the United States. In accordance with section 773(a) of the Act, we calculated Datuhe's credit expenses and inventory carrying costs based on the Federal Reserve short-term rate, where applicable. Finally, we deducted CEP profit, in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. *See* Memorandum to The File Through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, China/NME Group, from Hua Lu, Case Analyst, “Analysis for the Preliminary Results of Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Shanxi Datuhe Coke & Chemicals Co., Ltd. (“Datuhe”),” dated May 30, 2008. TMI For TMI's EP sales, we based the EP on delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses. Movement expenses included expenses for foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, domestic brokerage and handling, and where applicable, international freight and marine insurance. No other adjustments to EP were reported or claimed. *See* Memorandum to The File Through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, China/NME Group, from Hua Lu, Case Analyst, “Analysis for the Preliminary Results of Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Tianjin Magnesium International, Co. (“TMI”),” dated May 30, 2008. Normal Value Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if:
(1)the merchandise is exported from an NME country; and
(2)the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home market prices, third country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. When determining NV in an NME context, the Department will base NV on FOPs because the presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under our normal methodologies. Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOPs include but are not limited to:
(1)hours of labor required;
(2)quantities of raw materials employed;
(3)amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and
(4)representative capital costs. The Department used FOPs reported by respondents for materials, energy, labor and packing. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will normally use publicly available information to find an appropriate SV to value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a market economy and pays for it in market-economy currency, the Department may value the factor using the actual price paid for the input. *See* 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); *see also Shakeproof Assembly Components Div of Ill v. United States* , 268 F. 3d 1376, 1382-1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming the Department's use of market-based prices to value certain FOPs). With regard to both import-based surrogate values and market-economy import values, it is the Department's consistent practice that, where the facts developed in the United States or third country countervailing duty findings include the existence of subsidies that appear to be used generally (in particular, broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies), it is reasonable for the Department to find that it has particular and objective evidence to support a reason to believe or suspect that prices of the inputs from the country granting the subsidies may be subsidized. *See Brake Rotors and China National Machinery Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States* , 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1338-39 (CIT 2003). In avoiding the use of prices that may be subsidized, the Department does not conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized, but rather relies on information that is generally available at the time of its determination. *See* H.R. Rep. 100-576, at 590 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-24. The Department has reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. Through other proceedings, the Department has learned that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, preliminarily finds it reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these countries may be subsidized. *See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews and Partial Rescission of the 2005-2006 Administrative Review* , 72 FR 42386 (August 2, 2007) (“Brake Rotors”), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Accordingly, the Department has disregarded prices from Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand in calculating NV because the Department has reason to believe or suspect such prices may be subsidized. Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department calculated NV based on FOPs reported by respondents for the POR. To calculate NV, the Department multiplied the reported per-unit factor consumption quantities by publicly available Indian SVs (except as noted below). In selecting the SVs, the Department considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, the Department adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, the Department added to Indian import SVs a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory where appropriate ( *i.e.* , where the sales terms for the market-economy inputs were not delivered to the factory). This adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the U.S. Court of appeals for the Federal Circuit in *Sigma Corp. v. United States* , 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed description of all SVs used to value the respondents' reported FOPs, *see* Factor Valuation Memorandum. The Department has instituted a rebuttable presumption that market economy input prices are the best available information for valuing an input when the total volume of the input purchased from all market economy sources during the POR or review exceeds 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from all sources during the period. In these cases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to rebut the Department's presumption, the Department will use the weighted- average market economy purchase price to value the input. Alternatively, when the volume of an NME firm's purchases of an input from market economy suppliers during the period is below 33 percent of its total volume of purchases of the input during the period, but where these purchases are otherwise valid and there is no reason to disregard the prices, the Department will weight average the weighted-average market economy purchase price with an appropriate SV according to their respective shares of the total volume of purchases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to rebut the presumption. When a firm has made market economy input purchases that may have been dumped or subsidized, are not *bona fide* , or are otherwise not acceptable for use in a dumping calculation, the Department will exclude them from the numerator of the ratio to ensure a fair determination of whether valid market economy purchases meet the 33-percent threshold. *See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments* , 71 FR 61716, 61717-18 (October 19, 2006). Also, where the quantity of the input purchased from market-economy suppliers is insignificant, the Department will not rely on the price paid by an NME producer to a market-economy supplier because it cannot have confidence that a company could fulfill all its needs at that price. During the POR, neither Datuhe or TMI purchased any inputs from a market economy supplier. The Department used contemporaneous import data from the World Trade Atlas (“WTA”) online, published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics, Ministry of Commerce of India, to calculate SVs for the reported FOPs purchased from NME sources. Among the FOPs for which the Department calculated SVs using Indian Import Statistics are ferrosilicon, flux, fluorite and sulfur. However, for dolomite, in reviewing the record evidence, we have found that it is reasonable to conclude that WTA data represent prices of imported dolomite in the high-end value-added product range while the dolomite used to produce subject merchandise is the high-bulk, low value commodity. *See Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2004-2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 61019 (October 17, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Therefore, for the preliminary results, we have determined to average the dolomite values from Indian Iron & Steel and Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. to calculate the surrogate value for dolomite. Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POR, the Department adjusted the rate for inflation. For a complete listing of all the inputs and the valuation for each mandatory respondent *see* Factor Value Memorandum. Where the Department could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with the POR with which to value FOPs, the Department adjusted the SVs using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index (“WPI”) available at the website of the Office of the Economic Adviser, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, http://eaindustry.nic.in/. *See* Factor Valuation Memorandum. For direct labor, indirect labor, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), the Department used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported on Import Administration's website, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in May 2008, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/04wages/04wages-010907.html. The source of these wage-rate data is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2006, ILO (Geneva: 2006), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. The years of the reported wage rates range from 2004 and 2005. Because this regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, the Department has applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondents. *See* Factor Valuation Memorandum. To value electricity, the Department used data from the International Energy Agency (“IEA”) *Key World Energy Statistics* (2003 edition). Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POR, the Department adjusted the rate for inflation. *See* Factor Valuation Memorandum. The Department valued water using data from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (www.midcindia.org) because it includes a wide range of industrial water tariffs. This source provides 386 industrial water rates within the Maharashtra province from June 2003: 193 for the “inside industrial areas” usage category and 193 for the “outside industrial areas” usage category. Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the rate for inflation. To calculate the value for domestic brokerage and handling, the Department used information available to it contained in the public version of two questionnaire responses placed on the record of separate proceedings. The first source was December 2003-November 2004 data contained in the public version of Essar Steel's February 28, 2005, questionnaire submitted in the antidumping duty administrative review of 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* , 71 FR 2018 (January 12, 2006)(unchanged in final results). This value was averaged with the February 2004-January 2005 data contained in the public version of Agro Dutch Industries Limited's (“Agro Dutch”) May 24, 2005, questionnaire response submitted in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India. *See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 37757 (June 30, 2005). The brokerage expense data reported by Essar Steel and Agro Dutch in their public versions are ranged data. The Department derived an average per-unit amount from each source and then adjusted each average rate for inflation using the WPI. The Department then averaged the two per-unit amounts to derive an overall average rate for the POR. *See* Factor Valuation Memorandum. The Department used Indian transport information in order to value the freight-in cost of the raw materials. The Department determined the best available information for valuing truck and rail freight to be from www.infreight.com. This source provides daily rates from six major points of origin to five destinations in India during the POR. The Department obtained a price quote on the first day of each month of the POR from each point of origin to each destination and averaged the data accordingly. *See* Factor Valuation Memorandum. The Department valued steam coal using the 2003/2004 Tata Energy Research Institute's Energy Data Directory & Yearbook (“TERI Data”). The Department was able to determine, through its examination of the 2003/2004 TERI Data, that: a) the annual TERI Data publication is complete and comprehensive because it covers all sales of all types of coal made by Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries, and b) the annual TERI Data publication prices are exclusive of duties and taxes. Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POR, the Department adjusted the rate for inflation. *See* Factor Valuation Memorandum. To value marine insurance, the Department obtained a generally publicly available price quote from http://www.rjgconsultants.com/insurance.html, a market-economy provider of marine insurance. *See* Factor Valuation Memorandum. To value international freight, the Department obtained a generally publicly available price quote from http://www.maersksealand.com/HomePage/appmanager, a market-economy provider of international freight services. *See* Factor Valuation Memorandum. To value factory overhead, depreciation, selling, general and administrative expenses (“SG&A”) and profit, the Department used a audited financial statement for the year ended March 31, 2007, for an Indian producer of aluminum, Sterlite Industries (India) Limited (“Sterlite”). We did not rely upon two companies' financial statements that were placed on the record, namely the financial statement of Hindalco Industries Limited (“Hindalco”) and National Aluminium Company Limited (“Nalco”), because Hindalco and Nalco's financial statements identify the receipt of “export and other incentives” or “export incentives” ( *i.e.* , “EPCG Scheme” and “DEPB Premium”) in “Operating Revenues” or “Other Income.” India's EPCG and DEPB Schemes have been found by the Department to each provide a countervailable subsidy. *See* , *e.g.* , *Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 64 FR 61592 (November 12, 1999) (unchanged in final results); *see also http://ia.ita.doc.gov/esel/eselframes.html* and *Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from India* , 71 FR 45034 (August 8, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rate.” In *Crawfish from the PRC* , the Department noted that where it has reason to believe or suspect that a company may have received subsidies, financial ratios derived from that company's financial statements do not constitute the best available information with which to value financial ratios. *See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results And Rescission, In Part, of 2004/2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews* , 72 FR 19174 (April 17, 2007) (“ *Crawfish from the PRC* ”)and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Given the record information regarding Hindalco's use of the EPCG program and Nalco's use of the DEPB program, and the fact that we have other acceptable financial statements to use as surrogates, consistent with the Department's decision in *Crawfish from the PRC* , we have not used Hindalco or Nalco's financial data in our surrogate ratio calculations. Additionally, we have not used Madras Aluminium Company Limited's (“Malco”) financial statement because Malco's financial statement only covers nine months of its fiscal year. See the Factor Valuation Memorandum for a full discussion of the calculation of Sterlite's ratios. Further, the Department used Indian Import Statistics to value material inputs for packing which, for TMI, are steel bands and plastic bags. The Department used Indian Import Statistics data for the POR for packing materials. *See* Factor Valuation Memorandum. TMI reported that it recovered cement clinker and waste magnesium from the production of pure magnesium for resale. The Department has preliminarily determined not to grant a by-product offset to either by-product because respondents' have not provided evidence that the by-products were sold or returned to production of the merchandise under consideration. Therefore, we are not granting TMI's by-product claim in our margin calculations. At the Department's request, Datuhe reported the upsteam inputs used to produce certain self-produced intermediate inputs that it reported in its Section D submission, namely ferrosilicon, electricity, and coal gas. It is the Department's practice, consistent with section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act, to value the FOPs that a respondent uses to produce the subject merchandise. In the instant case, however, because the Department has insufficient descriptions of certain inputs to ferrosilicon and electricity, namely “coal rejects,” “coal middlings,” “coal slime,” and “coal gangue,” and because there are no sources on the record to accurately value these inputs, the Department has determined that it would be more accurate to value the inputs of ferrosilicon and electricity as intermediate inputs using WTA and IEA data, respectively. *See, e.g.* , *Notice of Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003), accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. With respect to coal gas, Datuhe claims in its March 3, 2008, response that the coal gas used in the production of pure magnesium is a waste product of Datuhe's production of non-subject merchandise ( *i.e.* , coke), and, therefore, because Datuhe does not purchase this input the Department should not value it in its NV calculation. Section 773(c)(3) of the Act, however, requires the Department to value the quantities of all raw materials employed in producing subject merchandise. Therefore, the Department is required under the Act to value all inputs, including inputs obtained free of charge , such as coal gas in this case. *See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 64930, 64936 (Nov. 6, 2006). Further, Datuhe reported the FOPs used in the production of coke which generate the coal gas as a waste product, and submitted a calculated “coke by-product” adjustment to be deducted from the NV calculation. We note that coke is not, in fact, a by-product of coal gas production, but rather coal gas is a waste product of coke production. *See* Datuhe's May 15, 2008, supplemental questionnaire. Additionally, because coke production is not part of the production of the subject merchandise, the Department will not apply a by-product adjustment from the production of coke to the NV calculation of pure magnesium. Accordingly, the Department has preliminarily determined that valuing coal gas as an intermediate input in the production of the subject merchandise would result in the most accurate NV calculation. In examining the WTA import data for the five countries on the Office of Policy's potential surrogate country list, we note that there are no imports of commercial quantities of coal gas for the POR or the years leading up to the POR. Similarly, there is no IEA data for these countries during the POR. Because the Department can find no usable data on the record to value coal gas, we have determined to use the methodology employed in certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Romania. *See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Notice of Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 12651 (March 15, 2005), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 6. We have compared the amount of British thermal units (“BTUs”) in coal gas ( *i.e.* , 600) to that of natural gas ( *i.e.* , 1150) to calculate the relative percentage of BTUs in coal gas. We have applied that percentage to the SV of natural gas. *See* Factor Valuation Memorandum. Because WTA provided no data for natural gas in India, we have used another country on the Office of Policy's potential surrogate country list: Thailand. We note that we have also used this methodology in other proceedings. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 22183 (May 3, 2001), and *Final Notice of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 49632 (September 28, 2001). Additionally, we note that Datuhe provided a SV for coal gas, from the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (“CMIE”), an independent Indian economic think-tank which Datuhe claims was compiled from data provided by South Eastern Coalfields Limited. We have determined not to rely upon the CMIE value for coal gas for the preliminary results because
(1)the value is not broad and representative;
(2)it is specific to only one company; and
(3)Datuhe only provided two pages of data; thus, the Department is not able to determine whether the data is complete. Currency Conversion The Department made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank on the dates of the U.S. sales. Weighted-Average Dumping Margins The preliminary weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: Pure Magnesium from the PRC Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (percentage) Shanxi Datuhe Coke & Chemicals Co. Ltd. 0.0 Tianjin Magnesium International, Co. 21.24 Disclosure The Department will disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will generally be held two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Further, we request that parties submitting written comments provide the Department with an additional copy of those comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any comments, and at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer- or customer-specific *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent), in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will calculate customer-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on export prices. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer- or customer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above *de minimis* . For entries of the subject merchandise during the POR from companies not subject to this review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate them at the cash deposit rate in effect at the time of entry. 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. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)for Datuhe and TMI, which each have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or *de minimis* , zero cash deposit will be required);
(2)for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding (which were not reviewed in this segment of the proceeding), the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate;
(3)for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 108.26 percent; and
(4)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213. Dated: May 30, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-12869 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping Methodologies for Proceedings that Involve Significant Cost Changes Throughout the Period of Investigation (POI)/Period of Review
(POR)that May Require Using Shorter Cost Averaging Periods; Request for Comment and Proposed Methodology for Identifying and Analyzing Targeted Dumping in Antidumping Investigations; Request for Comment AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Extension of Comment Periods. SUMMARY: On May 9, 2008, the Department (“the Department”) published notices in the **Federal Register** requesting comments regarding methodologies for proceedings that involve significant cost changes throughout the POI/POR that may require using shorter cost averaging periods (73 FR 26364), and proposed methodologies for identifying and analyzing targeted dumping in antidumping investigations (73 FR 26371). The Department is extending the comment periods, making the new deadlines for the submission of public comments June 23, 2008. DATES: To be assured of consideration, written comments must be received no later than June 23, 2008. ADDRESS: Written comments (original and six copies) should be sent to the Secretary of Commerce, Attn: Import Administration, Office of Accounting, APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, Taija A. Slaughter, Lead Accountant, Office of Accounting, Anthony Hill, International Economist, Office of Policy, or Mike Rill, Director, Antidumping Policy, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-2989,
(202)482-3563,
(202)482-1843 or
(202)482-3058, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Submission of Comments The Department is extending the deadlines for submitting rebuttal comments by ten business days, to June 23, 2008. The Department will consider all comments received before the close of the comment periods. Consideration of comments received after the end of the comment periods cannot be assured. Persons wishing to comment should file a signed original and six copies of each set of comments by the date specified above. The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially due to business proprietary concerns or for any other reason. The Department will return such comments and materials to the persons submitting the comments and will not consider them in its development of a methodology for when it is appropriate to deviate from the annual average cost reporting method to shorter cost averaging periods, or when considering proposed methodologies for identifying and analyzing targeted dumping in antidumping investigations. The Department requires that comments be submitted in written form. The Department also requests submission of comments in electronic form to accompany the required paper copies. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted either by e-mail to the webmaster below, or on CD-ROM, as comments submitted on diskettes are likely to be damaged by postal radiation treatment. Comments received in electronic form will be made available to the public in Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the Import Administration website at the following address: http:/ia.ita.doc.gov. Any questions concerning file formatting, document conversion, access on the Internet, or other electronic filing issues should be addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import Administration Webmaster, at
(202)482-0866, email address: webmaster-support@ita.doc.gov. Dated: June 4, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-12987 Filed 6-6??-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila E. Forbes, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Unit, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone:
(202)482-4697. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspension of investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), may request, in accordance with section 351.213
(2007)of the Department of Commerce (the Department) Regulations, that the Department conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation. OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST A REVIEW: Not later than the last day of June 2008 1 , interested parties may request administrative review of the following orders, findings, or suspended investigations, with anniversary dates in June for the following periods: 1 Or the next business day, if the deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday or any other day when the Department is closed. Antidumping Duty Proceedings Period THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Apple Juice Concentrate, Non-Frozen A-570-855 6/1/07 - 5/31/08 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Artist Canvas A-570-899 6/1/07 - 5/31/08 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Chlorinated Isocyanurates A-570 -898 6/1/07 - 5/31/08 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Color Television Receivers A-570-884 6/1/07 - 5/31/08 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs A-570-877 6/1/07 - 5/31/08 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Furfuryl Alcohol A-570-835 6/1/07 - 5/31/08 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Lawn and Garden Fence Posts A-570-877 6/1/07 - 5/31/08 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Polyester Staple Fiber A-570-905 12/26/06 - 5/31/08 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Silicon Metal A-570-806 6/1/07 - 5/31/08 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Sparklers A-570-804 6/1/07 - 5/31/08 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Tapered Roller Bearings A-570-601 6/1/07 - 5/31/08 JAPAN: Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line Pressure A-588-850 Pipe (Over 4 ½ Inches) 6/1/07 - 5/31/08 JAPAN: Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line Pressure A-588-851 Pipe (Under 4 ½ Inches) 6/1/07 - 5/31/08 JAPAN: Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products A-588-846 6/1/07 - 5/31/08 SOUTH KOREA: Polyethylene Terephthalate
(PET)Film A-580-807 6/1/07 - 5/31/08 SPAIN: Chlorinated Isocyanurates A-469-814 6/1/07 - 5/31/08 TAIWAN: Helical Spring Lock Washers A-583-820 6/1/07 - 5/31/08 TAIWAN: Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings A-583-816 6/1/07 - 5/31/08 Countervailing Duty Proceedings None Suspension Agreements RUSSIA: Ammonium Nitrate A-821-811 6/1/07 - 5/31/08 In accordance with section 351.213(b) of the regulations, an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review, and the requesting party must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. 2 If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which were produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover. 2 If the review request involves a non-market economy and the parties subject to the review request do not qualify for separate rates, all other exporters of subject merchandise from the non-market economy country who do not have a separate rate will be covered by the review as part of the single entity of which the named firms are a part. Please note that, 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. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii). As explained in *Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), the Department has clarified its practice with respect to the collection of final antidumping duties on imports of merchandise where intermediate firms are involved. The public should be aware of this clarification in determining whether to request an administrative review of merchandise subject to antidumping findings and orders. See also the Import Administration web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. Six copies of the request should be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. The Department also asks parties to serve a copy of their requests to the Office of Antidumping/Countervailing Operations, Attention: Sheila Forbes, in room 3065 of the main Commerce Building. Further, in accordance with section 351.303(f)(l)(i) of the regulations, a copy of each request must be served on every party on the Department's service list. The Department will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of “Initiation of Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation” for requests received by the last day of June 2008. If the Department does not receive, by the last day of June 2008, a request for review of entries covered by an order, finding, or suspended investigation listed in this notice and for the period identified above, the Department will instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping or countervailing duties on those entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or bond for) estimated antidumping or countervailing duties required on those entries at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption and to continue to collect the cash deposit previously ordered. This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community. Dated: June 3, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-12860 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences Actions ACTION: New collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), 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 this new information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before August 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: *E-mail:* *Susan.Fawcett@uspto.gov.* Include “0651-00xx Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences Actions comment” in the subject line of the message. *Fax:* 571-273-0112, marked to the attention of Susan K. Fawcett. *Mail:* Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. *Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to the attention of Kimberly Jordan, Chief Trial Administrator, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-9797; or by e-mail at *BPAI.Rules@uspto.gov* with “Paperwork” in the subject line. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) established the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI or Board) under 35 U.S.C. 6(b). This statute directs BPAI to “on written appeal of an applicant, review adverse decisions of examiners upon applications for patent and shall determine priority and patentability of invention in interferences.” BPAI has the authority under 35 U.S.C. 134, 135, 306, and 315 to review ex parte and inter partes appeals and interferences. In addition, 35 U.S.C. 6 establishes the membership of BPAI as the Director, the Deputy Director, the Commissioner for Patents, the Commissioner for Trademarks, and the Administrative Patent Judges, one of which serves as the Chief Judge and another as the Vice Chief Judge. Each appeal and interference is decided by a merits panel of at least three members of the Board. The Board's two main responsibilities under the statute include the review of ex parte appeals from adverse decisions of examiners in those situations where a written appeal is taken by a dissatisfied applicant, and the administration of interferences to “determine priority” (or decide who is the first inventor) whenever an applicant claims the same patentable invention that is already claimed by another applicant or patentee. In inter partes reexamination appeals, BPAI reviews decisions adverse to a patent owner or a third-party requestor. The USPTO published a notice of proposed rule making, “Rules of Practice Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex Parte Appeals (RIN 0651-AC12)” in the **Federal Register** on July 30, 2007. The public comment period ended on September 28, 2007. In this proposed rule making, the USPTO proposed changes to information submitted to the agency by practitioners in order to process ex parte appeals before the BPAI. The agency received comments from the public concerning the burden of these rules on the public, in particular the new requirements that allow the agency to structure the information being received. In order to ensure that the public has opportunity to comment on the burden impact of the proposed rule making, the USPTO is submitting a new information collection request to the OMB to review these changes as subject to the PRA and to incorporate the new information collection into the agency's information collection inventory. The USPTO is asking that a new collection of information, entitled “Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences Actions” be established. This collection will contain the following items: • Appeal Brief (41.37). • Petition for Extension of Time for Filing Paper After Appeal Brief (41.3 and 41.20). • Petition to Increase Page Limit (41.3 and 41.20). • Reply Brief (41.41). • Request for Rehearing Before the BPAI (41.52). Additionally, there are two items related to BPAI activities that are currently covered in 0651-0031 Patent Processing (Updating). This collection is currently under review at OMB. It is the USPTO's intention to move these items out of 0651-0031 into this new collection once this collection is established and OMB's review of 0651-0031 is concluded. The following items will be moved out of 0651-0031: • Notice of Appeal (41.31). • Request for Oral Hearing Before the BPAI (41.47). BPAI's opinions and decisions for publicly available files are published on the USPTO Web site. There are no forms associated with these items. However, they are governed by rules in Part 41. Failure to comply with the appropriate rule may result in dismissal of the appeal or denial of entry of the paper. II. Method of Collection By mail, hand delivery, or fax when applicant files the briefs, petitions, and requests. These papers can also be filed as attachments through EFS-Web. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0651-00xx. *Form Number(s)* : No forms. *Type of Review:* New information collection. *Affected Public:* Primarily business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 31,828 responses per year. In the future, once this proposed collection and 0651-0031 are approved by OMB, the USPTO expects to move the notices of appeal and requests for oral hearing before the BPAI into this collection. The USPTO estimates that this will add a minimum of 28,595 responses to this collection. *Estimated Time Per Response:* The USPTO estimates that it takes the public approximately 5 to 30 hours to complete this information, depending on the brief, petition, or request. This includes the time to gather the necessary information, prepare the briefs, petitions, and requests, and submit them to the USPTO. The USPTO estimates that it takes the public approximately 12 minutes (0.20 hours) to complete the notices of appeal and requests for oral hearing before the BPAI. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours:* 773,895 hours. The USPTO estimates that once the notices of appeal and requests for oral hearing before the BPAI are moved into this collection, a minimum of 5,719 hours per year will be added to the burden. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden:* $239,907,450. The USPTO believes that associate attorneys will complete these briefs, petitions, and requests. The professional hourly rate for associate attorneys in private firms is $310. Using this hourly rate, the USPTO estimates that the total respondent cost burden for this collection is $239,907,450 per year. Once the notices of appeal and requests for oral hearing before the BPAI are moved into this collection, the USPTO estimates that the annual respondent cost burden will increase by a minimum of $1,772,890. The USPTO believes that these items are also completed by associate attorneys. Item Estimated time for response (hours) Estimated annual responses Estimated annual burden hours Appeal Briefs 30 23,145 694,350 Petition for Extension of Time for Filing Paper After Brief 15 2,298 34,470 Petition to Increase Page Limit 15 1,315 19,725 Reply Briefs 5 4,947 24,735 Requests for Rehearing Before the BPAI 5 123 615 Total 31,828 773,895 The table below show the estimated annual responses and burden hours that the USPTO expects will be added to this collection once the notice of appeal and requests for oral hearing before the BPAI are transferred out of 0651-0031 into this collection. These estimates are based on current projections and are an increase over the estimates currently in 0651-0031 (17,250 responses, 3,450 burden hours, and $1,048,800 in respondent costs). The estimates below are not being reported in the burden for this proposed collection at this time. The USPTO has included the estimates to show the public what the minimum expected burden will be for this collection. Item Estimated time for response (minutes) Estimated annual responses Estimated annual burden hours Notice of Appeal 12 27,630 5,526 Request for Oral Hearing Before the BPAI 12 965 193 Total 28,595 5,719 *Estimated Total Annual Non-hour Respondent Cost Burden:* $12,286,831. There are postage costs and filing fees associated with this information collection. This collection does not have any capital start-up, operation, maintenance, or recordkeeping costs. Parties incur postage costs when submitting the various papers to the USPTO by mail through the United States Postal Service. The USPTO believes that these items will be mailed by Express Mail, using the Postal Service's flat rate envelope, which can accommodate varying submission weights. The cost of the flat rate envelope is $16.50. The USPTO believes that roughly half of the submissions will be filed in paper, with the rest filed as attachments through EFS-Web. Out of the total estimated 31,828 submissions, the USPTO estimates that the number of papers submitted to the USPTO by Express Mail is 15,983. Item Responses
(yr)Postage costs Total cost
(b)(a)×(b) Appeal Briefs 11,573 $16.50 $190,955.00 Petitions for Extensions of Time for Filing Paper After Brief 1,167 16.50 19,256.00 Petitions to Increase Page Limit 668 16.50 11,022.00 Reply Briefs 2,513 16.50 41,465.00 Requests for Rehearing Before the BPAI 62 16.50 1,023.00 Total 15,983 263,721.00 Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the total postage costs for this collection will be $263,721. There is also annual non-hour cost burden in the way of filing fees for the appeal briefs and the petitions. The reply briefs and the request for rehearing before the BPAI do not have filing fees associated with them. The USPTO estimates that the total non-hour cost burden associated with the filing fees for this collection will be $12,023,110. Item Responses
(yr)Filing fees Total non-hour cost burden
(a)×
(b)Appeal Briefs 18,337 $510.00 $9,351,870.00 Appeal Briefs (small entity) 4,808 255.00 1,226,040.00 Petitions for Extension of Time for Filing Paper After Brief 2,298 400.00 919,200.00 Petitions to Increase Page Limit 1,315 400.00 526,000.00 Reply Briefs 4,947 0.00 0.00 Requests for Rehearing Before the BPAI 123 0.00 0.00 Totals 31,828 12,023,110.00 The USPTO estimates that the total non-hour respondent cost burden for this collection, in the form of postage costs and filing fees is $12,286,831 per year. The tables below show the estimated non-hour costs related to postage and filing fees that the USPTO expects will be added to this collection once the notices of appeal and requests for oral hearing before the BPAI are transferred out of 0651-0031 into this collection. These estimates are based on current projections and are an increase over the total non-hour cost estimates for postage and filing fees ($7,952,505) currently in 0651-0031 for these two items. The estimates shown below are not being reported in the burden for this proposed collection at this time. The USPTO has included the estimates to show the public what the minimum expected burden will be for this collection. The USPTO estimates that a minimum of $13,177,835 per year will be added to the total non-hour respondent cost burden. Item Responses
(yr)Postage costs Total cost
(a)×
(b)Notices of Appeal 27,630 $0.58 $16,025.00 Requests for Oral Hearing Before the BPAI 925 0.58 560.00 Total 28,595 16,585.00 Item Responses
(yr)Filing fees
(yr)Total non-hour cost burden
(a)×
(b)Notices of Appeal 21,635 $500.00 $10,817,500.00 Notices of Appeal (small entity) 5,977 250.00 1,494,250.00 Requests for Oral Hearing Before the BPAI 734 1,000.00 734,000.00 Requests for Oral Hearing Before the BPAI (small entity) 231 500.00 115,500.00 Total 28,577 13,161,250.00 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 or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: June 3, 2008. Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division. [FR Doc. E8-12820 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 8, 2008. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues:
(1)Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department;
(2)will this information be processed and used in a timely manner;
(3)is the estimate of burden accurate;
(4)how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(5)how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Dated: June 3, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Postsecondary Education *Type of Review:* Revision. *Title:* Talent Search
(TS)and Educational Opportunity Centers
(EOC)Annual Performance Report. *Frequency:* Annually. *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 596. *Burden Hours:* 3,576. *Abstract:* Talent Search and Equal Opportunity Centers grantees must submit this annual performance report. The Department uses the reports to evaluate the performance of grantees prior to awarding continuation funding and to assess grantees' prior experience at the end of the budget period. The Department will also aggregate the data across grantees to provide descriptive information on the programs and to analyze its outcomes in response to the Government Performance and Results Act. Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov,* by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3699. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov.* Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E8-12822 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [CFDA Nos. 84.007, 84.032, 84.033, 84.038, 84.063, 84.069, 84.268, 84.375, and 84.376] Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant, Federal Family Education Loan, Federal Work-Study, Federal Perkins Loan, Federal Pell Grant, Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan, Academic Competitiveness Grant, and National Science and Mathematics Access To Retain Talent Grant Programs ACTION: Notice of deadline dates for receipt of applications, reports, and other records for the 2007-2008 award year. SUMMARY: The Secretary announces deadline dates for the receipt of documents and other information from institutions and applicants for the Federal student aid programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, for the 2007-2008 award year. The Federal student aid programs include the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant, Federal Family Education Loan, Federal Work-Study, Federal Perkins Loan, Federal Pell Grant, Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan, Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG), and National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grant (National SMART Grant) programs. These programs, administered by the U.S. Department of Education (Department), provide financial assistance to students attending eligible postsecondary educational institutions to help them pay their educational costs. *Deadline and Submission Dates:* See Tables A and B at the end of this notice. Table A—Deadline Dates for Application Processing and Receipt of Student Aid Reports
(SARs)or Institutional Student Information Records (ISIRs) by Institutions Table A provides information and deadline dates for application processing, including receipt of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and corrections to and signatures for the FAFSA, submission and receipt of SARS and ISIRS, and submission and receipt of verification documents. The single date for the receipt of a FAFSA is June 30, 2008, regardless of the method that the applicant uses to submit the FAFSA. The deadline date for the submission and receipt of a signature page for the FAFSA (if required), corrections, changes of addresses or schools, or requests for a duplicate SAR is September 22, 2008. Verification documents must be submitted and received no later than the earlier of 120 days after the student's last date of enrollment or September 29, 2008. SARS and ISIRS with an official expected family contribution for all Federal student aid programs except Parent PLUS must be submitted and received no later than the earlier of the student's last date of enrollment or September 29, 2008. A valid SAR or valid ISIR for a student not meeting the conditions for a late disbursement for purposes only of the Federal Pell Grant, ACG, or National SMART Grant programs must be submitted and received no later than the earlier of the student's last date of enrollment or September 29, 2008. A valid SAR or valid ISIR for a student meeting the conditions for a late disbursement under the Federal Pell Grant, ACG, or National SMART Grant programs must be submitted and received according to the deadline dates provided below. Under the current provisions of 34 CFR 668.164(g)(4)(i), an institution may make a late disbursement for a student no later than 120 days after the date of the institution's determination that the student withdrew or, for a student who did not withdraw, 120 days after the date the student otherwise became ineligible. Under the current regulations, on an exception basis, we may approve a late disbursement after the 120-day period if the reason that the late disbursement was not made within that 120-day period was not the fault of the student. The valid SAR or valid ISIR for a student meeting the conditions for a late disbursement under the Federal Pell Grant, ACG, or National SMART Grant programs must be submitted and received no later than the earlier of the timeframes provided in 34 CFR 668.164(g)(4)(i) or September 29, 2008. On November 1, 2007, we published final regulations in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 62014, 62029) that among other things amended 34 CFR 668.164(g)(4)(i) regarding late disbursements. Amended 34 CFR 668.164(g)(4)(i) is effective July 1, 2008, unless an institution chooses to implement this amended provision earlier than July 1, 2008. Amended 34 CFR 668.164(g)(4)(i) provides that an institution may not make a late disbursement later than 180 days after the date of the institution's determination that the student withdrew or, for a student who did not withdraw, 180 days after the date the student otherwise became ineligible. The amended regulations do not provide for an extension to this 180-day period. If an institution chooses to implement the amended provisions earlier than July 1, 2008, we are providing in Table A that an institution must receive a valid SAR or valid ISIR no later than 180 days after its determination of a student's withdrawal or, for a student who did not withdraw, 180 days after the date the student otherwise became ineligible, but not later than September 29, 2008. We will not accept a request for an extension of the 120-day period under the current regulations after June 30, 2008. Table B—Federal Pell Grant, ACG, and National SMART Grant Programs Submission Dates for Disbursement Information by Institutions Table B provides the earliest submission and deadline dates for institutions to submit Federal Pell Grant, ACG, and National SMART Grant disbursement records to the Department's Common Origination and Disbursement
(COD)System and deadline dates for requests for administrative relief if the institution cannot meet the established deadline for specified reasons. In general, an institution must submit Federal Pell Grant, ACG, or National SMART Grant disbursement records no later than 30 days after making a Federal Pell Grant, ACG, or National SMART Grant disbursement or becoming aware of the need to adjust a student's previously reported Federal Pell Grant, ACG, or National SMART Grant disbursement. In accordance with the regulations in 34 CFR 668.164, we consider that Federal Pell Grant, ACG, and National SMART Grant funds are disbursed on the date that the institution:
(a)Credits those funds to a student's account in the institution's general ledger or any subledger of the general ledger, or
(b)pays those funds to a student directly. We consider that Federal Pell Grant, ACG, and National SMART Grant funds are disbursed even if an institution uses its own funds in advance of receiving program funds from the Department. An institution's failure to submit disbursement records within the required 30-day timeframe may result in an audit or program review finding. In addition, the Secretary may initiate an adverse action, such as a fine or other penalty for such failure. Other Sources for Detailed Information We publish a detailed discussion of the Federal student aid application process in the following publications: *• 2007-2008 Funding Education Beyond High School.* *• 2007-2008 Counselors and Mentors Handbook.* *• 2007-2008 ISIR Guide.* *• 2007-2008 Federal Student Aid Handbook.* Additional information on the institutional reporting requirements for the Federal Pell Grant, ACG, and National SMART Grant programs is contained in the 2007-2008 *Common Origination and Disbursement
(COD)Technical Reference.* You may access this reference by selecting “Software Technical References” under the heading “Publications” at the Information for Financial Aid Professionals Web site at: *http://www.ifap.ed.gov.* *Applicable Regulations:* The following regulations apply:
(1)Student Assistance General Provisions, 34 CFR part 668,
(2)Federal Pell Grant Program, 34 CFR part 690, and
(3)Academic Competitiveness Grant and National Science and Mathematics Access To Retain Talent Grant Programs, 34 CFR part 691. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold McCullough, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, 830 First Street, NE., Union Center Plaza, Room 113E1, Washington, DC 20202-5345. *Telephone:*
(202)377-4030. 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 alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . 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. You may also view this document in PDF at the following site: *http://www.ifap.ed.gov.* 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.* Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a, 1070a-1, 1070b-1070b-4, 1070c-1070c-4, 1071-1087-2, 1087a-1087j, and 1087aa-1087ii; 42 U.S.C. 2751-2756b. Dated: June 3, 2008. Lawrence A. Warder, Acting Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid. BILLING CODE 4000-01-P EN09JN08.002 EN09JN08.003 EN09JN08.004 EN09JN08.005 [FR Doc. E8-12865 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-C DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP08-63-000] Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Fitchburg Expansion Project June 2, 2008. The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment
(EA)on the natural gas pipeline facilities proposed by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee) in the above-referenced docket. The EA was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of Tennessee's proposed Fitchburg Expansion Project (Project). The Project would involve replacing approximately 5.1 miles of 6-inch-diameter pipeline with 12-inch-diameter pipeline on Tennessee's existing Line 268-100 (Fitchburg Lateral) in Worcester County, Massachusetts; installing a pig launcher facility at the beginning of the Fitchburg Lateral in Framingham, Middlesex County, Massachusetts; and installing a pig receiver at the terminus of the Fitchburg Lateral (Milepost 5.1) in Lunenburg, Worcester County. The purpose of the Fitchburg Expansion Project is to provide 12,300 dekatherms per day of firm transportation service for the Massachusetts Development Financial Agency. The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC. A limited number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,
(202)502-8371. Copies of the EA have been mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public interest groups, interested individuals, newspapers, and parties to this proceeding. Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. To ensure consideration prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that we receive your comments before the date specified below. Please note that the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments or interventions or protests to this proceeding. See 18 Code of Federal Regulations 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 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 *http://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. If you are filing written comments, please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded: • Send an original and two copies of your comments to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426; • Reference Docket No. CP08-63-000; • Label one copy of the comments for the attention of the Gas Branch 1, PJ-11.1; and • Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before July 2, 2008. Comments will be considered by the Commission but will not serve to make the commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). 1 Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. 1 Interventions may also be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing comments electronically. Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered. Additional information about the project is available from the Commission'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. 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 also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which 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. Go to *http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.* Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-12848 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL08-67-000] Maryland Public Service Commission, Complainant, v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Respondent; Notice of Complaint June 2, 2008. Take notice that on May 30, 2008, the Maryland Public Service Commission, the Delaware Public Service Commission, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, the Public Power Association of New Jersey, the Maryland Office of People's Counsel, the Office of the People's Counsel of the District of Columbia, the Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative, Inc., Blue Ridge Power Agency, Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc., Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel, the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate, PJM Industrial Customer Coalition, the American Forest and Paper Association, the Portland Cement Association, the Duquesne Light Company, and the United States Department of Defense and other affected Federal Executive Agencies (collectively, the RPM Buyers) filed a formal complaint against PJM Interconnection L.L.C.
(PJM)pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 835.206. The RPM Buyers allege that the PJM's implementation of the Reliability Pricing Model during the transition period is unjust and unreasonable because it has produced excessive capacity prices, has failed to prevent suppliers from exercising market power, and has not produced benefits commensurate with its costs. The Maryland Commission certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for PJM as listed in the Commission's Corporate Officials. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants. The Commission encourages electronic submission of Respondent's answer, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 23, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-12849 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER08-771-000] North Allegheny Wind, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order June 2, 2008. North Allegheny Wind, LLC (Allegheny) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying tariff. The proposed market-based rate tariff provides for the sale of energy, capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. Allegheny also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, Allegheny requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Allegheny. On May 13, 2008, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development-West, granted the requests for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the **Federal Register** establishing a period of time for the filing of protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Allegheny, should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004). The Commission encourages the electronic submission of protests using the FERC Online link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is June 12, 2008. Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket approvals by the deadline above, Allegheny is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Allegheny, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes. The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of Allegheny's issuance of securities or assumptions of liability. Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. 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. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-12847 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP08-31-000] Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Meeting June 2, 2008. At the request of U.S. Representative Jim Gerlach, representing the 6th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will attend a meeting called by the Congressman to discuss constituents' concerns about the proposed Sentinel Expansion Project. The meeting will be held on June 16, 2008, beginning at 6:30 p.m.
(EDT)at: Great Valley High School, 225 North Phoenixville Pike, Malvern, PA 19355,
(610)889-1900. For additional information regarding this meeting, please contact the Commission's Office of External Affairs at
(202)502-8004. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-12851 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P EVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0312; FRL-8577-2] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Servicing of Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners, EPA ICR Number 1617.05, OMB Control Number 2060-0247 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection Request
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2008. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0312 by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov* . • *Fax:* 202-566-1741. • *Mail:* EPA Docket Center, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. • *Hand Delivery:* Public Reading Room, Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0312. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0312. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Thundiyil, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, (MC 6205J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202)343-9464; fax number:
(202)343-2163; e-mail address: *thundiyil.karen@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments? EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0312, which is available for online viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or in person viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC 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 Air Docket is 202-566-1742. Use *http://www.regulations.gov* to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document. What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in? Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
(i)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii)Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25 people) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection. What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity. 6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES . 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and **Federal Register** citation. What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to? *Affected entities:* Entities potentially affected by this action are new and used motor vehicle dealers, gasoline service stations, general automotive repair shops, and automotive repair shops not elsewhere classified. *ICR numbers:* EPA ICR No. 1617.05, OMB Control No. 2060-0247. *ICR status:* This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2008. 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, are 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:* Section 609 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(Act)provides general guidelines for motor vehicle air conditioning
(MVAC)refrigerant handling and MVAC servicing. It states that “no person repairing or servicing motor vehicles for consideration may perform any service on a motor vehicle air conditioner involving the refrigerant for such air conditioner without properly using approved refrigerant recovery and/or recovery and recycling equipment (hereafter referred to as “refrigerant handling equipment”) and no such person may perform such service unless such person has been properly trained and certified.” In 1992, EPA developed regulations under section 609 that were published in 57 FR 31242, and codified at 40 CFR Subpart B (§ 82.30 *et seq.* ). The information required to be collected under the Section 609 regulations is currently approved for use through December 31, 2008. This supporting statement is submitted to justify an extension of the approval of use of this information. Pursuant to new requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a notice was published in the **Federal Register** on October 4, 2005, announcing the intent to extend the renewal of this Information Collection Request and requesting comment on the renewal. Descriptions of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements mandated by section 609 and delineated in 40 CFR 82 subpart B are summarized below in this section. *Approved Refrigerant Handling Equipment:* In accordance with Section 609(b)(2)(A), 40 CFR 82.36 requires that refrigerant handling equipment be certified by EPA or independent standards testing organizations. Certification standards are particular to the type of equipment and the refrigerant to be recovered, and must be consistent with the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE)standards for MVAC equipment. *Approved independent standards testing organizations:* Section 609(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires independent laboratory testing of refrigerant handling equipment to be certified by EPA. The Stratospheric Protection Division
(SPD)requires independent laboratories to submit an application that documents: The organization's capacity to accurately test equipment compliance with applicable standards consistent with the SAE standards for handling refrigerant, an absence of conflict of interest or financial benefit based on test outcomes, and an agreement to allow EPA access to verify application information. Once an independent laboratory has been approved by EPA, the application is kept on file in the SPD. Two laboratories—Underwriters Laboratories Inc. and ETL Testing Laboratories—are currently approved to test refrigerant handling equipment. EPA does not anticipate that any organizations will apply to EPA in the future to become approved independent standards testing organizations. Therefore, annual hours and costs related to information submitted by these organizations have been eliminated. *Technician training and certification:* According to Section 609(b)(4) of the Act, automotive technicians are required to be trained and certified in the proper use of approved refrigerant handling equipment. Programs that perform technician training and certification activities must apply to the SPD for approval by submitting verification that its program meets EPA standards. The information requested is used by the SPD to guarantee a degree of uniformity in the testing programs for motor vehicle service technicians. Due to rapid developments in technology, the Agency requires that each approved technician certification program conducts periodic reviews and updates of test material, submitting a written summary of the review and program changes to EPA every two years. After the test has been approved by EPA, a hard copy remains on file with SPD. Currently, 24 testing programs are approved by EPA to train technicians in the proper use of refrigerant handling equipment. Six of these programs are designed specifically for individual company's own employees. *Certification, reporting and recordkeeping:* To facilitate enforcement under Section 609, EPA has developed several recordkeeping requirements. All required records must be retained on-site for a minimum of three years, unless otherwise indicated. Section 609(c) of the Act states that by January 1, 1992, no person may service any motor vehicle air conditioner without being properly trained and certified, nor without using properly approved refrigerant handling equipment. To this end, 40 CFR 82.42(a) states that by January 1, 1993, each service provider must have submitted to EPA on a one-time basis a statement signed by the owner of the equipment or another responsible officer that provides the name of the equipment purchaser, the address of the service establishment where the equipment will be located, the manufacturer name, equipment model number, date of manufacture, and equipment serial number. The statement must also indicate that the equipment will be properly used in servicing motor vehicle air conditioners and that each individual authorized by the purchaser to perform service is property trained and certified. The information is used by the SPD to verify compliance with Section 609 of the Act. Any person who owns approved refrigerant handling equipment must maintain records of the name and address of any facility to which refrigerant is sent. Additionally, any person who owns approved refrigerant handling equipment must retain records demonstrating that all persons authorized to operate the equipment are currently certified technicians. Finally, any person who sells or distributes a class I or class II refrigerant that is in a container of less than 20 pounds must verify that the purchaser is a properly trained and certified technician, unless the purchase of small containers is for resale only. In that case, the seller must obtain a written statement from the purchaser that the containers are for resale only, and must indicate the purchaser's name and business address. When a certified technician purchases small containers of refrigerant for servicing motor vehicles, the seller must have a reasonable basis for believing the accuracy of the information presented by the purchaser. In all cases, the seller must display a sign where sales occur that states the certification requirements for purchasers. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.13 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. The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here: *Estimated total number of potential respondents:* 66,394. *Frequency of response:* On occasion. *Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:* 1. *Estimated total annual burden hours:* 6,700 hours. *Estimated total annual costs:* $262,980.47. This includes an estimated burden cost of $262,980.47 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs. Are There Changes in the Estimates From the Last Approval? There is a decrease of 182 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. There are two reasons for this decrease in burden hours. In 2002, it was estimated that there would be 4,000 purchases of small containers of class I and class II refrigerant for resale only by uncertified purchasers. It is estimated that at the time (in 2002), there were an estimated 32 million R-12 MVACs on the road. Today, it is estimated that there are only 11 million R-12 MVACs on the road, or roughly 65% less than there were in 2002. Therefore, to account for the decreased market for small containers of CFC-12 refrigerant, this ICR estimates that the number of purchases for resale only by uncertified purchasers of small cans will be 65% less than in 2002, or 1,370 purchases. The second reason the burden hours have decreased is that the substantially identical equipment approval process is no longer applicable. This portion of Section 609(b)(2)(B) of the Act and 40 CFR 82.36(b) allowed for equipment that was purchased before the proposal of the regulations to be approved by EPA if it was substantially identical to equipment that had been certified by the EPA or approved independent laboratory. The substantially identical equipment regulation only relates to CFC-12 recovery and recycling equipment initially purchased before September 4, 1991; CFC-12 recovery-only equipment initially purchased before April 22, 1992; HFC-134a recovery and recycling, or recovery-only equipment initially purchased before March 6, 1996; equipment that recovers but does not recycle any single, specific refrigerant other than CFC-12 or HFC-134a that was initially purchased before March 6, 1996; or equipment that recovers and recycles HFC-134a and CFC-12 refrigerant using common circuitry that was initially purchased before March 6, 1996. Because the average lifetime of such equipment is roughly 7 years, all such equipment is obsolete today. Therefore, documentation requirements related to this section have been removed from this ICR. In the previous ICR, 12 establishment burden hours and $1,200 annual costs were allocated to this activity. What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR? EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another **Federal Register** notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Dated: June 2, 2008. Brian J. McLean, Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs. [FR Doc. E8-12853 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8575-9] Coastal Elevations and Sea Level Rise Advisory Committee Charter Renewal AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of charter renewal. The Charter for the Environmental Protection Agency's Coastal Elevations and Sea Level Rise Advisory Committee (CESLAC) will be renewed for an additional two-year period, as a necessary committee which is in the public interest, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2 section 9(c). The purpose of the CESLAC is to provide advice on the conduct of a study titled Coastal Elevations and Sensitivity to Sea Level Rise to be conducted as part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). It is determined that CESLAC is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Agency by law. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Fitzgerald (6207J), Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202)343-9336; e-mail address: *Fitzgerald.jack@epa.gov* . Dated: March 23, 2008. Robert J. Meyers, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. E8-12599 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-M ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [Docket# EPA-RO4-SFUND-2008-0464, FRL-8577-3] BCX Tank Superfund Site Jacksonville, Duval County, FL; Notice of De Minimis Settlement AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of De Minimis Settlement. SUMMARY: Under Section 122(g) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency has entered into a De Minimis settlement for reimbursement of past response costs concerning the BCX Tank Superfund Site located in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida for publication. DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until July 9, 2008. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from Ms. Paula V. Painter. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-RO4-SFUND-2008-0464 or Site name BCX Tank Superfund Site by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: Painter.Paula@epa.gov* . • *Fax:* 404/562-8842/Attn Paula V. Painter. *Mail:* Ms. Paula V. Painter, U.S. EPA Region 4, SD-SEIMB, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. “In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.” *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-SFUND-2008-0464. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the U.S. EPA Region 4 office located at 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Regional office is open from 7 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Written comments may be submitted to Ms. Painter within 30 calendar days of the date of this publication. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887. Dated: May 28, 2008. Anita L. Davis, Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch, Superfund Division. [FR Doc. E8-12846 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0273; FRL-8368-4] Natural Rubber Latex Adhesives; Disposition of TSCA Section 21 Petition AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: On March 6, 2008, EPA received a petition from Michael J. Dochniak under section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA)“to establish regulations prohibiting the use and distribution in commerce of *Hevea brasiliensis* [italics added] natural rubber latex adhesives having a total protein content greater than 200 micrograms per [gram] dry weight of latex based on the American Society for Testing and Materials method ASTM D1076-06 (Category 4).” The petition states: “Implementation of an EPA regulation that guides adhesive manufacturer's [sic] to use *Hevea [b]rasiliensis* [italics added] natural-rubber-latex that satisfy[ies] ASTM D1076-06 (Category 4) may affect the incidence and prevalence of latex allergy and allergy-induced autism in neonates.” For the reasons set forth in this notice, EPA has denied the petitioner's request. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *For general information contact* : Colby Linter, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202)554-1404; e-mail address: *TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov* . *For technical information contact* : Gerry Brown, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202)564-8086; e-mail address: *brown.gerry@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to you if you manufacture, process, import, or distribute in commerce *Hevea brasiliensis* ( *Hevea* ) natural rubber latex
(NRL)adhesives. Potentially interested entities may include, but are not limited to: • Adhesive manufacturing, NAICS code 325520. • Other chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers, NAICS code 424690. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities that may be interested in this action. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might be of interest to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding this action, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. *Docket* . EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0273. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket's index available at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202)566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure. 2. *Electronic access* . You may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0273 at *http://www.regulations.gov* . II. Background A. What Action is Requested Under this TSCA Section 21 Petition? On March 6, 2008, EPA received a petition from Mr. Michael J. Dochniak under section 21 of TSCA “to establish regulations prohibiting the use and distribution in commerce of *Hevea brasiliensis* [italics added] natural rubber latex adhesives having a total protein content greater than 200 micrograms per [gram] dry weight of latex based on the American Society for Testing and Materials method ASTM D1076-06 (Category 4).” The petition states: “Implementation of an EPA regulation that guides adhesive manufacturer's [sic] to use *Hevea [b]brasiliensis* [italics added] natural-rubber-latex that satisfy[ies] ASTM D1076-06 (Category 4) may affect the incidence and prevalence of latex allergy and allergy-induced autism in neonates” (Ref. 1). NRL is a naturally occurring polyisoprene elastomer obtained almost exclusively from the *Hevea* tree indigenous to South America but now grown for commercial purposes principally in Asia and Africa. NRL adhesives comprise a very small portion of the adhesives industry. They are grouped by the U.S. Census under the “natural base glues and adhesives” product category, which comprises the smallest share (< 3%) of the U.S. adhesive manufacturing industry. Adhesives manufacturers produce a wide range of products, including adhesives, caulks, lubricants, and sealants, and adhesives are used in a wide variety of industries. The U.S. adhesive industry is dominated by synthetic adhesives like acrylics, epoxide resins, vinyls, and synthetic rubbers such as polychloroprene and styrene-butadiene, the most common substitute for natural rubber adhesives. Most synthetic adhesives are derived from coal, natural gas, oil, or petroleum (Ref. 2). ASTM D1076-06, Standard Specification for Rubber-Concentrated, Ammonia Preserved, Creamed, and Centrifuged Natural Latex, is a standard specification, not a method, although methods are referenced in the standard. ASTM International (ASTM), formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials, is a voluntary standards development organization, *http://www.astm.org/ABOUT/aboutASTM.html* (last visited April 28, 2008). ASTM D1076-06 covers requirements for four categories of “first grade concentrated natural rubber latex” (Ref. 3). Category 4, “Centrifuged, or centrifuged and creamed, guayule latex, or other natural rubber latex, containing less than 200 µg total protein per gram dry weight of latex, with ammonia or other hydroxide, with other necessary preservatives and stabilizers,” requires that the latex contain no more than 200 micrograms (µg) total protein per gram (dry weight) of latex utilizing ASTM Test Method D5712 and no detectable *Hevea* antigenic protein utilizing ASTM Test Method D6499-07 (Ref. 4). The latter test method, Standard Test Method for the Immunological Measurement of Antigenic Protein in Natural Rubber and Its Products, “covers an immunological method to determine the amount of antigenic protein in natural rubber and its products” (Ref. 4). According to ASTM, “[a]lthough this method detects antigenic proteins, it should not be considered as a measure of allergenic proteins,” because “[c]orrelation of protein/antigen levels with the level of allergenic proteins has not been fully established” (Ref. 4). B. What Support Does the Petitioner Offer for this Request? The petitioner provided the following exhibits to support his petition: 1. Exhibit A: Ylitalo, Leea. Natural Rubber Latex Allergy in Children. University of Tampere Medical School. According to this study (abstract), the prevalence of NRL allergy in children admitted for inhalant or food testing (total number of children in the study, 3,269) was found to be 1%, based upon skin prick test analysis. EPA recognizes that latex protein can cause sensitization and allergic disease in certain children and adults, and epidemiological studies show varying rates of prevalence in adults and children. 2. Exhibit B: Blanco, Carlos, Latex-Fruit Syndrome, Current Allergy and Asthma Reports. 3:47-53. 2003. This publication reviews evidence indicating that latex and food allergens cross react immunologically. 3. Exhibit C: Palomares, O. et al. 1,3 B-glucanases as candidates in latex-pollen-vegetable food cross-reactivity. Clinical and Experimental Allergy. 35:345. 2005. This abstract also shows evidence of fruit, vegetables, and latex cross-reactivity. 4. Exhibit D: Latex in Food Packaging Risk. Available on-line at: *http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/08/latex.html* . This is a news article reporting that consumer groups were calling for warning labels on food packaging containing latex. 5. Exhibit E: Dochniak, M.J. Autism spectrum disorders-Exogenous protein insult *Medical Hypothesis* (2007), doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2007.01.060. This is an article written by the petitioner hypothesizing that increased latex allergen exposure may have affected the incidence of allergy-induced autism. The article presents only a hypothesis that is unsupported by any scientific study or data. 6. Exhibit F: U.S. Patent #7,784,281 (Ichikawa, et al.). This patent discusses a method for reducing the allergenic protein content in *Hevea* NRL using digestive enzymes. 7. Exhibit G: Hayes, B. H. et al. Evaluation of Percutaneous Penetration of Natural Rubber Latex Proteins. *Toxicological Sciences* . 56, 262-270. 2000. According to this article, the skin can be a plausible route for latex sensitization and a major exposure route when it is damaged (e.g., cuts and abrasion). Other routes would include contact via mucosal surfaces and inhalation exposure. 8. Exhibit H: H. B. Fuller Co. website literature on Hevea brasiliensis water based adhesives. Available on-line at: *http://www.hbfuller.com/adhesives/technologies/water/000525.shtml#NR* . 9. Exhibit I: Henkel Consumer adhesive literature. Natural rubber latex adhesive. Both Exhibit H and Exhibit I show that at least some manufacturers do not display latex allergy protein warnings on their packaging. 10. Exhibit J: Niggeman, B. et al. Development of latex allergy in children up to 5 years of age-a retrospective analysis of risk factors. *Pediatric Allergy [and] Immunology* . 9:36-39. 1998 (International Standard Serial Number (Library of Congress) (ISSN): 0905-6157). According to this study (abstract), besides the number of operations and an atopic disposition, there were no other definite factors for developing sensitization or allergy to latex in children up to 5 years of age. In general, risk groups for latex allergy are atopics and people frequently in contact with latex gloves, such as the medical profession and patients needing multiple surgeries. C. What Are the Legal Standards Regarding TSCA Section 21 Petitions and TSCA Section 6 Rules? Section 21(b)(1) of TSCA requires that the petition “set forth the facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary” to issue the rule or order requested. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1). Thus, TSCA section 21 implicitly incorporates the statutory standards that apply to the requested actions. In addition, TSCA section 21 establishes standards a court must use to decide whether to order EPA to initiate rulemaking in the event of a lawsuit filed by the petitioner after denial of a TSCA section 21 petition. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). The petition does not state under which provision of TSCA the request would be satisfied, and only TSCA section 6 appears to be applicable. Accordingly, EPA has relied on the standards in TSCA section 21 and section 6 to evaluate this petition. In order to promulgate a rule under TSCA section 6, the Administrator must find that “there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of a chemical substance or mixture . . . presents or will present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.” 15 U.S.C. 2605(a). This finding cannot be made considering risk alone. In promulgating any rule under TSCA section 6(a), the statute requires that the Administrator consider: • The effects of such substance or mixture on health and the magnitude of the exposure of human beings to such substance or mixture. • The effects of such substance or mixture on the environment and the magnitude of the exposure of the environment to such substance or mixture. • The benefits of such substance or mixture for various uses and the availability of substitutes for such uses. • The reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of the rule, after consideration of the effect on the national economy, small business, technological innovation, the environment, and public health. 15 U.S.C. 2605(c)(1). Furthermore, the control measure adopted is to be the “least burdensome requirement” that adequately protects against the unreasonable risk. 15 U.S.C. 2605(a). Section 21(b)(4)(B) of TSCA provides the standard for judicial review should EPA deny a request for rulemaking under TSCA section 6(a): “If the petitioner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court by a preponderance of the evidence that ... there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the issuance of such a rule ... is necessary to protect health or the environment against an unreasonable risk of injury,” the court shall order the Administrator to initiate the requested action. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). III. Disposition of Petition The petition does not set forth facts sufficient to establish that it is necessary to issue a rule prohibiting the use and distribution in commerce of *Hevea* NRL adhesives having greater than 200 µg total protein per gram of latex and no detectable *Hevea* antigenic protein. In particular, the petition does not set forth, as required by TSCA sections 6 and 21, facts sufficient to support a finding that *Hevea* NRL adhesives that do not meet the ASTM standard pose an unreasonable risk. The petition does not present facts establishing that latex adhesives containing any specific level of protein present an unreasonable risk. Nor does the petition set forth facts indicating that prohibiting *Hevea* NRL adhesives not meeting the ASTM standard would be effective in reducing the incidence of latex allergies, or that doing so would be the least burdensome requirement to protect against any unreasonable risk from latex. While the petitioner provides some documentation to support the petition (see Unit II.B.), this documentation is minimal and insufficient to show a reasonable basis to find unreasonable risk. For example, while petition Exhibits A, G, and J seem to support the assertion that NRL latex sensitization and allergies occur in children, this information does not show that the NRL adhesives pose an unreasonable risk. Moreover, the petitioner only speculates that “[i]mplementation of an EPA regulation that guides adhesive manufacturers to use *Hevea [b]rasiliensis* [italics added] natural-rubber-latex that satisfy ASTM D1076-06 (Category 4) may [emphasis added] affect the incidence and prevalence of latex allergy and allergy-induced-autism in neonates.” The only exhibit that purports to show a link between *Hevea* NRL and infant autism is an article that was written by the petitioner and published in *Medical Hypotheses* (Ref. 5). The article presents only a hypothesis that is unsupported by any scientific study or data. Moreover, neither this article nor any other factual information provided in the petition address the contribution of adhesives to any risk that might exist. NRL allergies have been the subject of considerable Federal Government evaluation. In March 2000, for example, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC)received a petition requesting that the CPSC issue a rule declaring that NRL and products containing NRL are strong sensitizers under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act
(FHSA)so that these products would require labeling. See the **Federal Register** issue of March 21, 2000 (65 FR 15133). The CPSC conducted an extensive review and issued a decision in June 2004 rejecting the petition (Ref. 6). Among other things, CPSC concluded that the incidence of NRL allergy in the general population was very low (below 1%), that many consumer products contain NRL, and that “in spite of the prevalence of NRL in consumer products, there are few documented cases of reactions to NRL-containing consumer products,” most of which involved medical devices 1 (The CPSC did not distinguish between *Hevea* and non- *Hevea* NRL, but nearly all commercial NRL is *Hevea* ). The CPSC noted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)had issued rules requiring labeling for medical devices containing NRL, citing 21 CFR 801.437. FDA, however, has not limited protein content in, or prohibited, NRL (Ref. 7). See also the **Federal Register** issue of September 30, 1997 (62 FR 51021). In general, the CPSC concluded, most individuals only experience mild symptoms and “most incidents of life-threatening NRL-induced anaphylaxis are associated with invasive surgical or other medical procedures, not with consumer products” (Ref. 6). The CPSC determination suggests that the risks associated with NRL, principally *Hevea* NRL, are relatively insubstantial, and does not support a conclusion that any risk is unreasonable. 1 A substantial proportion, if not most, products of concern containing *Hevea* NRL may not be subject to TSCA. Among other things, medical devices, food, food additives, food packaging, and cosmetics do not fall within EPA's authority under TSCA section 6. TSCA section 6 provides the authority to regulate chemical substances and mixtures. The term “chemical substance,” however, “does not include - ...
(vi)any food, food additive, drug, cosmetic, or device (as such terms are defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C.A. 321]) when manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce for use as a food, food additive, drug, cosmetic, or device.” 15 U.S.C. 2602(2)(B)(vi). The petition provides little information on the factors that must be considered for a TSCA section 6 rulemaking. The petition does not explain why it specifically targets adhesives. The only documentation supporting the petition related to NRL adhesives was a product brochure and a Material Safety Data Sheet included as exhibits (petition Exhibits H and I) to show that two companies had not included antigenic protein warnings on their packaging. The petition does not discuss any special risks posed by NRL adhesives (in comparison to other NRL products or other adhesives), does not describe the contexts in which one might be exposed to NRL adhesives or why those exposures are of concern to the general population, and does not provide any other information on why adhesives are of particular concern. The petition does not provide any factual information on the magnitude of exposure to *Hevea* NRL or *Hevea* NRL adhesives that do not meet the ASTM standard or on the benefits of *Hevea* NRL or *Hevea* NRL adhesives that do not meet the ASTM standard for various uses. Other than noting the existence of substitutes, the petitioner provides no factual information on the availability of substitutes. The petitioner provides no factual information on the reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of prohibiting the use and distribution in commerce of *Hevea* NRL adhesives not meeting the ASTM standard. In particular, the petition contains little information on the relative importance of *Hevea* NRL adhesives as a source of infant exposure. As for the regulation that the petition seeks (i.e., to prohibit the use and distribution in commerce of *Hevea* NRL adhesives that do not meet the ASTM Standard D1076-06 (Category 4)), the petition does not provide any evidence that ASTM Standard D1076-06 represents a safe or otherwise appropriate level of allergen in NRL. The threshold amount of NRL allergen needed to sensitize a person, or to produce an allergic reaction, is not known and, as ASTM Test Method D6499-07 states, antigenic proteins should not be considered a measure of allergenic proteins because a correlation between antigenic protein levels and the level of allergenic proteins has not been fully established (Refs. 4, 8, 9, and 10). In addition, each NRL protein has different antigenic properties, and individuals do not react uniformly to each allergenic protein (Ref. 12). As the CPSC has pointed out, without knowing the threshold amount, it is not possible to differentiate between products that would cause sensitization or allergic reaction and products that would not (Ref. 6). Moreover, it would be difficult for *Hevea* NRL adhesives products to meet the ASTM standard because the referenced test method for detecting antigenic *Hevea* proteins is very sensitive and it is difficult to prepare *Hevea* NRL such that the level of antigenic protein would be low enough to be undetectable by the referenced method (Ref. 13). In addition, the petitioner has not provided evidence showing that prohibiting *Hevea* NRL that did not meet this standard would be the least burdensome requirement. In addition, a regulation requiring reduced protein content in Hevea NRL adhesives is unlikely to significantly contribute to reducing Hevea NRL allergy in the general population. The groups considered most at risk for *Hevea* NRL allergy are atopic individuals (who have a genetic predisposition to allergies), individuals with certain food allergies, and medical professionals and patients who undergo multiple surgeries (who come into repeated contact with latex gloves or other latex medical equipment) (Refs. 8, 9, 11, and 12). Another factor to consider for a TSCA section 6 rulemaking is the availability of substitutes. Petitioner has requested that EPA ban products that do not meet the ASTM standard. Although, for some products, there are substitutes to *Hevea* NRL that do meet the ASTM standard, the petition does not present facts establishing that substitutes of NRL meeting this standard are technically feasible to use with or as adhesives, that they are safer than *Hevea* NRL, or that the substitutes are effective or economical for use in or as adhesives. The petitioner mentions in the petition that procedures, such as aqueous washing or treatment with digestive enzymes can be used to reduce the antigenic protein content in *Hevea* NRL (see Exhibit F). This washing or treatment could be a substitute to *Hevea* NRL that does not meet the ASTM standard, but these methods can be expensive, may produce latex with inferior physical, chemical, or mechanical properties, or significant quantities of proteins may still remain in the latex (Ref. 14). As for other substitutes (that do not involve procedures for reducing protein content), sources other than *Hevea* trees can be used to make NRL. For example, NRL can be obtained from the guayule plant ( *Parthenium argentatum* ). Petitioner has provided no information on the cost or feasibility of producing guayule NRL. In addition, guayule NRL may not be a satisfactory substitute for *Hevea* NRL for purposes of reducing the incidences of allergic reactions. Although, the proteins present in guayule NRL may not cross-react with IgE antibodies from subjects allergic to NRL obtained from *Hevea* NRL, there is still some concern that the proteins present in guayule NRL could also sensitize some individuals and cause allergic reactions (Refs. 15 and 16). Finally, latex-free synthetic alternatives are also available, but these alternatives are more expensive and may not perform as well as *Hevea* NRL (Ref. 14). As evidence that substitutes may create their own risks, many synthetic elastomers contain traces of carcinogens, and the production of vinyl gloves, a major substitute for latex gloves, increases the risk of dioxin releases into the atmosphere (Ref. 2). IV. Comments Received EPA published a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing receipt of this TSCA section 21 petition and inviting public comment on or before May 12, 2008 (Ref. 17). EPA received seven timely comments. Of the seven comments received, two were from trade groups, three were from manufacturers, one was from ASTM International, and one from an individual. One brief comment, from a manufacturer of latex and latex-free bandages, supported the petition “because it would go a long way in preventing allergic reactions that have become more common among health care workers,” but did not provide any additional information (Ref. 18). Another comment, from a manufacturer of guayule natural rubber latex products, commented that it is presently not possible for *Hevea* NRL to meet the ASTM D1076-06 Category 4 standard, that only guayule can meet the standard, and that, even if the total protein present in *Hevea* NRL could be reduced to the level in the Category 4 standard, remaining proteins could still present a risk of allergic reaction to the final product. The commenter suggested that a ban is, therefore, not practical and that any proposed ban should, at least, be phased in to permit time for development of substitutes and/or only target adhesives to which children are exposed (Ref. 19). The other five comments opposed the petitioned action and/or discussed the inappropriateness of the ASTM standard for addressing the concerns stated in the petition. The comment from ASTM International (from the Chairman of the subcommittee that maintains ASTM D1076-06), for example, noted that the Category 4 standard specified in the petition was added for NRL from botanical sources other than *Hevea* and that ASTM D1076-06 does not apply to “compounded latex concentrates,” such as adhesives (Ref. 20). The Pressure Sensitive Tape Council noted many of the same issues discussed in this unit, including concerns similar to ASTM's regarding the appropriateness of the standard, the lack of facts supporting the petitioner's autism hypothesis, and the unexplained focus on *Hevea* NRL adhesives as opposed to the many other uses of *Hevea* NRL (gloves, sports equipment, carpet backing, balloons, rubber bands, handles on tools, and clothing elastics) (Ref. 21). The Rubber Manufacturers Association
(RMA)noted the lack of evidence of a link between *Hevea* NRL exposure and autism, commenting that in the long history of NRL harvest and use, and in the course of multiple government inquiries into latex allergy, no one had observed a link between NRL and autism. The RMA also commented that the petition did not cite any evidence that allergens in NRL adhesives are being transported to the human body and described differences in exposure potential between dipped latex products (such as medical gloves, balloons, and condoms) and dry rubber products (such as tires, hoses, belts, and balls). The RMA also commented that the primary route of consumer exposure to adhesives would be through medical bandages, which, as a medical device, would fall under the jurisdiction of FDA. Finally, the RMA criticized the use of some of the references in petitioner's *Medical Hypotheses* paper, commenting that several references did not in fact support the petitioner's hypothesis (Ref. 22). V. References 1. Dochniak, Michael J. Citizen Petition under TSCA to prohibit the use of *Hevea-Brasiliensis* natural rubber latex adhesives in the United States, wherein said adhesives have a protein content greater than 200 micrograms per dry weight of latex. February 26, 2008. 2. EPA, OPPT, Economics, Exposure and Technology Division (EETD). Profile: Natural Rubber Latex Adhesives. May 7, 2008. 3. ASTM. ASTM D1076-06. Standard Specification for Rubber-Concentrated, Ammonia Preserved, Creamed, and Centrifuged Natural Latex. June 2006. 4. ASTM. Active Standard: D6499-07. Standard Test Method for the Immunological Measurement of Antigenic Protein in Natural Rubber and Its Products. Available on-line at: *http://enterprise.astm.org/REDLINE_PAGES/D6499.htm* (last visited May 13, 2008). 5. Dochniak, Michael J. Autism spectrum disorders-Exogenous protein insult, *Medical Hypotheses* (2007), doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2007.01.060. 6. CPSC. Letter from Todd Stevenson, Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, to Debra Adkins, responding to her petition HP 00-2 requesting CPSC to issue a rule adding NRL to the list of strong sensitizers. June 4, 2004. 7. FDA. FDA Clears Glove Made from New Type of Latex. *FDA News* . April 23, 2008. 8. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), NIOSH Publication No. 97-135: Preventing Allergic Reactions to Natural Rubber Latex in the Workplace (June 1997). 9. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food Advisory Committee Meeting, Additives and Ingredients Subcommittee. Latex Glove Background Report. August 2003. 10. Northwestern University, Office for Research Safety, Laboratory Safety, Office of the Vice President for Research. Allergic Reactions to Latex Gloves. Available on-line at: *http://www.research.northwestern.edu/ors/labsafe/latex.htm* (last visited May 13, 2008). 11. CPSC. Memorandum from Jacqueline Elder, Assistant Executive Director for Hazard Identification and Reduction, to Todd Stevenson, Secretary, re: Additional Information on Petition on the Natural Rubber Latex (HP 00-2). April 1, 2004. 12. CPSC. Briefing Package, Petition Requesting that Natural Rubber latex be declared a Strong Sensitizer (HP00-2). October 2003. 13. European Commission, Scientific Committee on Medicinal Products and Medical Devices. Opinion on natural rubber latex allergy. June 2000. 14. U.S. Patent #5,741,885. 15. Siler, D.J.; Cornish, K.; and Hamilton, R.G. Absence of cross-reactivity of IgE antibodies from subjects allergic to *Hevea brasiliensis* latex with a new source of natural rubber latex from guayule ( *Parthenium argentatum* ). *Journal of Allergy Clinical Immunology* . 98: 895-902. 1996. 16. U.S. Patent #6,054,525. 17. EPA. *Hevea brasiliensis* Natural Rubber Latex Adhesives; TSCA Section 21 Petition; Notice of Receipt. **Federal Register** (73 FR 22368, April 25, 2008) (FRL-8361-3). Available on-line at: *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . 18. Comment from Andover Healthcare, Inc. May 12, 2008. 19. Letter from the Yulex Corp. May 7, 2008. 20. Letter from ASTM International. May 7, 2008. 21. Letter from the Pressure Sensitive Tape Council. May 9, 2008. 22. Letter from the Rubber Manufacturers Association. May 12, 2008. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Antigenic proteins, Asperger syndrome, Autism, Health, *Hevea brasiliensis* natural rubber latex adhesives, Infants and children. Dated: June 3, 2008. James B. Gulliford, Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. [FR Doc. E8-12850 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [DA 08-1181] Notice of Suspension and Initiation of Debarment Proceedings; Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Enforcement Bureau gives notice of Mr. George Marchelos' suspension from the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (or “E-Rate Program”). Additionally, the Enforcement Bureau gives notice that debarment proceedings are commencing against him. Mr. Marchelos, or any person who has an existing contract with or intends to contract with him to provide or receive services in matters arising out of activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support, may respond by filing an opposition request, supported by documentation to Diana Lee. DATES: Opposition requests must be received by July 9, 2008. However, an opposition request by the party to be suspended must be received 30 days from the receipt of the suspension letter or July 9, 2008, whichever comes first. The Enforcement Bureau will decide any opposition request for reversal or modification of suspension or debarment within 90 days of its receipt of such requests. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diana Lee, Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 4-C330, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Diana Lee may be contacted by phone at
(202)418-0843 or e-mail at *diana.lee@fcc.gov.* If Ms. Lee is unavailable, you may contact Ms. Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, by telephone at
(202)418-1420 and by e-mail at *vickie.robinson@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Enforcement Bureau has suspension and debarment authority pursuant to 47 CFR 54.8 and 47 CFR 0.111. Suspension will help to ensure that the party to be suspended cannot continue to benefit from the schools and libraries mechanism pending resolution of the debarment process. Attached is the suspension letter, DA 08-1181, which was mailed to Mr. Marchelos and released on May 19, 2008. The complete text of the notice of debarment is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portal II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, the complete text is available on the FCC's Web site at *http://www.fcc.gov.* The text may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating inspection and copying during regular business hours at the contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portal II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B420, Washington, DC 20554, telephone
(202)488-5300 or
(800)378-3160, facsimile
(202)488-5563, or via e-mail *http://www.bcpiweb.com.* Federal Communications Commission. Hillary Denigro, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau. The attached is the Suspension and Initiation of Debarment Letter to George Marchelos. May 19, 2008 DA 08-1181 *VIA CERTIFIED MAIL* *RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED AND FACSIMILE (415-436-7706)* Mr. George Marchelos, c/o Geoffrey A. Hanson, Esq., Federal Public Defender, 19th Floor Federal Building—Box 36106, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. Re: Notice of Suspension and Initiation of Debarment Proceedings, File No. EB-08-IH-1140 Dear Mr. Marchelos: The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) has received notice of your conviction of wire fraud and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343 and 2, as well as collusion and aiding and abetting, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1 and 2, in connection with your participation in the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (“E-Rate program”). 1 Consequently, pursuant to 47 CFR 54.8, this letter constitutes official notice of your suspension from the E-Rate program. In addition, the Enforcement Bureau (“Bureau”) hereby notifies you that we are commencing debarment proceedings against you. 2 1 Any further reference in this letter to “your conviction” refers to your guilty plea and subsequent conviction. *United States* v. *George Marchelos,* Criminal Docket No. 3:05-CR-00208-CRB-009, Judgment (N.D.Cal. filed and entered Apr. 10, 2008) (“ *George Marchelos Judgment* ”). *See United States* v. *Video Network Communications, Inc. et al.* , Criminal Docket No. 3:05-CR-00208-CRB, Superseding Indictment at paras. 72-88 (N.D.Cal. filed Dec. 8, 2005 and entered Dec. 12, 2005), *http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f213600/213626.htm* (accessed May 1, 2008) (“ *VNCI Superseding Indictment* ”). 2 47 CFR 54.8; 47 CFR 0.111 (delegating to the Enforcement Bureau authority to resolve universal service suspension and debarment proceedings). The Commission adopted debarment rules for the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism in 2003. *See Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism,* Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 9202
(2003)(“ *Second Report and Order* ”) (adopting section 54.521 to suspend and debar parties from the E-rate program). In 2007, the Commission extended the debarment rules to apply to all of the Federal universal service support mechanisms. *Comprehensive Review of the Universal Service Fund Management, Administration, and Oversight; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism; Lifeline and Link Up; Changes to the Board of Directors for the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.,* Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 16372, 16410-12
(2007)(Program Management Order) (renumbering section 54.521 of the universal service debarment rules as section 54.8 and amending subsections (a)(1), (5), (c), (d), (e)(2)(i), (3), (e)(4), and (g)). I. Notice of Suspension The Commission has established procedures to prevent persons who have “defrauded the government or engaged in similar acts through activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism” from receiving the benefits associated with that program. 3 You pled guilty to wire fraud and collusion in connection with your participation in two schemes to defraud the E-Rate program. 4 Specifically, you admitted that, as a former consultant for two school districts in California and sales representative of Video Network Communications, Inc. (“VNCI”), you participated in schemes to defraud the E-rate program and bid rigging on E-rate projects for certain school districts in favor of other co-conspirators or defendants. 5 3 *See Second Report and Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at 9225, para. 66; *Program Management Order,* 22 FCC Rcd at 16387, para. 32. The Commission's debarment rules define a “person” as “[a]ny individual, group of individuals, corporation, partnership, association, unit of government or legal entity, however, organized.” 47 CFR 54.8(a)(6). 4 *See George Marchelos Judgment* at 1. 5 *See VNCI Superseding Indictment* at paras. 6, 72-88. The following four individuals, who were also charged in the *VNCI Superseding Indictment,* have pled guilty or been found guilty and subsequently sentenced: Judy Green, Earl Nelson, William Holman, and Allan Green. We are sending separate notices of suspension and initiation of debarment proceedings to these individuals. VNCI is now defunct and charges against the company have been dropped. Pursuant to section 54.8(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, 6 your conviction requires the Bureau to suspend you from participating in any activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries fund mechanism, including the receipt of funds or discounted services through the schools and libraries fund mechanism, or consulting with, assisting, or advising applicants or service providers regarding the schools and libraries support mechanism. 7 Your suspension becomes effective upon the earlier of your receipt of this letter or publication of notice in the **Federal Register** . 8 6 47 CFR 54.8(a)(4). *See Second Report and Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at 9225-9227, paras. 67-74. 7 47 CFR 54.8(a)(1), (d). 8 *Second Report and Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, para. 69; 47 CFR 54.8(e)(1). Suspension is immediate pending the Bureau's final debarment determination. In accordance with the Commission's debarment rules, you may contest this suspension or the scope of this suspension by filing arguments in opposition to the suspension, with any relevant documentation. Your request must be received within 30 days after you receive this letter or after notice is published in the **Federal Register** , whichever comes first. 9 Such requests, however, will not ordinarily be granted. 10 The Bureau may reverse or limit the scope of suspension only upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances. 11 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Bureau will decide any request for reversal or modification of suspension within 90 days of its receipt of such request. 12 9 47 CFR 54.8(e)(4). 10 *Id.* 11 47 CFR 54.8(e)(5). 12 *See Second Report and Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, para. 70; 47 CFR 54.8(e)(5), 54.8(f). II. Initiation of Debarment Proceedings Your guilty plea and conviction of criminal conduct in connection with the E-Rate program, in addition to serving as a basis for immediate suspension from the program, also serves as a basis for the initiation of debarment proceedings against you. Your conviction falls within the categories of causes for debarment defined in section 54.8(c) of the Commission's rules. 13 Therefore, pursuant to section 54.8(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, your conviction requires the Bureau to commence debarment proceedings against you. 13 “Causes for suspension and debarment are the conviction of or civil judgment for attempt or commission of criminal fraud, theft, embezzlement, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, receiving stolen property, making false claims, obstruction of justice and other fraud or criminal offense arising out of activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism, the high-cost support mechanism, the rural healthcare support mechanism, and the low-income support mechanism.” 47 CFR 54.8(c). Such activities “include the receipt of funds or discounted services through [the Federal universal service] support mechanisms, or consulting with, assisting, or advising applicants or service providers regarding [the Federal universal service] support mechanisms.” 47 CFR 54.8(a)(1). As with your suspension, you may contest debarment or the scope of the proposed debarment by filing arguments and any relevant documentation within 30 calendar days of the earlier of the receipt of this letter or of publication in the **Federal Register** . 14 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Bureau will debar you. 15 Within 90 days of receipt of any opposition to your suspension and proposed debarment, the Bureau, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, will provide you with notice of its decision to debar. 16 If the Bureau decides to debar you, its decision will become effective upon the earlier of your receipt of a debarment notice or publication of the decision in the **Federal Register** . 17 14 *See Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, para. 70; 47 CFR 54.8(e)(3). 15 *Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9227, para. 74. 16 *See id.* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, para. 70; 47 CFR 54.8(e)(5). 17 *Id.* The Commission may reverse a debarment, or may limit the scope or period of debarment upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances, following the filing of a petition by you or an interested party or upon motion by the Commission. 47 CFR 54.8(f). If and when your debarment becomes effective, you will be prohibited from participating in activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism for three years from the date of debarment. 18 The Bureau may, if necessary to protect the public interest, extend the debarment period. 19 18 *Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9225, para. 67; 47 CFR 54.8(d), 54.8(g). 19 *Id.* Please direct any response, if by messenger or hand delivery, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002, to the attention of Diana Lee, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-C330, with a copy to Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-C330, Federal Communications Commission. If sent by commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail), the response should be sent to the Federal Communications Commission, 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, Maryland 20743. If sent by first-class, Express, or Priority mail, the response should be sent to Diana Lee, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 4-C330, Washington, DC 20554, with a copy to Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 4-C330, Washington, DC 20554. You shall also transmit a copy of the response via email to *diana.lee@fcc.gov* and to *vickie.robinson@fcc.gov* . If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Lee via mail, by telephone at
(202)418-1420 or by e-mail at *diana.lee@fcc.gov* . If Ms. Lee is unavailable, you may contact Ms. Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, by telephone at
(202)418-1420 and by e-mail at *vickie.robinson@fcc.gov.* Sincerely yours, Hillary S. DeNigro, *Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau* . cc: Kristy Carroll, Esq., Universal Service Administrative Company (via e-mail); Michael Wood, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice (via mail) [FR Doc. E8-12832 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [DA 08-1179] Notice of Suspension and Initiation of Debarment Proceedings; Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Enforcement Bureau gives notice of Mr. Allan Green's suspension from the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (or “E-Rate Program”). Additionally, the Enforcement Bureau gives notice that debarment proceedings are commencing against him. Mr. Green, or any person who has an existing contract with or intends to contract with him to provide or receive services in matters arising out of activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support, may respond by filing an opposition request, supported by documentation to Diana Lee. DATES: Opposition requests must be received by July 9, 2008. However, an opposition request by the party to be suspended must be received 30 days from the receipt of the suspension letter or July 9, 2008, whichever comes first. The Enforcement Bureau will decide any opposition request for reversal or modification of suspension or debarment within 90 days of its receipt of such requests. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diana Lee, Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 4-C330, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Diana Lee may be contacted by phone at
(202)418-0843 or e-mail at *diana.lee@fcc.gov* . If Ms. Lee is unavailable, you may contact Ms. Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, by telephone at
(202)418-1420 and by e-mail at *vickie.robinson@fcc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Enforcement Bureau has suspension and debarment authority pursuant to 47 CFR 54.8 and 47 CFR 0.111. Suspension will help to ensure that the party to be suspended cannot continue to benefit from the schools and libraries mechanism pending resolution of the debarment process. Attached is the suspension letter, DA 08-1179, which was mailed to Mr. Green and released on May 19, 2008. The complete text of the notice of debarment is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portal II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, the complete text is available on the FCC's Web site at *http://www.fcc.gov* . The text may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating inspection and copying during regular business hours at the contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portal II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B420, Washington, DC 20554, telephone
(202)488-5300 or
(800)378-3160, facsimile
(202)488-5563, or via e-mail *http://www.bcpiweb.com* . Federal Communications Commission. Hillary Denigro, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau. The attached is the Suspension and Initiation of Debarment Letter to Allan Green. May 19, 2008 DA 08-1179 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED AND E-MAIL Mr. Allan Green, c/o Mark Rosenbush, Esq., Attorney at Law, 214 Duboce Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94103. Re: Notice of Suspension and Initiation of Debarment Proceedings, File No. EB-08-IH-1141 Dear Mr. Green: The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) has received notice of your conviction of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, in connection with your participation in the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (“E-Rate program”). 1 Consequently, pursuant to 47 CFR 54.8, this letter constitutes official notice of your suspension from the E-Rate program. In addition, the Enforcement Bureau (“Bureau”) hereby notifies you that we are commencing debarment proceedings against you. 2 1 Any further reference in this letter to “your conviction” refers to your guilty plea and subsequent conviction of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. *See United States* v. *Allan Green* , Criminal Docket No. 3:05-CR-00208-CRB-009, Judgment (N.D.Cal. filed and entered Apr. 10, 2008) (“ *Allan Green Judgment* ”), Substitute Information (N.D.Cal. filed Apr. 9, 2007 and entered Apr. 10, 2007) (“ *Allan Green Substitute Information* ”). *See United States* v. * Video Network Communications, Inc. et al. * , Criminal Docket No. 3:05-CR-00208-CRB, Superseding Indictment (N.D.Cal. filed Dec. 8, 2005 and entered Dec. 12, 2005); *http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f213600/213626.htm* (accessed May 1, 2008) (“ *VNCI Superseding Indictment* ”). 2 47 CFR 54.8; 47 CFR 0.111 (delegating to the Enforcement Bureau authority to resolve universal service suspension and debarment proceedings). The Commission adopted debarment rules for the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism in 2003. *See Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism* , Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 9202
(2003)(“Second Report and Order”) (adopting section 54.521 to suspend and debar parties from the E-rate program). In 2007, the Commission extended the debarment rules to apply to all of the Federal universal service support mechanisms. *Comprehensive Review of the Universal Service Fund Management, Administration, and Oversight; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism; Lifeline and Link Up; Changes to the Board of Directors for the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.* , Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 16372, 16410-12
(2007)( *Program Management Order* ) (renumbering section 54.521 of the universal service debarment rules as section 54.8 and amending subsections (a)(1), (5), (c), (d), (e)(2)(i), (3), (e)(4), and (g)). I. Notice of Suspension The Commission has established procedures to prevent persons who have “defrauded the government or engaged in similar acts through activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism” from receiving the benefits associated with that program. 3 You pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud through your activities as a principal of ADJ Consultants, Inc. (“ADJ”) in relation to the Philadelphia Academy (“the Academy”) E-Rate project (the “Project”). 4 Specifically, you admitted that you and others (collectively “co-conspirators”) met with Academy employees, obtained their agreement to utilize ADJ services for the Project, and told Academy employees that co-conspirators would be able to obtain a grant to cover the Academy's share of the Project's costs. 5 You admitted that the co-conspirators further agreed and submitted to the Universal Service Administrative Company “(USAC”) false and misleading documents indicating that the Academy had secured access to funding from an independent foundation and that the co-conspirators also misrepresented the share of the Project's costs that USAC would be paying. 6 3 *See Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9225, para. 66; *Program Management Order* , 22 FCC Rcd at 16387, para. 32. The Commission's debarment rules define a “person” as “[a]ny individual, group of individuals, corporation, partnership, association, unit of government or legal entity, however organized.” 47 CFR 54.8(a)(6). 4 *See Allan Green Substitute Information* at paras. 2, 6. The following four individuals, who were also charged in the *VNCI Superseding Indictment* , have pled guilty or been found guilty, and subsequently have been sentenced: Judy Green, George Marchelos, Earl Nelson, and William Holman. We are sending separate notices of suspension and initiation of debarment proceedings to these individuals. VNCI and ADJ are now defunct; charges against the companies have been dropped. 5 *See Allan Green Substitute Information* at para. 5. 6 *See id.* Pursuant to section 54.8(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, 7 your conviction requires the Bureau to suspend you from participating in any activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries fund mechanism, including the receipt of funds or discounted services through the schools and libraries fund mechanism, or consulting with, assisting, or advising applicants or service providers regarding the schools and libraries support mechanism. 8 Your suspension becomes effective upon the earlier of your receipt of this letter or publication of notice in the **Federal Register** . 9 7 47 CFR 54.8(a)(4). *See Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9225-9227, paras. 67-74. 8 47 CFR 54.8(a)(1), (d). 9 *Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, para. 69; 47 CFR 54.8(e)(1). Suspension is immediate pending the Bureau's final debarment determination. In accordance with the Commission's debarment rules, you may contest this suspension or the scope of this suspension by filing arguments in opposition to the suspension, with any relevant documentation. Your request must be received within 30 days after you receive this letter or after notice is published in the **Federal Register** , whichever comes first. 10 Such requests, however, will not ordinarily be granted. 11 The Bureau may reverse or limit the scope of suspension only upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances. 12 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Bureau will decide any request for reversal or modification of suspension within 90 days of its receipt of such request. 13 10 47 CFR 54.8(e)(4). 11 *Id.* 12 47 CFR 54.8(e)(5). 13 *See Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, para. 70; 47 CFR 54.8(e)(5), 54.8(f). II. Initiation of Debarment Proceedings Your guilty plea and conviction of criminal conduct in connection with the E-Rate program, in addition to serving as a basis for immediate suspension from the program, also serves as a basis for the initiation of debarment proceedings against you. Your conviction falls within the categories of causes for debarment defined in section 54.8(c) of the Commission's rules. 14 Therefore, pursuant to section 54.8(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, your conviction requires the Bureau to commence debarment proceedings against you. 14 “Causes for suspension and debarment are the conviction of or civil judgment for attempt or commission of criminal fraud, theft, embezzlement, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, receiving stolen property, making false claims, obstruction of justice and other fraud or criminal offense arising out of activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism, the high-cost support mechanism, the rural healthcare support mechanism, and the low-income support mechanism.” 47 CFR 54.8(c). Such activities “include the receipt of funds or discounted services through [the Federal universal service] support mechanisms, or consulting with, assisting, or advising applicants or service providers regarding [the Federal universal service] support mechanisms.” 47 CFR 54.8(a)(1). As with your suspension, you may contest debarment or the scope of the proposed debarment by filing arguments and any relevant documentation within 30 calendar days of the earlier of the receipt of this letter or of publication in the **Federal Register** . 15 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Bureau will debar you. 16 Within 90 days of receipt of any opposition to your suspension and proposed debarment, the Bureau, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, will provide you with notice of its decision to debar. 17 If the Bureau decides to debar you, its decision will become effective upon the earlier of your receipt of a debarment notice or publication of the decision in the **Federal Register** . 18 15 *See Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, para. 70; 47 CFR 54.8(e)(3). 16 *Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9227, para. 74. 17 *See id.* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, para. 70; 47 CFR 54.8(e)(5). 18 *Id.* The Commission may reverse a debarment, or may limit the scope or period of debarment upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances, following the filing of a petition by you or an interested party or upon motion by the Commission. 47 CFR 54.8(f). If and when your debarment becomes effective, you will be prohibited from participating in activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism for three years from the date of debarment. 19 The Bureau may, if necessary to protect the public interest, extend the debarment period. 20 19 *Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9225, para. 67; 47 CFR 54.8(d), 54.8(g). 20 *Id.* Please direct any response, if by messenger or hand delivery, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002, to the attention of Diana Lee, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-C330, with a copy to Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-C330, Federal Communications Commission. If sent by commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail), the response should be sent to the Federal Communications Commission, 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, Maryland 20743. If sent by first-class, Express, or Priority mail, the response should be sent to Diana Lee, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 4-C330, Washington, DC, 20554, with a copy to Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 4-C330, Washington, DC, 20554. You shall also transmit a copy of the response via e-mail to *diana.lee@fcc.gov* and to *vickie.robinson@fcc.gov* . If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Lee via mail, by telephone at
(202)418-1420 or by e-mail at *diana.lee@fcc.gov* . If Ms. Lee is unavailable, you may contact Ms. Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, by telephone at
(202)418-1420 and by e-mail at *vickie.robinson@fcc.gov* . Sincerely yours, Hillary S. DeNigro. Chief. Investigations and Hearings Division. Enforcement Bureau. cc: Kristy Carroll, Esq., Universal Service Administrative Company (via e-mail) Michael Wood, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice (via mail) [FR Doc. E8-12840 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [DA 08-1180] Notice of Suspension and Initiation of Debarment Proceedings; Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Enforcement Bureau gives notice of Mr. Earl Nelson's suspension from the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (or “E-Rate Program”). Additionally, the Bureau gives notice that debarment proceedings are commencing against him. Mr. Nelson, or any person who has an existing contract with or intends to contract with him to provide or receive services in matters arising out of activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support, may respond by filing an opposition request, supported by documentation to Diana Lee. DATES: Opposition requests must be received by July 9, 2008. However, an opposition request by the party to be suspended must be received 30 days from the receipt of the suspension letter or July 9, 2008, whichever comes first. The Enforcement Bureau will decide any opposition request for reversal or modification of suspension or debarment within 90 days of its receipt of such requests. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diana Lee, Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 4-C330, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Diana Lee may be contacted by phone at
(202)418-0843 or e-mail at *diana.lee@fcc.gov.* If Ms. Lee is unavailable, you may contact Ms. Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, by telephone at
(202)418-1420 and by e-mail at *vickie.robinson@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Enforcement Bureau has suspension and debarment authority pursuant to 47 CFR 54.8 and 47 CFR 0.111. Suspension will help to ensure that the party to be suspended cannot continue to benefit from the schools and libraries mechanism pending resolution of the debarment process. Attached is the suspension letter, DA 08-1180, which was mailed to Mr. Nelson and released on May 19, 2008. The complete text of the notice of debarment is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portal II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, the complete text is available on the FCC's Web site at *http://www.fcc.gov.* The text may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating inspection and copying during regular business hours at the contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portal II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B420, Washington, DC 20554, telephone
(202)488-5300 or
(800)378-3160, facsimile
(202)488-5563, or via e-mail *http://www.bcpiweb.com.* Federal Communications Commission. Hillary Denigro, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau. The attached is the Suspension and Initiation of Debarment Letter to Earl Nelson. May 19, 2008. DA 08-1180. Via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested and Facsimile (415-621-4111) Mr. Earl Nelson, c/o Richard B. Mazer, Esq., Law Offices of Richard Mazer, 99 Divisadero Street, San Francisco, CA 94117, *richardbmazer@yahoo.com.* Re: Notice of Suspension and Initiation of Debarment Proceedings, File No. EB-08-IH-1138 Dear Mr. Nelson: The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) has received notice of your conviction of collusion and aiding and abetting, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1 and 18 U.S.C. 2, in connection with your participation in the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (“E-Rate program”). 1 Consequently, pursuant to 47 CFR 54.8, this letter constitutes official notice of your suspension from the E-Rate program. In addition, the Enforcement Bureau (“Bureau”) hereby notifies you that we are commencing debarment proceedings against you. 2 1 Any further reference in this letter to “your conviction” refers to your guilty plea and subsequent conviction of collusion and aiding and abetting. *United States* v. *Earl Nelson,* Criminal Docket No. 3:05-CR-00208-CRB-011, Judgment (N.D.Cal. filed and entered Mar. 21, 2008) (“ *Earl Nelson Judgment* ”). *See United States v. Video Network Communications, Inc. et al.* , Criminal Docket No. 3:05-CR-00208-CRB, Superseding Indictment at paras. 79-80 (N.D.Cal. filed Dec. 8, 2005 and entered Dec. 12, 2005); *http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f213600/213626.htm* (accessed May 1, 2008) (“ *VNCI Superseding Indictment* ”). 2 47 CFR 54.8; 47 CFR 0.111 (delegating to the Enforcement Bureau authority to resolve universal service suspension and debarment proceedings). The Commission adopted debarment rules for the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism in 2003. *See Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism,* Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 9202
(2003)(“ *Second Report and Order* ”) (adopting section 54.521 to suspend and debar parties from the E-rate program). In 2007, the Commission extended the debarment rules to apply to all of the Federal universal service support mechanisms. *Comprehensive Review of the Universal Service Fund Management, Administration, and Oversight; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism; Lifeline and Link Up; Changes to the Board of Directors for the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.,* Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 16372, 16410-12
(2007)( *Program Management Order* ) (renumbering section 54.521 of the universal service debarment rules as section 54.8 and amending subsections (a)(1), (5), (c), (d), (e)(2)(i), (3), (e)(4), and (g)). I. Notice of Suspension The Commission has established procedures to prevent persons who have “defrauded the government or engaged in similar acts through activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism” from receiving the benefits associated with that program. 3 You pled guilty to collusion and aiding and abetting a scheme to defraud the E-Rate program. 4 You admitted that, as a former branch manager of Inter-Tel Technologies, you entered into and engaged in a conspiracy with other defendants and co-conspirators to suppress and restrain competition by submitting collusive, noncompetitive, and rigged bids for an E-Rate project at the West Fresno Elementary School District in Fresno, California. 5 3 *See Second Report and Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at 9225, para. 66; *Program Management Order,* 22 FCC Rcd at 16387, para. 32. The Commission's debarment rules define a “person” as “[a]ny individual, group of individuals, corporation, partnership, association, unit of government or legal entity, however, organized.” 47 CFR 54.8(a)(6). 4 *VNCI Superseding Indictment at* paras. 79-80. 5 *See id.* The Commission debarred Inter-Tel Technologies, Inc. in 2006 for the company's conviction for mail fraud and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition. *See Inter-Tel Technologies, Inc.,* Notice to Debarment, 21 FCC Rcd 7506 (2006); 71 FR 42397 (2006). The following four individuals, who were also charged in the *VNCI Superseding Indictment,* have pled guilty or been found guilty and subsequently sentenced: Judy Green, George Marchelos, William Holman, and Allan Green. We are sending separate notices of suspension and initiation of debarment proceedings to these individuals. Pursuant to section 54.8(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, 6 your conviction requires the Bureau to suspend you from participating in any activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries fund mechanism, including the receipt of funds or discounted services through the schools and libraries fund mechanism, or consulting with, assisting, or advising applicants or service providers regarding the schools and libraries support mechanism. 7 Your suspension becomes effective upon the earlier of your receipt of this letter or publication of notice in the **Federal Register** . 8 6 47 CFR 54.8(a)(4). *See Second Report and Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at 9225-9227, paras. 67-74. 7 47 CFR 54.8(a)(1), (d). 8 *Second Report and Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, para. 69; 47 CFR 54.8(e)(1). Suspension is immediate pending the Bureau's final debarment determination. In accordance with the Commission's debarment rules, you may contest this suspension or the scope of this suspension by filing arguments in opposition to the suspension, with any relevant documentation. Your request must be received within 30 days after you receive this letter or after notice is published in the **Federal Register** , whichever comes first. 9 Such requests, however, will not ordinarily be granted. 10 The Bureau may reverse or limit the scope of suspension only upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances. 11 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Bureau will decide any request for reversal or modification of suspension within 90 days of its receipt of such request. 12 9 47 CFR 54.8(e)(4). 10 *Id.* 11 47 CFR 54.8(e)(5). 12 *See Second Report and Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, para. 70; 47 CFR 54.8(e)(5), 54.8(f). II. Initiation of Debarment Proceedings Your guilty plea and conviction of criminal conduct in connection with the E-Rate program, in addition to serving as a basis for immediate suspension from the program, also serves as a basis for the initiation of debarment proceedings against you. Your conviction falls within the categories of causes for debarment defined in section 54.8(c) of the Commission's rules. 13 Therefore, pursuant to section 54.8(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, your conviction requires the Bureau to commence debarment proceedings against you. 13 “Causes for suspension and debarment are the conviction of or civil judgment for attempt or commission of criminal fraud, theft, embezzlement, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, receiving stolen property, making false claims, obstruction of justice and other fraud or criminal offense arising out of activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism, the high-cost support mechanism, the rural healthcare support mechanism, and the low-income support mechanism.” 47 CFR 54.8(c). Such activities “include the receipt of funds or discounted services through [the Federal universal service] support mechanisms, or consulting with, assisting, or advising applicants or service providers regarding [the Federal universal service] support mechanisms.” 47 CFR 54.8(a)(1). As with your suspension, you may contest debarment or the scope of the proposed debarment by filing arguments and any relevant documentation within 30 calendar days of the earlier of the receipt of this letter or of publication in the **Federal Register** . 14 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Bureau will debar you. 15 Within 90 days of receipt of any opposition to your suspension and proposed debarment, the Bureau, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, will provide you with notice of its decision to debar. 16 If the Bureau decides to debar you, its decision will become effective upon the earlier of your receipt of a debarment notice or publication of the decision in the **Federal Register** . 17 14 *See Second Report and Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, para. 70; 47 CFR 54.8(e)(3). 15 *Second Report and Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at 9227, para. 74. 16 *See id.,* 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, para. 70; 47 CFR 54.8(e)(5). 17 *Id.* The Commission may reverse a debarment, or may limit the scope or period of debarment upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances, following the filing of a petition by you or an interested party or upon motion by the Commission. 47 CFR 54.8(f). If and when your debarment becomes effective, you will be prohibited from participating in activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism for three years from the date of debarment. 18 The Bureau may, if necessary to protect the public interest, extend the debarment period. 19 18 *Second Report and Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at 9225, para. 67; 47 CFR 54.8(d), 54.8(g). 19 *Id.* Please direct any response, if by messenger or hand delivery, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, D.C. 20002, to the attention of Diana Lee, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-C330, with a copy to Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-C330, Federal Communications Commission. If sent by commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail), the response should be sent to the Federal Communications Commission, 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, Maryland 20743. If sent by first-class, Express, or Priority mail, the response should be sent to Diana Lee, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 4-C330, Washington, DC, 20554, with a copy to Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 4-C330, Washington, DC, 20554. You shall also transmit a copy of the response via e-mail to *diana.lee@fcc.gov* and to *vickie.robinson@fcc.gov.* If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Lee via mail, by telephone at
(202)418-1420 or by e-mail at *diana.lee@fcc.gov* . If Ms. Lee is unavailable, you may contact Ms. Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, by telephone at
(202)418-1420 and by e-mail at *vickie.robinson@fcc.gov* . Sincerely yours, Hillary S. DeNigro, *Chief,* Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau. cc: Kristy Carroll, Esq., Universal Service Administrative Company (via e-mail); Michael Wood, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice (vial mail). [FR Doc. E8-12842 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Meeting; Sunshine Act Agency Holding the Meeting: Federal Maritime Commission. Time and Date: June 11, 2008—10 a.m. Place: 800 North Capitol Street, NW., First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC. Status: A portion of the meeting will be in Open Session and the remainder of the meeting will be in Closed Session. Matters To Be Considered: Open Session
(1)Docket No.04-09 *American Warehousing of New York, Inc.* , v *the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey* , and Docket No. 05-03 *American Warehousing of New York, Inc.* , v *the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey* .
(2)Designation of Commission Policy Official for the U.S. Committee on the Maritime Transportation System.
(3)Privacy Act System of Records. Closed Session
(1)Direction to Staff Regarding Budget Hearing Committee Requests.
(2)FMC Agreement No. 201178—Los Angeles/Long Beach Port /Terminal Operator Administration and Implementation Agreement and FMC Agreement No. 201170—Los Angeles and Long Beach Port Infrastructure and Environmental Programs CWA.
(3)Export Cargo Issues Status Report.
(4)Docket No. 06-03 Premier Automotive Services, Inc. v Robert L. Flanagan and F. Brooks Royster, III.
(5)Internal Administrative Practices and Personnel Matters. Contact Person for More Information: Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary,
(202)523-5725. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 08-1333 Filed 6-5-08; 9:31 am]
Connectionstraces to 30
Traces to 30 documents
CFR
33 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 97-35
  • Pub. L. 105-285
  • 7 CFR 319.56
  • 7 CFR 300.5
  • 268 F.3d 1376
  • 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334
  • 117 F.3d 1401
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 34 CFR 668
  • 34 CFR 690
  • 34 CFR 691
  • 42 USC 2751-2756b
  • 18 CFR 835.206
  • 18 CFR 34
  • 40 CFR 9
  • 40 CFR 82
  • 40 CFR 82.36
  • 40 CFR 82.42(a)
  • 40 CFR 82.36(b)
  • 5 CFR 1320.12
  • 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv)
  • 47 CFR 54.8
  • 47 CFR 0.111
  • 47 CFR 54.8(a)(6)
  • 47 CFR 54.8(a)(4)
  • 47 CFR 54.8(a)(1)
  • 47 CFR 54.8(e)(1)
  • 47 CFR 54.8(e)(4)
  • 47 CFR 54.8(e)(5)
  • 47 CFR 54.8(c)
  • 47 CFR 54.8(e)(3)
  • 47 CFR 54.8(f)
  • 47 CFR 54.8(d)
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice To Award a Program Expansion Supplement
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.308
C.F.R.§ 351.301
C.F.R.§ 351.408
C.F.R.§ 351.224
C.F.R.§ 351.310
C.F.R.§ 351.309
C.F.R.§ 351.212
C.F.R.§ 351.106
F. App'x268 F.3d 1376
F. Supp.293 F. Supp. 2d 1334
F. App'x117 F.3d 1401
Cites 63 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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