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 · 2008-07-10 · Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT) · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

73,300 words·~333 min read·/register/2008/07/10/08-1427

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 133 Thursday, July 10, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0759; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-02-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney
(PW)JT9D-7 Series Turbofan Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for PW models JT9D-7, -7A, -7AH, -7H, -7F, and -7J turbofan engines. This proposed AD would require initial and repetitive borescope inspections of the 2nd stage high-pressure turbine
(HPT)rotor and stator assembly. This proposed AD results from an uncontained failure of a 2nd stage HPT rotor disk that caused the engine to separate from the airplane. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the 2nd stage HPT rotor disk, which could result in uncontained engine failure, damage to the airplane, and the engine separating from the airplane. DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by September 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. You can get the service information identified in this proposed AD from Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; telephone
(860)565-8770; fax
(860)565-4503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Riley, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: *mark.riley@faa.gov* ; telephone
(781)238-7758, fax
(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0759; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-02-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78). Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is the same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. Discussion On October 20, 2004, a PW JT9D-7A engine experienced an uncontained failure of the 2nd stage HPT rotor disk. The resulting imbalance caused the engine to separate from the airplane. Root cause investigation revealed that improper assembly caused the 2nd stage HPT vane assemblies to lean back into the 2nd stage HPT rotor disk. The investigation found indications of three improper assembly steps within the engine that contributed to this vane lean back, disk fracture, uncontained event. • First, the investigation found an improper silver-based antigallant. • Second, the lock wire on the 2nd stage HPT vane retaining bolts was not applied correctly. • Finally, the 2nd stage HPT vane retaining bolts were reused. • Pratt & Whitney determined that the assembly procedures in the engine manual
(EM)might be misinterpreted and issued new procedures to ensure the repair facilities follow proper assembly procedures. Because PW was unable to determine the time frame over which the repair facility used the old assembly procedures, they developed a borescope inspection to identify vane lean back of the 2nd stage HPT vanes of all JT9D-7 series engines. This condition, if not corrected, could result in uncontained engine failure, damage to the airplane, and the engine separating from the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of PW Alert Service Bulletin
(ASB)JT9D A6488, Revision 1, dated April 18, 2008, that describes the procedures and inspection requirements for borescope inspection of the 2nd stage HPT vanes. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would require an initial and repetitive borescope inspection of the 2nd stage HPT vane assembly. The proposed AD would require you to use the service information described previously to perform these actions. Interim Action These actions are interim actions and we may take further rulemaking actions in the future. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 240 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5 work-hours per engine to perform the proposed actions, that each engine might require two inspections, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $192,000. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. *For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed AD:* 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **Pratt & Whitney:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0759; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-02-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD)action by September 8, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney
(PW)JT9D-7, -7A, -7AH, -7H, -7F, and -7J turbofan engines. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 747 series airplanes. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from an uncontained failure of a 2nd stage high-pressure turbine
(HPT)rotor disk that caused the engine to separate from the airplane. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the 2nd stage HPT rotor disk, which could result in uncontained engine failure, damage to the airplane, and the engine separating from the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done. Initial Borescope Inspection
(f)Within 100 cycles-in-service
(CIS)after the effective date of this AD, or within 1,000 CIS after the last HPT module overhaul, whichever occurs later, do the following:
(1)Use the Accomplishment Instructions of PW Alert Service Bulletin
(ASB)JT9D A6488, Revision 1, dated April 18, 2008, to borescope-inspect the 2nd stage HPT rotor and stator assembly either on-wing or in the shop.
(2)If you see any damage or contact between the 2nd stage HPT vanes and the 2nd stage HPT rotor, remove the engine from service. Repetitive Borescope Inspection
(g)Thereafter, within 1,000 cycles-since-last inspection, do the following:
(1)Use the Accomplishment Instructions of PW ASB JT9D A6488 Revision 1, dated April 18, 2008, to borescope-inspect the 2nd stage HPT rotor and stator assembly either on-wing or in the shop.
(2)If you see any damage or contact between the 2nd stage HPT vanes and the 2nd stage HPT rotor, remove the engine from service. Optional Terminating Action
(h)Installing the 2nd stage HPT vanes as specified in the JT9D-7 Engine Manual Revision 122, dated February 15, 2008, terminates the repetitive inspection requirement specified in paragraph
(g)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance
(i)The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information
(j)PW ASB JT9D A6488, Revision 1, dated April 18, 2008, pertains to the subject of this AD.
(k)Contact Mark Riley, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; *e-mail: mark.riley@faa.gov* ; telephone
(781)238-7758; fax
(781)238-7199, for more information about this AD. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 3, 2008. Diane Cook, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-15682 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0732; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-053-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 50 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: * * * [S]ome aircraft could have experienced wing overpressure consecutive to the latent failure of both [pressure relief] valve units. Overpressure although not sufficient to cause static damages could have impaired the fatigue damage tolerance of the wing structure. * * * The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 11, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1137; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0732; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-053-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2008-0021, dated January 31, 2008 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Analysed in-service events revealed that corrosion of pressure relief valves in wing fuel tanks was likely to occur well before reaching their Time Between Overhaul
(TBO)and could make the valves stick in the closed position. Therefore some aircraft could have experienced wing overpressure consecutive to the latent failure of both valve units. Overpressure although not sufficient to cause static damages could have impaired the fatigue damage tolerance of the wing structure. Consequently this Airworthiness Directive
(AD)mandates introduction of a new repetitive inspection of the wing structure. The repetitive ultrasonic inspection is intended to detect incipient cracking on the stiffeners of the right-hand and left-hand wing lower panels between ribs 13 and 17 (the inspection area extends to just beyond rib 16). The corrective actions if any cracking is found include contacting Dassault for repair instructions, and doing the repair. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Dassault has issued Temporary Revision 74, dated November 2007, to the Dassault Falcon 50 Maintenance Manual, Maintenance Procedure 57-401, “Non-Destructive Check of the Wing Lower Panels Stiffeners between Ribs 13 and 16 (ATA 57-00-21).” The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 247 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $118,560, or $480 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Dassault Aviation:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0732; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-053-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by August 11, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 50 airplanes, certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 57: Wings. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Analysed in-service events revealed that corrosion of pressure relief valves in wing fuel tanks was likely to occur well before reaching their Time Between Overhaul
(TBO)and could make the valves stick in the closed position. Therefore some aircraft could have experienced wing overpressure consecutive to the latent failure of both valve units. Overpressure although not sufficient to cause static damages could have impaired the fatigue damage tolerance of the wing structure. Consequently this Airworthiness Directive
(AD)mandates introduction of a new repetitive inspection of the wing structure. The repetitive ultrasonic inspection is intended to detect incipient cracking on the stiffeners of the right-hand and left-hand wing lower panels between ribs 13 and 17 (the inspection area extends to just beyond rib 16). The corrective actions if any cracking is found include contacting Dassault for repair instructions, and doing the repair. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already accomplished, do the following actions: Prior to the accumulation of 14,200 total flight cycles, or within 160 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do the ultrasonic inspection described in Temporary Revision 74, dated November 2007, to the Dassault Falcon 50 Maintenance Manual, Maintenance Procedure 57-401, “Non-Destructive Check of the Wing Lower Panels Stiffeners between Ribs 13 and 16 (ATA 57-00-21).” Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,350 flight cycles. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, ANM-116, International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1137; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)Airworthiness Directive 2008-0021, dated January 31, 2008, and Temporary Revision 74, dated November 2007, to the Dassault Falcon 50 Maintenance Manual, Maintenance Procedure 57-401, “Non-Destructive Check of the Wing Lower Panels Stiffeners between Ribs 13 and 16 (ATA 57-00-21),” for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 27, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-15714 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-142040-07] RIN 1545-BH53 Reasonable Good Faith Interpretation of Required Minimum Distribution Rules by Governmental Plans AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document contains proposed regulations under sections 401(a)(9) and 403(b) of the Internal Revenue Code
(Code)to permit a governmental plan to comply with the required minimum distribution rules by using a reasonable and good faith interpretation of the statute. These proposed regulations will affect administrators of, employers maintaining, participants in, and beneficiaries of governmental plans. DATES: Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by October 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-142040-07), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-142040-07), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* (IRS REG-142040-07). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the regulations, Cathy V. Pastor or Michael P. Brewer at
(202)622-6090 (not a toll-free number); concerning submission of comments or to request a public hearing, *Richard.A.Hurst@irscounsel.treas.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This document contains proposed amendments to regulations under sections 401(a)(9) and 403(b) of the Code. Section 401(a)(9) provides required minimum distribution rules for a qualified trust under section 401(a). In general, under these rules, distribution of each participant's entire interest must begin by April 1 of the calendar year following the later of
(1)the calendar year in which the participant attains age 70 1/2 or
(2)the calendar year in which the participant retires (“the required beginning date”). If the entire interest of the participant is not distributed by the required beginning date, then section 401(a)(9)(A) provides that the entire interest of the participant must be distributed beginning not later than the required beginning date, in accordance with regulations, over the life of the participant or lives of the participant and a designated beneficiary (or over a period not extending beyond the life expectancy of the participant or the life expectancy of the participant and a designated beneficiary). Section 401(a)(9)(B) provides the required minimum distribution rules after the death of the participant. IRAs described in section 408, section 403(b) plans, and eligible deferred compensation plans under section 457(b), also are subject to the required minimum distribution rules of section 401(a)(9) pursuant to sections 408(a)(6) and (b)(3), 403(b)(10), and 457(d)(2), respectively, and the regulations under those sections. In 2002, the IRS and the Treasury Department published final regulations under sections 401(a)(9), 403(b), and 408 in the **Federal Register** (67 FR 18987). Section 1.401(a)(9)-1, A-2(a), provides that the final regulations apply for purposes of determining required minimum distributions for calendar years beginning on or after January 1, 2003. The rules for defined benefit plans and annuities were included in a temporary regulation, § 1.401(a)(9)-6T, as well as in a proposed regulation (67 FR 18834) in order to allow taxpayers to comment on the rules. In 2004, the IRS and the Treasury Department replaced the temporary regulations with final regulations under § 1.401(a)(9)-6 (69 FR 33288). The final regulations contain a “grandfather rule” in Q&A-16, which provides that annuity distribution options provided under the terms of a governmental plan (within the meaning section 414(d)) as in effect on April 17, 2002, are treated as satisfying the requirements of section 401(a)(9) if they satisfy a reasonable and good faith interpretation of the provisions of section 401(a)(9). In addition, Q&A-17 provides that, for distributions from any defined benefit plan or annuity contract during 2003, 2004, and 2005, the payments could satisfy a reasonable and good faith interpretation of section 401(a)(9) in lieu of § 1.401(a)(9)-6. For governmental plans, § 1.401(a)(9)-6, Q&A-17, extended this reasonable good faith standard to the end of the calendar year that contains the 90th day after the opening of the first legislative session of the legislative body with the authority to amend the plan that begins on or after June 15, 2004, if such 90th day is later than December 31, 2005. In 2003, the IRS and the Treasury Department published final regulations under section 457(b) in the **Federal Register** (68 FR 41230). These regulations included § 1.457-6(d), which provides that a section 457(b) eligible plan must meet the requirements of section 401(a)(9) and the regulations under that section. In 2007, the IRS and the Treasury Department published final regulations under section 403(b) in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 41128). These regulations, which become effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2008, included § 1.403(b)-6(e)(1), which provides that a section 403(b) contract must meet the requirements of section 401(a)(9). Section 1.403(b)-6(e)(2) provides, with certain exceptions, that section 403(b) contracts apply the section 401(a)(9) required minimum distribution rules in accordance with § 1.408-8. Section 1.408-8, Q&A-1, provides, with certain exceptions, that in order to satisfy section 401(a)(9) for purposes of determining required minimum distributions, the rules of §§ 1.401(a)(9)-1 through 1.401(a)(9)-9 must be applied. Section 823 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public Law 109-280 (120 Stat. 780), instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations under which, for all years to which section 401(a)(9) applies, a governmental plan, within the meaning of section 414(d), shall be treated as having complied with section 401(a)(9) if such plan complies with a reasonable good faith interpretation of section 401(a)(9). Explanation of Provisions The proposed regulations would amend the regulations under section 401(a)(9) to treat a governmental plan, within the meaning of section 414(d), as having complied with the rules of section 401(a)(9) if the governmental plan applies a reasonable and good faith interpretation of section 401(a)(9). The same rule would apply to an eligible 457(b) plan maintained by a government. In addition, this rule would apply to a section 403(b) contract that is part of a governmental plan, and the regulations under section 403(b) would be amended accordingly. The proposed regulations would also make conforming amendments to the regulations under section 401(a)(9) that eliminate other special rules for governmental plans which would be rendered superfluous with this change. Proposed Effective/Applicability Date These regulations are proposed to be applied to all years for which section 401(a)(9) applies. Special Analyses It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and, because §§ 1.401(a)(9)-1 and 1.403(b)-6 would not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. Comments and Requests for Public Hearing Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (one signed and eight
(8)copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing will be scheduled if a request to speak is submitted in writing by any person who timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place of the public hearing will be published in the **Federal Register** . Drafting Information The principal authors of these regulations are Michael P. Brewer and Cathy V. Pastor, Office of Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in the development of these regulations. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 2.** Section 1.401(a)(9)-1 is amended by adding a new paragraph
(d)to A-2 as follows: § 1.401(a)(9)-1 Minimum distribution requirement in general. A-2. * * *
(d)*Special rule for governmental plans.* Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this A-2, a governmental plan (within the meaning of section 414(d)), or an eligible governmental plan described in § 1.457-2(f), is treated as having complied with section 401(a)(9) for all years to which section 401(a)(9) applies to the plan if the plan complies with a reasonable and good faith interpretation of section 401(a)(9). § 1.401(a)(9)-6 [Amended] **Par. 3.** Section 1.401(a)(9)-6 is amended by: 1. Removing Q&A-16. 2. Redesignating Q&A-17 as Q&A-16. 3. Removing the word “A-16” and adding “A-15” in the newly-designated A-16. 4. Removing the last sentence of the newly-designated A-16. **Par. 4.** Section 1.403(b)-6 is amended by: 1. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (e)(2). 2. Adding a new paragraph (e)(8). The revisions and addition are as follows: § 1.403(b)-6 Timing of distributions and benefits.
(e)Minimum required distributions for eligible plans.
(2)* * * Consequently, except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (e), the distribution rules in section 401(a)(9) are applied to section 403(b) contracts in accordance with the provisions in § 1.408-8 for purposes of determining required minimum distributions.
(8)*Special rule for governmental plans.* A section 403(b) contract that is part of a governmental plan (within the meaning of section 414(d)) is treated as having complied with section 401(a)(9) for all years to which section 401(a)(9) applies to the contract, if the contract complies with a reasonable and good faith interpretation of section 401(a)(9). Linda E. Stiff, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E8-15740 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Justice Programs 28 CFR Part 32 [Docket No. OJP
(BJA)1478] RIN 1121-AA75 Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs, Justice. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking with request for comments. SUMMARY: The Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice proposes this rule to amend the regulation that implements the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act and associated or related statutes. Generally speaking, these laws provide financial support to certain public safety officers, or their survivors and families, when such officers die, or become permanently and totally disabled, as a result of line-of-duty injuries, or when they die of heart attacks or strokes sustained within statutorily-specified timeframes of engaging or participating in certain line-of-duty activity. The proposed rule would amend the implementing regulation to reflect internal agency policy and practice, recent statutory enactments and court decisions, and to make certain technical changes, in order to keep the regulations comprehensive and current. DATES: Comments must be received by no later than 5 p.m., E.S.T., on September 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: Please address all comments regarding this proposed rule, by U.S. mail, to: Hope Janke, Counsel to the Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20531; by telefacsimile transmission, to: Hope Janke, Counsel to the Director, at
(202)305-1367. To ensure proper handling, please reference OJP Docket No. 1478 on your correspondence. You may view an electronic version of this proposed rule at *http://www.regulations.gov* , and you may also comment by using the *http://www.regulations.gov* form for this regulation. When submitting comments electronically, you must include OJP Docket No. 1478 in the subject box. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hope Janke, Counsel to the Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance, at
(202)514-6278, or toll-free at 1
(888)744-6513. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Posting of Public Comments Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection online at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Such information includes personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter. If you wish to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not wish it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “Personal Identifying Information” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also locate all the personal identifying information you do not want posted online in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted. If you wish to submit confidential business information as part of your comment but do not wish it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “Confidential Business Information” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted on *http://www.regulations.gov* . Personal identifying information identified and located as set forth above will be placed in the agency's public docket file, but not posted online. Confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will not be placed in the public docket file. If you wish to inspect the agency's public docket file in person by appointment, please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph. II. Background The Public Safety Officers' Benefits
(PSOB)Program (established pursuant not only the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act of 1976 proper, but also to certain associated or related statutes, enacted in 2001) is administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance
(BJA)of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The PSOB Program provides a one-time financial payment to the statutorily-eligible survivors of public safety officers who die as the direct and proximate result of (actual or presumed) traumatic injuries sustained in the line of duty, as well as educational assistance for certain of those survivors. Alternatively, the PSOB Program provides a one-time financial payment to public safety officers themselves who are permanently and totally disabled as the direct result of catastrophic injuries sustained in the line of duty, as well as educational assistance for their spouses and certain of their children. BJA is prepared to pay, as expeditiously as possible, every eligible claim relating to an officer, according to the requirements of the law. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 3796c(a), 3796(a) & (b), 3796d-3(a) & (b), and 3782(a) (each of which expressly authorizes the issuance of regulations), on August 10, 2006, BJA promulgated a final rule that comprehensively revised the implementing regulatory structure for the program, a revision largely precipitated by the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act (HHSBA) of 2003, Public Law 108-182, discussed at greater length below. Since that final rule went into effect on September 11, 2006, one statutory provision (section 6 (div. B, tit. II, Public Safety Officers Benefits heading proviso), Public Law 110-161, 121 Stat 1912) directly affecting the program has been signed into law (December 26, 2007); additionally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued four opinions to date applying the PSOB program statute ( *Hawkins* v. *United States* , 469 F.3d 993 (2006); *Cassella* v. *United States* , 469 F.3d 1376 (2006); *Amber-Messick* v. *United States* , 483 F.3d 1316 (2007), *cert.* denied, __ U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 648 (2007); *Groff* v. *United States* , 493 F.3d 1343 (2007), *cert.* denied, __ U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 1219 (2008)), and four opinions relating to the program have been issued by the Court of Federal Claims ( *Hillensbeck* v. *United States* , 74 Fed. Cl. 477 (2006); *White* ex rel. *Roberts* v. *United States* , 74 Fed. Cl. 769
(2006)(appeal pending in the Federal Circuit); *Dawson* v. *United States* , 75 Fed. Cl. 53 (2007); *Winuk* v. *United States* , 77 Fed. Cl. 207 (2007)). As an overarching matter, the main impetus for the present proposed rule is the desire to keep the PSOB regulation as useful and reflective of program practice as possible. The PSOB rule (prior to the 2006 overhaul) had largely become disconnected from the reality of how the program was actually being implemented, resulting in a regulation which was, generously, not very useful. The 2006 comprehensive revision of the PSOB rule sought to address this. However, the sheer scope of any comprehensive revision to a program's implementing regulation make it all-but inevitable that at least some changes (occasioned by the discovery—in the back-and-forth of actually working under the new regulation—of previously unnoticed flaws, gaps, or ambiguities) will be called for, after sufficient time for reflection and discernment. In the case of the 2006 revisions to the PSOB program regulation, this general rule applies with even more force, as a result of the novel incorporation therein of the conceptually- and factually-different bases for coverage established by the HHSBA. The implementation of the presumption created by the HHSBA-BJA has now processed nearly 200 cases since September 11, 2006, when the implementing regulations went into effect—has revealed several substantive and procedural shortcomings in the current rule that will be fixed in this proposed rule. (For example, the current definition of heart attack, while commonly accepted, is too narrow to capture some types of sudden cardiac-related deaths suffered by public safety officers. In addition, the PSOB Office's approach to the term “routine” has changed and it would be helpful to have the regulation reflect this.) Over the last year and a half, from the experience gleaned from processing, reviewing, and determining these cases, and from the myriad public and private comments it has received (both in the context of specific claims, and more broadly), BJA's understanding of the contours of the HHSBA (and thus its interpretations of provisions of that statute, and the practical rules it has developed for working under it) has matured. Concrete (but by no means exhaustive) indicators of this maturation are the two policy memoranda issued by the Director of the BJA on October 2, 2007, relating to “Nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activity,” and to “Competent Medical Evidence to the Contrary,” respectively, which established certain practical internal guidelines for the processing and determination of particular issues arising in claims under the HHSBA. This proposed rule would incorporate in the body of the regulation those current agency practices and rules, as appropriate for incorporation into a regulation of this kind ( *see, e.g.* , the proposed new definition of “ *Routine* ” (from paragraphs 1 & 2 of the “Nonroutine” policy memorandum); proposed new § 32.5(i) (from paragraph 2 of the “Nonroutine policy memorandum); proposed new § 32.14(c) (from paragraphs 1 & 2 of the “Competent Medical Evidence” policy memorandum); and the proposed use of the term “Extrinsic circumstances” (to underscore the notion—which informs paragraph 2 of the “Competent Medical Evidence” policy memorandum—that the mere presence of cardio-vascular disease/risk factors is not dispositive in analysis of what may be “competent medical evidence to the contrary” under the HHSBA)). In the case of the two October 2, 2007 policy memoranda—which remain in full force under this rule—the intention is to codify agency practice under the memoranda. Changes in terminology or phrasing should not be construed to carry any practical significance. And the fact that not all provisions of these two policy memoranda are incorporated in the rule's text (primarily because such provisions are not appropriate as regulations ( *e.g.* , those involving purely internal administrative guidance)) should not be understood to reflect any policy change. For example, one of the guidance letters notes that a response to an emergency call “shall presumptively be treated as non-routine.” This proposed rule would treat such a response as “prima facie evidence” that the action was non-routine. The sole purpose for the change from a “presumption” to “prima facie evidence” is to conform with terminology used in the regulations; there will be no change in practice from the standard reflected in the guidance. As another example, the guidance provides that the determination of an activity's “routineness” should be informed less by the frequency with which it may be performed than by its stressful or strenuous character. This concept is reflected in the proposed regulation, with language indicating that the frequency with which an activity is performed shall not be the deciding factor in determining whether an activity is “routine.” What is not reflected in the proposed regulation is the guidance's follow-up observation that although “domestic disturbance” calls may occur with some frequency in the law-enforcement context, typically they occasion considerable stress, given the many and serious unknowns associated with encountering often highly-emotionally charged (and often violent) individuals, on their own territory, and under circumstances where the mere presence of law-enforcement officers well may be perceived as intrusive and insulting. Omission of this example from the regulation should not be construed to reflect a change in the Department's application of the term “non-routine”; the sole reason for not including this example in the regulation is that it seemed more suitable for a guidance document than for a formal regulation. The Department invites comment on whether the proposed rule successfully codifies the policies enunciated in the guidance memoranda issued on October 2, 2007. In sum, this rule now is being proposed—(1) to conform the regulation to the statutory change (which, among other things, confers exclusive jurisdiction over judicial appeals (and “related matters”) on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, removing it from the Court of Federal Claims);
(2)to incorporate (so as to increase programmatic transparency) into the body of the regulation certain statutory and regulatory interpretations (many relating to the HHSBA; *e.g.* , relating to official training programs) that currently inform BJA's claim determinations under the program, in keeping with the holdings of the Federal Circuit in *Amber-Messick* and *Groff* that such interpretations already have “the force of law”; and
(3)to make certain refining, clarifying, conforming, or technical changes to the regulation so as to—(a) correct language that would or might have had the unintended effect of making the regulation more restrictive than the statute,
(b)make the regulation more clearly consonant with the four Federal Circuit holdings listed above and the Federal Claims holding in *Dawson* ,
(c)remove ambiguities in the regulation,
(d)conform the rules applicable to death-benefit claims where the HHSBA presumption does not apply, and the rules applicable to those where it does, more closely together (and thus counter any suggestion that claims under the HHSBA really are not “regular” PSOB death-benefit claims),
(e)eliminate language in the regulation that merely is repetitive of statutory provisions,
(f)counter unsatisfactory Court of Federal Claims constructions of the program statutes and implementing regulations, and
(g)enhance programmatic and administrative efficiency. Although many of the changes proposed in the rule are important (mainly for reasons of programmatic transparency and efficiency of claims processing), very few actually are substantive in character; *e.g.* , very few of the proposed provisions would alter the determination of a claim. The proposed substantive changes to the regulation—whose general tendency would be to make it somewhat easier for affected claimants to establish their claims—are the following: • Definition of *Authorized commuting* in § 32.3: The proposed rule would add two circumstances (not currently encompassed) to the bases for line-of-duty coverage: Specifically, travel in response to a specific request by the employer to perform public safety activity would be treated the same as travel in response to a fire-, rescue-, or police emergency currently is; and travel between work sites would be treated the same as travel between home and work currently is. • Definition of *Biological* in § 32.3: The proposed rule would provide a simplified evidentiary mechanism for determination of beneficiary status under certain circumstances relating to filial or parental status. • Definition of *Heart attack* in § 32.3: The proposed rule would expand this definition to cover other cardiac events—beyond myocardial infarctions and sudden cardiac arrests (the only two circumstances currently covered)—caused by pathological conditions of the heart or coronary arteries. • Definition of *Injury date* in § 32.3: The proposed rule would make this definition applicable (for purposes of determining beneficiaries) to claims covered by the HHSBA, where the injuries are statutorily presumed; under the proposed rule, beneficiaries under these claims would be able—for the first time—to receive the advantages of this definition. • Definition of *Line of duty activity or action* in § 32.3: The proposed rule would expand this definition to cover situations where “secondary-function” law-enforcement officers, -firefighters, and -members of rescue squads or ambulance crews, take part as trainers in official training programs; currently, only participants who are trainees are covered. • Definition of *Voluntary intoxication at the time of death or catastrophic injury* in § 32.3: The proposed rule would provide additional evidentiary mechanisms for evaluating potentially-disqualifying facts relating to whether or not a public safety officer was intoxicated at the time of death or catastrophic injury. • *§ 32.5(c) & (h)* : The proposed rule would provide for simplified authentication of certain evidence during the administrative claims process and would (by establishing a kind of regulatory presumption relating to endorsement of representations made in connection with their claims) eliminate the need for claimants to provide certain paperwork otherwise necessary to establish the legal sufficiency of their claims. • *§ 32.6(a)* : The proposed rule would provide a simplified evidentiary mechanism for determination of beneficiary status under certain circumstances relating to spousal status. • *§ 32.15(d)* : The proposed rule would eliminate the current prerequisite certification requirement (requiring that the public agency certify as to the factual circumstances of the death and that all benefits available from the agency for similarly situated officers were paid) under certain circumstances where the presumption established by the HHSBA is applicable. • *§ 32.42(c)* : The proposed rule would eliminate a potential trap for unwary disability claimants by removing a redundant filing requirement. As is evident, the majority of the changes tend to make it easier for claimants to establish their claims (see the definitions of *Authorized commuting* and *Heart attack* for example). The rest of the changes are generally proposed in order more accurately to give notice to claimants, through the regulations, as to BJA's current practice in determining claims (see the definitions of *Designation on file, Official training program* , and *Routine* , for example). Many of the changes are simply grammatical and syntactical changes, but are still important for the sake of clarity and usefulness of the document. II. Regulatory Certifications Regulatory Flexibility Act The Office of Justice Programs, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This proposed rule addresses Federal agency procedures; furthermore, this proposed rule makes amendments to clarify existing regulations and agency practice concerning death, disability, and education payments and assistance to eligible public safety officers and their survivors and does nothing to increase the financial burden on any small entities. Executive Order 12866 This proposed rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order No. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), § 1(b), Principles of Regulation. The costs of implementing this proposed rule are minimal. The only costs to OJP consist of appropriated funds, and the benefits of the proposed rule far exceed the costs. As discussed in more detail in the “Background” section above, all of the substantive regulatory changes in this proposed rule tend to relieve unnecessary burdens and restrictions placed on claimants by the current rule. The non-substantive changes largely incorporate existing law and clarify the regulation so that it reflects current agency practice. The rest of the changes are grammatical and syntactical The Office of Justice Programs has determined that this proposed rule is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order No. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), and accordingly this proposed rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Executive Order 13132 This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The PSOB Act provides benefits to individuals and does not impose any special or unique requirements on States or localities. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order No. 13132, it is determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in §§ 3(a) & (b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The PSOB Act is a federal benefits program that provides benefits directly to qualifying individuals. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This proposed rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This proposed rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule contains no new information collection or record-keeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 32 Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, Education, Emergency medical services, Firefighters, Law enforcement officers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rescue squad. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 32 of chapter I of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 32—PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS' DEATH, DISABILITY, AND EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS 1. Revise the authority citation for part 32 to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. ch. 46, subch. XII; 42 U.S.C. 3782(a), 3787, 3788, 3791(a), 3793(a)(4) & (b), 3795a, 3796c-1, 3796c-2; sec. 1601, title XI, Pub. L. 90-351, 82 Stat. 239; secs. 4 through 6, Pub. L. 94-430, 90 Stat. 1348; secs. 1 and 2, Pub. L. 107-37, 115 Stat. 219. 2. Revise § 32.0 to read as follows: § 32.0 Scope of part. This part implements the Act, which, as a general matter, authorizes the payment of three different legal gratuities:
(a)Death benefits;
(b)Disability benefits; and
(c)Educational assistance benefits. 3. Amend § 32.3 as follows: a. Amend the definition of “ *Act* ” as follows: i. Remove “section 5 thereof (rule of construction and severability))” and add in its place “sections 4 through 6 thereof (payment in advance of appropriations, rule of construction and severability, and effective date and applicability))”. ii. Remove “sections 611 and 612” and add its place “section 611”. iii. Remove “all three” and add in its place “both”. iv. Remove “in connection with terrorist attacks)” and add in its place “in connection, respectively, with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, or with terrorist attacks, if any, occurring after Oct. 26, 2001)”. v. Add “, as well as the proviso under the Public Safety Officers Benefits heading in title II of division B of section 6 of Public Law 110-161” before the final period. b. Amend the definition of “ *Authorized commuting* ” as follows: i. In the introductory text, add “(not being described in the Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796a(1), and not being a frolic or detour)” after “travel”. ii. In paragraph (1), remove “responding to a fire, rescue” and add in its place “responding (as authorized) to a fire-, rescue-,”, and add “, or to a particular and extraordinary request (by the public agency he serves) for that specific officer to perform public safety activity, within his line of duty” after “emergency”. iii. In paragraph (2), add “, or between any such authorized or required situs and another” after “serves)”. c. Amend the definition of “ *Determination* ” by removing “or”, the third place it occurs, and by adding “, or any recommendation under § 32.54(c)(3)” before the final period. d. Amend the introductory text in the definition of “ *Divorce* ” by removing “a living individual” and adding in its place “an individual”, and by removing “individual, the spouse” and adding in its place “individual (and while that individual is living), the spouse”. e. Amend the definition of “ *Eligible payee* ” as follows: i. In paragraph (1), remove “A beneficiary” and add in its place “An individual (other than the officer)”. ii. In paragraph (2), remove “A beneficiary” and add in its place “An individual”. f. Amend paragraph
(2)of the definition of “ *Fire protection* ” and paragraph (1)(ii) of the definition of “ *Firefighter* ”, respectively, by removing “Hazardous-materials emergency” and adding in its place “Hazardous-material”. g. Amend the definition of “ *Fire, rescue, or police emergency* ”, by removing “Fire, rescue,” in the term defined, and adding in its place “ *Fire-, rescue-* ,”. h. Amend the definition of “ *Hazardous-materials emergency response* ”, by removing “ *Hazardous-materials emergency* ” in the term defined, and adding in its place “ *Hazardous-material* ”. i. Revise the definition of “ *Heart attack* ” to read as set forth below. j. Amend the definition of “ *Injury* ” by adding “directly and proximately” after “body)”. k. Amend the introductory text in the definition of “ *Injury date* ” by adding “—Except with respect to claims under the Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796(k) (where, for purposes of determining beneficiaries under the Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796(a), it generally means the time of the heart attack or stroke referred to in the Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796(k)(2)), injury date” before “means”. l. Amend the introductory text in the definition of “ *Intentional misconduct* ” by removing “Except with respect to voluntary intoxication at the time of death or catastrophic injury, a” and adding in its place “A”. m. Revise paragraph
(3)of the definition of “ *Law enforcement* ” to read as set forth below. n. Amend the definition of “ *Line of duty activity or action* ” as follows: i. In paragraph (1)(i) and the introductory text of paragraph (1)(ii), respectively, remove “law enforcement, fire protection, rescue activity, or the provision of emergency medical services” and add in its place “public safety activity”. ii. In paragraphs (1)(i) and (1)(ii)(A), respectively, remove “to be so” and add in its place “to have been so”, add “at the time performed” before “(or, at” and remove “to be such” and add in its place “to have been such”. iii. In paragraph (1)(i), remove “training programs” and add in its place “official training programs of his public agency”. iv. In paragraphs (1)(ii)(B), (2), (3)(i), and (3)(ii), respectively, remove “as such” and add in its place “to have been such at the time performed”, and remove “to be such” and add in its place “to have been such”. v. In paragraph (1)(ii)(B), remove “law enforcement, providing fire protection, engaging in rescue activity, or providing emergency medical services, or training for one of the foregoing” and add in its place “public safety activity, or taking part (as a trainer or trainee) in an official training program of his public agency for such activity”. vi. In paragraph (3)(ii), remove “fire, rescue,” and add in its place “fire-, rescue-,”. o. Amend the definition of “ *Occupational disease* ” by adding “(including an ailment or condition of the body)” after “disease”. p. Amend paragraph
(2)of the definition of “ *Posthumous child* ” by removing “Not alive at” and adding in its place “Deceased at or before”. q. Amend paragraph
(1)of the definition of “ *Qualified beneficiary* ”, by adding “final agency” before “determination”. r. Add “wound, condition, cardiac-event,” after “disability,” the three places it occurs in the definition of “ *Substantial factor* ”. s. Amend the definition of “ *Voluntary intoxication at the time of death or catastrophic injury* ” as follows: i. In the introductory text, add “, as shown by any commonly-accepted tissue, -fluid, or -breath test or by other competent evidence” before the colon. ii. In paragraph (2), remove “a disturbance of mental or physical faculties resulting from their introduction into the body of a public safety officer, as evidenced by the presence therein, as of the injury date—” and add in its place “intoxication as defined in the Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796b(5), as evidenced by the presence (as of the injury date) in the body of the public safety officer—”. t. Add the following definitions in alphabetical order: § 32.3 Definitions. *Biological* means genetic, but does not include circumstances where the genetic donation (under the laws of the jurisdiction where the offspring is conceived) does not (as of the time of such conception) legally confer parental rights and obligations. *Certification* means a formal assertion of a fact (or facts), in a writing that is—
(1)Expressly intended to be relied upon by the PSOB determining official in connection with the determination of a claim specifically identified therein;
(2)Expressly directed to the PSOB determining official;
(3)Legally subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1001 (false statements) and 1621 (perjury), and 28 U.S.C. 1746 (declarations under penalty of perjury), and expressly declares the same to be so;
(4)Executed by a natural person with knowledge of the fact (or facts) asserted and with legal authority to execute the writing (such as to make the assertion legally that of the certifying party), and expressly declares the same (as to knowledge and authority) to be so;
(5)In such form as the Director may prescribe from time to time;
(6)True, complete, and accurate (or, at a minimum, not known or believed by the PSOB determining official to contain any material falsehood, incompleteness, or inaccuracy); and
(7)Unambiguous, precise, and unequivocal, in the judgment of the PSOB determining official, as to any fact asserted, any matter otherwise certified, acknowledged, indicated, or declared, and any provision of this definition. *Certification described in the Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796c-1 or Public Law 107-37* , means a certification, acknowledging all the matter specified in § 32.5(f)(1) and (2)—
(1)In which the fact (or facts) asserted is the matter specified in § 32.5(f)(3);
(2)That expressly indicates that all of the terms used in making the assertion described in paragraph
(1)of this definition (or used in connection with such assertion) are within the meaning of the Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796c-1 or Public Law 107-37, and of this part; and
(3)That otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796c-1 or Public Law 107-37, and of this part. *Commonly accepted* means generally agreed upon within the medical profession. *Consequences of an injury that permanently prevent an individual from performing any gainful work* means an injury whose consequences permanently prevent an individual from performing any gainful work. *Direct and proximate cause* —Except as may be provided in the Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796(k), something directly and proximately causes a wound, condition, or cardiac-event, if it is a substantial factor in bringing the wound, condition, or cardiac-event about. *Emergency response activity* means response to a fire-, rescue-, or police emergency. *Employment in a civilian capacity* refers to status as a civilian, rather than to the performance of civilian functions. *Heart attack* means—
(1)A myocardial infarction; or
(2)A cardiac-event ( *i.e.* , cessation, interruption, arrest, or other similar disturbance of heart function), not included in paragraph
(1)of this definition, that is—
(i)Acute; and
(ii)Directly and proximately caused by a pathology (or pathological condition) of the heart or the coronary arteries. *Law enforcement* * * *
(3)Prison security activity; and *Official training program of a public agency* means a program—
(1)That is officially sponsored, -conducted, or -authorized by the public agency; and
(2)Whose purpose is to train public safety officers in (or to improve their skills in), specific activity or actions encompassed within their respective lines of duty. *Prison security activity* means correctional or detention activity (in a prison or other detention or confinement facility) of individuals who are alleged or found to have violated the criminal laws. *Public safety activity* means any of the following:
(1)Law enforcement;
(2)Fire protection;
(3)Rescue activity; or
(4)The provision of emergency medical services. 4. Amend § 32.5 as follows: a. Amend paragraph
(c)as follows: i. Add “301 (presumptions),” before “401”. ii. Remove “1008” and add in its place “1007”. iii. Add “, *mutatis mutandis,* ” after “apply”. iv. Add “No extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility shall be required with respect to any document purporting to bear the signature of an expert engaged by the BJA.” after the period. b. Amend paragraph
(d)as follows: i. In paragraph (d)(1)(ii), remove “or” at the end. ii. In paragraph (d)(2)(ii), remove the period at the end and add in its place “; or”. c. Amend paragraph
(f)as follows: i. In paragraph (f)(1)(ii), add “and” after “agency;”. ii. In paragraph (f)(1)(iii)(E), remove “and” after the semi-colon. iii. Redesignate paragraph (f)(1)(iv) as paragraph (f)(3), remove “Killed” therein and add in its place “That the public safety officer was killed”, and remove “; and” therein and add in its place “, and that such injury was sustained in connection with public safety activity (or otherwise with efforts described in the Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796c-1 or Pub. L. 107-37) related to a terrorist attack (under the former statute) or to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (under the latter statute).”. iv. In paragraph (f)(2), remove “That” and add in its place “Of the public agency's acknowledgment that”, remove the final period, and add “; and” at the end. d. add paragraphs (d)(3), (g), (h), and (i), to read as follows: § 32.5 Evidence.
(d)* * *
(3)A claimant under subpart B or C of this part fails or refuses to apply for the benefits, if any, described in § 32.15(a)(1)(i) or § 32.25(a)(1)(i), respectively.
(g)In determining a claim, the PSOB determining official shall have, in addition to the hearing-examiner powers specified at 42 U.S.C. 3787 (hold hearings, issue subpoenas, administer oaths, examine witnesses, and receive evidence), and to the authorities specified at 42 U.S.C. 3788(b)-(d) (use of experts, consultants, other government resources) and in this part, the authority otherwise and in any reasonable manner to conduct his own inquiries, as appropriate.
(h)Acceptance of payment (by a payee (or on his behalf)) shall constitute *prima* *facie* evidence that the payee (or the pay agent)—
(1)Endorses as his own (to the best of his knowledge and belief) the statements and representations made, and the evidence and information provided, pursuant to the claim; and
(2)Is aware (in connection with the claim) of no—
(i)Fraud;
(ii)Concealment or withholding of evidence or information;
(iii)False, incomplete, or inaccurate statements or representations;
(iv)Mistake, wrongdoing, or deception; or
(v)Violation of 18 U.S.C. 287 (false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims), 1001 (false statements), 1621 (perjury), or 42 U.S.C. 3795a (falsification or concealment of facts).
(i)A public safety officer's response to an emergency call from his public agency for him to perform public safety activity shall constitute *prima facie* evidence of such response's non-routine character. § 32.6 [Amended] 5. Amend § 32.6 as follows: a. In paragraph (a), add the following at the end: “If more than one should qualify, payment shall be made to the one with whom the officer considered himself, as of the injury date, to have the closest relationship, except that the individual (if any) who was a member of the officer's household (as of such date) shall be presumed rebuttably to be such one, unless legal proceedings (by the officer against such member, or vice versa) shall have been pending then in any court.”. b. In paragraph (d)(1), remove “or inaccurate statements” and add in its place “, incomplete, or inaccurate statements or representations”. §§ 32.12 and 32.22 [Amended] 6. Amend §§ 32.12(a)(2) and 32.22(a)(2), respectively, by removing “the receipt or denial of any benefits” and adding in its place “a final determination of entitlement to receive, or of denial of, the benefits, if any,”. §§ 32.12, 32.22, 32.32, 32.42, and 32.52 [Amended] 7. Amend §§ 32.12(b), 32.22(b), 32.32(c), 32.42(b), and 32.52(b), respectively, by adding “documentary, electronic, video, or other non-physical” after “supporting”. 8. Amend § 32.13 as follows: a. Amend the definitions of “ *Beneficiary of a life insurance policy of a public safety officer* ” and “ *Beneficiary under the Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796(a)(4)(A)* ”, respectively as follows: i. In the introductory text, add “or otherwise unterminated” after “law)”. ii. In the introductory text of paragraph (1), remove “—not having taken place as of such date of death—” and “when scheduled”. iii. In paragraph (1)(i), remove “The alteration in schedule was” and add in its place “It did not take place”. b. In paragraph
(2)of the definition of “ *Beneficiary of a life insurance policy of a public safety officer* ”, remove “individual)” and add in its place “spouse (or purported spouse))”. c. Amend the definition of “ *Circumstances other than engagement or participation* ” as follows: i. Remove the term defined, “ *Circumstances other than engagement or participation* ” and add in its place “ *Extrinsic circumstances* ”. ii. Redesignate the definition to the appropriate place, in alphabetical order, in this section, as set forth below. d. Remove the definition of “ *Commonly accepted* ”. e. Amend the definition of “ *Competent medical evidence to the contrary* ” to remove “circumstances other than any engagement or participation described in the Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796(k)(1)” and add in its place “extrinsic circumstances”. f. Amend the definition of “ *Engagement in a situation* ” as follows: i. Remove “ *Engagement in a situation* —A public safety officer is engaged in a situation only” in the introductory text and add in its place “ *Engagement in a situation involving law enforcement, fire suppression, rescue, hazardous material response, emergency medical services, prison security, disaster relief, or other emergency response activity* —A public safety officer is so engaged only”. ii. Remove “hazardous-materials” in paragraph (1)(iii) and add in its place “hazardous-material”. iii. Remove “or” at the end of paragraph (1)(v). iv. Remove “responding to a fire, rescue, or police emergency” in paragraph (1)(vii) and add in its place “engaging in emergency response activity”. v. In paragraph (2), remove “to be in” and add in its place “to have been in”, add “at the time of such engagement” before the first “(or”, and remove “so to be” and add in its place “so to have been”. g. Amend paragraph
(2)of the definition of “ *Most recently executed life insurance policy of a public safety officer* ” by removing “in effect” and adding in its place “unrevoked (by such officer or by operation of law) or otherwise unterminated”. h. Amend the definition of “ *Participation in a training exercise* ” by removing “if it is a formal part of an official training program whose purpose is to train public safety officers in, prepare them for, or improve their skills in, particular activity or actions encompassed with their respective lines of duty.” in the introductory text and adding in its place “when actually taking formal part in a mandatory, structured activity within an official training program of his public agency.” i. Amend the definition of “ *Public safety agency, organization, or unit* ” by removing “ *organization, or unit* ” in the term defined, and adding in its place “ *-organization, or -unit* ”. j. Add the following definitions in alphabetical order: § 32.13 Definitions. *Designation on file* —A designation of beneficiary under the Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796(a)(4)(A), is on file with a public safety agency, -organization, or -unit, only if it is deposited with the same by the public safety officer making the designation, for it to maintain with its personnel or similar records pertaining to him. *Extrinsic circumstances* means—
(1)An event or events; or
(2)An intentional risky behavior or intentional risky behaviors. *Life insurance policy on file* —A life insurance policy is on file with a public safety agency, -organization, or -unit, only if—
(1)It is issued through (or on behalf of) the same; or
(2)The original (or a copy) of one of the following is deposited with the same by the public safety officer whose life is insured under the policy, for it to maintain with its personnel or similar records pertaining to him:
(i)The policy (itself);
(ii)The declarations page or -statement from the policy's issuer;
(iii)A certificate of insurance (for group policies);
(iv)Any instrument whose execution constitutes the execution of a life insurance policy; or
(v)The substantial equivalent of any of the foregoing. *Routine* —Neither of the following shall be the decisive factor in determining whether an activity shall be understood to be performed as a matter of routine:
(1)Being described by a public agency as being routine or ordinary; or
(2)The frequency with which it may be performed. 9. Amend § 32.14 by adding a paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 32.14 PSOB Office determination.
(c)In connection with the determination of the existence of competent medical evidence to the contrary, pursuant to a filed claim—
(1)Where there is an affirmative suggestion under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, which indicates the existence of a potential ground for denial of the claim, the PSOB Office shall serve the claimant with notice thereof, to request that he file such documentary, electronic, video, or other non-physical evidence (such as medical-history records, as appropriate) and legal arguments in support of his claim as he may wish to provide;
(2)There is an affirmative suggestion within the meaning of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, where the evidence before the PSOB Office affirmatively suggests that—
(i)The public safety officer actually knew or should have known that he had cardio-vascular disease risk factors and appears to have worsened or aggravated the same through his own intentional and reckless behavior (as opposed to where the evidence affirmatively suggests merely that cardio-vascular disease risk factors were present); or
(ii)It is more likely than not that a public safety officer's heart attack or stroke was imminent; and
(3)The PSOB Office shall not request medical history records to supplement a filed claim, unless the criteria in paragraphs (c)(1) and
(2)of this section are satisfied; and
(4)Any mitigating evidence provided under paragraph
(c)of this section will be considered by the PSOB Office. 10. Amend § 32.15 as follows: a. In paragraph (a)(1), remove “paragraph (b)” and add in its place “paragraphs
(b)and (d)”. b. In paragraph (b), remove “paragraph (a)(1)” and add in its place “paragraphs (a)(1) and (d)”. c. In the introductory text of paragraph (c), add “for purposes of this section” after “complete”. d. Add a paragraph
(d)to read as follows: § 32.15 Prerequisite certification.
(d)Subject to paragraphs
(b)and
(c)of this section, if the Director finds that the conditions specified in the Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796(k), are satisfied with respect to a particular public safety officer's death, and that no circumstance specified in the Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796a(1), (2), or (3), applies with respect thereto—
(1)The certification as to death, described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, shall not be required; and
(2)The certification as to benefits, described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, shall be deemed complete for purposes of this section if it—
(i)Describes the public agency's understanding of the circumstances (including such causes of which it may be aware) of the officer's death; and
(ii)States that, in connection with deaths occurring under the circumstances described in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section, the public agency is not legally authorized to pay any benefits described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section. 11. Amend § 32.16 by adding a paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 32.16 Payment.
(c)If more than one individual should qualify for payment—
(1)Under the Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796(a)(4)(1), payment shall be made to each of them in equal shares, except that, if the designation itself should manifest a different distribution, payment shall be made to each of them in shares in accordance with such distribution; or
(2)Under the Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796(a)(4)(2), payment shall be made to each of them in equal shares. § 32.29 [Amended] 12. Amend § 32.29(a)(1)(ii) by removing “The” and adding in its place “Consistent with § 32.42(c), the”. § 32.41 [Amended] 13. Amend § 32.41 by adding “, and of claims remanded (or matters referred) under § 32.54(c)” before the final period. 14. Amend § 32.42 as follows: a. In the introductory text of paragraph (a), remove “Unless” and add in its place “Subject to paragraph
(c)of this section, and unless”. b. Add a paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 32.42 Time for filing request for determination.
(c)The timely filing of a motion for reconsideration under § 32.28(a) shall be deemed to constitute a timely filing, under paragraph
(a)of this section, of a request for determination with respect to any grounds described in § 32.29(a)(1)(ii) that may be applicable. § 32.43 [Amended] 15. Amend § 32.43(b) by adding “(or upon remand or referral)” after “determination”. § 32.45 [Amended] 16. Amend § 32.45(a) by removing “At” and adding in its place “Except with respect to a remand or referral, at”. 17. Amend § 32.54 by adding paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 32.54 Director determination.
(c)With respect to any claim before him, the Director, as appropriate, may—
(1)Remand the same to the PSOB Office, or to a Hearing Officer;
(2)Vacate any related determination under this part; or
(3)Refer any related matters to a Hearing Officer (as a special master), to recommend factual findings and dispositions in connection therewith. § 32.55 [Amended] 18. Amend § 32.55(a) by removing “under 28 U.S.C. 1491(a) (claims against the United States)” and adding in its place “pursuant to the Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796c-2”. Dated: July 7, 2008. Jeffrey L. Sedgwick, Acting Assistant Attorney General. [FR Doc. E8-15730 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [FWS-R8-ES-2008-0067; 1111-FY08-MO-B2] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Reclassify the Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) From Threatened to Endangered AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status review. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to reclassify the delta smelt ( *Hypomesus transpacificus* ) from threatened to endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that reclassification of the delta smelt from threatened to endangered may be warranted. Therefore, we are initiating a status review to determine if reclassifying this species as endangered under the Act is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding this species. DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request that information be submitted to us on or before September 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *U.S. mail or hand-delivery:* Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2008-0067, Division of Policy and Directives Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203. We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all information at *http://www.regulations.gov.* This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Information Solicited section below for more details). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Moore, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825; telephone 916-414-6600; facsimile 916-414-6712. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Information Solicited When we make a finding that substantial information is presented to indicate that listing, delisting, or reclassifying a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting information concerning the status of the delta smelt. We request information from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the status of the delta smelt, including but not limited to information on:
(1)The effects of potential threat factors that are the basis for a listing determination under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), which are:
(a)Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range;
(b)Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(c)Disease or predation;
(d)The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e)Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
(2)Population abundance, distribution, trends, and dynamics; habitat selection and trends; food habits; and effects of disease, competition, and predation on delta smelt.
(3)The effects of climate change, sea level change, and change in water temperatures on the distribution and abundance of delta smelt and their principal prey.
(4)The effects of other potential threat factors, including water diversions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta), contaminants, invasive species, and changes of the distribution and abundance of delta smelt and their principal prey.
(5)Management programs for delta smelt conservation, including mitigation measures related to water diversions and development, habitat conservation programs, invasive species control programs, and any other private, tribal, or governmental conservation programs which benefit delta smelt. Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” Based on the status review, we will issue the 12-month finding on the petition, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. You may submit your information concerning this finding by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not consider submissions sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit information via *http://www.regulations.gov* , your entire submission—including your personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on *http://www.regulations.gov* . Information and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this finding, will be available for public inspection on *http://www.regulations.gov* , or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Background Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at the time we make the determination. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the **Federal Register** . Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a status review of the species. We were originally petitioned to list the delta smelt as endangered on June 26, 1990. We proposed the species as threatened and proposed the designation of critical habitat on October 3, 1991 (56 FR 50075). We listed the species as threatened on March 5, 1993 (58 FR 12854), and we designated critical habitat on December 19, 1994 (59 FR 65256). The delta smelt was one of eight fish species addressed in the November 26, 1996, *Recovery Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Native Fishes* (Service 1996, pp. 1-195). We completed a 5-year status review of the delta smelt on March 31, 2004 (Service 2004, pp. 1-50). On March 9, 2006, we received a petition, dated March 8, 2006, from the Center for Biological Diversity, the Bay Institute, and Natural Resources Defense Council (CBD *et al.* 2006, pp. 1-33) to reclassify the listing status of the delta smelt, a threatened species, to endangered status on an emergency basis. The petition clearly identified itself as a petition and included the requisite identification information for the petitioners, as required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). The Service has the authority to promulgate an emergency listing rule for a species when an emergency exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of that species (50 CFR 424.20). The petition contained information on changes in the status and distribution of the species, and on increased threats to the species. In response to the petition, we sent a letter to the petitioners dated June 20, 2006, stating that we would not be able to address their petition at that time because further action on the petition was precluded by court orders and settlement agreements for other listing actions that required us to use nearly all of our listing funds for fiscal year 2006. We also stated in our June 20, 2006, letter that we had evaluated the immediacy of possible threats to the delta smelt, and had determined that an emergency reclassification was not warranted at that time. This notice constitutes our 90-day finding on the March 8, 2006, petition to reclassify the delta smelt from threatened to endangered. Species Information The petitioners presented a summary of the known information on the description, taxonomy, distribution, habitat requirements, life history, and natural mortality of the delta smelt. They also described recent changes in the fish's distribution and abundance, and summarized recent delta smelt population trend and extinction risk analyses. Description and Taxonomy Delta smelt are slender-bodied fish, generally about 60 to 70 millimeters
(mm)(2 to 3 inches (in)) long, although they may reach lengths of up to 120 mm (4.7 in) (Moyle 2002, p. 227). Delta smelt are in the Osmeridae family (smelts) (Stanley *et al.* 1995, p. 390). Live fish are nearly translucent and have a steely blue sheen to their sides (Moyle 2002, p. 227). Delta smelt feed primarily on small planktonic (free floating) crustaceans, and occasionally on insect larva (Moyle 2002, p. 228). Delta smelt usually aggregate but do not appear to be strongly shoaling, and their swimming behavior likely makes schooling difficult (Moyle 2002, p. 228). The delta smelt is one of six species currently recognized in the Hypomesus genus (Bennett 2005, p. 8), and genetic analyses have confirmed that it is a well-defined species with a single intermixing population (Stanley *et al.* 1995, p. 391; Trenham *et al.* 1998, p. 418). Within the genus, delta smelt is most closely related to surf smelt ( *H. pretiosis* ), a species common along the western coast of North America. In contrast, delta smelt is a comparatively distant relation to the wakasagi ( *H. nipponensis* ), which was introduced into Central Valley reservoirs in 1959 and is now sympatric with delta smelt in the estuary (Trenham *et al.* 1998, p. 417). Distribution and Abundance Delta smelt are endemic to (native and restricted to) the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Delta) in California, found only from the San Pablo Bay upstream through the Delta in Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo counties (Moyle 2002, p. 227). Their historical range is thought to have extended from San Pablo Bay upstream to at least the city of Sacramento on the Sacramento River and Mossdale on the San Joaquin River. They were once one of the most common pelagic (living in open water away from the bottom) fish in the upper Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary (Moyle 2002, p. 230). Although exact population estimates are not possible to obtain for this species (Moyle 2002, p. 230), relative population levels have been monitored for several decades using various net surveys and counts of adults entrained by Federal and State water export facilities (Bennett 2005, p. 5). Based on those surveys, delta smelt population levels declined precipitously in 1982, leading to very low numbers from 1982 to 1991, and to their listing as a threatened species in 1993 (58 FR 12854; Moyle 2002, p. 230; CBD *et al.* 2006, p. 9). From 1992 to 2001, abundance levels stabilized, remaining generally low but within the bounds of pre-1980 levels. Recent surveys have shown another substantial drop, however, with record low abundance figures from 2002 through 2007 (Armor *et al.* 2005, p. 3; Bennett 2005, p. 2; CDFG 2008, p. 1). Bennett (2005, pp. 53, 54) conducted a population viability analysis based on known population trends, and found a 55 percent chance that the smelt population would reach a “point of no return” (quasi-extinction, estimated at 8,000 fish) within 20 years. Habitat and Life History The species requires specific environmental conditions (freshwater flow, water temperature, salinity) and habitat types (shallow open waters) within the estuary for migration, spawning, egg incubation, rearing, and larval and juvenile transport from spawning to rearing habitats (Moyle 2002, pp. 228-229). Delta smelt are a moderately euryhaline species (tolerant of a wide salinity range), and most individual fish live only one year (Moyle 2002, p. 228). Although they are restricted to a relatively small geographic range, delta smelt use different parts of the estuary at different life history stages. They hatch, typically around May, from eggs laid 9 to 13 days earlier in the slow-moving, freshwater spawning grounds of the upper Delta and lower Sacramento River, and in Montezuma Slough near Suisun Bay (Moyle 2002, pp. 228, 229). After several weeks of development, larvae are swept downstream until they reach a point (typically in Suisun Bay) where the salinity reaches about 2 to 7 parts per thousand (ppt). This is the beginning of the “mixing zone” where fresh and brackish water meet. Juvenile smelt tend to seek out that salinity level, and will rear and grow there for several months, preferring relatively shallow open water (Moyle 2002, p. 228). The mixing zone is typically located in Suisun Bay, but moves farther upstream when freshwater outflows are reduced (Moyle 2002, p. 230). Federal and State water pumps can affect outflows by exporting large amounts of fresh water from the southern portion of the Delta for agricultural and municipal uses. Thousands of smaller water diversions throughout the Delta also export water for local agriculture. Additionally, two power plants located in Antioch and Pittsburg, California, use Delta water for cooling (Bennett 2005, p. 34; Armor 2005, p. 2) Around September or October, delta smelt reach adulthood and begin a gradual migration back upstream to the spawning areas. Spawning can occur any time between February and July, but most spawning takes place from early April to mid-May, in water temperatures ranging from 7 to 15 degrees Celsius (45 to 59 degrees Fahrenheit) (Moyle 2002, p. 229). Although spawning has not been observed in the wild, the eggs are thought to attach to substrates such as cattails, tules, tree roots, and submerged branches, and the spawning areas most likely contain gravel, sand, or other submerged material that is washed by gentle currents close to the main river channel (Wang 1991, p. 11; Moyle 2002, p. 229). Most delta smelt die after spawning, but a small contingent of adults survive and can spawn in their second year (Moyle 2002, p. 228). The petitioners referred to the Service's December 19, 1994, critical habitat determination (59 FR 65256) for descriptions of the specific habitat conditions required for spawning, larval and juvenile transport, rearing, and adult migration. Factors Affecting the Species Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A)Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range;
(B)overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C)disease or predation;
(D)inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E)other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information on threats to the delta smelt presented in the March 2006 petition, and other information available in our files at the time of the petition review, constitute substantial scientific or commercial information such that reclassification from threatened to endangered under the Act may be warranted. A brief evaluation of this information is presented below. A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range The petition notes that water diversions, particularly from the large Federal and State pumping stations in the southern portion of the Delta, can modify the smelt's habitat in three ways. First, they remove planktonic food organisms out of the water. Second, they diminish freshwater outflows, causing the mixing zone to move upstream and away from Suisun Bay where the best rearing habitat is located. Third, the large Federal and State pumps can actually halt and reverse flows in the southern Delta, potentially interfering with both the transport of plankton and smelt larvae downstream and with the spawning migration of adult smelt upstream (CBD *et al.* 2006, pp. 13, 14). The petition also notes that the diversions entrain and kill smelt directly. This is not technically a habitat alteration, but we consider it here because the direct effects of freshwater diversions are intertwined with their impacts to habitat. The petition states that the State and Federal pumping stations have shown an increase in recent years in number of delta smelt entrained relative to their abundance (CBD *et al.* 2006, p. 16). The increase is concurrent with recent increases in water pumped from the facilities, particularly during the winter when migrating adult smelt are most likely to be in the vicinity (CBD *et al.* 2006, p. 15). Additionally, because the Federal and State pumps only monitor impacts to smelt longer than 20 mm (0.8 in.), direct impacts to smaller smelt remain unknown. The petition does note, however, that summer trawl net surveys showed a serious drop in juvenile smelt in the south Delta in the mid-1970s, during which time Federal and State exports from the Delta were increased (CBD *et al.* 2006, pp. 15, 16). Monitoring of direct impacts is absent at the 1,800 smaller agricultural diversions throughout the Delta, and at the two power plants that use Delta water for cooling (CBD *et al.* 2006, p. 14). The combined habitat destruction or modification (Factor A) and direct impacts from water diversions are difficult to quantify, but potentially serious. The petition cites a 2005 analysis showing a significant inverse correlation between smelt population, winter water export rates, and numbers of adult and juvenile smelt sampled later in the year (CBD *et al.* 2006, p. 17). Armor ( *et al.* 2005, p. 39) supports this, noting that the data on wintertime entrainment “reveal a consistent pattern across species that corresponds with the period of fish declines.” In summary, habitat destruction and modification (Factor A), as well as direct impacts from water diversions, threaten the continued existence of delta smelt, as they did at the time of the original listing of the species. Record or near record low delta smelt abundance indices from 2002 through 2007 (Armor *et al.* 2005, p. 3; Bennett 2005, p. 2; CDFG 2008, pp. 1-2), indicate that these existing threats may now be more imminent than at the time of listing. The delta smelt abundance indices for 2002 and 2003 are at or slightly above the 1994 low, and indices for 2004 to 2007 are less than half to near a quarter of the 1994 low (CDFG 2008, p. 2). As a consequence, we conclude that substantial information is provided to indicate that reclassification of delta smelt from threatened to endangered due to destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat may be warranted. B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes The petition provides no information documenting current or future threats under this factor, and we do not have any information in our files to indicate that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes threaten delta smelt. Therefore we conclude that there is no substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that reclassifying delta smelt from threatened to endangered may be warranted due to overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. However, all factors, including threats from commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational activities, will be evaluated when we conduct our status review. C. Disease or Predation The petition acknowledges a lack of evidence to indicate that delta smelt populations have declined due to disease or predation (CBD *et al.* 2006, p. 20). It does note, however, that striped bass ( *Morone saxatilis,* a nonnative predatory species) may have been maintained at artificially high levels relative to potential prey species, such as the delta smelt, under a stocking program carried out until 2004 by the California Department of Fish and Game (Service 2004, p. 6; CBD *et al.* 2006, p. 20). The petition also notes that inland silverside ( *Menidia beryllina,* a nonnative species feeding primarily on plankton) may prey on delta smelt eggs and larvae, as well as compete with delta smelt for planktonic food. Other introduced species that may be preying on eggs or larvae of delta smelt include the chameleon goby ( *Tridentiger trigonocephalus* ) and the yellowfin goby ( *Acanthogobius fiavimanus* ). The petitioner cites a lack of evidence that disease and predation threaten delta smelt, and we do not have substantial information in our files to suggest that disease and predation threaten delta smelt. Therefore, we conclude that there is no substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that threats from disease or predation may warrant reclassification of delta smelt from threatened to endangered. However, all factors, including threats from disease or predation, will be evaluated when we conduct our status review. D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms The petition presents information regarding existing and planned regulatory mechanisms and their perceived inadequacy, stating that the current export criteria in the water rights permits issued under the State Water Resources Control Board regulations allow export operations at levels that exceed those necessary to maintain healthy delta smelt populations. The petitioners state that dedications of water for the environment and of money for supplemental acquisitions of environmental water mandated in the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act intended to reduce the negative impacts of the Federal water project on fish and wildlife have not been fully or aggressively implemented. The petition claims that the CALFED (joint California State and Federal government) Bay-Delta Program has been largely ineffective in addressing environmental problems in the Delta, and that its future status is uncertain. The petition states that the Service's most recent biological opinion for protection of the species relied heavily on the CALFED Environmental Water Account, which has failed to provide detectable benefits for delta smelt. The petition also states that the South Delta Improvements Program, in the process of being approved by Federal and State agencies at the time of the petition, would increase Delta water exports and install permanent tidal barriers that further modify Delta flow patterns and habitat. In summary, the petition points out that numerous changes have occurred since the time of the species' listing, and suggests that the regulatory mechanisms governing such changes have not provided adequate conservation for delta smelt. Given that delta smelt abundance indices from 2002 through 2007 have been at record lows (Armor *et al.* 2005, p. 3; Bennett 2005, p. 2; CDFG 2008, p. 1), we conclude that substantial information is presented in the petition to indicate that reclassification of delta smelt from threatened to endangered due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms may be warranted. E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued Existence The petition presents information asserting that threats from low population size, nonnative species, and lethal and sublethal effects of toxic chemicals may have changed since we listed the delta smelt as threatened. The petition presents information concerning the delta smelt's population size and extinction probability, stating this information indicates that the delta smelt is at risk of falling below an effective population size and losing genetic integrity, and is therefore in danger of becoming extinct. The petition also states that increased competition by nonnative species, such as the clam *Corbula amurensis,* has reduced the availability of the delta smelt's planktonic food supply. Additionally, the petition cites the threat of lethal and sublethal effects of toxic chemicals, such as pesticides discharged and transported from upstream into the Delta. We have substantial information in our files to indicate that the delta smelt abundance indices from 2002 through 2007 have been at record lows (Armor *et al.* 2005, p. 3; Bennett 2005, p. 2; CDFG 2008, p. 1). According to recent fish survey information collected by the California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG)(Fall Midwater Trawl (FMWT)), the average catch of delta smelt declined to the lowest level since the surveys began in 1967 (CDFG 2008, p. 1). We do not have substantial information in our files to indicate that competition from nonnative species has changed since the time we listed the delta smelt as threatened. We also do not have substantial information in our files to indicate that lethal and sublethal effects of toxic chemicals have changed since the time we listed the delta smelt as threatened. Toxic chemicals are present in the San Francisco Bay-Delta; however, it is uncertain what effect these chemicals have on delta smelt (Bennett 2005, p. 44). For example, in 2008, the Pelagic Organism Decline
(POD)Working Group summarized and provided a progress report of the studies and information collected in 2007 by the Interagency Ecological Program
(IEP)(Baxter *et al.* 2008, pp. 1-52). The summary report did identify contaminants as having possible effects during flow pulses in the winter, but there is no evidence currently available that these pulse events cause toxicity to delta smelt (Baxter *et al.* 2008, p. 29). We conclude that the petition presents substantial information to indicate a significant reduction in the population size of delta smelt since the time of listing and that reclassification of delta smelt from threatened to endangered may be warranted. Finding We have reviewed the petition and literature cited in the petition and evaluated that information in relation to information available in our files. Based on this review, we find the petition presents substantial information that reclassification of the delta smelt from threatened to endangered may be warranted. When we listed the delta smelt as threatened in 1993, the factors identified that threatened the species' continued existence included threats such as: water diversions, inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, introduced species, and contaminants. For the most part, these factors continue to threaten the species, although the degree to which they each affect delta smelt populations likely has changed. Recent surveys have shown a substantial decline in delta smelt abundance from 2002 through 2007 (Armor *et al.* 2005, p. 3; Bennett 2005, p. 2; CDFG 2008, p. 1), indicating that the threats may be of higher magnitude or imminence than was thought at the time of listing. As discussed above, we believe the petition provides substantial information indicating that a reclassification from threatened to endangered may be warranted. Specifically, substantial information was provided under Factor A (habitat loss, and water diversions), Factor D (the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms), and Factor E (low population size). Therefore, we are initiating a status review to determine if reclassifying the species from threatened to endangered is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding this species. Significant Portion of the Species' Range The petitioners seek to reclassify the delta smelt as endangered, indicating the species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. During our status review we will evaluate whether the best scientific and commercial information available supports reclassification and whether there may be a portion of the delta smelt's range that may be significant. As a result we will provide our analysis of significant portion of range in the 12-month finding. References Cited A complete list of all references cited in this document is available, upon request, from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Authors The primary authors of this notice are staff of the California and Nevada Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825. Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: July 2, 2008. Kenneth Stansell, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E8-15747 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 080627793-8795-01] RIN 0648-AW81 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Monkfish Fishery AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS is proposing to implement a new management measure for the monkfish fishery recommended in Framework Adjustment 6 (Framework 6) to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which has been submitted jointly by the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils). This action would eliminate the backstop provision adopted in Framework Adjustment 4 (Framework 4) to the FMP, which was implemented in October 2007. This provision would have adjusted, and possibly closed, the directed monkfish fishery in fishing year
(FY)2009 if the landings in FY 2007 exceeded the target total allowable catch (TTAC). Given the most recent information on the status of monkfish stocks, the backstop provision is no longer deemed necessary. DATES: Written comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. eastern standard time, on August 11, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN number 0648-AW81, by any of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal *http://www.regulations.gov* . • Fax:
(978)281-9135, Attn: Emily Bryant. • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Monkfish Framework 6.” Instructions: All comments received are part of the public record and will generally be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted via Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. Copies of the Environmental Assessment (EA), including the Regulatory Impact Review
(RIR)and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), prepared for Framework 6 are available upon request from Paul Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA, 01950. The document is also available online at *www.nefmc.org* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Bryant, Fishery Management Specialist, phone
(978)281-9244, fax
(978)281-9135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The monkfish fishery is jointly managed by the Councils, with the New England Council having the administrative lead. The fishery extends from Maine to North Carolina, and is divided into two management units: The Northern Fishery Management Area
(NFMA)and the Southern Fishery Management Area (SFMA). Framework 4 included a “backstop” provision that would adjust, and possibly close, the directed monkfish fishery in FY 2009 if the landings in FY 2007 exceeded the TTAC. This provision would adjust the days-at-sea
(DAS)allocations for either or both management areas in FY 2009 if the TTACs are exceeded by between 10 and 30 percent during FY 2007, or close the directed fishery in FY 2009 if the TTACs are exceeded by more than 30 percent. Because of scientific uncertainty concerning the status of the monkfish resource, NMFS deferred implementing Framework 4 and conducted a new stock assessment. The Northeast Data Poor Stocks Working Group
(DPWG)completed and accepted the new assessment in July 2007. The results of this assessment indicated that neither monkfish stock is overfished, overfishing is no longer occurring, and both stocks are rebuilt based on the new modeling approach and the newly recommended biomass reference points. The July 2007 assessment report emphasized, however, that in addition to the fact that this assessment was the first to use the new analytical model, there was a high degree of uncertainty in the analyses due to the dependence on assumptions about natural mortality, growth rates, and other model inputs. In light of this counsel, NMFS approved and implemented Framework 4 measures, which became effective on October 22, 2007 (72 FR 53942, September 21, 2007). Framework Adjustment 5 (Framework 5), implemented on May 1, 2008 (73 FR 22831, April 28, 2008), adopted the revised reference points recommended by the DPWG, and implemented other measures that will reduce the likelihood of TTAC overages in FY 2008 and beyond. Under the revised biomass reference points in Framework 5, both monkfish stocks are no longer considered overfished, and are considered to be rebuilt. Therefore, there is no longer a stock rebuilding program for the monkfish fishery. In support of the recent adjustments to the FMP, consistent with the results of the DPWG assessment, Framework 6 would eliminate the backstop provision adopted in Framework 4. Available landings information for FY 2007 indicate that the TTAC was exceeded by more than 30 percent in the SFMA. Given the most recent information on the status of monkfish stocks, including the revised reference points established through Framework 5 and the expected minimal biological impact of a 30-percent TTAC overage on stock status, the backstop provision is no longer deemed necessary. In addition, as noted above, Framework 5 included measures aimed at keeping landings within the TTACs. Technical Correction to Monkfish FMP Regulations This rule proposes to correct the regulations implementing the FMP. The final rule implementing the Standardized Bycatch Recording Methodology
(SBRM)Omnibus Amendment (73 FR 4736, January 28, 2008) inadvertently revised § 648.96(b)(5), thereby deleting the regulations pertaining to the backstop provision introduced by Framework 4. As a result, the text referencing the annual review process at § 648.96(a) is redundant with the existing text under § 648.96 (b)(5). Therefore, this action would remove the redundant text under § 648.96 (b)(5) referencing the annual review process and would simultaneously remove and reserve paragraph (b)(5) for the purpose of removing the reference to the TTAC overage backstop provision that was added through the final rule implementing Framework 4. Classification NMFS has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP and has preliminarily determined it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. An IRFA was prepared for Framework 6, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA consists of the discussion in the preamble of the proposed rule and this section, and the analysis of impacts in Framework 6. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble and in the SUMMARY of this proposed rule. A copy of this analysis is available from the NEFMC (see ADDRESSES ). A summary of the analysis follows: This action would remove an existing measure (TTAC overage backstop provision) that was implemented when there were concerns regarding potential overfishing of monkfish as the FMP neared the end of its rebuilding period. Changes in the biological reference points under Framework 5 showed that monkfish are no longer overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. In addition, current population modeling indicates that TTAC overage levels of 30 percent would not change the monkfish stock status. Consequently, retaining the existing effort reduction measures for FY 2009, under the no action alternative, would have a negative economic impact on the fishery, without materially aiding in the rebuilding of the stock. No other alternatives were considered because the purpose of the action is to remove a measure deemed unnecessary based upon best scientific information available. The regulations implementing the FMP, found at 50 CFR part 648, authorize the Council to adjust management measures as needed to achieve FMP goals. The objective of this action is to achieve the goals of the FMP while minimizing adverse economic impacts. Thus, the proposed action is consistent with the goals of the FMP and its implementing regulations. All of the entities (fishing vessels) affected by this action are considered small entities under the Small Business Administration size standards for small fishing businesses ($4.0 million in gross sales). As of March 14, 2008, there were 765 limited access monkfish permit holders and 2,211 vessels holding an open access Category E permit. Based on vessel trip report records in FY 2006, 615 limited access permit holders participated in the monkfish fishery. During the same period, 567 incidental permit holders reported landing monkfish. This action would affect limited access monkfish permit holders that fished, at some time, in the SFMA. Based on vessel activity reports from FY 2006 (the most recent fishing year for which complete information is available) this action could affect 462 limited access monkfish vessels, including 229 vessels that fishing only in the SFMA, and the 233 vessels that fished in both the NFMA and SFMA. This action does not introduce any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules. Economic Impacts of the Proposed Framework 6 Measure The proposed action is a single measure that would only affect limited access monkfish vessels that fish in the SFMA. In the absence of this measure, it is assumed that the directed monkfish fishery would close in the SFMA in FY 2009, based upon preliminary landings in FY 2007 indicating that the TTAC was exceeded by more than 30 percent. Conversely, under the proposed action, restrictions on effort would not be required in FY 2009. Using a trip model, it was estimated that the proposed measure would result in positive or neutral changes in vessel net revenues, crew payments, and monkfish revenues in FY 2009, compared to the status quo. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: July 2, 2008. John Oliver, Deputy Assistant Administrator For Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 648.96, paragraph (b)(5) is removed and reserved, and paragraph (b)(6) is revised to read as follows: § 648.96 Monkfish annual adjustment process and framework specifications.
(b)* * *
(6)*Management measures for FY 2010 and beyond* . If a regulatory action is not implemented to establish management measures for the monkfish fishery for FY 2010 or subsequent years, the management measures in effect during FY 2009 (i.e., trip limits and DAS allocations) shall remain in effect. [FR Doc. E8-15613 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 133 Thursday, July 10, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket # AMS-FV-07-0142] United States Standards for Grades of Beet Greens AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)is soliciting comments on its proposal to revise the voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Beet Greens. AMS is proposing to remove “Unclassified” category from the standards. The proposed revisions will update the beet greens grade standards. DATES: *Effective Date:* Comments must be received by September 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or to the Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 1661 South Building, Stop 0240, Washington, DC 20250-0240; Fax
(202)720-8871. Comments should make reference to the dates and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be made available for public inspection in the above office during regular business hours. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vincent J. Fusaro, Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch,
(202)720-2185. The United States Standards for Grades of Beet Greens are available by accessing the Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/freshinspection.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “To develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities. AMS makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables not connected with Federal Marketing Orders or U.S. Import Requirements no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs. AMS is revising the United States Standards for Grades of Beet Greens using the procedures that appear in Part 36, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36). These standards were last revised June 1, 1959. Background Prior to undertaking detailed work to develop a proposed revision to the standards, AMS published a notice on February 19, 2008, in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 9086) soliciting comments for possible revisions to the United States Standards for Grades of Beet Greens. The proposal would remove the “Unclassified” category from the standards. No comments were received regarding this change. AMS would eliminate the unclassified category. This category is being removed from all standards when they are revised. This category is not a grade and only serves to show that no grade has been applied to the lot. It is no longer considered necessary. AMS is seeking comments regarding how this revision will affect the marketing of beet greens. Additionally, AMS is interested in learning the costs and/or benefits to the industry by revising the United States Standards for Grades of Beet Greens. The official grades of beet greens covered by these standards are determined by the procedures set forth in the Regulations Governing Inspection, Certification and Standards of Fresh Fruits, Vegetables and Other Products (7 CFR 51.1 to 51.62). This notice provides for a 60-day comment period for interested parties to comment on the proposed revisions to the standards. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: July 3, 2008. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E8-15644 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-122-840] Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Canada AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Canada for the period October 1, 2006, to September 30, 2007 (the POR). We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise by Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and Sivaco Ontario (a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.) (collectively referred to as “Ivaco”) have been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from the publication of this notice. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 10, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Bezirganian or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1131 or
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod (steel wire rod) from Canada. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada* , 67 FR 65944 (October 29, 2002) (Order). On October 1, 2007, the Department issued a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order for the POR. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 72 FR 55741 (October 1, 2007). On October 31, 2007, Mittal Canada Inc. (formerly Ispat Sidbec Inc.) of Canada (Mittal Canada) requested an administrative review of its entries that were subject to the antidumping duty order for this period. On October 31, 2007, the Department received a request from petitioners (ISG Georgetown Inc., Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc., Nucor Steel Connecticut Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and Rocky Mountain Steel Mills) for a review of Ivaco, Inc. and Ivaco Rolling Mills L.P. (which petitioners referred to collectively as “Ivaco”). On that same date, Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P., also requested a review of their entries. 1 On November 26, 2007, the Department published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 72 FR 65938 (November 26, 2007). 2 Mittal Canada subsequently withdrew its request for review, and the Department rescinded the administrative review with respect to Mittal Canada. *See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 73321 (December 27, 2007). 1 Ivaco's October 31, 2007, request for review also contained a request that the Department revoke the order with respect to Ivaco. Ivaco later claimed that had the Department not “zeroed” in the previous three reviews, Ivaco would have had negative weighted-average margins for each of those segments. *See* Ivaco's March 14, 2008 Submission. The Department preliminarily rejects Ivaco's request for revocation because it has not demonstrated, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i)(A), that it has sold the merchandise at not less than normal value for a period of at least three consecutive years. We note that the Department has previously rejected Ivaco's “zeroing” argument in the prior segment of this proceeding and that Ivaco had an antidumping duty rate of 2.98 percent *ad valorem* . *See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 73 FR 26958 (May 12, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. 2 The Department's initiation notice referenced the following companies: Mittal Canada Inc. (formerly Ispat Sidbec Inc.); Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. (formerly Ivaco Rolling Mills L.P.); and Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 (L.P.) (formerly Ivaco, Inc.). Ivaco submitted a response to Section A of the Department's questionnaire on December 28, 2007, and a response to Sections B, C, and D of the Department's questionnaire on January 16, 2008. In response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire dated February 15, 2008, Ivaco submitted a supplemental response for Section A on March 21, 2008. In response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire dated March 13, 2008, Ivaco submitted a supplemental response for Sections A, B, C, and D on April 22, 2008. The Department is considering IRM and Sivaco Ontario as part of the same entity (referred to collectively in this notice as “Ivaco”) because of common ownership, consistent with the Department's treatment of these companies in previous proceedings. *See* , *e.g.* , *Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 73 FR 26958 (May 12, 2008), and *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada* , 72 FR 26591 (May 10, 2007). Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) definitions for
(a)Stainless steel;
(b)tool steel;
(c)high nickel steel;
(d)ball bearing steel; and
(e)concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are
(f)free machining steel products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. Grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as:
(i)Grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter;
(ii)with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns);
(iii)having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns;
(iv)having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114;
(v)having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm;
(vi)capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and
(vii)containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown:
(1)0.78 percent or more of carbon,
(2)less than 0.01 percent of aluminum,
(3)0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur,
(4)0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and
(5)not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium. Grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as:
(i)Grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter;
(ii)with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns);
(iii)having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns;
(iv)having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114;
(v)having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm;
(vi)capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and
(vii)containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown:
(1)0.78 percent or more of carbon,
(2)less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum,
(3)0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur,
(4)0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and
(5)either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified). For purposes of the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis—that is, the direction of rolling—of the rod) over thickness (measured on the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. The designation of the products as “tire cord quality” or “tire bead quality” indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise. All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope. The products subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3092, 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0000, 7227.90.6010, and 7227.90.6080 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Export Price and Constructed Export Price For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, export price
(EP)or constructed export price (CEP), as defined in sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), respectively. Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold before the date of importation by the producer or exporter 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. Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first 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)of the Act. Ivaco made both EP and CEP transactions. We calculated an EP for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by Ivaco to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated a CEP for sales made by Ivaco after importation to the United States (where the merchandise was located at an unaffiliated processor facility or unaffiliated distributor warehouse at the time of sale). For EP sales, we made additions to the starting price (gross unit price), where appropriate, for freight revenue received by Ivaco (reimbursement by customers for freight charges paid by Ivaco) and for billing errors (debit-note price adjustments made by Ivaco), and deductions, where appropriate, for billing adjustments (including credit-note price adjustments made by Ivaco), early payment discounts and rebates, and movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Movement expenses included inland freight, warehousing expenses, and brokerage fees. For CEP sales, we made adjustments to the starting price as for the EP transactions described above. However, consistent with our treatment of these expenses in recent administrative reviews, we re-categorized freight from one unaffiliated processor in the United States to another unaffiliated processor in the United States as a further manufacturing cost. *See* , *e.g.* , *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada* , 71 FR 3822 (January 24, 2006) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. In addition, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) and
(2)of the Act, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, including direct selling expenses (imputed credit expenses and warranty expenses), imputed inventory carrying costs, and further manufacturing. Finally, in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we deducted an amount of profit allocated to the expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and
(2)of the Act. *See* Memorandum from Steve Bezirganian, Analyst, “Analysis Memorandum for Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada (A-122-840), October 1, 2006-September 30, 2007” (July 2, 2008) (Ivaco Analysis Memorandum). Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Markets Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity is inappropriate) and that there is not a particular market situation that prevents a proper comparison with sales to the United States. The statute contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally be considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to the United States. *See* section 773(a)(1) of the Act. We found that Ivaco had a viable home market for steel wire rod because its home market sales, by quantity, exceeded the five percent threshold. *See* Ivaco Analysis Memorandum. Ivaco submitted home market sales data for purposes of the calculation of NV. In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices” section below. B. Cost of Production Analysis Because we disregarded below-cost sales in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding, we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that home market sales of the foreign like product by the respondent were made at prices below the cost of production
(COP)during the POR, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act. *See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada* , 71 FR 64921, 64924 (November 6, 2006) (unchanged in final results, 72 FR 26591 (May 10, 2007)). Therefore, we required Ivaco to file a response to Section D of the Department's Questionnaire. 1. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP by model based on the sum of materials, fabrication, and general and administrative (G&A) expenses. 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices We compared the weighted-average COPs for the respondent to its home market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time ( *i.e.* , normally a period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a model-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, and direct and indirect selling expenses. 3. Results of the COP Test We disregard below-cost sales where:
(1)20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were made at prices below the COP in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C)of the Act; and
(2)based on comparisons of price to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we determine that the below-cost sales of the product were at prices that would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found Ivaco made sales below cost and we disregarded such sales where appropriate. C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices We determined NV for Ivaco as follows. We made adjustments to the gross price to account for billing adjustments, and deducted discounts and rebates. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B)of the Act. We also deducted home market movement expenses pursuant to sections 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale
(COS)pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Specifically, we made adjustments for Ivaco's EP transactions by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales ( *i.e.* , credit expenses and warranty expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses ( *i.e.* , credit expenses and warranty expenses). *See* section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.410(c). Where we compared Ivaco's U.S. sales to home market sales of merchandise, we made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. D. Arm's-Length Sales The respondent reported sales of the foreign like product to affiliated customers. To test whether these sales to affiliated customers were made at arm's length, where possible, we compared the prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Where the price to that affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to the unaffiliated parties at the same level of trade, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. *See Modification Concerning Affiliated Party Sales in the Comparison Market* , 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). Ivaco's sales to affiliated parties that were determined not to be at arm's length were disregarded in our comparison to U.S. sales. E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that, where NV cannot be based on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on constructed value (CV). Accordingly, for those models of steel wire rod for which we could not determine the NV based on comparison-market sales, either because there were no sales of a comparable product or all sales of the comparison products failed the COP test, we based NV on CV. Section 773(e)(1) of the Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported merchandise plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), profit, and U.S. packing expenses. We calculated the cost of materials and fabrication based on the methodology described in the COP section of this notice. We based SG&A and profit on the actual amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the comparison market, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. We made adjustments to CV for differences in COS in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For CEP and EP comparisons, we deducted direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales ( *i.e.* , credit expenses and warranty expenses). *See* Section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c). For EP sales, we added U.S. direct selling expenses ( *i.e.* , credit expenses and warranty expenses) to the NV. F. Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade
(LOT)as the EP and CEP sales, to the extent practicable. When there are no sales at the same LOT, we compare U.S. sales to comparison market sales at a different LOT. When NV is based on CV, the NV LOT is that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2), to determine whether comparison market sales were at a different LOT, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain o2f distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-length) customers. The Department identifies the LOT based on: the starting price or constructed value (for normal value); the starting price (for EP sales); and the starting price, as adjusted under section 772(d) of the Act (for CEP sales). If the comparison-market sales were at a different LOT and the differences affect price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we will make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the differences in LOT between NV and CEP affected price comparability, we will grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Ivaco reported home market sales in two channels of distribution:
(1)Direct sales by IRM and
(2)direct sales by Sivaco Ontario. 3 Ivaco reported U.S. EP sales in two channels of distribution:
(1)direct sales by IRM to U.S. customers and
(2)direct sales by Sivaco Ontario to U.S. customers. Finally, Ivaco reported U.S. CEP sales in one channel of distribution: Direct sales by IRM to U.S. customers made from the facilities of unaffiliated U.S. processors or unaffiliated U.S. warehouses. Ivaco claims that all of IRM's home market and U.S. sales are at one LOT, and that all of Sivaco's home market and U.S. sales are at another, more advanced, LOT. Ivaco states that the Department should calculate a LOT adjustment when sales by IRM are matched to sales by Sivaco. Ivaco also states that, if the Department determines that IRM's U.S. CEP sales are at a different LOT from all Ivaco's home market sales, the Department should grant a CEP offset. 3 Ivaco identified a third channel of distribution in the home market. Although proprietary treatment of the description prevents additional public discussion of the details of this proposed channel, it is simply a variation of direct sales by Sivaco Ontario. Ivaco has not claimed that this proposed channel constitutes an additional LOT, and the record does not indicate that it is one. To determine whether there were multiple LOTs, we examined the selling functions performed by Ivaco for its customers. We found few differences in selling functions across the various channels of distribution and, based on this examination, we preliminarily determine that Ivaco sold merchandise at one LOT in both markets. *See* the Memorandum from Steve Bezirganian, “Level of Trade Analysis for Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada (A-122-840), October 1, 2006—September 30, 2007” (July 2, 2008). Consequently, there is no basis for calculating a LOT adjustment or a CEP offset. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. sale, as provided by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average margin exists for the period October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007: Producer/exporter Weighted-average margin (percentage) Ivaco 2.33 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of publication of this notice. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. *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 submission of case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument:
(1)A statement of the issues;
(2)a brief summary of the arguments; and
(3)a table of authorities. Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. An 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 be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs, or the first working day thereafter. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to Section 751(a)(3) of the Act. Assessment Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue assessment instructions directly to CBP on or after 41 days following the publication of the final results of review, pursuant to 19 CFR 356.8(a). We will calculate importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties,* 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) ( *Assessment Policy Notice* ). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies included in these final results where the reviewed companies did not know the merchandise it sold to the intermediary ( *e.g.* , a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there was no rate calculated in this review for the intermediary involved in the transaction. *See id.,* 68 FR at 23954. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of steel wire rod from Canada entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)The cash deposit rate for Ivaco will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if a rate is less than 0.5 percent, and therefore *de minimis* , the cash deposit will be zero;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 8.11 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entities during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 2, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-15753 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-469-814) Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to timely requests by Biolab, Inc., Clearon Corporation and Occidental Chemical Corporation (collectively, “Petitioners”), and Aragonesas Industrias y Energía S.A. (“Aragonesas”), the Department of Commerce (“Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates (“chlorinated isos”) from Spain with respect to Aragonesas. The period of review (“POR”) is June 1, 2006 through May 31, 2007. The Department preliminarily determines that Aragonesas made U.S. sales of chlorinated isos at prices less than normal value (“NV”). *See Preliminary Results of Review* section, below. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. *See Disclosure and Public Hearing* section, below. We will issue the final results of review no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Lindsay, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-0780. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 24, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order on chlorinated isos from Spain. *See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain: Notice of Antidumping Duty Order* , 70 FR 36562 (June 24, 2005). In response to timely requests filed by Petitioners and Aragonesas, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 72 FR 41057 (July 26, 2007). The POR for this administrative review is June 1, 2006 through May 31, 2007. On August 24, 2007, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to Aragonesas. On September 25, 2007, the Department received Aragonesas's response to section A of the antidumping questionnaire. On October 12, 2007, the Department received Aragonesas's response to sections B and C of the antidumping questionnaire. On October 23, 2007, the Department received Aragonesas's response to section D of the antidumping questionnaire. We issued supplemental questionnaires to Aragonesas on November 19, 2007, December 3, 2007, January 3, 2008, and May 15, 2008. Aragonesas filed a timely response to each questionnaire. The Department extended the time limit for the preliminary results by 120 days. *See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 73 FR 12079 (March 6, 2008). Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are chlorinated isocyanurates. Chlorinated isocyanurates are derivatives of cyanuric acid, described as chlorinated s-triazine triones. There are three primary chemical compositions of chlorinated isocyanurates:
(1)trichloroisocyanuric acid (Cl3(NCO)3),
(2)sodium dichloroisocyanurate (dihydrate) (NaCl2(NCO)3 2H2O), and
(3)sodium dichloroisocyanurate (anhydrous) (NaCl2(NCO)3). Chlorinated isocyanurates are available in powder, granular, and tableted forms. This order covers all chlorinated isocyanurates. Chlorinated isocyanurates are currently classifiable under subheadings 2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, and 2933.69.6050 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). The tariff classification 2933.69.6015 covers sodium dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous and dihydrate forms) and trichloroisocyanuric acid. The tariff classifications 2933.69.6021 and 2933.69.6050 represent basket categories that include chlorinated isocyanurates and other compounds including an unfused triazine ring. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Date of Sale Aragonesas reported invoice date as the date of sale for U.S. sales. The Department's regulations state that “{i}n identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business. However, the Secretary may use a date other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale.” *See* 19 CFR 351.401(i). We examined the questionnaire responses and the sales documentation placed on the record by Aragonesas, and determine that invoice date is the appropriate date of sale in both the U.S. and home markets. However, in accordance with the Department's practice, whenever shipment date precedes invoice date, we used shipment date as the date of sale. *See* , *e.g.* , *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 18074, 18079-80 (April 10, 2006), remaining unchanged in *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part* , 72 FR 4486 (January 31, 2007); and *Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and Determination To Revoke in Part* , 72 FR 62630, (November 6, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Issue 2, where the Department finds “that it is appropriate to use the earlier of shipment or invoice date as Colakoglu's and Habas' U.S. date of sale in the instant review, consistent with the date-of-sale methodology established in the previous review.” Accordingly, because Aragonesas has reported that shipment date for its U.S. sales always precedes invoice date, we are using shipment date as the date of sale for its U.S. sales. Comparisons to Normal Value To determine whether Aragonesas sold chlorinated isos in the United States at prices less than NV, the Department compared the export price (“EP”) of individual U.S. sales to the weighted-average NV of sales of the foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade in a month contemporaneous with the month in which the U.S. sale was made. *See* section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”); *see also* section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. Section 771(16) of the Act defines foreign like product as merchandise that is identical or similar to subject merchandise and produced by the same person and in the same country as the subject merchandise. Thus, we considered all products covered by the scope of the order that were produced by the same person and in the same country as the subject merchandise, and sold by Aragonesas in the home market during the POR, to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to chlorinated isos sold in the United States. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, the Department considered all products produced by the respondent, covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), the Department compared U.S. sales made by Aragonesas to sales made in the home market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, the Department compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, the Department used the physical characteristics determined by the Department and reported by Aragonesas, to match foreign like products to U.S. sales: chemical structure, free available chlorine content, physical form, and packaging. Export Price The Department based the price of Aragonesas's U.S. sales on EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly by Aragonesas to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and the constructed export price (“CEP”) methodology was not otherwise indicated. We based EP on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Aragonesas reported its U.S. sales on a delivered, duty paid basis. We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, international freight, foreign inland and marine insurance, foreign and U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. inland freight, commissions and U.S. duty, in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402. Normal Value After testing home market viability, whether home market sales to affiliates were at arm's-length prices, and whether home market sales were at below-cost prices, we calculated NV for Aragonesas as noted in the “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices” section of this notice. A. Home Market Viability In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, the Department compared Aragonesas's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. We excluded sales of merchandise that were not foreign like product for reasons that are of a business proprietary nature. See Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, “Whether Certain Merchandise Sold By Aragonesas Industrias y Energía, S.A. Constitutes Subject Merchandise and Foreign Like Product,” dated June 30, 2008 (“ *Foreign Like Product Memorandum* ”). Because Aragonesas's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, the Department determined that its home market was viable. B. Arm's-Length Test The Department may calculate NV based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is comparable to the prices at which sales are made to parties not affiliated with the exporter or producer, *i.e.* , sales at arm's-length. *See* 19 CFR 351.403(c). Sales to affiliated customers for consumption in the home market that are determined not to be at arm's-length are excluded from our analysis. In this proceeding, Aragonesas reported sales of the foreign like product to affiliated customers. To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, the Department compared the prices of sales of comparable merchandise to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c), and in accordance with the Department's practice, when the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable to that sold to the affiliated party, we determined that the sales to the affiliated party were at arm's-length. *See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November 15, 2002). Where Aragonesas's sales to affiliated home market customers did not pass the arm's-length test, we excluded those sales from our analysis. See section 773(b)(1) of the Act. C. Cost of Production Analysis We calculated a margin for Delsa S.A. (Delsa) in *Chlorinated Isocyanurates From Spain: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value* , 70 FR 24506, 24511 (May 10, 2005) (“ *Final LTFV Determination* ”), which was the most recently completed segment of this proceeding as of the publication date of the initiation of this review. In the *Final LTFV Determination* , the Department disregarded sales made at prices that were below COP. As a result, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, in this review the Department determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Aragonesas 1 sold the foreign like product at prices below the cost of producing the product during the instant POR. Accordingly, the Department required that Aragonesas provide a response to Section D of the questionnaire. 1 The Department determined Aragonesas to be the successor-in-interest to Delsa. *See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 37189 (July 9, 2007) (unchanged in final results, *see Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 64194 (November 17, 2007)). 1. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, for each product, sorted by control number, sold by Aragonesas during the POR, the Department calculated Aragonesas's weighted-average COP based on the sum of its materials and fabrication costs, plus amounts for general and administrative (“G&A”) expenses and interest expenses. *See* “Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices” section below for treatment of home market selling expenses. We relied on the COP information provided by Aragonesas in its questionnaire responses. 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices In order to determine whether sales were made at prices below the COP, on a product-specific basis, the Department compared Aragonesas's adjusted weighted-average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act. In accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and
(B)of the Act, in determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than the COP, we examined whether such sales were made:
(1)in substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and
(2)at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. The prices were inclusive of billing adjustments and exclusive of any applicable movement charges, discounts and rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses, and packing expenses, revised where appropriate. 3. Results of the COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's home market sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, the Department does not disregard any below cost sales of that product, because the Department determines that in such instances the below cost sales were not made within an extended period of time and in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, the Department disregards the below cost sales because they:
(1)were made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities,” in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C)of the Act; and
(2)based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on the results of our test, we found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of Aragonesas's home market sales were at prices less than the COP and, in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices We based NV on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold by Aragonesas for consumption in the home market, in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent possible, at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the comparison U.S. sale. We excluded sales of merchandise that were not foreign like product, for reasons that are of a business proprietary nature. *See Foreign Like Product Memorandum* . We calculated NV for Aragonesas using the reported gross unit prices to unaffiliated purchasers, or where appropriate, affiliated purchasers. Aragonesas reported that it offers its home market customers the following terms of delivery: carriage insurance paid, carriage paid, delivered duty paid, delivered duty unpaid, ex-works, and free carrier. Where appropriate, the Department made adjustments to the starting price for billing adjustments. We also deducted home market movement expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We deducted, where appropriate, discounts and rebates, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. *See* Memorandum from Scott Lindsay, International Trade Compliance Analyst, to the File, “Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results for Aragonesas Industrias y Energia S.A.,” dated June 30, 2008. We also made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. In addition, the Department made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in circumstances of sale for imputed credit and warranty expenses. We also deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B)of the Act. We also made the appropriate adjustment for commissions paid in the home market pursuant to 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and19 CFR 351.410(c). We made adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison market or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the other ( *i.e.* , commission offset). Specifically, where commissions are incurred in one market, but not in the other, we limited the amount of such allowance to the amount of either the indirect selling expenses incurred in the one market or the commissions allowed in the other market, whichever is less. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, the Department determines NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP sales in the U.S. market (Aragonesas had only EP sales in the U.S. market). The NV LOT is based on the starting price of the sales in the comparison market. Where NV is based on CV, the Department determines the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which the Department derives selling expenses, general and administrative expenses, and profit for CV, where possible. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Fresh Atlantic Salmon From Chile* , 63 FR 2664-2670 (January 16, 1998) (unchanged in final determination, *see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile* , 63 FR 31411, (June 9, 1998)). For EP sales, the U.S. LOT is based on the starting price of the sales to the U.S. market. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP sales, the Department examines stages in the marketing process and level of selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. *Id.* ; *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to foreign like product sales in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP sale, the Department may compare the U.S. sales to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where the difference affects price comparability, as manifested by a pattern of consistent price differences between comparison-market sales at the NV LOT and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, the Department makes an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. In this administrative review, Aragonesas had only EP sales in the U.S. market, thus the CEP methodology was not employed in this review. The Department obtained information from Aragonesas regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported home market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed for each channel of distribution. Aragonesas reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market through a single distribution channel ( *i.e.* , sales to industrial users). Because all sales in the United States are made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market. Aragonesas reported that it made sales in the home market through three channels of distribution ( *i.e.* , industrial customers, retail customers, and distributors). We compared the selling functions performed by Aragonesas for these three distribution channels and found that Aragonesas performed similar selling activities in the home market for the retail and distributor channels of distribution, and fewer selling activities for industrial home market customers. Thus, we preliminarily find that the retail and distributor channels of distribution constitute one NV LOT, while the channel of distribution for industrial customers is a second NV LOT. Moreover, we preliminarily find that the NV LOT for retail and industrial purchasers is at a more advanced stage than the NV LOT for industrial customers. *See* Memorandum from Scott Lindsay, International Trade Compliance Analyst, through Thomas Gilgunn, Program Manager, to Barbara E. Tillman, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, “Level of Trade Analysis: Aragonesas Industrias y Energía S.A. (Aragonesas),” dated June 30, 2008 ( *LOT Memorandum* ). Finally, the Department compared the EP LOT to the two home market LOTs. The Department finds that selling activities performed by Aragonesas for industrial users in the U.S. market and home market are similar. Because selling activities for industrial users in the U.S. market (the only LOT in the U.S. market) and industrial users in the home market are similar, the Department preliminarily determines that, for sales to the U.S. and home markets during the POR that were made at this same LOT ( *i.e.* , sales to industrial users), the Department will not make an LOT adjustment to NV. However, where the Department matches sales between the U.S. and home markets where the home market sale is made at a more advanced LOT ( *i.e.* , retail and distributor channels of distribution) than the sale in the U.S. market, the Department will grant an LOT adjustment to NV because there is a consistent pattern of price differences. For additional details regarding the Department=s LOT analysis, *see LOT Memorandum* . Currency Conversion Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act, we converted amounts expressed in foreign currencies into U.S. dollar amounts based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily determines that the weighted-average dumping margin for the period June 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007, is as follows: Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted- Average Margin (percentage) Aragonesas Industrias y Energía S.A. 4.16 Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)the cash deposit rate for the company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, *de minimis* within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 24.83 percent, the “All Others” rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. *See Final LTFV Determination* . These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Assessment Rates Upon publication of the final results of this review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise for each respondent. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and the total entered value of the examined sales. These rates will be assessed uniformly on all entries of the respective importers made during the POR if these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) ( *Assessment Policy Notice* ). This clarification applies to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by any company included in the final results of review for which the reviewed company did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary ( *e.g.* , a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the “All Others” rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. *See Assessment Policy Notice* for a full discussion of this clarification. Disclosure and Public Hearing We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this segment of the proceeding within five days of the public announcement of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain:
(1)the party=s name, address and telephone number;
(2)the number of participants; and
(3)a list of issues to be discussed. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless the time period is extended by the Department, case briefs are to be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** ( *see* 19 CFR 351.309(c)). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to arguments raised in case briefs, are to be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:
(1)a statement of the issues;
(2)a brief summary of the argument; and
(3)a table of authorities cited. Further, we request that parties submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing an electronic copy of the public version of such comments. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Unless extended, the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Notification to Importers This notice also 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 published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221. Dated: June 30, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-15736 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-809] Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has determined, pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), that India Steel Works, Ltd. (India Steel) is the successor-in-interest to Isibars, Ltd. (Isibars). As a result, India Steel will be accorded the same treatment previously accorded to Isibars in regard to the antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel flanges from India as of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . DATES: *Effective Date:* July 10, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-2924 or
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 26, 2008, India Steel requested that the Department conduct a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.216. In its request, India Steel claimed that the entity previously known to the Department as Isibars had changed its name to India Steel, and that India Steel should therefore be assigned the same antidumping duty cash deposit rate as Isibars. In response to this request, the Department initiated a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on forged stainless steel flanges from India. *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India,* 73 FR 14959 (March 20, 2008). On March 20, 2008, the Department issued a questionnaire to India Steel requesting information about its relation to Isibars. The Department received India Steel's response on April 16, 2008. On May 19, 2008, the Department preliminarily determined that India Steel was the successor-in-interest to Isibars. *See Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review,* 73 FR 28798 (May 19, 2008) ( *Preliminary Results* ). We invited parties to comment on the *Preliminary Results.* We received no comments. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain forged stainless steel flanges, both finished and not finished, generally manufactured to specification ASTM A-182, and made in alloys such as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L. The scope includes five general types of flanges. They are weld-neck, used for butt-weld line connection; threaded, used for threaded line connections; slip-on and lap joint, used with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; socket weld, used to fit pipe into a machined recession; and blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes of the flanges within the scope range generally from one to six inches; however, all sizes of the above-described merchandise are included in the scope. Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are cast stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are manufactured to specification ASTM A-351. The flanges subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive. Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review For the reasons stated in the *Preliminary Results* , and because the Department did not receive any comments during the comment period following the preliminary results of this review, the Department continues to find that India Steel is the successor-in-interest to Isibars for antidumping duty cash deposit purposes. Instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection The Department will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all shipments of the subject merchandise produced and exported by India Steel entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice at zero percent ( *i.e.* , Isibar's cash deposit rate). This deposit rate shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review in which India Steel participates. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This notice in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act, and section 351.221(c)(3)(i) of the Department's regulations. Dated: July 2, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-15734 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-803] Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 10, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-2243. Background On March 5, 2008, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice for the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on heavy forged hand tools from the People's Republic of China, covering the period February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007. *See Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 73 FR 11867 (March 5, 2008). The final results for this administrative review are currently due no later than July 3, 2008. Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department issue the final results of an administrative review within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within that time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the deadline for the final results to a maximum of 180 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. The Department requires additional time to properly consider the issues raised in case briefs from interested parties such as the proper labeling of certain products as noted in the verification findings of the third-country reseller. Thus, it is not practicable to complete these reviews within the original time limit. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the final results of this review by 60 days, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The final results are now due no later than September 2, 2008. 1 We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 1 Sixty days from July 3, 2008, is September 1, 2008. However, Department practice dictates that where a deadline falls on a federal holiday, the appropriate deadline is the next business day. *See Notice of Clarification: Application of “Next Business Day” Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Act,* 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). Dated: July 2, 2008. Gary S. Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-15731 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-806] Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of 2006-2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot T. Fullerton or Susan Pulongbarit, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1386 or
(202)482-4031, respectively. Background On March 7, 2008, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results and partial rescission of this antidumping duty administrative review. *Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 73 FR 12378 (March 7, 2008). The period of review for this administrative review is June 1, 2006 to May 31, 2007. Extension of Time Limits for Final Results Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and section 351.213(h)(1) of the Department's regulations, the Department shall issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act further provides that the Department shall issue the final results of review within 120 days after the date on which the notice of the preliminary results was published in the **Federal Register** . However, if the Department determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations allow the Department to extend the 245-day period to 365 days and the 120-day period to 180 days. In the instant review, the Department finds that the current deadline for the final results of July 7, 2008, is not practicable. The Department requires additional time to review and analyze interested party comments related to alleged transshipment of Chinese-origin silicon metal through Canada. As a result, the Department has determined to extend the current time limits of this administrative review. For these reasons, the Department is extending by 30 days the time limit for the completion of these final results until no later than August 4, 2008. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: July 2, 2008. Gary S. Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Error! Main Document Only. [FR Doc. E8-15746 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-570-875) Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic of China; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce SUMMARY: On March 3, 2008, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings (“non-malleable pipe fittings”) from the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”). The Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of this order. As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. The dumping margins are identified in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev Primor or Juanita Chen, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4114 or
(202)482-1904, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: On March 3, 2008, the Department published the notice of initiation of the first sunset review of the antidumping duty order on non-malleable pipe fittings from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 73 FR 11392 (March 3, 2008). The Department received Notice of Intent to Participate from Anvil International, Inc. and Ward Manufacturing (collectively “the domestic interested parties”) within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under 19 CFR 351.102(b), as manufacturers of a domestic-like product in the United States. Jinan Meide Casting Co., Ltd. (“JMC”) filed an entry of appearance as an interested party, specifically, as a PRC-based producer and exporter of the subject merchandise under section 771(9)(A) of the Act. We received complete substantive responses from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no substantive response from JMC or from any other respondent interested parties. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the order. Scope of the Order For purposes of this review, the products covered are finished and unfinished non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings with an inside diameter ranging from 1/4 inch to 6 inches, whether threaded or un-threaded, regardless of industry or proprietary specifications. The subject fittings include elbows, ells, tees, crosses, and reducers as well as flanged fittings. These pipe fittings are also known as “cast iron pipe fittings” or “gray iron pipe fittings.” These cast iron pipe fittings are normally produced to ASTM A-126 and ASME B.l6.4 specifications and are threaded to ASME B1.20.1 specifications. Most building codes require that these products are Underwriters Laboratories (“UL”) certified. The scope does not include cast iron soil pipe fittings or grooved fittings or grooved couplings. Fittings that are made out of ductile iron that have the same physical characteristics as the gray or cast iron fittings subject to the scope above or which have the same physical characteristics and are produced to ASME B.16.3, ASME B.16.4, or ASTM A-395 specifications, threaded to ASME B1.20.1 specifications and UL certified, regardless of metallurgical differences between gray and ductile iron, are also included in the scope of this petition. These ductile fittings do not include grooved fittings or grooved couplings. Ductile cast iron fittings with mechanical joint ends (“MJ”), or push on ends (“PO”), or flanged ends and produced to the American Water Works Association (“AWWA”) specifications AWWA C110 or AWWA C153 are not included. Imports of covered merchandise are currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers 7307.11.00.30, 7307.11.00.60, 7307.19.30.60 and 7307.19.30.85. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this review are addressed in the memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic of China; Final Results,” dated July 1, 2008 (“Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the order were to be revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room 1117 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, under the heading “July 2008.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on non-malleable pipe fittings from the PRC would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins: Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted-Average Margin (percent) Jinan Meide Casting Co., Ltd. 7.08 Shanghai Foreign Trade Enterprises Co., Ltd. 6.34 PRC-Wide Entity Rate (including Myland Industrial Co., Ltd., and Buxin Myland (Foundry) Ltd.) 75.50 This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 01, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-15738 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-931] Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe (CWASPP) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. See “Disclosure and Public Comment” section below for procedures on filing comments. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Copyak, or Eric B. Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-2209 and
(202)482-6071, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History The following events have occurred since the issuance of the Department's notice of initiation in the **Federal Register** . *See Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation,* 73 FR 9994 (February 25, 2008) ( *Initiation Notice* ), and accompanying initiation checklist (February 19, 2008) (Initiation Checklist). On February 19, 2008, the Department issued the results of its query of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)trade database to interested parties. *See* Memorandum to the File from Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, Office 3, Operations, “Results of Query of Customs and Border Protection Database” (February 19, 2008), a proprietary document of which the public version is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 1117 in the main Department building. On February 29, 2008, Zhejiang Jiuli High-Tech Metals Co. Ltd. (Jiuli), a Chinese producer and exporter of CWASPP, requested that the Department select the company as a mandatory respondent. Jiuli further requested that, in the event that the Department did not select it as a mandatory respondent, the Department designate Jiuli as a voluntary respondent as provided under 19 CFR 351.204(d). On March 3, 2008, Jiuli submitted comments regarding the Department's selection of mandatory respondents in the investigation. On March 14, 2008, the Department selected as mandatory respondents the two largest Chinese producers/exporters of CWASPP that could reasonably be examined. The mandatory respondents selected by the Department are, in alphabetical order, Froch Enterprise Co. Ltd. (Froch) (also known as Zhangyuan Metal Industry Co. Ltd.) and Winner Stainless Steel Tube Co. Ltd. (Winner). *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, for Import Administration, through Melissa G. Skinner, Director, Office 3, Operations, from the team, “Respondent Selection” (March 14, 2008), a proprietary document of which the public version is on file in the CRU. On the same day, we issued a countervailing duty
(CVD)questionnaire to the Government of China
(GOC)requesting that the GOC forward the company sections of the questionnaire to the mandatory respondents. As a courtesy, we also issued the CVD questionnaire to Froch, and Winner, and to Jiuli. 1 1 We received confirmation that the CVD questionnaire was delivered to Froch on March 19, 2008. *See* Memorandum to the File from Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, Office 3, Operations (March 26, 2008), which includes a copy of the documentation from FedEx confirming delivery, a public document on file in the CRU. Winner also received a copy of the CVD questionnaire. *See, e.g.* , Winner's April 29, 2008, request for an extension of time to respond to the due date deadline, which serves as confirmation of Winner's receipt of the CVD questionnaire. We also served Jiuli with a copy of the CVD questionnaire. *See* Memorandum to the File from Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, Office 3, Operations (March 26, 2008), a public document on file in room 1117 of the CRU, regarding the service of the initial questionnaire to Jiuli. On March 17, 2008, the International Trade Commission
(ITC)issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of allegedly subsidized imports of CWASPP from the PRC. *See Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from China,* USITC Pub 3986, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-454 and 731-TA-1144 (Preliminary) (March 2008). On the same day, Prudential Stainless & Alloy (Prudential), a U.S importer and distributor of CWASPP, submitted comments regarding the scope of the investigation. 2 2 These comments are identical to the comments filed by Prudential on March 10, 2008, in the companion antidumping duty investigation on these same products. On April 4, 2008, we published a postponement of the preliminary determination of this investigation until no later than June 30, 2008. *See Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Amended Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation,* 73 FR 18511 (April 4, 2008). On May 5, 2008, we received the GOC's response to the Department's initial questionnaire. On May 9, 2008, we received a response to the initial questionnaire from Winner and its affiliates Winner Machinery Enterprises Company Limited (Winner HK) and Winner Steel Products (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.
(WSP)(collectively the Winner Companies). Froch did not respond to the Department's initial questionnaire. On May 14, 2008, the GOC submitted its response to the Department's government supplemental questionnaire. On June 10, 2008, the Winner Companies submitted their response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire. On June 16, 2008, the GOC submitted its response to the Department's second government supplemental questionnaire. On May 30, 2008, petitioners submitted new subsidy allegations concerning 11 programs. 3 On June 9, 2008, members of the Import Administration staff met with officials from the GOC regarding new subsidy allegations filed by petitioners. *See* Memorandum to the File from Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, Office 3, Operations, “ *Ex Parte* Meeting with Officials from the Government of China” (June 9, 2008), a public document on file in the CRU. On June 11, 2008, the GOC submitted comments to the Department urging it to reject petitioners' new subsidy allegations on the grounds that petitioners alleged them in an untimely matter and that they are without merit. On June 12, 2008, the Department issued a letter to petitioners asking them to explain why they were unable to submit their new subsidy allegations within the regulatory deadline established under 19 CFR 351.301(d)(4)(i)(A). On June 18, 2008, petitioners submitted their response to the Department and responded to the comments made by the GOC in its June 12, 2008 submission. 3 Petitioners are Bristol Metals, LLC, Felker Brothers Corp., Marcegaglia U.S.A., Inc., Outokumpu Stainless Pipe, Inc., and the United Steelworkers. At this time, the Department continues to evaluate the timeliness of petitioners' new subsidy allegations. If the Department determines that the new subsidy allegations were submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(d)(4)(i)(A), then the Department will issue a new subsidy allegation decision memorandum in which it will identify, if any, the programs it will investigate. Any such decision memorandum will be provided to interested parties. On June 25, 2008, petitioners requested that the Department align the final CVD determination with the final determination in the companion antidumping
(AD)investigation of CWASPP from the PRC. Scope of the Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe not greater than 14 inches in outside diameter. This merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM)A-312 or ASTM A-778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. ASTM A-358 products are only included when they are produced to meet ASTM A-312 or ASTM A-778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. *Excluded from the scope are:*
(1)Welded stainless mechanical tubing, meeting ASTM A-554 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications;
(2)boiler, heat exchanger, superheater, refining furnace, feedwater heater, and condenser tubing, meeting ASTM A-249, ASTM A-688 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications; and
(3)specialized tubing, meeting ASTM A-269, ASTM A-270 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. The subject imports are normally classified in subheadings 7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062, 7306.40.5064, and 7306.40.5085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. They may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7306.40.1010, 7306.40.1015, 7306.40.5042, 7306.40.5044, 7306.40.5080, and 7306.40.5090. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope is dispositive. Scope Comments In our *Initiation Notice,* we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage, and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the *Initiation Notice.* *See Initiation Notice,* 73 FR at 9994. As stated above, on March 17, 2008, Prudential submitted timely scope comments. Prudential argues that the current scope appears to cover all alloy grades within the specification ASTM A-312. However, according to Prudential, certain grades such as 309S, 310S, 321, 347, 317L, 904L (NO8904), 254SMO (S31254) and others are specialized, very low-volume products that do not compete with the high-volume commodity products such as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L that are manufactured by petitioners. Prudential contends that such low-volume, higher-priced specialty grades should be excluded from the scope. Specifically, Prudential argues that the Department should exclude all grades of CWASPP except the 304 series and 316 series. Prudential adds that series 304H and 304LN should remain within the scope in order to prevent circumvention. Additionally, Prudential asserts that the scope of the investigation is unnecessarily broad with respect to schedules ( *e.g.* , wall thickness) of CWASPP. Prudential contends that the scope should only cover schedules 40S and 10S, which it claims constitute the vast majority of pipe produced by petitioners. Prudential argues that schedules 5S, 20, 30, 60, and 80S should be excluded from the scope because they do not represent a threat to petitioners. On March 14, 2008, petitioners filed rebuttal comments to Prudential's scope and product coverage comments. Petitioners oppose changing the scope of the investigation arguing that Prudential's proposed changes regarding alloy grade and schedules (wall thickness) would exclude products presently manufactured by the domestic industry that are important to the domestic industry. They note that these products were also covered by the ITC in its definition of like product in its preliminary investigation questionnaire. On April 28, 2008, Prudential filed a letter in response to petitioners' March 14, 2008, submission. Prudential disagrees with petitioners' claim that the items Prudential is proposing to exclude are “important” to the domestic industry. Arguing that, as a specialty “stockist,” these items are important to Prudential, but not the industry as a whole. Prudential requests that the Department determine factually how much, of the approximately 35,000 tons produced last year domestically, were not 304, 304L, 304/L, 316, 316L or 316/L and were not schedule 10s or 40s. Prudential asserts that the percentages will be quite low and argues that it is doubtful that schedule 5s and 80s would be considered “important” and that, undeniably, the remaining schedules (20, 30, 60, 100, 120, 140, 160, and XXH) are of no importance to the domestic industry. The Department is evaluating these comments and will issue its decision regarding the scope of the investigation in the preliminary determination of the companion AD investigation due no later than August 27, 2008. Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination On June 25, 2008, petitioners submitted a letter, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requesting alignment of the final CVD determination with the final determination in the companion AD investigation of CWASPP from the PRC. Therefore, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), we are aligning the final CVD determination with the final determination in the companion AD investigation of CWASPP from the PRC. The final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued no later than November 10, 2008. Application of the Countervailing Duty Law to Imports From the PRC On October 25, 2007, the Department published *Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination,* 72 FR 60645 (October 25, 2007) ( *CFS from the PRC* ), and accompanying decision memorandum (CFS from the PRC Decision Memorandum). In *CFS from the PRC,* the Department found that * * * given the substantial differences between the Soviet-style economies and the PRC's economy in recent years, the Department's previous decision not to apply the CVD law to these Soviet-style economies does not act as a bar to proceeding with a CVD investigation involving products from the PRC. *See* CFS from the PRC Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. The Department has affirmed its decision to apply the CVD law to the PRC in subsequent final determinations. *See, e.g., Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances,* 73 FR 31966 (June 5, 2008) (CWP from the PRC), and accompanying decision memorandum (CWP from the PRC Decision Memorandum). Additionally, for the reasons stated in the CWP from the PRC Decision Memorandum, we are using the date of December 11, 2001, the date on which the PRC became a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), as the date from which the Department will identify and measure subsidies in the PRC for purposes of this preliminary determination. *See* CWP from the PRC Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Period of Investigation
(POI)The period of investigation for which we are measuring subsidies is calendar year 2007. Adverse Facts Available A. The GOC As discussed below, the Department is investigating whether GOC authorities provided stainless steel coil, a major input in the production of CWASPP to respondents for less than adequate remuneration (LTAR). In our March 14, 2008, questionnaire, we asked the GOC to respond to the items in the Standard Questions Appendix at Appendix One and Provision of Goods/Services Appendix at Appendix Five with respect to the GOC's alleged provision of stainless steel coil for LTAR. In its May 5, 2008, response, the GOC stated that: Given that the GOC does not believe there is a program providing stainless steel coil for less than adequate remuneration, the GOC believes that responding to Appendices One and Five is improper. *See* GOC's May 5, 2008, questionnaire response at 21. On May 7, 2008, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to the GOC in which it requested that the GOC respond to the items contained in Appendices One and Five of the Department's initial questionnaire, as they pertain to the GOC's alleged provision of stainless steel coil for LTAR. In the May 7, 2008, supplemental questionnaire, the Department explained that failure to respond to the Department's questions in a timely fashion and in the manner requested may result in the Department resorting to the use of adverse facts available
(AFA)within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. In its May 14, 2008, supplemental questionnaire response, the GOC provided responses to most of the Department's questions. However, the GOC failed to adequately respond to the Department's questions concerning *de facto* specificity as it pertains to the GOC's alleged provision of stainless steel coil for LTAR. Regarding this alleged subsidy program, the Department, referencing its initial questionnaire, instructed the GOC in its May 7, 2008, supplemental questionnaire to: Please provide a list by industry and by region of the number of companies which have received benefits under this program in the year the provision of benefits was approved and each of the preceding three years. Provide the total amounts of benefits received by each type of industry in each region in the year the provision of benefits was approved and each of the preceding three years. Concerning the GOC's alleged provision of stainless steel coil for LTAR, the GOC stated that: No such list exists, nor does any data exist from which to derive such a list absent inquiring with every stainless steel coil producer in China. Such records would only reflect amounts sold and prices charged, as opposed to any “benefit” conferred by the transaction. *See* GOC's May 14, 2008, supplemental questionnaire response at 8. Sections 776(a)(1) and
(2)of the Act provide that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia,* necessary information is not on the record or an interested party or any other person:
(A)Withholds information that has been requested;
(B)fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782 of the Act;
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding; or
(D)provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department “shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements established by the administering authority” if the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so without undue difficulties. Because the GOC failed to provide the requested information by the established deadlines, the Department does not have the necessary information on the record to determine whether the GOC provided stainless steel coil to producers of CWASPP in a manner that was *de facto* specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, the Department must base its determination on the facts otherwise available in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(B)of the Act. Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as AFA information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(B)and 776(b) of the Act, the use of AFA is appropriate for the preliminary determination with respect to the GOC's alleged provision of stainless steel coil to producers of CWASPP for LTAR. As noted, the GOC refused to respond to the items contained in Appendices One and Five of the Department's initial questionnaire, as they pertain to the GOC's alleged provision of stainless steel coil to producers of CWASPP for LTAR. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire in which it again instructed the GOC to respond to Appendices One and Five in regard to the LTAR allegations at issue. However, in its response, the GOC continued to provide insufficient information regarding the Department's questions pertaining to *de facto* specificity. Therefore, consistent with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(B)of the Act, we find that the GOC did not act to the best of its ability and, therefore, we are employing adverse inferences in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. Accordingly, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that the provision of stainless steel coil to producers of CWASPP by GOC authorities is *de facto* specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. Thus, we preliminarily determine that the provision of stainless steel coil by GOC authorities to producers of CWASPP are countervailable to the extent that the provision of the goods constituted a financial contribution in accordance with 771(5)(D)(iii) of the Act and conferred a benefit upon producers of CWASPP within the meaning of 771(E)(iv) of the Act. The Department's decision to rely on adverse inferences when lacking a response from a foreign government is in accordance with its practice. *See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea,* 71 FR 11397, 11399 (March 7, 2006) (unchanged in the *Notice of Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea,* 71 FR 38861 (July 10, 2006) (relying on adverse inferences in determining that the Government of Korea directed credit to the steel industry in a manner that constituted a financial contribution and was specific to the steel industry within the meaning of the sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act, respectively. B. Froch In this case, Froch did not provide the requested information that is necessary to determine a CVD rate for this preliminary determination. Specifically, Froch did not respond to the Department's March 14, 2008, initial questionnaire. Thus, in reaching our preliminary determination, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) and
(C)of the Act, we have based Froch's CVD rate on facts otherwise available. The Department has determined that, in the instant investigation, an adverse inference is warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. By failing to submit a response to the Department's initial questionnaire, Froch did not cooperate to the best of its ability in this investigation. Accordingly, we find that an adverse inference is warranted to ensure that Froch will not obtain a more favorable result than had it fully complied with our request for information. In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on information derived from:
(1)The petition;
(2)a final determination in the investigation;
(3)any previous review or determination; or
(4)any information placed on the record. It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the highest calculated rate in any segment of the proceeding. *See, e.g., Certain In-shell Roasted Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,* 71 FR 66165 (November 13, 2006), and accompanying decision memorandum at “Analysis of Programs” and Comment 1. The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan,* 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures “that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* SAA at 870. In choosing the appropriate balance between providing a respondent with an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior margin “reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.” *See Rhone Poulenc, Inc.* v. *United States,* 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990). For the six alleged income tax programs pertaining to either the reduction of the income tax rates or exemption from income tax, we have applied an adverse inference that Froch paid no income tax during the POI. The standard income tax rate for corporations in the PRC is 30 percent, plus a 3 percent provincial income tax rate. Therefore, the highest possible benefit for these six income tax rate programs is 33 percent. We are applying the 33 percent AFA rate on a combined basis ( *i.e.* , the six programs combined provided a 33 percent benefit). Our approach is consistent with the Department's practice. This 33 percent AFA rate does not apply to income tax credit or rebate programs. *See* CWP from the PRC Decision Memorandum at “Use of Adverse Facts Available” section. Our preliminary finding in this regard includes the Reduced Income Tax Rate for FIEs Located in Economic and Technological Development Zones and Other Special Economic Zones program even though we have calculated a net subsidy rate for the Winner Companies for this program. *See Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Investigation Determination,* 73 FR 35642, 35644 (June 24, 2008) ( *LWP from the PRC* ), and accompanying decision memorandum (LWP from the PRC Decision Memorandum) at “Income Tax Subsidies for Foreign Invested Enterprises (FIEs)—Reduced Income Tax Rates for FIEs Based on Location” section, where the Department assigned an AFA rate of 33 percent for income tax programs alleged with respect to a non-responding mandatory respondent even though the Department calculated an income tax rate for a particular program for a mandatory respondent that participated in the proceeding. For the program involving the provision of stainless steel coil for LTAR, the Department has preliminarily determined to use the Winner Companies' rate calculated in this investigation for this program (which is 1.39 percent). Because the Winner Companies did not use any of the other alleged subsidy programs, for the remaining programs in this investigation (including the tax credit and refund programs), we are applying, where available, the highest non- *de minimis* subsidy rate calculated for the same or similar program in a China CVD investigation. Absent an above- *de minimis* subsidy rate calculated for the same or similar program, we are applying the highest calculated subsidy rate for any program otherwise listed, which could conceivably be used by the respondents in this investigation. The Department has reached affirmative final CVD determinations in several investigations of products from the PRC. *See CFS from the PRC; CWP from the PRC; LWP from the PRC;* and *Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Determination, in Part, of Critical Circumstances,* 73 FR 35639 (June 24, 2008) ( *Sacks from the PRC* ), and accompanying decision memorandum (Sacks Decision Memorandum). As such, we are including the subsidy rates calculated in those final determinations in our AFA analysis in the instant investigation because those final determinations were completed more than seven days prior to the deadline for our preliminary determination. For further information concerning the derivation of Froch's AFA rate, see the Memorandum to the File from Eric B. Greynolds, “Calculations for Preliminary Determination” (Preliminary Calculations Memorandum) at Attachment III (June 30, 2008), a proprietary document of which the public version is on file in the CRU. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is “information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See, e.g.,* Statement of Administrative Action
(SAA)accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session
(1994)at 870. The Department considers information to be corroborated if it has probative value. *See* SAA at 870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. The SAA emphasizes, however, that the Department need not prove that the selected facts available are the best alternative information. *See* SAA at 869. In instances in which it determines to apply AFA, the Department, in order to satisfy itself that such information has probative value, will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information used. With regard to the reliability aspect of corroboration, we note that these rates were calculated in prior final CVD determinations. No information has been presented that calls into question the reliability of these calculated rates that we are applying as AFA. Unlike other types of information, such as publicly available data on the national inflation rate of a given country or national average interest rates, there typically are no independent sources for data on company-specific benefits resulting from countervailable subsidy programs. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroborating the rates selected, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal in considering the relevance of information used to calculate a countervailable subsidy benefit. Where circumstances indicate that the information is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will not use it. *See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996). In the absence of record evidence concerning these programs due to Froch's decision not to participate in the investigation, the Department has reviewed the information concerning China subsidy programs in this and other cases. For those programs for which the Department has found a program-type match, we find that programs of the same type are relevant to the programs of this case. For the programs for which there is no program-type match, the Department has selected the highest calculated subsidy for any China program from which Froch could conceivably receive a benefit to use as AFA. The relevance of this rate is that it is an actual calculated CVD rate for a China program from which Froch could actually receive a benefit. Due to the lack of participation by Froch and the resulting lack of record information concerning these programs, the Department has corroborated the rates it selected to the extent practicable. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the AFA countervailable subsidy rate for Froch to be 106.85 percent *ad valorem. See* Preliminary Calculations Memorandum at Attachment III. Subsidies Valuation Information Cross-Ownership As stated above, Winner is affiliated with Winner HK and WSP. According to Winner, during the POI Winner HK purchased finished subject merchandise from Winner for sale and consigned steel coil to Winner for manufacturing into subject merchandise that Winner returned to Winner HK for sale. Winner further states that during the POI, WSP was a sub-contractor for Winner. Specifically, Winner provided coils or slit coils to WSP, which WSP slit and/or formed into pipe and returned it to Winner. Winner states it then manufactured the processed coil into subject merchandise. In addition, WSP provided slit and/or formed pipe to Winner, which Winner claims were used to make non-subject merchandise. Winner states that during the POI, Winner, Winner HK, and WSP were “directly or indirectly, partially or wholly, owned” by the same shareholders. Under 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi) cross-ownership exists between corporations if one corporation can use or direct the individual assets of the other corporation(s) in essentially the same way it uses its own. This section of the Department's regulations states that this standard will normally be met where there is a majority voting interest between two corporations or through common ownership of two (or more) corporations. Based on the information supplied by Winner indicating that the Winner Companies are owned by the same shareholders parent, we preliminarily determine that Winner, WSP, and Winner HK are cross-owned under 351.525(b)(6)(vi). For purposes of attributing subsidies received by WSP (an affiliate that supplies stainless steel coil inputs to Winner) under the Provision of Stainless Steel Coil for LTAR program, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iv), we preliminarily determine to attribute subsidies received by WSP to the combined sales of WSP's sales of steel coil, and the total sales of Winner and Winner HK, excluding intra-company sales. We have adopted the same approach in the preliminary determination with respect to the attribution of subsidies received by Winner under the Provision of Stainless Steel Coil for LTAR and Reduced Income Tax Rate for Foreign Investment Enterprises
(FIEs)Located in Economic and Technological Development Zones and Other Special Economic Zones programs. Regarding Winner HK, we preliminarily determine that Winner HK is a Hong Kong company and did not receive any subsidies from the GOC. Analysis of Programs I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable A. Reduced Income Tax Rate for Foreign Investment Enterprises
(FIEs)Located in Economic and Technological Development Zones and Other Special Economic Zones According to the GOC, this program provides tax incentives for enterprises located in special zones. The GOC states that the program was first enacted on June 15, 1988, pursuant to the Provisional Rules on Exemption and Reduction of Corporate Income Tax and Business Tax of FIEs in Coastal Economic Zones, as issued by the Ministry of Finance. The GOC states that the program was continued on July 1, 1991, pursuant to Article 30 of the FIE Tax Law. Specifically, pursuant to Article 7 of the FIE Tax Law for productive FIEs established in a coastal economic development zone, special economic zone, or economic technology development zone, the applicable enterprise income tax rate is 15 or 24 percent, depending on the zones in which productive FIE are located, as opposed to the standard 30 percent income tax rate. We preliminarily determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the form of revenue forgone and confers a benefit equal to the amount of tax savings within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act. Because eligibility under this program is limited to firms located within designated geographical regions, we preliminarily determine that the program is specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. We note that the Department has found this program countervailable in previous CVD proceedings. *See, e.g.* , CFS from the PRC Decision Memorandum at “Reduced Income Tax Rates for FIEs Based on Location” section. Under 19 CFR 351.509(b), in the case of an income tax reduction program, the Department normally will consider the benefit as having been received on the date on which the recipient firm would otherwise have had to pay the taxes associated with the reduction. Normally, this date is the date on which the firm in question filed its tax return. In its questionnaire response, Winner indicates that it received an income tax reduction under the program with respect to the tax return filed during the POI. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Winner received a benefit under this program during the POI. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.509(a), to calculate the benefit, we subtracted the income tax rate Winner paid under the program from the income tax rate Winner would have paid absent the program and multiplied the difference by Winner's taxable income. To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the benefit by the total sales denominator for Winner and WSP, as described in the “Cross-Ownership” section. On this basis, we preliminarily determine a net subsidy rate of 0.08 percent *ad valorem* for the Winner Companies. B. Provision of Stainless Steel Coil for Less Than Adequate Remuneration The Department is investigating whether GOC authorities provided stainless steel coil to producers of CWASPP for LTAR. As instructed in the Department's questionnaires, the Winner Companies identified the suppliers from whom they purchased stainless steel coil during the POI. In addition to the supplier names, the Winner Companies, as instructed, indicated the date of payment, quantity, unit of measure, purchase price (with and without VAT and quantity discounts), grade, and delivery terms. Having obtained permission from the Winner Companies to disclose the proprietary names of their suppliers to the GOC, we asked the GOC to provide certain information regarding the Winner Companies' domestic suppliers of stainless steel coil. *See* Memorandum to the File from Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, Office 3, Operations, “Consent to Release Company-Specific Proprietary Information to the Government of China (GOC)” (May 28, 2008), a public document on file in the CRU. In order to assess whether an entity should be considered to be the government for purposes of countervailing duty investigations, the Department has in the past considered the following factors to be relevant:
(1)The government's ownership;
(2)the government's presence on the entity's board of directors;
(3)the government's control over the entity's activities;
(4)the entity's pursuit of governmental policies or interests; and
(5)whether the entity is created by statute. Not all of these criteria must be satisfied for an entity to be considered a government entity, but, taken together these five criteria inform our decision. *See e.g., Coated Free Sheet Paper from the Republic of Korea: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination,* 72 FR 60639 (October 25, 2007) ( *CFS from Korea* ), and accompanying decision memorandum (CFS from Korea Decision Memorandum) at Comment 11. In addition, we instructed the GOC to indicate whether the Winner Companies' domestic suppliers of stainless steel coil were trading companies, and if so, to provide information related to the five factors listed above as it pertains to the entities from whom the trading companies purchased the stainless steel coil. In its response, the GOC provided information pertaining to the “Five Factor Test” for each of the Winner Companies” domestic stainless steel coil suppliers. In its response, the GOC states that none of the domestic suppliers of the Winner Companies' stainless steel coils met criteria two through five under the “Five Factor Test.” However, the GOC provided information indicating that, in certain instances, domestic suppliers of the Winner Companies' stainless steel coil were majority-owned by GOC entities. *See* GOC's second supplemental questionnaire response at Exhibit 1; GOC's supplement to its second supplemental questionnaire response at Exhibits 1-24. Based on our review of the information submitted by the GOC, we preliminarily determine that domestic suppliers of the Winner Companies' stainless steel coil that were majority-owned by the GOC during the POI constitute government authorities. In addition, in its response the GOC identified which of the Winner Companies' domestic stainless steel coil suppliers were trading companies. However, the GOC was unable to provide the requested information concerning the “Five Factor Test” as it pertains to the suppliers from whom the domestic trading companies purchased the stainless steel coil. *See* GOC's second supplemental questionnaire response at 3 (“The GOC does not possess the information requested by the Department”). Regarding domestic trading companies that supplied stainless steel coil to the Winner Companies during the POI, the GOC was unable to provide the requested information concerning the entities from which the trading companies acquired the input, even in instances involving government-owned trading companies. Thus, we preliminarily determine that the necessary information is not on the record, and we are resorting to the use of facts available within the meaning of sections 776(a)(1) and
(2)of the Act. In its response, the GOC provided information on the amount of stainless steel coil produced by state-owned enterprises
(SOEs)and private producers in China. *See* GOC's June 16, 2008, second supplemental questionnaire at page 4. Using these data, we derived the ratio of stainless steel coil produced by SOEs during the POI (82 percent). 4 Thus, pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) and
(2)of the Act, for purposes of this preliminary determination we are resorting to the use of facts available
(FA)with regard to the stainless steel coil sold to the Winner Companies by domestic trading companies. Specifically, we are assuming that the percentage produced by government authorities is equal to the ratio of stainless steel coil produced by SOEs during the POI. 5 This approach is consistent with the Department's practice. *See* CWP from the PRC Decision Memorandum at the “Hot-rolled Steel for Less Than Adequate Remuneration” section; *see also* LWP from the PRC Decision Memorandum at the “Hot-rolled Steel for Less Than Adequate Remuneration” section. For further discussion, see our description of the benefit calculations below. We will seek additional information regarding the amount of stainless steel coil purchased by domestic trading companies that was produced by SOEs. 4 At this time, we have solicited from the GOC information concerning domestic consumption of imported stainless steel coil and stainless steel coil produced by SOEs and private companies. 5 In other words, as FA, we are assuming that 82 percent of the stainless steel coil purchased by domestic trading companies during the POI was produced by SOEs. In their submissions, the Winner Companies argue that the Department should not subject the stainless steel coils that WSP purchased from GOC authorities to our LTAR subsidy analysis because the inputs were not subsequently used to make CWASPP. For purposes of this preliminary determination, we disagree with the Winner Companies' arguments. We note that the Winner Companies are not arguing that the inputs WSP purchased from GOC authorities are incompatible with the production process used to produce CWASPP but that WSP did not use those inputs to produce CWASPP. In this regard, we note that 19 CFR 351.503(c) states that: In determining whether a benefit is conferred, the Secretary is not required to consider the effect of the government action on the firm's performance, including its prices or output, or how the firm's behavior otherwise is altered. Further, the *Preamble* adds that: In analyzing whether a benefit exists, we are concerned with what goes into a company, such as enhanced revenues and reduced-cost inputs in the broad sense that we have used the term, not with what the company does with the subsidy. *See Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,* 63 FR 65348, 65361 (November 25, 1998) ( *Preamble* )). *See also, Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,* 73 FR 7708 (February 11, 2008), and accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 8 (explaining that because the imported equipment at issue could be used to make subject merchandise, the respondent failed to demonstrate that subsidy benefits were tied to non-subject merchandise, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.525(b)(5)). Therefore, in accordance with our regulations, we do not consider the manner in which WSP used its inputs as a factor that is germane to the Department's subsidy analysis and, thus, we have for purposes of this preliminary determination subjected WSP's purchases of stainless steel coils from GOC authorities to our LTAR subsidy analysis. However, information on the record indicates that stainless steel coil that is of the grade 430 is incompatible with the production process used to produce CWASPP ( *i.e.* , stainless steel coil that is grade 430 is not austentitic). *See* June 30, 2008, Memorandum to the File from Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, Office 3, Operations, “Public Information Concerning Stainless Steel of Grades 201 and 430,” a public document on file in the CRU (June 30, 2008) (Steel Grade Memorandum). This circumstance is markedly different than the issue of whether or how a firm used a particular input and, therefore, is distinct from the issue described under 19 CFR 351.503(c). Thus, because record evidence indicates that stainless steel coil of grade 430 cannot, by its nature, be used to make CWASPP, we have for purposes of this preliminary determination excluded the grade from our LTAR subsidy analysis. *See* 19 CFR 351.525(b)(5). Having identified the extent to which the Winner Companies' obtained stainless steel coil from GOC authorities, we preliminarily determine that the GOC authorities' provision of stainless steel coil constitutes a financial contribution under section 771(5)(D)(iii) of the Act. 6 Furthermore, as discussed above in the “Adverse Facts Available” section, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that the provision of stainless steel coil to producers of CWASPP by GOC authorities is *de facto* specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. 6 For purposes of this preliminary determination, we find that private producers that provided stainless steel coil to the Winner Companies during the POI do not constitute government authorities and, thus, their provision of stainless steel coil to the Winner Companies does not constitute a financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(iii) of the Act. The Department's regulation at 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2) sets forth the basis for identifying appropriate market-determined benchmarks for measuring the adequacy of remuneration for government-provided goods or services. These potential benchmarks are listed in hierarchical order by preference:
(1)Market prices from actual transactions within the country under investigation ( *e.g.* , actual sales, actual imports or competitively run government auctions) (“tier one”);
(2)world market prices that would be available to purchasers in the country under investigation (“tier two”); or
(3)an assessment of whether the government price is consistent with market principles (“tier three”). As we have explained in *Canadian Lumber* , the preferred benchmark in the hierarchy is an observed market price from actual transactions within the country under investigation. 7 This is because such prices generally would be expected to reflect most closely the prevailing market conditions of the purchaser under investigation. 7 *See Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada,* 67 FR 15545 (April 2, 2002) ( *Canadian Lumber* ), and accompanying decision memorandum at 36. Based on the hierarchy established above, we must first determine whether there are market prices from actual sales transactions involving Chinese buyers and sellers that can be used to determine whether GOC authorities sold stainless steel coils to the Winner Companies for LTAR. Notwithstanding the regulatory preference for the use of prices stemming from actual transactions in the country, where the Department finds that the government provides the majority, or a substantial portion of, the market for a good or service, prices for such goods and services in the country will be considered significantly distorted and will not be an appropriate basis of comparison for determining whether there is a benefit. 8 8 *See Preamble,* 63 FR at 65377. As explained above, for purposes of this preliminary determination, we find that SOEs account for approximately 82 percent of the stainless steel coil production in the PRC during the POI (and approximately 71 percent of production if available data on import volume are included). Consequently, because of the government's overwhelming involvement in the PRC stainless steel coil market, the use of private producer prices in China would be akin to comparing the benchmark to itself ( *i.e.* , such a benchmark would reflect the distortions of the government presence). 9 As we explained in *Canadian Lumber:* 9 *See Canadian Lumber* decision memorandum at 34. Where the market for a particular good or service is so dominated by the presence of the government, the remaining private prices in the country in question cannot be considered to be independent of the government price. It is impossible to test the government price using another price that is entirely, or almost entirely, dependent upon it. The analysis would become circular because the benchmark price would reflect the very market distortion which the comparison is designed to detect. 10 10 *See Canadian Lumber* decision memorandum at 38-39. For these reasons, prices stemming from private transactions within China cannot give rise to a price that is sufficiently free from the effects of the GOC's actions, and therefore cannot be considered to meet the statutory and regulatory requirement for the use of market-determined prices to measure the adequacy of remuneration. We note that our finding in this regard is consistent with the Department's finding in *CWP from the PRC* . *See* CWP from the PRC Decision Memorandum at Comment 7, n. 206: Even if, arguendo, we were to rely on the GOC's 71 percent production figure, we would still find that government production accounts for a significant portion of the HRS industry, so that it is reasonable to conclude that private prices in China are significantly distorted, and therefore unusable as benchmarks. Next, turning to tier one benchmark prices stemming from actual import prices, there is record evidence that Winner HK purchased stainless steel coil from a supplier located outside of China during the POI. 11 The stainless steel coil Winner HK imported from the foreign supplier accounts for a significant percentage of the stainless steel coil purchased by the Winner Companies during the POI. The company-specific import price data contain information on monthly prices. In addition, the data contain prices for every grade of stainless steel that the Winner Companies purchased from GOC authorities during the POI, though month-to-month comparisons of prices within grades are not possible in some instances due to the lack of company-specific import prices in certain months. 11 The identity of the foreign supplier is business proprietary. In addition, the Department has on the record of the investigation tier two benchmark prices for certain grades of stainless steel coil, namely grades 304 and 316. The sources for the tier two benchmark prices are the *Steel Business Briefing*
(SBB)publication and Management Engineering and Production Services (MEPS). The data reported by SBB contain delivered, monthly prices for stainless steel coil, grade 304, for Europe, North America, Asia (on an import price basis), and the world for the POI. The data reported by MEPS contain monthly prices for stainless steel coil (both hot- and cold-rolled), grades 304 and 316, for Europe, North America, Asia, and the world for the POI. 12 Further, as discussed above, the GOC reported aggregate import data for the POI, as reported by its Customs Service. However, these aggregate import data do not delineate the prices by grade or month. Therefore, because the aggregated import data submitted by the GOC do not delineate the prices by grade or month, we are excluding this information from consideration for use as benchmarks. 12 The data reported by MEPS do not indicate whether the prices are reported on a delivered basis. However, when compared on a monthly basis, the prices reported by MEPS for grade 304 are, in some instances, higher than the prices for grade 304 reported by SBB, which are reported on a delivered basis. Thus, for purposes of the preliminary determination, we are assuming that the stainless steel coil prices in MEPS are reported on a delivered basis. As stated above, we preliminarily determine that government production accounts for a significant portion of the stainless steel coil industry so that it is reasonable to conclude that private prices in China are significantly distorted, and therefore unusable as benchmarks. Given this finding, we must test the available company-specific import prices of stainless steel coil in order to ascertain whether they are also distorted by the dominance of government production in the PRC. To conduct the test, we have compared the company-specific import price data for stainless steel coil to the world price data for stainless steel coil reported in MEPS and SBB and have validated these import prices with market-based world prices. Furthermore, we preliminarily find that the world prices for stainless steel coil reported by MEPS and SBB are comparable to the company-specific import prices reported by the Winner Companies. Therefore, for purposes of this preliminary determination, we conclude that the world prices for stainless steel coil reported by MEPS and SBB should be treated as surrogate import prices and, thus, serve as a tier one benchmark. Although the regulations refer to “actual imports,” we see no meaningful difference in actual and potential market-determined import prices stemming from transactions outside the country. 13 This is particularly the case where, as here, an actual import price is comparable to world market-determined price, such as those contained in MEPS and SBB. In effect, because of the comparability between the company-specific import prices and the MEPS and SBB world prices, we consider the latter to be equivalent or surrogates for actual imports. These prices are thus appropriately considered tier one benchmark prices. We note that this approach is consistent with the Department's approach in *CWP from the PRC.* *See* CWP from the PRC Decision Memorandum at Comment 7. For these reasons, to measure whether GOC authorities sold stainless steel coil to the Winner Companies for LTAR during the POI, we are relying on the simple average of the company-specific import prices, MEPS, and SBB. 13 *See Notice of Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, Preliminary Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada* , 66 FR 43186, 43197 (August 17, 2001) (unchanged in the final determination, *see Canadian Lumber* decision memorandum at 37-38). To calculate the benefit, we first converted the benchmark prices into the same unit of measure (USD per tonne). Next, we converted the benchmark unit prices from U.S. dollars to renminbi
(RMB)using average USD to RMB exchange rates, as reported by the Federal Reserve Statistical Release. We then compared the benchmark unit prices to the unit prices the Winner Companies paid to domestic suppliers of stainless steel coil during the POI. We conducted the benefit calculation by comparing prices within each grade. Information concerning the grades of stainless steel coil imported by Winner HK during the POI is business proprietary. Therefore, for further discussion regarding the manner in which the Department conducted its benefit calculation, see the Memorandum to the File from Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, Office 3, Operations, “Comparisons of Grades of Stainless Steel Coil for Purposes of the Preliminary Determination” (Jun 30, 2008), a business proprietary document, of which the public version is on file in the CRU. Regarding petitioners' allegation concerning export restraints on stainless steel coil, we find that it is not necessary to examine the allegation because our benchmarks account for any influence that export restraints may have on domestic prices for the input. We encourage interested parties to submit comments on our use of company-specific import prices and prices from MEPS and SBB in the derivation of the benchmark including the most appropriate method to employ to validate company-specific import prices into the PRC using world market pricing data. We also invite interested parties to comment on the manner in which we conducted the benefit calculation as it pertains to the comparison of prices by grade and month. In instances in which the benchmark unit price was greater than the price paid to GOC authorities, we multiplied the difference by the quantity of stainless steel coil purchased from GOC authorities to arrive at the benefit. As explained above, in instances in which the Winner Companies purchased the stainless steel coil from government trading companies and/or private trading companies, we multiplied the product of the price difference per unit and the quantity of stainless steel coil purchased by 82 percent to arrive at the benefit. To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the total benefit by the Winner Companies' total sales for the POI. On this basis, we calculated a total net subsidy rate of 1.39 percent *ad valorem* for the Winner Companies. II. Program Preliminarily Found Not To Provide Countervailable Benefits During the POI A. Provision of Land-Use Rights for Less Than Adequate Remuneration As explained in the Initiation Checklist, the Department is examining whether GOC-owned/controlled entities sold land to producers of CWASPP for LTAR. In its questionnaire responses, Winner states in 1993, 1996, and 2000, it made payments for land-use rights. Winner states that in 1993, prior to the incorporation of Winner, one of its founders purchased land-use rights from a foreign investor, who had, in turn, acquired the land from the Xiaobu Village Administration. Similarly, Winner states that in 1996 it acquired land-use rights from an individual, who had in turn acquired the land-use rights from the Xiaobu Village Administration. Further, Winner states that in 1999 it purchased land-use rights from the Huasan Town Administration. Winner states that in 2000, the Huasan Town Administration “confirmed” the granting of land-use rights. Winner also states that in 2002 it received from the Government of the Province of Guandong a certificate of land-use rights for the land it acquired in 1993, 1996, and 1999. Winner further states that no land-use payments were made to the GOC or GOC governments during the POI. Based on Winner's questionnaire responses, we preliminarily determine that there were no payments associated with its acquisition of land-use rights after the December 11, 2001, “cut-off” date established in *CWP from the PRC* . *See* CWP from the PRC Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Therefore, in accordance with the approach established in CWP from the PRC, we preliminarily determine that this program did not confer benefits upon Winner during the POI. III. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used We preliminarily determine that the Winner Companies did not apply for or receive benefits during the POI under the programs listed below. 14 14 As explained above, Froch did not respond to the Department's initial questionnaire. Therefore, as AFA, we are assigning net subsidy rates to Froch for each of the programs listed in this section, the exception being Export Restraints on Hot Rolled Stainless Steel Coils, which as explained above, the Department has determined it is not necessary to examine this subsidy program due to the benchmark used to calculate the benefit calculation. A. Preferential Lending 1. Loans and Export Credits Pursuant to the Northeast Revitalization Program Income Tax Programs. B. Tax Programs 2. “Two Free, Three Half” Program. 3. Income Tax Reductions for Export-Oriented Foreign Investment Enterprises (“FIEs”). 4. Income Tax Credit or Refund for Reinvestment of FIE Profits. 5. Provincial and Local Tax Exemptions and Reductions for Productive FIEs. 6. Local Income Tax Reductions in Certain Development Zones. 7. Preferential Tax Policies for Research and Development at FIEs. C. Indirect Tax Programs and Import Tariff Program 8. VAT Refunds on Purchases of Domestically Produced Equipment by FIEs. 9. Tax Credits on Purchases of Domestically Produced Equipment by Domestically Owned Companies. D. Provincial Subsidy Programs 10. Guangdong Province's “Outward Expansion” Program. 11. Preferential Loans Pursuant to Liaoning Province's Five-Year Framework. 12. Preferential Tax Policies for Town and Village Enterprises (“TVEs”). E. Provision of Goods or Services for Less Than Adequate Remuneration 13. Provision of Stainless Steel Coil for Less than Adequate Remuneration. 14. Provision of Land-Use Rights for Less Than Adequate Remuneration. Government Restraints on Exports 15. Export Restraints on Flat-rolled Steel. Verification In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify the information submitted by the Winner Companies and the GOC prior to making our final determination. Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have calculated an individual rate for each producer/exporter of the subject merchandise. We preliminarily determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rate to be: Exporter/manufacturer Net subsidy rate Winner Stainless Steel Tube Co. Ltd. (Winner)/ Winner Steel Products (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (WSP)/ Winner Machinery Enterprises Company Limited (Winner HK) (Collectively the Winner Companies) 1.47 percent *ad valorem* . Froch Enterprise Co. Ltd. (Froch) (also known as Zhangyuan Metal Industry Co. Ltd.) 106.85 percent *ad valorem* . All Others 1.47 percent *ad valorem* . Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act state that for companies not investigated, we will determine an all-others rate by weighting the individual company subsidy rate of each of the companies investigated by each company's exports of the subject merchandise to the United States, excluding any zero and *de minimis* net subsidy rates, and any rates determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Thus, in accordance with sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we are equating the net subsidy rate for all other producers/exporters of CWASPP from the PRC with the net subsidy rate calculated for the Winner Companies. In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and
(2)of the Act, we are directing CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of CWASPP from the PRC that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , and to require a cash deposit or bond for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. ITC Notification In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. In accordance with section 705(b)(2)(B) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination. Disclosure and Public Comment In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to the parties the calculations for this preliminary determination within five days of its announcement. The Department will notify interested parties of the schedule for submission of case briefs. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). Rebuttal briefs must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c), we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on this preliminary determination. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Parties will be notified of the schedule for the hearing and parties should confirm the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time. *Requests for a public hearing should contain:*
(1)Party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2)the number of participants; and
(3)to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Dated: June 30, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-15733 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (C-570-923) Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has made a final determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of raw flexible magnets
(RFM)from the People's Republic of China (PRC). For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-4793. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Petitioner The petitioner in this investigation is Magnum Magnetics Corporation (petitioner). Period of Investigation The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or period of investigation (POI), is January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. Case History On February 25, 2008, the Department published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary affirmative determination in the countervailing duty
(CVD)investigation of RFM from the PRC. *See Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination* , 73 FR 9998 (February 25, 2008) ( *RFM Preliminary Determination* ). On April 29, 2008, we received a case brief from the Government of the People's Republic of China (GOC). Petitioner submitted a rebuttal brief on May 5, 2008. Neither the GOC nor petitioner requested a hearing. Scope of Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain flexible magnets regardless of shape, 1 color, or packaging. 2 Subject flexible magnets are bonded magnets composed (not necessarily exclusively) of
(i)any one or combination of various flexible binders (such as polymers or co-polymers, or rubber) and
(ii)a magnetic element, which may consist of a ferrite permanent magnet material (commonly, strontium or barium ferrite, or a combination of the two), a metal alloy (such as NdFeB or Alnico), any combination of the foregoing with each other or any other material, or any other material capable of being permanently magnetized. 1 The term “shape” includes, but is not limited to profiles, which are flexible magnets with a non-rectangular cross-section. 2 Packaging includes retail or specialty packaging such as digital printer cartridges. Subject flexible magnets may be in either magnetized or unmagnetized (including demagnetized) condition, and may or may not be fully or partially laminated or fully or partially bonded with paper, plastic, or other material, of any composition and/or color. Subject flexible magnets may be uncoated or may be coated with an adhesive or any other coating or combination of coatings. Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are printed flexible magnets, defined as flexible magnets (including individual magnets) that are laminated or bonded with paper, plastic, or other material if such paper, plastic, or other material bears printed text and/or images, including but not limited to business cards, calendars, poetry, sports event schedules, business promotions, decorative motifs, and the like. This exclusion does not apply to such printed flexible magnets if the printing concerned consists of only the following: a trade mark or trade name; country of origin; border, stripes, or lines; any printing that is removed in the course of cutting and/or printing magnets for retail sale or other disposition from the flexible magnet; manufacturing or use instructions ( *e.g.* , “print this side up,” “this side up,” “laminate here”); printing on adhesive backing (that is, material to be removed in order to expose adhesive for use such as application of laminate) or on any other covering that is removed from the flexible magnet prior or subsequent to final printing and before use; non-permanent printing (that is, printing in a medium that facilitates easy removal, permitting the flexible magnet to be re-printed); printing on the back (magnetic) side; or any combination of the above. All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are within the scope of this investigation. The products subject to the investigation are currently classifiable principally under subheadings 8505.19.10 and 8505.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided only for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Scope Comments Interested parties submitted comments on the scope of investigation. Those comments are fully addressed in the Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Injury Test Because the PRC is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act), section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the International Trade Commission
(ITC)must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to a U.S. industry. On November 9, 2007, the ITC published its preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports from the PRC of subject merchandise. *See Raw Flexible Magnets from China and Taiwan* , Investigation Nos. 701-TA-452 and 731-TA-1129 and 1130 (Preliminary), 72 FR 63629 (November 9, 2007). Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the Decision Memorandum. Attached to this notice as an Appendix is a list of the issues that parties raised and to which we have responded in the Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit (CRU). In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Application of Facts Available, Including the Application of Adverse Inferences For purposes of this final determination, we have relied on facts available and have used adverse inferences to determine the countervailable subsidy rates for the two mandatory respondents: China Ningbo Cixi Import Export Corporation
(Cixi)and Polyflex Magnets Ltd. (Polyflex), in accordance with sections 776(a) and
(b)of the Act. A full discussion of our decision to apply adverse facts available
(AFA)is presented in the Decision Memorandum in the section “Application of Facts Available and Use of Adverse Inferences” and in “Analysis of Comments” at Comment 6. Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have calculated an individual rate for the companies under investigation, Cixi and Polyflex. With respect to the all-others rate, section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act provides that if the countervailable subsidy rates established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish an all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. In this case, the rate calculated for the two investigated companies is based entirely on facts available under section 776 of the Act. There is no other information on the record upon which we could determine an all-others rate. As a result, we have used the AFA rate calculated for Cixi and Polyflex as the all-others rate. This method is consistent with the Department's past practice. *See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Argentina* , 66 FR 37007, 37008 (July 16, 2001); *see also Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From India* , 68 FR 68356, 68357 (December 8, 2003). Producer/Exporter Subsidy Rate China Ningbo Cixi Import Export Corporation 109.95 percent *ad valorem* Polyflex Magnets Ltd. 109.95 percent *ad valorem* All Others 109.95 percent *ad valorem* As a result of our *RFM Preliminary Determination* and pursuant to section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to suspend liquidation of all entries of RFM from the PRC which were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 25, 2008, the date of the publication of the *RFM Preliminary Determination* in the **Federal Register** . In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for CVD purposes for subject merchandise entered on or after June 24, 2008, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of entries made from February 25, 2008, through June 24, 2008. We will issue a CVD order and reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act if the ITC issues a final affirmative injury determination, and will require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled. ITC Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an APO, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This determination is published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: July 2, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum *Comment 1:* Application of CVD Law to China *Comment 2:* Imposition of CVD Law on China and Administrative Procedures Act *Comment 3:* Specificity of Tax Programs to Foreign-Invested Enterprises *Comment 4:* Countervailability of Value Added Tax
(VAT)Export Rebates *Comment 5:* VAT and Import Duty Exemptions on Imported Equipment Are One Program *Comment 6:* AFA Rates for Provincial Programs [FR Doc. E8-15735 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Exporters' Textile Advisory Committee; Solicitation for Members The Secretary of Commerce initially established the Exporters' Textile Advisory Committee (“Committee”) on March 24, 1966. The Committee's Charter was last extended for two years on October 30, 2006 and will expire on October 30, 2008. It is anticipated that the Committee will be renewed for another term, from October 31, 2008 through October 30, 2010. Therefore, the Committee is seeking additional new members. The Committee shall consist of approximately 35 members appointed by the Secretary of Commerce to ensure a balanced representation of textile and apparel products. Representatives of small, medium and large firms with broad geographical distribution in exporting shall be included on the Committee. Members shall represent the views of their companies, trade associations and other entities on matters that affect their business interest in exporting. The Committee shall function solely as an advisory body in compliance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Persons interested in becoming members are invited to submit a letter to R. Matthew Priest, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, telephone:
(202)482-3737. Letters must include the applicant's social security number, date of birth, place of birth and home address. This information is required to process a records check to determine suitability for membership. Announcement closing date is August 5, 2008. Dated: July 2, 2008. R. Matthew Priest, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Textiles and Apparel. [FR Doc. E8-15755 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Import Administration [A-552-801] Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From Vietnam: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review DATES: *Effective Date:* July 10, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; *telephone:*
(202)482-2243. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 10, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) issued its preliminary results for the changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order of certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. *See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam: Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review* , 72 FR 46604 (August 21, 2007) ( *Preliminary Results* ). On May 6, 2008, the Department published a notice extending the time limits for the changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order of certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. *See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review* , 73 FR 28100 (May 15, 2008) (“ *First Extension* ”). The current deadline for the final results of this review is July 7, 2008. Extension of Time Limits for Final Results In our *Preliminary Results* , we indicated we would issue the final results in the instant review within 270 days after the date on which the changed circumstances review is initiated. In the *First Extension* , we stated that it was not practicable to complete the review within this time period. Accordingly, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302(b), we extended the time limit by 60 days. The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete this review by the current deadline. Subsequent to the *Preliminary Results* , and receipt of Vinh Hoan Co., Ltd./Corp.'s and Petitioners' (the Catfish Farmers of America and individual U.S. catfish processors) case briefs, the Department requested and received new information from Vinh Hoan on which the Department provided interested parties an opportunity to comment. Based on Vinh Hoan's submission and parties' additional comments, the Department intends to request additional information from Vinh Hoan. Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.302(b), the Department is extending the time period for issuing the final results in the instant review by 90 days. Therefore, the final results will be due no later than October 5, 2008. As October 5, 2008, falls on a Sunday, our final results will be issued no later than Monday, October 6, 2008. This notice is published in accordance with section 771(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: July 2, 2008. Gary S. Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-15760 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3610-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-922 Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 2008. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) has determined that raw flexible magnets from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”). The final dumping margins for this investigation are listed in the “Final Determination Margins” section of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Blackledge or Shawn Higgins; Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3518 and
(202)482-0679, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History On April 25, 2008, the Department published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary determination that raw flexible magnets from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV, as provided in the Act. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China* , 73 FR 22327 (April 25, 2008) (“ *Preliminary Determination* ”). For the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department assigned a 185.28 percent dumping margin to the PRC-wide entity - including Polyflex Magnets Ltd. (“Polyflex”) - and a 105.00 percent dumping margin to Guangzhou Newlife Magnet Co., Ltd. (“Newlife”), a separate rate applicant. In May and June 2008, Magnum Magnetics Corporation (“Petitioner”), Target Corporation (“Target”), A-L-L Magnetics LLP (“A-L-L”), and SH Industries, LLC (“SH Industries”) filed comments regarding the scope of the investigation, pursuant to the Department's request for scope comments contained in the *Preliminary Determination* . *See* “Scope Comments” section below. No party submitted case briefs. Changes since the Preliminary Determination As discussed below, we have made certain changes to the language describing the scope of this investigation. Otherwise, because no party submitted case briefs and there are no other circumstances which warrant the revision of our *Preliminary Determination* , we have not made changes to our analysis or the dumping margins assigned in the *Preliminary Determination* . Period of Investigation The period of investigation (“POI”) is January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2007. This period comprises the two most recently completed fiscal quarters prior to the month in which the petition was filed ( *i.e.* , September 2007). *See* 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain flexible magnets regardless of shape, 1 color, or packaging. 2 Subject flexible magnets are bonded magnets composed (not necessarily exclusively) of
(i)any one or combination of various flexible binders (such as polymers or co-polymers, or rubber) and
(ii)a magnetic element, which may consist of a ferrite permanent magnet material (commonly, strontium or barium ferrite, or a combination of the two), a metal alloy (such as NdFeB or Alnico), any combination of the foregoing with each other or any other material, or any other material capable of being permanently magnetized. 1 The term “shape” includes, but is not limited to profiles, which are flexible magnets with a non-rectangular cross-section. 2 Packaging includes retail or specialty packaging such as digital printer cartridges. Subject flexible magnets may be in either magnetized or unmagnetized (including demagnetized) condition, and may or may not be fully or partially laminated or fully or partially bonded with paper, plastic, or other material, of any composition and/or color. Subject flexible magnets may be uncoated or may be coated with an adhesive or any other coating or combination of coatings. Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are printed flexible magnets, defined as flexible magnets (including individual magnets) that are laminated or bonded with paper, plastic, or other material if such paper, plastic, or other material bears printed text and/or images, including but not limited to business cards, calendars, poetry, sports event schedules, business promotions, decorative motifs, and the like. This exclusion does not apply to such printed flexible magnets if the printing concerned consists of only the following: a trade mark or trade name; country of origin; border, stripes, or lines; any printing that is removed in the course of cutting and/or printing magnets for retail sale or other disposition from the flexible magnet; manufacturing or use instructions ( *e.g.* , “print this side up,” “this side up,” “laminate here”); printing on adhesive backing (that is, material to be removed in order to expose adhesive for use such as application of laminate) or on any other covering that is removed from the flexible magnet prior or subsequent to final printing and before use; non-permanent printing (that is, printing in a medium that facilitates easy removal, permitting the flexible magnet to be re-printed); printing on the back (magnetic) side; or any combination of the above. All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are within the scope of this investigation. The products subject to the investigation are currently classifiable principally under subheadings 8505.19.10 and 8505.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). The HTSUS subheadings are provided only for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Scope Comments In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department explained that, on November 7, 2007, SH Industries, a U.S. importer of subject merchandise, argued that magnetic photo pockets, which are flexible magnets with clear plastic material fused to the magnet to form a pocket into which photographs and other items may be inserted for display, should be excluded from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on raw flexible magnets from the PRC and Taiwan. On November 13, 2007, Petitioner filed a response to the request by SH Industries, arguing that magnetic photo pockets are within the scope of the investigations. On April 11, 2008, Petitioner submitted additional arguments concerning this issue. Because we received this letter only four business days before the statutory deadline for the *Preliminary Determination* , we did not have an opportunity to consider it prior to issuance of the *Preliminary Determination* . In the *Preliminary Determination* , 73 FR at 22333, the Department invited interested parties to submit comments on Petitioner's April 11, 2008, submission and to present evidence concerning the meaning of the terms “sheeting, strips, and profiles” as those terms are used within the industry. Additionally, because the scope language stated that “subject merchandise may be of any color and may or may not be laminated or bonded with paper, plastic or other material, which paper, plastic or other material may be of any composition and/or color,” the Department encouraged interested parties to comment on whether the plastic photo pocket fused to the flexible magnet satisfies this description. In addition, the Department stated that interested parties could submit information that would be relevant in an analysis conducted pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(k)(2). In May and June 2008, Petitioner, Target, A-L-L, and SH Industries filed comments and rebuttal comments regarding the scope of the investigations and magnetic photo pockets. On June 9, 2008, officials from the Department met with representatives of Target to discuss the scope of the investigations. *See* “Memorandum to the File,” dated June 10, 2008. On June 13, 2008, counsel for Petitioner met with officials from the Department to discuss the scope of the investigations. *See* “Memorandum to the File,” dated June 16, 2008. The Department has analyzed the comments submitted by SH Industries, Target, A-L-L, and Petitioner and has determined that magnetic photo pockets are within the scope of the investigations. The Department has also modified the language describing the scope of these investigations to clarify the product coverage. In its request, SH Industries acknowledges that its magnetic photo pockets consist of flexible magnet material with a layer of plastic laminate fused along the sides of the flexible magnet. At no point does SH Industries argue that the flexible magnetic material in its photo pockets does not meet the physical description of the flexible magnets covered by the scope of the investigations. Rather, SH Industries argues that the attachment of a layer of clear plastic to the flexible magnet results in a product that is outside the scope of the investigations because the purpose of the product is to protect photographs. Similarly, Target asserts that, rather than being a raw flexible magnet, magnetic photo pockets are properly characterized as finished retail products which use magnetic sheeting as an input. Target also argues that the clear plastic laminate is neither bonded nor laminated to the magnetic sheeting. A-L-L argues that the scope should be limited to products produced by the Petitioner as evidenced by inclusion on the Petitioner's website. As an initial matter, the Department does not generally define subject merchandise by end-use application. Moreover, because the language of the scope stated originally that “{s}ubject merchandise may be of any color and may or may not be laminated or bonded with paper, plastic, or other material, which paper, plastic, or other material may be of any composition and/or color,” *Preliminary Determination* , 73 FR at 22332, the plastic laminate fused to the sides of the flexible magnet does not remove the photo pockets from the scope of the investigations. Finally, the issue of whether an item appears on the Petitioner's website is not relevant to our analysis. For these reasons, we have determined that the magnetic photo pockets described by SH Industries are within the scope of the investigations. In addition, we have clarified that “{s}ubject flexible magnets may be in either magnetized or unmagnetized (including demagnetized) condition, and may or may not be fully or partially laminated or fully or partially bonded with paper, plastic, or other material, of any composition and/or color.” Finally, because we have received inquiries concerning the terminology in the scope language and product coverage, we have clarified product coverage by reordering the scope language and including certain explanatory definitions. Our revised scope language neither enlarges nor contracts product coverage. *See* “Scope of Investigation” section above. The Department received a scope-ruling request from Magnet LLC on May 21, 2008. Because this request was made after the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department has not addressed this request in this final determination. The Department will consider Magnet LLC's scope-ruling request in the event the Department publishes an antidumping duty order in this proceeding. Non-Market Economy Treatment In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department considered the PRC to be a non-market economy (“NME”) country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a 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 of 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review* , 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003), unchanged in *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review* , 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 2003). No party has commented on the Department's classification of the PRC as an NME. Therefore, for the final determination, we continue to consider the PRC to be an NME. Separate Rates In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an 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. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994), and 19 CFR 351.107(d). In the *Preliminary Determination* , we found that Newlife demonstrated its eligibility for separate-rate status. Since the publication of the *Preliminary Determination* , no party has commented on Newlife's eligibility for separate-rate status. For the final determination, we continue to find that the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Newlife demonstrates both a *de jure* and *de facto* absence of government control with respect to its respective exports of the merchandise under investigation. Thus, we continue to find that Newlife is eligible for separate-rate status. Normally the separate rate is determined based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding *de minimis* margins or margins based entirely on adverse facts available (“AFA”). *See* section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. In this case, given the absence of participating respondents and having calculated no margins, we have assigned to Newlife the simple average of the margins alleged in the petition, *i.e.* , 105.00 percent. *See* section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act and *Preliminary Determination* , 73 FR at 22329-30. We determined in the *Preliminary Determination* that because Polyflex withdrew from the investigation, thus preventing the Department from asking additional questions on its separate rate status and preventing the Department from verifying its responses, the Department has no basis upon which to grant Polyflex a separate rate. We received no comments on this denial of a separate rate. Although Polyflex remains a mandatory respondent, the Department will continue to consider Polyflex part of the PRC-wide entity because it failed to demonstrate that it qualifies for a separate rate. The PRC-Wide Rate In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department found that certain companies did not respond to our requests for information. *See Preliminary Determination* , 73 FR at 22330. We treated these PRC producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not demonstrate that they operate free of government control over their export activities. *Id* . In addition, in the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department applied total AFA to Polyflex. We determined, as AFA, that Polyflex was not eligible for a separate rate and we are treating Polyflex as part of the PRC-wide entity. No additional information was placed on the record with respect to any of these companies after the *Preliminary Determination* . Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the Department continues to find that the use of facts available is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From the Russian Federation* , 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). *See also “Statement of Administrative Action* ” accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994). We determine that, because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our request for information, it has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department finds that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is appropriate for the PRC-wide entity. Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within an NME country are subject to government control, and because only Newlife has overcome that presumption, we are applying a single antidumping rate ( *i.e.* , the PRC-wide entity rate) to all other exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC. Such companies did not demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate. *See* , *e.g.* , *Synthetic Indigo From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value* , 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000). The PRC-wide entity rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from Newlife. In the *Preliminary Determination* , we assigned to the PRC-wide entity the highest margin alleged in the petition, as revised in Petitioner's supplemental responses, *i.e.* , 185.28 percent. *See Preliminary Determination* , 73 FR at 22331. We received no comments on this rate. For the final determination, we have continued to assign to the PRC-wide entity the rate of 185.28 percent. Corroboration Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information in using the facts otherwise available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. We have interpreted “corroborate” to mean that we will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information submitted. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From Brazil* , 65 FR 5554, 5568 (February 4, 2000); *see* , *e.g.* , *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews* , 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996). Because there are no cooperating mandatory respondents, to corroborate the 105.00 and 185.28 percent margins used as facts available for Newlife and as AFA for the PRC-wide entity, respectively, we relied upon our pre-initiation analysis of the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the petition. *See* “Import Administration AD Investigation Initiation Checklist: Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China,” (October 11, 2007). During the initiation stage, we examined evidence supporting the calculations in the petition and the supplemental information provided by Petitioner to determine the probative value of the margins alleged in the petition. During our pre-initiation analysis, we examined the information used as the basis of export price (“EP”) and normal value (“NV”) in the petition, and the calculations used to derive the alleged margins. Also during our pre-initiation analysis, we examined information from various independent sources provided either in the petition or, based on our requests, in supplements to the petition, which corroborated key elements of the EP and NV calculations. *Id* . We received no comments as to the relevance or probative value of this information. Therefore, for the final determination, the Department finds that the rates derived from the petition for purposes of initiation have probative value for the purpose of being selected as the facts available rate for Newlife and the AFA rate assigned to the PRC-wide entity. Final Determination Margins We determine that the following percentage dumping margins exist for the POI: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (Percent) Guangzhou Newlife Magnet Electricity Co., Ltd. 3 105.00 PRC-wide Entity (including Polyflex) 185.28 3 Newlife both manufactures and exports subject merchandise. Disclosure We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of raw flexible magnets from the PRC, as described in the “Scope of Investigation” section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 25, 2008, the date of publication of the *Preliminary Determination* in the **Federal Register** . We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average dumping margin amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price, as follows:
(1)The rate for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the chart above will be the rate we have determined in this final determination;
(2)for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide entity rate; and
(3)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/producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of our final determination of sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the ITC will determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding APO This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 2, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-15732 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-842] Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Raw Flexible Magnets From Taiwan AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 10, 2008. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce determines that imports of raw flexible magnets from Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The final weighted-average dumping margins are listed below in the section entitled “Final Determination of Investigation.” FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Case or Richard Rimlinger, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; *telephone:*
(202)482-3174 and
(202)482-4477, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 25, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value
(LTFV)in the antidumping investigation of raw flexible magnets from Taiwan. See *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:* *Raw Flexible Magnets from Taiwan,* 73 FR 22332 (April 25, 2008) ( *Preliminary Determination* ). Interested parties were invited to comment on our Preliminary Determination. Period of Investigation The period of investigation is July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007. Scope of Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain flexible magnets regardless of shape, 1 color, or packaging. 2 Subject flexible magnets are bonded magnets composed (not necessarily exclusively) of
(i)any one or combination of various flexible binders (such as polymers or co-polymers, or rubber) and
(ii)a magnetic element, which may consist of a ferrite permanent magnet material (commonly, strontium or barium ferrite, or a combination of the two), a metal alloy (such as NdFeB or Alnico), any combination of the foregoing with each other or any other material, or any other material capable of being permanently magnetized. 1 The term “shape” includes, but is not limited to profiles, which are flexible magnets with a non-rectangular cross-section. 2 Packaging includes retail or specialty packaging such as digital printer cartridges. Subject flexible magnets may be in either magnetized or unmagnetized (including demagnetized) condition, and may or may not be fully or partially laminated or fully or partially bonded with paper, plastic, or other material, of any composition and/or color. Subject flexible magnets may be uncoated or may be coated with an adhesive or any other coating or combination of coatings. Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are printed flexible magnets, defined as flexible magnets (including individual magnets) that are laminated or bonded with paper, plastic, or other material if such paper, plastic, or other material bears printed text and/or images, including but not limited to business cards, calendars, poetry, sports event schedules, business promotions, decorative motifs, and the like. This exclusion does not apply to such printed flexible magnets if the printing concerned consists of only the following: a trade mark or trade name; country of origin; border, stripes, or lines; any printing that is removed in the course of cutting and/or printing magnets for retail sale or other disposition from the flexible magnet; manufacturing or use instructions (e.g., “print this side up,” “this side up,” “laminate here”); printing on adhesive backing (that is, material to be removed in order to expose adhesive for use such as application of laminate) or on any other covering that is removed from the flexible magnet prior or subsequent to final printing and before use; non-permanent printing (that is, printing in a medium that facilitates easy removal, permitting the flexible magnet to be re-printed); printing on the back (magnetic) side; or any combination of the above. All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are within the scope of this investigation. The products subject to the investigation are currently classifiable principally under subheadings 8505.19.10 and 8505.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided only for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Scope Comments In the *Preliminary Determination,* the Department explained that, on November 7, 2007, SH Industries, a U.S. importer of subject merchandise, argued that magnetic photo pockets, which are flexible magnets with clear plastic material fused to the magnet to form a pocket into which photographs and other items may be inserted for display, should be excluded from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on raw flexible magnets from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan. On November 13, 2007, Magnum Magnetics Corporation (Petitioner) filed a response to the request by SH Industries, arguing that magnetic photo pockets are within the scope of the investigations. On April 11, 2008, Petitioner submitted additional arguments concerning this issue. Because we received this letter only four business days before the statutory deadline for the *Preliminary Determination,* we did not have an opportunity to consider it prior to issuance of the *Preliminary Determination.* In the *Preliminary Determination,* 73 FR at 22333, the Department invited interested parties to submit comments on Petitioner's April 11, 2008, submission and to present evidence concerning the meaning of the terms “sheeting, strips, and profiles” as those terms are used within the industry. Additionally, because the scope language stated that “subject merchandise may be of any color and may or may not be laminated or bonded with paper, plastic or other material, which paper, plastic or other material may be of any composition and/or color,” the Department encouraged interested parties to comment on whether the plastic photo pocket fused to the flexible magnet satisfies this description. In addition, the Department stated that interested parties could submit information that would be relevant in an analysis conducted pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(k)(2). In May and June 2008, Petitioner, Target, A-L-L, and SH Industries filed comments and rebuttal comments regarding the scope of the investigations and magnetic photo pockets. On June 9, 2008, officials from the Department met with representatives of Target to discuss the scope of the investigations. See Memorandum to the File, dated June 10, 2008. On June 13, 2008, counsel for Petitioner met with officials from the Department to discuss the scope of the investigations. See Memorandum to the File, dated June 16, 2008. The Department has analyzed the comments submitted by SH Industries, Target, A-L-L, and Petitioner and has determined that magnetic photo pockets are within the scope of the investigations. The Department has also modified the language describing the scope of these investigations to clarify the product coverage. In its request, SH Industries acknowledges that its magnetic photo pockets consist of flexible magnet material with a layer of plastic laminate fused along the sides of the flexible magnet. At no point does SH Industries argue that the flexible magnetic material in its photo pockets does not meet the physical description of the flexible magnets covered by the scope of the investigations. Rather, SH Industries argues that the attachment of a layer of clear plastic to the flexible magnet results in a product that is outside the scope of the investigations because the purpose of the product is to protect photographs. Similarly, Target asserts that, rather than being a raw flexible magnet, magnetic photo pockets are properly characterized as finished retail products which use magnetic sheeting as an input. Target also argues that the clear plastic laminate is neither bonded nor laminated to the magnetic sheeting. A-L-L argues that the scope should be limited to products produced by the Petitioner as evidenced by inclusion on the Petitioner's Web site. As an initial matter, the Department does not generally define subject merchandise by end-use application. Moreover, because the language of the scope stated originally that “{s}ubject merchandise may be of any color and may or may not be laminated or bonded with paper, plastic, or other material, which paper, plastic, or other material may be of any composition and/or color,” *Preliminary Determination,* 73 FR at 22332, the plastic laminate fused to the sides of the flexible magnet does not remove the photo pockets from the scope of the investigations. Finally, the issue of whether an item appears on the Petitioner's Web site is not relevant to our analysis. For these reasons, we have determined that the magnetic photo pockets described by SH Industries are within the scope of the investigations. In addition, we have clarified that “{s}ubject flexible magnets may be in either magnetized or unmagnetized (including demagnetized) condition, and may or may not be fully or partially laminated or fully or partially bonded with paper, plastic, or other material, of any composition and/or color.” Finally, because we have received inquiries concerning the terminology in the scope language and product coverage, we have clarified product coverage by reordering the scope language and including certain explanatory definitions. Our revised scope language neither enlarges nor contracts product coverage. See *Scope of Investigation* section above. The Department received a scope-ruling request from Magnet LLC on May 21, 2008. Because this request was made after the *Preliminary Determination,* the Department has not addressed this request in this final determination. The Department will consider Magnet LLC's scope-ruling request in the event the Department publishes an antidumping duty order in this proceeding. Changes Since Preliminary Determination As discussed above, we have made certain changes to the language describing the scope of this investigation. Otherwise, because no party submitted case briefs and there are no other circumstances which warrant the revision of our *Preliminary Determination,* we have not made changes to our analysis or the dumping margins assigned in the *Preliminary Determination.* Adverse Facts Available For the final determination, we continue to find that, by failing to provide information we requested, Kin Fong Magnets Co., Ltd. (Kin Fong), Magruba Flexible Magnets Co., Ltd. (Magruba), and JASDI Magnet Co., Ltd. (JASDI), all mandatory respondents, did not act to the best of their ability in responding to our requests for information. Thus, the Department continues to find that the use of adverse facts available is warranted for these companies under sections 776(a)(2) and
(b)of the Act. See *Preliminary Determination,* 73 FR at 22334. As we explained in *Preliminary Determination,* the rate of 38.03 percent we selected as the adverse facts-available rate is the highest margin alleged in the petition. *Id.* 73 FR at 22335. See also *Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Raw Flexible Magnets from Taiwan* (October 18, 2007) ( *Taiwan Initiation Checklist* ). We included the range of margins from our Taiwan Initiation Checklist in *Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan,* 72 FR 59071, 59075 (October 18, 2007). Further, as discussed in *Preliminary Determination,* we corroborated the adverse facts-available rate pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act. All-Others Rate Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that, where the estimated weighted-averaged dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or *de minimis* or are determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. Our recent practice under these circumstances has been to assign, as the all-others rate, the simple average of the margins in the petition. See *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Glycine from the Republic of Korea,* 72 FR 67275 (November 28, 2007); see also *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Glycine from Japan,* 72 FR 67271 (November 28, 2007). Consistent with our practice we calculated a simple average of the rates in the *Petition,* as listed in the *Initiation Notice,* and assigned this rate to all other manufacturers/exporters. For details of these calculations, see the memorandum from Catherine Cartsos to File entitled “Antidumping Duty Investigation on Raw Flexible Magnets from Taiwan—Analysis Memo for All-Others Rate,” dated April 18, 2008. Final Determination of Investigation We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007: Manufacturer or exporter Margin (percent) Kin Fong 38.03 Magruba 38.03 JASDI 38.03 All Others 31.20 Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b)(1), we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 25, 2008, the date of the publication of *Preliminary Determination.* We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average margin, as indicated in the chart above, as follows:
(1)The rate for the mandatory respondents will be the rates we have determined in this final determination;
(2)if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation but the producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise;
(3)the rate for all other producers or exporters will be 31.20 percent. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission
(ITC)of our final determination. As our final determination is affirmative and in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding APO This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 2, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-15743 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Notice of Request for Public Comment AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of request for public comment. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration is seeking industry's involvement in providing information to inform the work program of the recently established Trilateral Committee on Transborder Data Flows under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). In advance of its inaugural stakeholders' forum, tentatively scheduled for September 2008, the Committee is soliciting assistance in identifying and analyzing impediments to transborder data flows that impact on commercial activities. The Committee, composed of government representatives of each of the three countries, will work in consultation with the business community to identify and address impediments to electronic information flows across borders that impact economic growth. The Committee will also look at regulatory uncertainties related to the transborder flow of data and analyze the impact that they are having on the marketplace. The objective is to foster an integrated approach to information flows in North America while supporting regulatory cooperation to remove barriers to electronic information flows. Specifically, the Department is seeking:
(1)A description of your company's activities.
(2)How your company's activities involve cross-border data transfers and computerized information flows.
(3)Impediments to cross-border data transfers and information flows. Impediments include legislative and regulatory requirements and other barriers.
(4)Implications and costs for the company of these impediments (trade and investment). Business proprietary information should be marked accordingly. Once this process has been completed, the Committee will make recommendations to Ministers responsible for SPP on how to solve identified impediments to such information flows. DATES: August 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: Input on the Committee's work program or inquiries about participation in the forum should be addressed to the contact below, and received by close of business on Monday, August 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Harris, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology and Electronic Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 2003, Washington, DC 20230; Telephone: 202-482-0142; e-mail: *joshua.harris@mail.doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SPP was launched in March of 2005 to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing. Consistent with those goals, and to serve as a catalyst for the development of electronic commerce and online business in North America, officials from Industry Canada, Mexico's Ministry of the Economy, and the United States Department of Commerce recently signed the Statement on the Free Flow of Information and Trade in North America ( *http://spp.gov/pdf/Eng_Statement_of_Free_Flow.pdf* ), which formally established the Trilateral Committee. The Statement was announced at the SPP Leaders meeting April 21-22 in New Orleans. Dated: July 2, 2008. Robin Layton, Director, Office of Technology and Electronic Commerce. [FR Doc. E8-15626 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XI91 Marine Mammals; File Nos. 848-1695 and 932-1489 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit amendments. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, Marine Mammal Research Program
(MMRP)has been issued an amendment to scientific research and enhancement Permit No. 848-1695; and Dr. Teri Rowles, NMFS Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program, has been issued an amendment to scientific research and enhancement Permit No. 932-1489. ADDRESSES: The amendment and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Sloan, Kate Swails, or Carrie Hubard, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The requested amendments have been granted under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 *et seq.* ). Both permits were amended to extend the expiration dates from June 30, 2008 to June 30, 2009. Issuance of these permit amendments, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit amendments:
(1)were applied for in good faith;
(2)will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and
(3)are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Documents may be reviewed in the following locations: Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone (206)526-6150; fax (206)526-6426; Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; phone (907)586-7221; fax (907)586-7249; Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562)980-4001; fax (562)980-4018; Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Rm 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700; phone (808)944-2200; fax (808)973-2941; Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978)281-9300; fax (978)281-9394; and Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, Florida 33701; phone (727)824-5312; fax (727)824-5309. Dated: July 2, 2008. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-15605 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN: 0648-XI98 Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The Caribbean Fishery Management Council's
(CFMC)Advisory Panel
(AP)will hold a meeting. DATES: The AP meeting will be held on August 6, 2008, from 9:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Best Western San Juan Airport Hotel, Luis Munoz Marin Airport, Carolina, Puerto Rico. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1920; telephone:
(787)766-5926. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The AP will meet to discuss the items contained in the following agenda: •Call to order •Annual Catch Limits
(ACLs)/Accountability Measures
(AM)Guidelines Summary Presentation •Discussion on ACLs/AMs for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands •Recommendations of the AP to the CFMC •Other Business The meeting is open to the public, and will be conducted in English. Fishers and other interested persons are invited to attend and participate with oral or written statements regarding agenda issues. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305 ( c ) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the CFMC's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and/other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolon, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1920, telephone:
(787)766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: July 7, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-15656 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XI46 Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; affirmative finding. SUMMARY: The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS, (Assistant Administrator) has granted a request for an affirmative finding for the Republic of El Salvador under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). This affirmative finding will allow yellowfin tuna harvested in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean
(ETP)in compliance with the International Dolphin Conservation Program
(IDCP)by El Salvadorian-flag purse seine vessels or purse seine vessels operating under El Salvadorian jurisdiction to be imported into the United States. The affirmative finding was based on review of documentary evidence submitted by the Republic of El Salvador and obtained from the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and the U.S. Department of State. DATES: The affirmative finding is effective from April 1, 2008, through March 31, 2013, subject to annual review by NMFS. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone 562-980-4000; fax 562-980-4018. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* , allows the entry into the United States of yellowfin tuna harvested by purse seine vessels in the ETP under certain conditions. If requested by the harvesting nation, the Assistant Administrator will determine whether to make an affirmative finding based upon documentary evidence provided by the government of the harvesting nation, the IATTC, or the Department of State. The affirmative finding process requires that the harvesting nation is meeting its obligations under the IDCP and obligations of membership in the IATTC. Every 5 years, the government of the harvesting nation must request an affirmative finding and submit the required documentary evidence directly to the Assistant Administrator. On an annual basis, NMFS will review the affirmative finding and determine whether the harvesting nation continues to meet the requirements. A nation may provide information related to compliance with IDCP and IATTC measures directly to NMFS on an annual basis or may authorize the IATTC to release the information to NMFS to annually renew an affirmative finding determination without an application from the harvesting nation. An affirmative finding will be terminated, in consultation with the Secretary of State, if the Assistant Administrator determines that the requirements of 50 CFR 216.24(f) are no longer being met or that a nation is consistently failing to take enforcement actions on violations, thereby diminishing the effectiveness of the IDCP. As a part of the affirmative finding process set forth in 50 CFR 216.24(f), the Assistant Administrator considered documentary evidence submitted by the Republic of El Salvador or obtained from the IATTC and the Department of State and has determined that El Salvador has met the MMPA's requirements to receive an affirmative finding. After consultation with the Department of State, the Assistant Administrator issued the Republic of El Salvador's affirmative finding, allowing the continued importation into the United States of yellowfin tuna and products derived from yellowfin tuna harvested in the ETP by El Salvadorian-flag purse seine vessels or purse seine vessels operating under El Salvadorian jurisdiction. El Salvador's affirmative finding will remain valid through March 31, 2013, subject to subsequent annual reviews by NMFS. Dated: July 2, 2008. John Oliver Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-15604 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). *Title:* Submissions Regarding Correspondence and Regarding Attorney Representation (Trademarks). *Form Number(s):* PTO Forms 2196, 2197, and 2201. *Agency Approval Number:* 0651-0056. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Burden:* 12,491 hours annually. *Number of Respondents:* 160,004 responses per year with an estimated 142,226 responses filed electronically. *Avg. Hours per Response:* The USPTO estimates that it will take the public between 3 to 15 minutes (0.05 to 0.25 hours) to complete the information in this collection, depending on the nature of the information and whether the information is transmitted electronically or submitted in paper. This includes the time to gather the necessary information, prepare it, and submit it to the USPTO. The time estimates for the electronic forms in this collection are based on the average amount of time needed to complete and electronically file the associated form. *Needs and Uses:* This collection of information is required by the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 *et seq.* and is implemented through the Trademark rules set forth in 37 CFR Part 2. It provides for the appointment of attorneys of record or domestic representatives to represent applicants in the application process, for the revocation of those appointments, for attorneys to request permission to withdraw as the attorney of record, and for changes in the owner's addresses. The USPTO uses the information to process the various requests. This collection contains three electronic forms that are available through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS); there are no official paper forms. The information in this collection is available to the public and is used in a variety of private business purposes related to establishing and enforcing trademark rights. *Affected Public:* Primarily businesses or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by any of the following: • E-mail: *Susan.Fawcett@uspto.gov* . Include “0651-0056 copy request” 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. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before August 11, 2008 to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. Dated: July 2, 2008. Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division. [FR Doc. E8-15679 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). *Title:* Post Registration (Trademark Processing). *Form Number(s):* PTO Forms 1553, 1583, 1597, 1963 and 4.16. *Agency Approval Number:* 0651-0055. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Burden:* 6,689 hours. *Number of Respondents:* 106,030 responses. *Avg. Hours per Response:* 3 to 30 minutes (0.05 to 0.50 hours). This includes time to gather the necessary information, create the documents, and mail the completed request. The time estimates shown for the electronic forms in this collection are based on the average amount of time needed to complete and electronically file the associated form. *Needs and Uses:* The information in this collection is a matter of public record and is used by the public for a variety of private business purposes related to establishing and enforcing trademark rights. The information is available at USPTO facilities and also can be accessed at the USPTO Web site. Additionally, the USPTO provides the information to other entities, including Patent and Trademark Depository Libraries (PTDLs). The PTDLs maintain the information for use by the public. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: Susan.Fawcett@uspto.gov* . Include “0651-0055 copy request” 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. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before August 11, 2008 to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Dated: July 2, 2008. Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division. [FR Doc. E8-15681 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0078] Federal Acquisition Regulation; Submission for OMB Review; Make-or-Buy Program AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0078). SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR)Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning the make-or-buy program. A request for public comments was published in the **Federal Register** at 73 FR 10007, February 25, 2008. No comments were received. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Submit comments on or before August 11, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4041, Washington, DC 20405. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0078, Make-or-Buy Program, in all correspondence. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Chambers, Contract Policy Division, GSA
(202)501-3221. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose Price, performance, and/or implementation of socio-economic policies may be affected by make-or-buy decisions under certain Government prime contracts. Accordingly, FAR 15.407-2, Make-or-Buy Programs—
(i)Sets forth circumstances under which a Government contractor must submit for approval by the contracting officer a make-or-buy program, i.e., a written plan identifying major items to be produced or work efforts to be performed in the prime contractor's facilities and those to be subcontracted;
(ii)Provides guidance to contracting officers concerning the review and approval of the make-or-buy programs; and
(iii)Prescribes the contract clause at FAR 52.215-9, Changes or Additions to Make-or-Buy Programs, which specifies the circumstances under which the contractor is required to submit for the contracting officer's advance approval a notification and justification of any proposed change in the approved make-or-buy program. The information is used to assure the lowest overall cost to the Government for required supplies and services. B. Annual Reporting Burden *Respondents:* 150. *Responses per Respondent:* 3. *Total Responses:* 450. *Hours per Response:* 8. *Total Burden Hours:* 3,600. *Obtaining Copies of Proposals:* Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (VPR), Room 4041, Washington, DC 20405, telephone
(202)501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0078, Make-or-Buy Program, in all correspondence. Dated: July 2, 2008. Al Matera, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. [FR Doc. E8-15742 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0095] Federal Acquisition Regulation; Submission for OMB Review; Commerce Patent Regulations AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR)Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning commerce patent regulations. A request for public comments was published in the **Federal Register** at 73 FR 10006, February 25, 2008. No comments were received. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Submit comments on or before August 11, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division, 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4041, Washington, DC 20405. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0095, Commerce Patent Regulations, in all correspondence. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ernest Woodson, Procurement Analyst, Contract Policy Division, GSA
(202)501-3775. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose As a result of the Department of Commerce (Commerce) publishing a final rule in the **Federal Register** implementing Public Law 98-620 (52 FR 8552, March 18, 1987), a revision to FAR Subpart 27.3 to implement the Commerce regulation was published in the **Federal Register** as an interim rule on June 12, 1989 (54 FR 25060). The final rule was published without change on June 21, 1990. A Government contractor must report all subject inventions to the contracting officer, submit a disclosure of the invention, and identify any publication, or sale, or public use of the invention (52.227-11(c), 52.227-12(c), and 52.227-13(e)(2)). Contractors are required to submit periodic or interim and final reports listing subject inventions (27.303(b)uuuuuuui(2)(i) and (ii)). In order to ensure that subject inventions are reported, the contractor is required to establish and maintain effective procedures for identifying and disclosing subject inventions (52.227-11, Alternate IV; 52.227-13(e)(1)). In addition, the contractor must require his employees, by written agreements, to disclose subject inventions (52.227-11(f)(2); 52.227-12(e)(2); 52.227-13(e)(4)). The contractor also has an obligation to utilize the subject invention, and agree to report, upon request, the utilization or efforts to utilize the subject invention (27.302(e); 52.227-11(f); 52.227-12(f)). B. Annual Reporting Burden *Respondents:* 1,200. *Responses per Respondent:* 9.75. *Total Responses:* 11,700. *Hours per Response:* 3.9. *Total Burden Hours:* 45,630. *Obtaining Copies of Proposals:* Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (VPR), Room 4041, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone
(202)501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0095, Commerce Patent Regulations, in all correspondence. Dated: July 3, 2008. Al Matera, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. [FR Doc. E8-15744 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION Request for Public Comment on Proposed Guidelines Regarding Help America Vote Act
(HAVA)Section 254(a)(11) AGENCY: Election Assistance Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The EAC seeks public comment on proposed guidelines designed to assist States in determining what constitutes a “material change in the administration of a State plan” under HAVA Section 254(a)(11). DATES: Comments must be received on or before 4 p.m. on August 11, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted in either electronic or written form. Comments may be submitted electronically to *havafunding@eac.gov* . E-mail comments should contain “State Plan Guidelines Comments” in the subject line. Written comments should be sent to: State Plan Guidelines Comments, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1225 New York Ave., NW., Suite 150, Washington, DC 20005. Commenters are encouraged to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt and consideration. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Edgardo Cortés, Acting Division Director, Election Administration Support Division,
(202)566-3100 or toll-free
(866)747-1471. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Guidelines on HAVA Section 254(a)(11): Material Changes in the Administration of HAVA State Plans A material change in the administration of the State plan (material change), as referenced by the Help America Vote Act
(HAVA)Section 254(a)(11), occurs under five different circumstances. These guidelines are based on the general federal requirements for updating State plans and post award changes contained in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-102 (41 CFR part 105-71). Material changes require a State to amend the State plan according to the provisions of HAVA Sections 254, 255, and 256. The examples provided below may not be applicable in all circumstances; likewise, the specific instances for when the State plan should be amended are not limited to the examples provided. The Election Assistance Commission
(EAC)advises States to amend the State plan in the event of any of following five circumstances:
(1)New or revised Federal laws or regulations affecting HAVA implementation. [Based on requirement in 41 CFR 105-71.111(d)(1)] New or amended Federal statutes or regulations, including appropriations statutes, resulting in a change in scope, purpose, budget, or period of availability of funds requires an amended State plan. Example: Congress passes legislation to amend the Title III requirements of HAVA.
(2)New or revised State law, organization, or policy affecting HAVA implementation. [Based on requirement in 41 CFR 105-71.111(d)(2)] New or amended State statutes, organization, or policy resulting in a change in scope, purpose, budget, or period of availability of funds requires an amended State plan. Example:
(1)State legislation is passed that changes the voting equipment requirements for the State, thus changing the method of implementation of Title III Voting Systems requirements;
(2)The responsibility for implementing the plan was previously with the State Attorney General and has now changed to Secretary of State.
(3)A budget change of 10 percent or more of the HAVA fiscal year's cumulative budget across budgeted programs, activities, functions or activities. [Based on requirement in 41 CFR 105-71.130(c)(1)(ii)] A change of more than 10 percent of the cumulative budget of the fiscal year's requirement payment from one budgeted category to another requires an amended State plan. Example: A portion of funds, greater than 10 percent of the requirements payment received, budgeted for use in developing the Computerized Statewide Voter Registration List is determined to no longer be needed for the budgeted purpose, and the State would like to use the funds for improvements to the administration of Federal elections.
(4)A revision in the scope or objective of the project. [Based on requirement in 41 CFR 105-71.130(d)(1)] A change in the means by which a State plans to achieve the HAVA objectives requires an amended State plan. Example:
(1)The State decides to purchase equipment at the State level instead of subgranting to the counties;
(2)The State changes the development of the Computerized Statewide Voter Registration List from a bottom up system to a state centralized system;
(3)The State files a certification under HAVA Section 251(b)(2)(A), indicating that the State has implemented the requirements of Title III and will use the requirements payments to carry out other activities to improve the administration of elections for Federal office, and did not account for post-Title III compliance activities in the original State plan;
(4)The State changes the type of voting system originally planned for use in Title III compliance; the State decides to use an optical scan system with ballot marking devices instead of a direct recording electronic
(DRE)system.
(5)An extension in the period of availability of HAVA funds. [Based on requirement in 41 CFR 105-71.130(d)(2)] An increase in the amount of funding authorized under HAVA appropriated to the State not provided for in the original State plan or funds remaining in a fiscal year not covered by the original State plan requires an amended State plan. Example:
(1)A new requirements payment is appropriated for a fiscal year not covered by the State plan;
(2)The State has funds from a previous fiscal year's requirements payment remaining in a fiscal year not provided for under the current State plan. Dated: July 2, 2008. Thomas R. Wilkey, Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance Commission. [FR Doc. E8-15690 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-KF-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [Case No. CAC-011] Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Decision and Order Granting a Waiver to Daikin U.S. Corporation From the Department of Energy Commercial Package Air Conditioner and Heat Pump Test Procedures and Denying a Waiver From the Residential Central Air Conditioner and Heat Pump Test Procedures AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Decision and Order. SUMMARY: This notice publishes the Department of Energy's Decision and Order in Case No. CAC-011, which grants a waiver to Daikin U.S. Corporation (Daikin) from the existing Department of Energy
(DOE)commercial package air conditioner and heat pump test procedures for specified VRV (commercial) Variable Refrigerant Volume multi-split heat pumps and heat recovery systems. As a condition of this waiver, Daikin must test and rate its VRV multi-split products according to the alternate test procedure as set forth in this notice. DOE is denying as moot Daikin's request for a waiver from the residential central air conditioner and heat pump test procedures, because those test procedures, as amended and currently effective, can be used to test Daikin's VRV-S (residential) products. DATES: This Decision and Order is effective July 10, 2008, and will remain in effect until the effective date of a DOE final rule prescribing amended test procedures appropriate for the model series of Daikin VRV multi-split central air conditioners and heat pumps covered by this waiver. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michael G. Raymond, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202)586-9611. E-mail: *Michael.Raymond@ee.doe.gov.* Ms. Francine Pinto or Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, Mailstop GC-72, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone:
(202)586-9507. E-mail: *Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov* or *Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 10 CFR 430.27(l) and 10 CFR 431.401(f)(4), DOE gives notice of the issuance of its Decision and Order as set forth below. In the Decision and Order, DOE grants Daikin a waiver from the existing DOE commercial package air conditioner and heat pump test procedures 1 for its VRV multi-split products, subject to a condition requiring Daikin to test and rate its VRV multi-split products pursuant to the alternate test procedure provided in this notice. Further, today's Decision and Order requires that Daikin may not make any representations concerning the energy efficiency of these products unless such product has been tested in accordance with the DOE test procedure, consistent with the provisions and restrictions of the alternate test procedure set forth in the Decision and Order below, and such representations fairly disclose the results of such testing. 2 (42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) 1 For commercial products, the applicable test procedure is the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute
(ARI)Standard 340/360-2004, “Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment” (incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 431.95(b)(2)). 2 Consistent with the statute, distributors, retailers, and private labelers are held to the same standard when making representations regarding the energy efficiency of these products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). DOE is denying as moot Daikin's request for a waiver from the DOE residential central air conditioner and heat pump test procedures 3 for its VRV-S multi-split products. As amended, the applicable DOE test procedure for these residential products will allow Daikin to test and rate its residential VRV-S multi-split products. 3 For residential products, the applicable test procedure is set forth in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix M. Issued in Washington, DC, on June 23, 2008. Alexander A. Karsner, Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Decision and Order *In the Matter of:* Daikin U.S. Corporation (Daikin) (Case No. CAC-011). Background Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(EPCA)sets forth a variety of provisions concerning energy efficiency, including Part A of Title III which establishes the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.” 4 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) Similar to the Program in Part A, Part A-1 of Title III provides for an energy efficiency program titled, “Certain Industrial Equipment,” which includes commercial air conditioning equipment, package boilers, water heaters, and other types of commercial equipment. 5 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) 4 This part was originally titled Part B; however, it was redesignated Part A, after Part B of Title III was repealed by Pub. L. 109-58. 5 This part was originally titled Part C; however, it was redesignated Part A-1, after Part C of Title III was repealed by Pub. L. 109-58. Today's notice involves residential products under Part A, as well as commercial equipment under Part A-1. Both parts specifically provide for definitions, test procedures, labeling provisions, energy conservation standards, and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. Further, both parts generally authorize the Secretary of Energy (the Secretary) to prescribe test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating costs, and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) Relevant to the current Petition for Waiver, the test procedure for residential central air conditioning and heat pump products is set forth in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix M. On October 22, 2007, DOE amended the test procedures for residential central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps to implement test procedure changes for small-duct, high-velocity systems, two-capacity units, and to update references to the current American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) standards. 72 FR 59906. The October 22, 2007, final rule became effective on April 21, 2008. These amendments to the DOE test procedures set forth in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix M now allow Daikin to test its VRV-S residential multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps. Therefore, a waiver is no longer necessary for Daikin's VRV-S residential multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps. Accordingly, the following discussion will focus only on Daikin's commercial VRV products, for which its waiver request remains pertinent. For commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, EPCA provides that “the test procedures shall be those generally accepted industry testing procedures or rating procedures developed or recognized by the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute [ARI] or by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers [ASHRAE], as referenced in ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 and in effect on June 30, 1992.” (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) Under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B), this section also directs the Secretary to amend the test procedure for a covered commercial product if the industry test procedure is amended, unless the Secretary determines that such a modified test procedure does not meet the statutory criteria set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3). On December 8, 2006, DOE published a final rule adopting test procedures for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, effective January 8, 2007. 71 FR 71340. DOE adopted ARI Standard 210/240-2003 for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment with capacities <65,000 British thermal units per hour (Btu/h) and ARI Standard 340/360-2004 for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment with capacities ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. *Id.* at 71371. Pursuant to this rulemaking, DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.95(b)(2) incorporate by reference the relevant ARI standards, and 10 CFR 431.96 directs manufacturers of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment to use the appropriate procedure when measuring energy efficiency of those products. (The capacities of Daikin's commercial VRV multi-split products fall in the ranges covered by ARI Standard 340/360-2004.) DOE's regulations for covered products contain provisions allowing a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for covered consumer products, for which the petitioner's basic model contains one or more design characteristics that prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedures, or when the prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1). The waiver provisions for commercial equipment are substantively identical to those for covered consumer products and are found at 10 CFR 431.401. Petitioners must include in their petition any alternate test procedures known to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii); 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iii). The Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (the Assistant Secretary) may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(l); 10 CFR 431.401(f)(4). Waivers generally terminate on the effective date of a final rule which prescribes amended test procedures appropriate to the model series manufactured by the petitioner, thereby eliminating any need for the continuation of the waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(m); 10 CFR 430.401(g). The waiver process contained in DOE's regulations also allows any interested person who has submitted a Petition for Waiver to file an Application for Interim Waiver of the applicable test procedure requirements. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(2); 10 CFR 431.401(a)(2). The Assistant Secretary will grant an Interim Waiver request if it is determined that the applicant will experience economic hardship if the Interim Waiver is denied, if it appears likely that the Petition for Waiver will be granted, and/or the Assistant Secretary determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the Petition for Waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(g); 10 CFR 431.401(e)(3). An Interim Waiver remains in effect for a period of 180 days or until DOE issues its determination on the Petition for Waiver, whichever occurs first, and may be extended by DOE for 180 days, if necessary. 10 CFR 430.27(h); 10 CFR 431.401(e)(4). On May 12, 2005, Daikin filed a Petition for Waiver and an Application for Interim Waiver from the test procedures applicable to its VRV-S and VRV lines of residential and commercial multi-split air conditioning and heating equipment. Daikin's petition requested a waiver from both the residential and commercial test procedures. As stated above, the applicable residential test procedures are contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix M, and the applicable commercial test procedures are contained in ARI Standard 340/360-2004 6 (incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 431.95(b)(2)). Daikin requested a waiver from the applicable test procedures because it argued that the design characteristics of its VRV-S and VRV systems prevent testing according to the currently prescribed test procedures. 6 In its petition, Daikin also requested a waiver from ARI Standard 210/240-2003 (incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 431.95(b)(1)). However, based on a review of the products listed by Daikin in its petition, DOE has determined that none of these products has the combined features ( *i.e.* , three-phase power and rated capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) as would necessitate a waiver from ARI Standard 210/240-2003. On July 2, 2007, DOE published in the **Federal Register** Daikin's Petition for Waiver and published notice of the granting of the Application for Interim Waiver which had been granted on August 14, 2006. 72 FR 35986. In a similar and relevant case, DOE published a Petition for Waiver from Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics USA, Inc.
(MEUS)for products very similar to Daikin's VRV-S and VRV products. 71 FR 14858 (March 24, 2006). In the March 24, 2006 **Federal Register** notice, DOE also published and requested comment on an alternate test procedure for the MEUS products at issue. DOE stated that if it specified an alternate test procedure for MEUS in the subsequent Decision and Order, DOE would consider applying the same procedure to similar waivers for residential and commercial central air conditioners and heat pumps, including such products for which waivers had previously been granted. Most of the comments responded favorably to DOE's proposed alternate test procedure. Also, there was general agreement that an alternate test procedure is necessary while a final test procedure for these types of products is being developed. The MEUS Decision and Order, including the alternate test procedure, was published in the **Federal Register** on April 9, 2007. 72 FR 17528. DOE received no comments on the Daikin Petition. Assertions and Determinations Daikin's Petition for Waiver On May 12, 2005, Daikin submitted a Petition for Waiver and an Application for Interim Waiver from the test procedures applicable to residential and commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment for its new VRV-S and VRV multi-split products. Daikin's petition presented several arguments in support of its claim that the design characteristics of its VRV-S and VRV multi-split systems prevent testing according to the currently prescribed test procedures. Daikin claimed that there are the following difficulties with applying the test procedures:
(1)There is no provision to accommodate having indoor units operating at several different static pressure ratings during a single test;
(2)The precise number of part-load tests required for fully or infinitely variable speed products are not identified;
(3)There is no direction about how to test systems that have millions of combinations of indoor units configurable to a single outdoor unit;
(4)There is no test method to measure part-load performance of a system performing both heating and cooling functions at the same time. Therefore, the Daikin Petition requested that DOE grant a waiver from existing test procedures until such time as a representative test procedure is developed and adopted for this class of products. Daikin did not include an alternate test procedure in its Petition for Waiver. (However, DOE understands that Daikin is actively working with ARI to develop test procedures that accurately reflect the operation and energy consumption of these particular product designs. 7 ) 7 DOE understands that ARI is seeking to address this issue through promulgation of ARI Standard 1230. Once this standard has been formally adopted by ARI, it will then be ready for presentation to ASHRAE to be considered for incorporation into ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1. Regardless of their accuracy, DOE believes that these assertions are inapposite to the present case for the following reasons. First, for commercial systems, EPCA mandates use of the full-load energy efficiency ratio
(EER)descriptor, and the relevant energy performance is the peak-load efficiency, not the seasonal energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)(C)) A waiver can only be granted if a test procedure does not fairly represent the peak-load energy consumption characteristics, which EER measures. Nevertheless, there are deficiencies in the current DOE test methods and calculation algorithms when applied to multi-split systems. DOE has previously acknowledged these limitations in its current test procedure, and accordingly, MEUS was granted a waiver on the following grounds: 1. No existing test procedure provides a method for testing and rating a system that utilizes one outdoor unit and sixteen indoor units. 2. No existing test procedure can provide a method for rating systems where the type and capacity of the indoor unit can be mixed in the same system. The multi-split system can mix together six different indoor models with seven different capacities, resulting in over 1,000 combinations. Given the present situation, Daikin can make the same claims regarding its VRV multi-split products. Therefore, the bases for Daikin's Petition for Waiver involve:
(1)The problem of being physically unable to test most of the complete systems in a laboratory;
(2)difficulties associated with the regulatory requirement to test the highest-sales-volume combination; and
(3)the lack of a method for predicting the performance of untested combinations. As mentioned above, DOE recently addressed a situation regarding multi-split products that is relevant to the Daikin products at issue here. specifically, on March 24, 2006, DOE published in the **Federal Register** a Petition for Waiver from MEUS relating to its R410A CITY MULTI VRFZ products, which are very similar to Daikin's VRV multi-split products. 71 FR 14858. In that publication, DOE stated: To provide a test procedure from which manufacturers can make valid representations, the Department is considering setting an alternate test procedure for MEUS in the subsequent Decision and Order. Furthermore, if DOE specifies an alternate test procedure for MEUS, DOE is considering applying the alternate test procedure to similar waivers for residential and commercial central air conditioners and heat pumps. Such cases include Samsung's petition for its DVM products (70 FR 9629, February 28, 2005), Fujitsu's petition for its Airstage variable refrigerant flow
(VRF)products (70 FR 5980, February 4, 2005), and MEUS's petition for its R22 CITY MULTI VRFZ products (69 FR 52660 (August 27, 2004)). 71 FR 14858, 14861 (March 24, 2006). Since that time, DOE has developed such an alternate test procedure. That alternate test procedure served as the basis for the October 22, 2007 final rule's relevant amendments to the test procedures for residential central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps found at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix M, which became effective April 21, 2008. Since the residential test procedure is now in place for central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps, this enables Daikin to make energy efficiency representations for its specified VRV-S residential multi-split products. Accordingly, a waiver for Daikin's residential units is no longer necessary. However, the same problem described above still applies to Daikin's commercial products. Therefore, DOE is issuing today's Decision and Order granting Daikin a test procedure waiver for its commercial VRV multi-split heat pumps and heat recovery systems, but is requiring the use of the alternate test procedure described below as a condition of Daikin's waiver. This alternate test procedure is substantially the same as the one that DOE applied to the MEUS waiver. DOE's Alternate Test Procedure The alternate test procedure has two basic components. First, it permits Daikin to designate a “tested combination” for each model of outdoor unit. The indoor units designated as part of the tested combination must meet specific requirements. For example, the tested combination must have from two to five indoor units so that it can be tested in available test facilities. The tested combination must be tested according to the applicable DOE test procedure, as modified by the provisions of the alternate test procedure. Second, provision of a DOE test procedure that can be applied to Daikin's product allows it to represent the energy efficiency of that product, because any such representation must fairly disclose the results of such testing. The DOE test procedure, as modified by the alternate test procedure provided in this Decision and Order, provides for testing of a non-tested combination in two ways:
(1)At an energy efficiency level determined under a DOE-approved alternative rating method; or, if method
(1)is not available, then
(2)at the efficiency level of the tested combination utilizing the same outdoor unit. Until an alternative rating method is developed, all combinations with a particular outdoor unit may use the rating of the combination tested with that outdoor unit. DOE believes that allowing Daikin to make energy efficiency representations for non-tested combinations by adopting this alternate test procedure for its commercial products as described above is reasonable because the outdoor unit is the principal efficiency driver. The current test procedures for commercial products tend to rate these products conservatively. This is because the multi-zoning feature of these products, which enables them to cool only those portions of the building that require cooling, would be expected to use less energy than if the unit is operated to cool the entire home or a comparatively larger area of a commercial building in response to a single thermostat. This feature would not be captured by the test procedure, which requires full-load testing. Under full load, the entire building would require cooling. Additionally, the current test procedure for commercial equipment requires full-load testing, which disadvantages these products because they are optimized for best efficiency when operating with less than full loads. In fact, these products normally operate at part-load conditions. Therefore, the alternate test procedure will provide a conservative basis for assessing the energy efficiency for such commercial products. For today's Decision and Order, the changes made by the final rule published in the **Federal Register** on October 22, 2007 to test procedure sections 2.1, 2.2.3, 2.4.1, 3.2.4 (including Table 6), 3.6.4 (including Table 12), 4.1.4.2, and 4.2.4.2 that apply to residential central air conditioners and heat pumps constitute mandatory elements of the alternate test procedure for the commercial products covered under this waiver. These changes allow indoor units to cycle off, allow the manufacturer to specify the compressor speed used during certain tests, and introduce a new algorithm for estimating power consumption. With regard to the laboratory testing of commercial products, some of the difficulties associated with the existing test procedure are avoided by the alternate test procedure's requirements for choosing the indoor units to be used in the manufacturer-specified tested combination. For example, in addition to limiting the number of indoor units, another requirement is that all of the indoor units must meet the same minimum external static pressure. This requirement allows the test lab to manifold the outlets from each indoor unit into a common plenum that supplies air to a single airflow measuring apparatus. This requirement eliminates situations in which some of the indoor units are ducted and some are non-ducted. Without this requirement, the laboratory must evaluate the capacity of a subgroup of indoor coils separately, and then sum the separate capacities to obtain the overall system capacity. This would require that the test laboratory must be equipped with multiple airflow measuring apparatuses (which is unlikely), or that the test laboratory connect its one airflow measuring apparatus to one or more common indoor units until the contribution of each indoor unit has been measured. Furthermore, DOE stated in the notice publishing the MEUS Petition for Waiver that if DOE decides to specify an alternate test procedure for MEUS, it would consider applying the procedure to waivers for similar residential and commercial central air conditioners and heat pumps produced by other manufacturers. 71 FR 14858, 14861 (March 24, 2006). Most of the comments received by DOE in response to the March 2006 notice favored the proposed alternate test procedure. The comments generally agreed that an alternate test procedure is appropriate for an interim period while a final test procedure for these products is being developed. Such action has been completed for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps. Based on the discussion above, DOE believes that the testing problems described above would prevent testing of Daikin's VRV basic models according to the test procedures currently prescribed in ARI Standard 340/360-2004. After careful consideration, DOE has decided to adopt the alternate test procedure for Daikin's commercial products, with the clarifications discussed above. Consultations With Other Agencies DOE consulted with Federal Trade Commission
(FTC)staff concerning the Daikin Petition for Waiver. The FTC staff did not have any objections to the issuance of a waiver to Daikin. Conclusion After careful consideration of all the material that was submitted by Daikin and consultation with the FTC staff, it is ordered that:
(1)The “Petition for Waiver” submitted by Daikin U.S. Corporation (Daikin) (Case No. CAC-011) is hereby granted as set forth in the paragraphs below.
(2)Daikin shall not be required to test or rate its commercial Variable Refrigerant Volume
(VRV)products listed below on the basis of the currently applicable test procedures (contained in ARI Standard 340/360-2004 (incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 431.95(b)(2))), but shall be required to test and rate such products according to the alternate test procedure as set forth in paragraph (3). *Outdoor units:* 1. RXYQ Series Heat Pumps with nominal capacities of 72 and 96 kBtu/ h, when combined with two or more of the below listed indoor units. 2. REYQ Series Heat Recovery units with nominal capacities of 72 and 96 kBtu/h, when combined with two or more of the below listed indoor units. *Indoor units:* 1. FXAQ Series wall mounted indoor units with nominally rated capacities of 7, 9, 12, 18, and 24 kBtu/h. 2. FXLQ Series floor mounted indoor units with nominally rated capacities of 12, 18, and 24 kBtu/h. 3. FXNQ Series concealed floor mounted indoor units with nominally rated capacities of 12, 18, and 24 kBtu/h. 4. FXDQ Series low static ducted indoor units with nominally rated capacities of 7, 9, 12, 18, and 24 kBtu/h. 5. FXSQ Series medium static ducted indoor units with nominally rated capacities of 7, 9, 12, 24, 30, 36, and 48 kBtu/h. 6. FXMQ Series high static ducted indoor units with nominally rated capacities of 30, 36, and 48 kBtu/h. 7. FXZQ Series recessed cassette indoor units with nominally rated capacities of 7, 9, 12, 18, and 24 kBtu/h. 8. FXFQ Series recessed cassette indoor units with nominally rated capacities of 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 kBtu/h. 9. FXHQ Series ceiling suspended indoor units with nominally rated capacities of 12, 24, and 36 kBtu/h.
(3)*Alternate test procedure* .
(A)Daikin shall be required to test the products listed in paragraph
(2)above according to those test procedures for central air conditioners and heat pumps prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 431, except that for those commercial products covered by 10 CFR part 431, Daikin shall test a “tested combination” selected in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph
(B)of this paragraph. For every other system combination using the same outdoor unit as the tested combination, Daikin shall make representations concerning the VRV multi-split products covered in this waiver according to the provisions of subparagraph
(C)below.
(B)*Tested combination.* The term “tested combination” means a sample basic model comprised of units that are production units, or are representative of production units, of the basic model being tested. For the purposes of this waiver, the tested combination shall have the following features:
(i)The basic model of a variable refrigerant flow system used as a tested combination shall consist of an outdoor unit that is matched with between two and five indoor units.
(ii)The indoor units shall:
(a)Represent the highest sales volume type models;
(b)Together, have a capacity between 95 percent and 105 percent of the capacity of the outdoor unit;
(c)Not, individually, have a capacity greater than 50 percent of the capacity of the outdoor unit;
(d)Have a fan speed that is consistent with the manufacturer's specifications; and
(e)All have the same external static pressure.
(C)*Representations.* In making representations about the energy efficiency of its VRV multi-split products, for compliance, marketing, or other purposes, Daikin must fairly disclose the results of testing under the DOE test procedure, doing so in a manner consistent with the provisions outlined below:
(i)For VRV combinations tested in accordance with this alternate test procedure, Daikin must disclose these test results.
(ii)For VRV combinations that are not tested, Daikin must make a disclosure based on the testing results for the tested combination and which are consistent with either of the two following methods, except that only method
(a)may be used, if available:
(a)Representation of non-tested combinations according to an alternative rating method
(ARM)approved by DOE; or
(b)Representation of non-tested combinations at the same energy efficiency level as the tested combination with the same outdoor unit.
(4)This waiver shall remain in effect from the date of issuance of this Decision and Order until the effective date of a DOE final rule prescribing amended test procedures appropriate to the above model series manufactured by Daikin.
(5)This waiver is conditioned upon the presumed validity of statements, representations, and documentary materials provided by the petitioner. This waiver may be revoked or modified at any time upon a determination that the factual basis underlying the Petition for Waiver is incorrect, or DOE determines that the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic models' true energy consumption characteristics. Issued in Washington, DC, on June 23, 2008. Alexander A. Karsner, Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. [FR Doc. E8-15705 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [Case No. RF-008] Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Publication of the Petition for Waiver of Whirlpool Corporation From the Department of Energy Residential Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freezer Test Procedures AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of Petition for Waiver and request for public comments. SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of and publishes Whirlpool Corporation's (Whirlpool's) Petition for Waiver (hereafter, “Petition”) from parts of the Department of Energy
(DOE)test procedure for determining the energy consumption of electric refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. The waiver request pertains to Whirlpool's specified French door bottom-mounted residential refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, a product line that utilizes a control logic that changes the wattage of the anti-sweat heaters based upon the ambient relative humidity conditions in order to prevent condensation. The existing test procedure does not take humidity or adaptive control technology into account. Therefore, Whirlpool has suggested an alternate test procedure that takes adaptive control technology into account when measuring energy consumption. DOE is soliciting comments, data, and information concerning Whirlpool's Petition and the suggested alternate test procedure. DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information with respect to Whirlpool's Petition until, but no later than August 11, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by case number [RF-008], by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: Michael.Raymond@ee.doe.gov.* Include either the case number [RF-008] and/or “Whirlpool Petition” in the subject line of the message. • *Mail:* Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, Petition for Waiver Case No. RF-008, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202)586-2945. Please submit one signed original paper copy. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Please submit one signed original paper copy. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and case number for this proceeding. Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Portable Document Format (PDF), or text (American Standard Code for Information Exchange (ASCII)) file format. Avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Wherever possible, include the electronic signature of the author. Absent an electronic signature, comments submitted electronically must be followed and authenticated by submitting the signed original paper document. DOE does not accept telefacsimiles (faxes). Pursuant to section 430.27(b)(1)(iv) of 10 CFR part 430, any person submitting written comments must also send a copy of the comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner is: Mr. Steven Church, Project Engineer, Whirlpool Corporation, 5401 U.S. Highway North, Evansville, IN 47727. *Telephone:*
(812)426-4659. E-mail: *steven_c_church@whirlpool.com* . Under 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two copies: One copy of the document including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination. *Docket:* For access to the docket to review the documents relevant to this matter, you may visit the U.S. Department of Energy, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., (Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program), Washington, DC 20024,
(202)586-9127, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at
(202)586-2945 for additional information regarding visiting the Resource Room. Please note that the DOE's Freedom of Information Reading Room (formerly Room 1E-190 in the Forrestal Building) is no longer housing rulemaking materials. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michael G. Raymond, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121,
(202)586-9611. *E-mail: Michael.Raymond@ee.doe.gov.* Ms. Francine Pinto or Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mailstop GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103. *Telephone:*
(202)586-9507. *E-mail: Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov* or *Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background and Authority II. Petition for Waiver III. Alternate Test Procedure IV. Summary and Request for Comments I. Background and Authority Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (“EPCA”) sets forth a variety of provisions concerning energy efficiency. Part A 1 of Title III provides for the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.” (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) Part A includes definitions, test procedures, labeling provisions, energy conservation standards, and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. Further, Part A authorizes the Secretary of Energy to prescribe test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated operating costs, and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The test procedure for residential refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers is contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix A1. 1 This part was originally titled Part B; however, it was redesignated Part A after Part B was repealed by Pub. L. 109-58. The regulations set forth in 10 CFR 430.27 contain provisions that enable a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for covered consumer products. A waiver will be granted by the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (the Assistant Secretary) if it is determined that the basic model for which the Petition for Waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that prevents testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures, or if the prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR part 430.27(a)(1). Petitioners must include in their petition any alternate test procedures known to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii). The Assistant Secretary may grant the waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(l). In general, waivers remain in effect until the effective date of a final rule which prescribes amended test procedures appropriate to the model series manufactured by the petitioner, thereby eliminating any need for the continuation of the waiver. 10 CFR part 430.27(m). II. Petition for Waiver On January 8, 2008, Whirlpool filed a Petition for Waiver from the test procedure applicable to residential electric refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers set forth in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix A1. 2 Whirlpool is designing new refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers that contain variable anti-sweat heater controls that detect a broad range of temperature and humidity conditions, and respond by activating adaptive heaters, as needed, to evaporate excess moisture. According to the petitioner, Whirlpool's technology is similar to that used by General Electric Company
(GE)for its refrigerator-freezers which were the subject of a Petition for Waiver published April 17, 2007. 72 FR 19189. Whirlpool seeks a waiver from the existing DOE test procedure applicable to refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers under 10 CFR part 430 because it takes neither ambient humidity nor adaptive technology into account. Therefore, Whirlpool stated that the test procedure does not accurately measure the energy consumption of Whirlpool's new refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers that feature variable anti-sweat heater controls and adaptive heaters. Consequently, Whirlpool has submitted to DOE for approval an alternate test procedure that would allow it to correctly calculate the energy consumption of this new product line. Whirlpool's alternate test procedure is essentially the same as that prescribed for GE refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers that are equipped with the same type of technology. The alternate test procedure applicable to the GE products simulates the energy used by the adaptive heaters in a typical consumer household, as explained in the Decision and Order which DOE published in the **Federal Register** on February 27, 2008. 73 FR 10425. As DOE has stated in the past, it is in the public interest to have similar products tested and rated for energy consumption on a comparable basis. 2 Whirlpool submitted a modified petition on April 30, 2008, which was amended solely to set forth the specific models for which the company is seeking a waiver. DOE is publishing Whirlpool's Petition for Waiver, as amended, for public comment. III. Alternate Test Procedure When test procedures for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers under 10 CFR part 430 were first developed, simple mechanical defrost timers were the norm. Today, Whirlpool's new line of refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers contains sensors that detect ambient humidity and interact with controls that vary the effective wattage of anti-sweat heaters to evaporate excess moisture. The existing DOE test procedure cannot be used to calculate the energy consumption of these features. The variable anti-sweat heater contribution to the refrigerator's energy consumption is entirely dependent on the ambient humidity of the test chamber, which the DOE test procedure does not specify. The energy consumption of the anti-sweat heaters will be modeled and added to the energy consumption measured with the anti-sweat heaters disabled. The anti-sweat contribution to the product's total energy consumption will be calculated by the same methodology that was set forth in the GE Petition. For units with an energy saver switch, the energy test results with and without the added heater contribution would be averaged to produce the final energy number for the product. For those units that do not include an energy saver switch, the final energy number would be equal to the test result of the heater-disabled test plus the added heater contribution. The objective of this approach is to simulate the average energy used by the adaptive anti-sweat heaters as activated in refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers of typical consumer households across the United States. To determine the conditions in a typical consumer household, GE compiled historical data on the monthly average outdoor temperatures and humidities for the top 50 metropolitan areas of the U.S. over approximately the last 30 years. In light of the similarity of technologies at issue, Whirlpool is using the same data compiled by GE for its determination of the anti-sweat heater energy use. Like GE, Whirlpool includes in its test procedure a “system-loss factor” to calculate system losses attributed to operating anti-sweat heaters, controls, and related components. IV. Summary and Request for Comments Through today's notice, DOE announces receipt of Whirlpool's Petition for Waiver from certain parts of the test procedure applicable to Whirlpool's new line of refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with variable anti-sweat heater controls and adaptive heaters. DOE is publishing Whirlpool's Petition for Waiver in its entirety pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iv). The Petition contains no confidential information. The Petition includes a suggested alternate test procedure and calculation methodology to determine the energy consumption of Whirlpool's specified refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with adaptive anti-sweat heaters. DOE is interested in receiving comments from interested parties on all aspects of the Petition, including the suggested alternate test procedure and calculation methodology. Pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iv), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner, whose contact information is included in the ADDRESSES section above. Issued in Washington, DC, on June 23, 2008. Alexander A. Karsner, Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. *Submitted by:* Steven Church, Whirlpool Corporation, 5401 U.S. Highway North, Evansville, IN 47727. 812-426-4659. Introduction Whirlpool Corporation, a leading manufacturer and marketer of household appliances, in accordance with 10 CFR 430.27, files this Petition for Waiver in order to request exemption from certain parts of the test procedure endorsed by the U.S. Department of Energy for determining refrigerator-freezer energy consumption. Granting this waiver will allow Whirlpool to test its refrigerator-freezers utilizing the procedure described within this Petition. Background Whirlpool is upgrading its Bottom Mount refrigerator-freezer products in order to meet the newly revised requirements of the Energy Star program scheduled to be implemented in April 2008. Whirlpool is seeking the Department's approval to use the proposed method so that it can be assured of properly calculating and labeling the energy consumption of its products. Such approval will also allow assurance that the new products will achieve the energy limits proposed under the Energy Star Program. Recently, General Electric Corporation (“GE”) filed a Petition for Waiver to establish a new method to calculate the energy consumption of a refrigerator-freezer when such a product contains adaptive anti-condensation heaters. In order to meet the more stringent Energy Star standards, Whirlpool has developed its own adaptive anti-condensation system which utilizes a humidity sensor to modify the power used by the anti-condensation heaters. In support of GE's position, Whirlpool could have designed the system so that the anti-condensation heaters showed no impact during energy testing. However, like GE, Whirlpool is following the regulation's intent to more accurately represent the energy consumed by the product when used in the home. Accordingly, Whirlpool is filing this Petition for Waiver to modify the portions of the regulation that are inappropriate. The Department's regulations provide that the Assistant Secretary will grant a Petition upon: “Determination that the basic model for which the waiver was requested contains a design characteristic which either prevents testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures, or the prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data.” 1 1 10 CFR part 430.27(l). Whirlpool requests that the Assistant Secretary grant this Petition based on the second point. Because the current test procedure does not fully specify test room conditions, i.e. the ambient relative humidity is not controlled; the adaptive nature of the anti-condensation heaters may cause the energy consumption of the unit to be significantly overstated. To test the units assuming that they do not adapt will misrepresent the energy used by the appliance when installed in a consumer's home. The Refrigerator Energy Test Procedure The test procedure for calculating energy consumption 2 specifies that the test chamber be maintained at 90 °F. Although not typical of conditions in most consumer's homes, this higher ambient simulates the heat load of a refrigerator in a 70 °F ambient with typical usage by the consumer. 2 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, App. A1. However, the test procedure does not address what humidity level to maintain in the test room when collecting data. Condensation occurs on refrigerators when specific areas on the unit are below the local dew point. Higher relative humidity levels result in an increase of the dew point. The appliance industry currently utilizes anti-condensation loops and heaters that increase the temperature of local areas above the dew point to prevent condensation. Typical applications employ a heater that utilizes a pre-determined amount of power without regard to humidity and the likelihood of condensation occurring on the unit. Such an application will require more energy to prevent condensation than one that can adapt to changing ambient conditions. Whirlpool's Proposed Modification Whirlpool now seeks to change how it tests its upgraded models which include, but not restricted to, all French Door Bottom Mount Refrigerators whether or not they have exterior ice dispensing. The following bottom mounted freezer models with French doors are representative of similar models that will utilize this technology. These particular models do not use this technology at this time but as they are upgraded to add new features, or reach new energy levels this technology will be included. The actual model numbers may vary but the technology will be used for the control of heaters to prevent the formation of condensation on external surface on French door bottom mounted freezer models. MFI2569VE* AFI2538AE* KBFC42FT*0* JFI2089A** JF42REF**B0* KBFO42FT*0* JFI2589A** JF42PPF**B0* MBF1956KE* MFI2266AE* JF42SEF**B0* KBFS20ET* MFI2067AE* JF42CXF**B0* KBFA20ER* MFI2568AE* KBFC42FS*0* MBF2256KE* 596.7753* KBFO42FS*0* MBF1956KE* Whirlpool proposes to run the energy consumption test with the anti-condensation heaters disabled. A contribution will be added to this result, which is related to the amount of energy used by the anti-condensation heaters when they are active. This contribution will be calculated by the same method that was proposed by GE in their Petition. For units with an energy saver switch, the energy test results with and without the added heater contribution will be averaged together to produce the final energy number for the product. For those units that do not include an energy saver switch, the final energy number will be equal to the test result of the heater disabled test plus the added heater contribution. The objective of the proposed approach is to simulate the average energy used by the adaptive anti-condensation heaters as activated in typical consumer households across the United States. In formulating their Petition, GE completed research in order to determine the average humidity level experienced across the United States. The result of this research was that GE was able to determine the probability that any U.S. household would experience certain humidity conditions during any month of the year. This data was consolidated into 10 bands each representing a 10% range of relative humidity. In submitting this Petition, Whirlpool is confirming the validity of using such bands to represent the average humidity experienced across the United States and will adopt the same population weighting as proposed by GE. The bands proposed by GE are as follows: Percent RH Probability (percent) Constant designation 1. 0-10 3.4 A1 2. 10-20 21.1 A2 3. 20-30 20.4 A3 4. 30-40 16.6 A4 5. 40-50 12.6 A5 6. 50-60 11.9 A6 7. 60-70 6.9 A7 8. 70-80 4.7 A8 9. 80-90 0.8 A9 10. 90-100 1.5 A10 When using external anti-condensation heaters, Whirlpool's experience has been the increase in total energy used by the system is greater than the power used by the heaters alone. This increased energy can be related to energy consumed by, but not limited to, increased run time of the compressor and fan to remove the extra heat leak from the heaters, wire harnesses, and the operation of electronic controls. Based upon Whirlpool's experience, an energy increase of 30% is required to compensate for the extra heat leak. When calculating the contribution due to the heaters, Whirlpool recommends multiplying the power directly consumed by the heaters by 1.3 to calculate the energy used by the system as a whole. The Heater Contribution that Whirlpool proposes will be added to the result of the energy-consumption test results with the heaters disabled. This result will be used in the energy calculations as the results for when the switch is in the “heater on” position. This number is calculated as follows: Heater Contribution = (Anti-condensation Heater Power × 1.3) × (24 hours/1 day) × (1 kW/1000 W). To determine the average power used by the anti-condensation heaters, the constant associated with each band is multiplied by the heater wattage used by a refrigerator operating at the average humidity level of each band and standard refrigerator conditions (72 °F ambient, fresh food average of 45° and freezer average of 5°). The total of the products from each humidity band will represent the average power used by the anti-condensation heater in the equation above. This may be represented as: Anti-condensation Heater Power = A1 * (Heater Watts at 5% RH) + A2 * (Heater Watts at 15% RH) + A3 * (Heater Watts at 25% RH) + A4 * (Heater Watts at 35% RH) + A5 * (Heater Watts at 45% RH) + A6 * (Heater Watts at 55% RH) + A7 * (Heater Watts at 65% RH) + A8 * (Heater Watts at 75% RH) + A9 * (Heater Watts at 85% RH) + A10 * (Heater Watts at 95% RH). As explained above, bands A1-A10 were selected as representative of humidity conditions of all U.S. households. Utilizing such weighed bands will allow the calculation of the national average energy consumption for each product. Based on the above, Whirlpool proposes to test its upgraded models as if the test procedure were modified to calculate the energy of the unit by testing the unit with the anti-condensation disabled plus the Anti-Sweat Heater Power multiplied by 1.3 to determine the energy of the unit when the heaters are active. Conclusion Whirlpool urges the Assistant Secretary to grant this Petition and allow Whirlpool to test its upgraded French Door Bottom Mount refrigerator models as described above. We believe that granting our request will encourage manufacturers to introduce new technologies into their products without having to worry about any adverse impact to energy consumption. Respectfully submitted, Steven Church Affected Persons Primary affected persons in the refrigerator-freezer category include BSH Home Appliances Corp. (Bosch-Siemens Hausgerate GmbH), Electrolux Home Products, Equator, Fisher & Paykel Appliances, Inc., General Electric Corporation, Gorenje USA, Haier America Trading, L.L.C., Heartland Appliances, Inc., Kelon Electrical Holdings Co., Ltd., Liebherr Hausgerate, LG Electronics USA Inc., Northland Corporation, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Sanyo Fisher Company, Sears, Sub-Zero Freezer Company, U-Line, and Viking Range. The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers is also generally interested in energy efficiency requirements for appliances. Consumers' Union, ACEEE, NRDC, [and] Alliance to Save Energy are not manufacturers but have an interest in this matter. Whirlpool will notify all these organizations as required by the Department's rules and provide them with a non-confidential version of this Petition. [FR Doc. E8-15748 Filed 7-09-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 July 2, 2008. Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: *Docket Numbers:* RP96-320-092. *Applicants:* Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP. *Description:* Gulf South Pipeline Company LP submits two capacity release agreements containing negotiated rate provisions executed with Q-West Energy Company. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-0020. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 09, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP99-176-163. *Applicants:* Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America. *Description:* Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC submits an Amendment to the Firm Transportation and Storage Negotiated Rate Agreement etc. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-0019. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 09, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP01-382-018. *Applicants:* Northern Natural Gas Company. *Description:* Northern Natural Gas submits for filing its annual report setting forth the Carlton Resolution buyout and surcharge dollars reimbursed to the Carlton Sourcers. *Filed Date:* 06/26/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080626-5030. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 08, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP03-36-032. *Applicants:* Dauphin Island Gathering Partners. *Description:* Dauphin Island Gathering Partners submits Thirty-Seventh Revised Sheet 9 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-0018. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 09, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP06-200-044. *Applicants:* Rockies Express Pipeline LLC. *Description:* Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC submits Third Revised Sheet 9H et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, to be effective 7/1/08. *Filed Date:* 06/26/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080627-0007. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 08, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP96-272-077. *Applicants:* Northern Natural Gas Company. *Description:* Northern Natural Gas Co submits Eighth Revised Sheet 66B.01 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1, to become effective 7/1/08. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0102. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP00-426-037. *Applicants:* Texas Gas Transmission, LLC. *Description:* Texas Gas Transmission, LLC submits Original Sheet 55D et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0103. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP00-632-029. *Applicants:* Dominion Transmission, Inc. *Description:* Dominion Transmission, Inc. files its Informational Annual Fuel Report. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-5051. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-423-000. *Applicants:* Viking Gas Transmission Company. *Description:* Viking Gas Transmission Co submits Third Revised Sheet 12A to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, to be effective 7/1/08. *Filed Date:* 06/26/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080627-0122. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 08, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-424-000. *Applicants:* Tres Palacios Gas Storage LLC. *Description:* Tres Palacios Gas Storage, LLC submits Original Sheet 0 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff Original Volume 1, Volume 1; Part 2 of 3. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-0022. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 09, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-426-000. *Applicants:* El Paso Natural Gas Company. *Description:* El Paso Natural Gas Company submits tariff sheets that propose a system-wide increase in rates and several incremental refinements to EPNG's existing service and penalty structure etc., effective 1/1/09. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0153. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 15, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-427-000. *Applicants:* Questar Overthrust Pipeline Company. *Description:* Questar Overhurst Pipeline Company submits Second Revised Sheet 83 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1-A. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0101. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-428-000. *Applicants:* National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation. *Description:* National Fuel Gas Supply submits the 116th Revised Sheet 9 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 1, to become effective 7/1/08. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0100. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-429-000. *Applicants:* Trunkline LNG Company, LLC. *Description:* Trunkline LNG Company, LLC submits Fourteenth Revised Sheet 5 to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1-A, to become effective 8/1/08. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0099. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-430-000. *Applicants:* Trunkline LNG Company, LLC. *Description:* Trunkline LNG Company submits FERC Gas Tariff Second Revised Volume 1-A, to become effective 8/1/08. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0098. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-431-000. *Applicants:* Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company LLC. *Description:* Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, LLC submits First Revised Sheet 241 et al., to become effective 8/7/08. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0097. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-435-000. *Applicants:* Dominion Transmission, Inc. *Description:* Report of Annual Overrun/Penalty Revenue Distribution of Dominion Transmission, Inc. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-5126. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also 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 email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* . or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15609 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings July 3, 2008. Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: *Docket Numbers:* RP96-200-193. *Applicants:* CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co. *Description:* CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company submits negotiated rate agreements between CEGT and Petrohawk Energy Corporation. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0224. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP96-200-194. *Applicants:* CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co. *Description:* CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company submits two negotiated rate agreements between CEGT and Chesapeake Energy, Inc. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0223. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP96-383-087.CP07-10-002. *Applicants:* Dominion Transmission, Inc. *Description:* Dominion Transmission, Inc submits Eighth Revised Sheet 36 et al in its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0299. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP99-176-164. *Applicants:* Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America. *Description:* Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America's First Revised Sheet 33G.01 to FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume 1, & an amendment to the Firm Transportation Service Negotiated Rate Agreement with Interstate Power & Light Co. *Filed Date:* 07/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0065. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP99-301-210. *Applicants:* ANR Pipeline Company. *Description:* ANR Pipeline Company submits an amendment to one Rate Schedule FSS negotiated rate agreement between ANR and Tenaska Marketing Ventures. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0222. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP99-301-211. *Applicants:* ANR Pipeline Company. *Description:* ANR Pipeline Company submits an amendment to one Rate Schedule FTS-1 negotiated rate agreement between ANR and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0221. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-432-000. *Applicants:* MIGC LLC. *Description:* MIGC LLC submits First Revised Sheet 2 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, to be effective 4/1/08. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0265. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-433-000. *Applicants:* Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company. *Description:* Eastern Shore Natural Gas Co submits Sixty-Sixth Revised Sheet 7 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, to be effective 4/1/08. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0264. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-434-000. *Applicants:* Texas Eastern Transmission LP. *Description:* Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits Twenty-Seventh Revised Sheet 25 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume 1 and First Revised Volume 2, to be effective 8/1/08. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0266. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-435-000. *Applicants:* Dominion Transmission, Inc. *Description:* Report of Annual Overrun/Penalty Revenue Distribution of Dominion Transmission, Inc. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-5126. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-438-000. *Applicants:* WTG Hugoton, LP. *Description:* WTG Hugoton, LP submits Original Volume 1 et al effective 8/1/08. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0300. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-439-000. *Applicants:* Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Company. *Description:* Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Company submits Third Revised Sheet 6 to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0066. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-440-000. *Applicants:* Questar Pipeline Company. *Description:* Questar Pipeline Company submits Forty-Fourth Revised Sheet 5 to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1 and Forty-Sixth Revised Sheet 8 to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 3, effective 8/1/08 under RP08-440. *Filed Date:* 07/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0067. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov* . To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also 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 email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* . or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15612 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 11841-002 Alaska] Ketchikan Public Utilities; Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Assessment July 2, 2008. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC) regulations, 18 CFR Part 380, Commission staff has reviewed the application for an original license for the proposed Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 11841-002) and has prepared a final environmental assessment (final EA) for the project. The project would be located on Whitman Creek, approximately 4 miles east of the City of Ketchikan, Alaska. The project would occupy 155.8 acres of lands of the United States, 155 acres administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and 0.8 acres administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. On February 8, 2008, Ketchikan Public Utilities
(KPU)filed a multi-party Settlement Agreement. In addition to KPU, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Water Resources Section, and the Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association were signatories to the Settlement Agreement. The final EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Copies of the final EA are available for review in Public Reference Room 2-A of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC. The final EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *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. Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(202)502-6088, or on the Commission's Web site using the eLibrary link. For assistance with eLibrary, contact *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at
(866)208-3676; for TTY contact
(202)502-8659. For further information, contact Kenneth Hogan at
(202)502-8434 or by e-mail at * kenneth.hogan@ferc.gov.* Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15701 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 10854-080-MI] Upper Peninsula Power Company; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment July 2, 2008. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed Upper Peninsula Power Company's proposed shoreline management plan for the Cataract Hydroelectric Project, located on the Middle Branch of the Escanaba River in Marquette County, Michigan, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA). A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number (P-10854) excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202)502-8659. Any comments on the EA should be filed by August 1, 2008, and should be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1-A, Washington, DC 20426. Please reference the project name and project number (P-10854) on all comments. Comments may be filed electronically via Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “eFiling” link. For further information, contact Jon Cofrancesco at
(202)502-8951. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15700 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP06-5-009] Empire Pipeline, Inc. and Empire State Pipeline; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Amended Empire Connector Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues July 2, 2008. The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment
(EA)that will discuss the environmental impacts of the amended portion of the Empire Connector Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Empire Pipeline, Inc.
(EPI)and Empire State Pipeline (Empire), a subsidiary of National Fuel Gas Company, in Ontario County, New York. 1 These amended facilities would consist of about 1 mile of 24-inch-diameter pipeline. This EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity. 1 EPI and Empire's application was filed with the Commission under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations. If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with state law. A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” was attached to the project notice EPI provided to landowners. This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ). Summary of the Proposed Project EPI and Empire's Empire Connector Project (project) which expands Empire's pipeline system in New York was approved by the FERC on December 21, 2006, and is a part of the Northeast-07 Project (NE-07 Project) 2 and is currently under construction. Through its recent easement negotiations about the crossing of the New York State Thruway (Thruway) with the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), Empire learned that a portion of the approved route between approximate mileposts
(MPs)4.0 and 4.8 along Crowley Road lies within the NYSDOT property and is part of the Thruway easement. The NYSDOT's policy prohibiting lateral occupancy of limited access highways by utilities (other than communication utilities) applies to this location. Empire has developed the proposed alternative pipeline route to avoid construction within the easement. Empire seeks authority to construct and operate: 2 The notice of availability for the final supplemental environmental impact statement for the NE-07 Project was issued October 13, 2006. It will be incorporated by reference into the EA for this amendment project. • About 1 mile of 24-inch-diameter pipeline between MPs 3.8 and 4.8 of the project. The location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix 1. 2 Land Requirements for Construction Construction of the proposed facilities would require about 11.0 acres of land. Following construction, about 5.3 acres would be maintained within the permanent right-of-way. The remaining 6.7 acres of land would be restored and allowed to revert to its former use. The EA Process The National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping”. The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern. In the EA we 3 will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings: 3 “We”, “us”, and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP). • Geology and Soils • Land Use • Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands • Cultural Resources • Vegetation and Wildlife • Endangered and Threatened Species • Hazardous Waste • Public Safety We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners, newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the public participation section beginning on page 3. Currently Identified Environmental Issues We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the environmental information provided by EPI and Empire. This preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis. • About 0.6 acre and 0.3 acre of agricultural land would be impacted by construction and operation of the proposed project, respectively. • About 1.1 acres of forest would be impacted by construction of the project, respectively. • About 1.7 acres and 0.9 acre of residential property would be affected by construction and operation of the project, respectively. • About 0.9 acre and 0.6 acre of wetland would be impacted by construction and operation of the project, respectively. • One irrigation water supply well would be within 150 feet of the proposed alternative pipeline alignment. Public Participation You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send in your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC, on or before August 1, 2008. For your convenience, there are three methods in which you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the project docket number CP06-5-009 with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has dedicated eFiling expert staff available to assist you at 202-502-8258 or *efiling@ferc.gov.*
(1)You may file your comments electronically by using the *Quick Comment* feature, which is located on the Commission's Internet Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the link to *Documents and Filings.* A Quick Comment is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only comments on a project;
(2)You may file your comments electronically by using the *eFiling feature,* which is located on the Commission's internet Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the link to *Documents and Filings.* eFiling involves preparing your submission in the same manner as you would if filing on paper, and then saving the file on your computer's hard drive. You will attach that file as your submission. 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. A comment on a particular project is considered a “Comment on a Filing;” or
(3)You may file your comments via mail to the Commission by sending an original and two copies of your letter to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426; label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 2, PJ11.2. We may mail the EA for comment. If you are interested in receiving it, please return the Information Request (Appendix 3). If you do not return the Information Request, you will be taken off the mailing list. Becoming an Intervenor In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an official party to the proceeding, or “intervenor”. To become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene according to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214). Intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. Motions to Intervene should be electronically submitted using the Commission's eFiling system at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons without Internet access should send an original and 14 copies of their motion to the Secretary of the Commission at the address indicated previously. Persons filing Motions to Intervene on or before the comment deadline indicated above must send a copy of the motion to the Applicant. All filings, including late interventions, submitted after the comment deadline must be served on the Applicant and all other intervenors identified on the Commission's service list for this proceeding. Persons on the service list with email addresses may be served electronically; others must be served a hard copy of the filing. 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 environmental comments considered. Environmental Mailing List An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities. By this notice we are also asking governmental agencies, especially those in Appendix 2, to express their interest in becoming cooperating agencies for the preparation of the EA. Additional Information 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.* Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at *http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx* along with other related information. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15703 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No.: 2277-023] Union Electric Company, dba AmerenUE; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission, Soliciting Additional Study Requests, and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and a Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments July 2, 2008. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection. a. *Type of Application:* New Major License. b. *Project No.:* 2277-023. c. *Date Filed:* June 24, 2008. d. *Applicant:* Union Electric Company, dba AmerenUE. e. *Name of Project:* Taum Sauk Pumped Storage Project. f. *Location:* The project is located on the East Fork Black River and Taum Sauk Creek, in Reynolds, Iron, St. Francois, and Washington counties, near the Town of Lesterville, Missouri. The project does not occupy any federal lands. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r). h. *Applicant Contact:* Michael O. Lobbig, P.E., Managing Supervisor, Hydro Licensing, AmerenUE, 1901 Chouteau Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63103; *mlobbig@ameren.com.* i. *FERC Contact:* Allan Creamer, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426; 202-502-8365; *allan.creamer@ferc.gov.* j. *Cooperating agencies:* We are asking Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the environmental document. Agencies who would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing such requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene. *See* 94 FERC ¶ 61,076 (2001). k. Pursuant to 18 CFR Section 4.32(b)(7) of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant. l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status: August 25, 2008. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *See* 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) under the “e-Filing” link. m. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time. n. The 408-megawatt
(MW)Taum Sauk Project consists of the following principal features:
(1)A roller compacted concrete dam, with
(i)a crest elevation of 1,601.0 feet mean sea level (msl),
(ii)3.5-foot-high parapet walls to an elevation of 1,604.5 feet msl, and
(iii)a 700-foot-long overflow release structure with a crest elevation of 1,599.0 feet msl;
(2)a 54.5-acre upper reservoir, having a total useable volume of 4,360 acre-feet;
(2)a 390-foot-long ogee-shaped concrete-gravity dam, with
(i)a 26-foot-long gated sluice,
(ii)a steel-lined conduit having a capacity of 2,500 cubic feet per second (cfs),
(iii)a 16-inch, spiral-welded pipe having a capacity of 50 cfs, and
(iv)a crest elevation of 750 msl;
(3)a 363-acre lower reservoir, with normal maximum and minimum operating elevations of 749.5 and 736 feet msl and a total usable storage of 3,869 acre-feet;
(4)a tunnel and penstock, having a total volume of 82.5 acre-feet, that consists of
(i)a 451-foot-long lined and unlined vertical shaft,
(ii)a two-section, 6,572-foot-long tunnel, and
(iii)a short penstock that bifurcates into the powerhouse,
(5)a concrete powerhouse equipped with two reversible pump generating units, each rated at 204 MW;
(6)a 5,500-foot-long tailrace channel;
(7)a sediment trap (about 400 feet in length, with a crest elevation of about 748.0 msl); and
(8)transmission and other appurtenant facilities. The project has an average annual generation of just over 497 gigawatt-hours (2000-2005). AmerenUE is rebuilding the project's upper reservoir. However, AmerenUE proposes no changes to the existing pump-storage operation of the project, at this time. As part of the rebuild, AmerenUE will be installing a new water control system. In addition, AmerenUE and the resource agencies are assessing a new water management plan during the 2-year rebuild period. AmerenUE is not proposing any PM&Es (except for a 1.4-cfs flow in the river downstream from the project and a historic properties management plan, if needed), but will undertake studies and surveys aimed at providing information needed to develop its proposed environmental measures. o. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. You may also register online at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp* to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. p. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the Missouri State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR 800.4. q. Procedural schedule and final amendments: The application will be processed according to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate. Issue Deficiency Letter—August 2008 Request Additional Information—September 2008 Issue Acceptance letter—November 2008 Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments—April 2011 Request Additional Information—June 2011 Issue Scoping Document 2—July 2011 Notice of application is ready for environmental analysis—August 2011 Notice of the availability of the draft NEPA Document—February 2012 Notice of the availability of the final NEPA Document—June 2012 Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15702 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM98-1-000] Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice July 2, 2008. This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications. Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication. Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010. Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v). The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC, Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at
(866)208-3676, or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. Exempt: Docket No. Date received Presenter or requester 1. CP08-6-000; DCP08-9-000; PR08-1-000 6-12-08 Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchinson. 2. CP08-6-000; CP08-9-000; PR08-1-000 6-16-08 Hon. Mac Thornberry. 3. CP08-85-000 6-17-08 Hon. Charles S. McCann. 4. P-12569-000 6-30-08 Robert G. Whitlam, PhD. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15699 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8690-2; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0983] 2007 Interim Report of the U.S. EPA Global Change Research Program Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Preliminary Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on O <sup>3</sup> AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Public Comment Period. SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a 45-day public comment period for the draft document titled, “2007 Interim Report of the U.S. EPA Global Change Research Program Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Preliminary Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on O <sup>3</sup> ” (EPA/600/R-07/094). The document was prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment within EPA's Office of Research and Development. EPA is releasing this draft document solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency policy or determination. EPA will consider any public comments submitted in accordance with this notice when revising the document. DATES: The 45-day public comment period begins July 10, 2008, and ends August 25, 2008. Technical comments should be in writing and must be received by EPA by August 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: The draft “2007 Interim Report of the U.S. EPA Global Change Research Program Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Preliminary Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on O <sup>3</sup> ” is available primarily via the Internet on the National Center for Environmental Assessment's home page under the Recent Additions and the Data and Publications menus at *http://www.epa.gov/ncea.* A limited number of paper copies are available from NCEA's Information Management Team; telephone: 703-347-8561; facsimile: 703-347-8691. If you are requesting a paper copy, please provide your name, mailing address, and the document title “2007 Interim Report of the U.S. EPA Global Change Research Program Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Preliminary Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on O <sup>3</sup> .” Comments may be submitted electronically via *http://www.regulations.gov* , by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/courier. Please follow the detailed instructions provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public comment period, contact the Office of Environmental Information Docket; telephone: 202-566-1752; facsimile: 202-566-1753; or e-mail: *ORD.Docket@epa.gov.* For technical information, contact Brooke L. Hemming, PhD, National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA); telephone: 919-541-5668; e-mail *hemming.brooke@epamail.epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Summary of Information About the Project/Document The “2007 Interim Report of the U.S. EPA Global Change Research Program Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Preliminary Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on O <sup>3</sup> ” is intended to provide air quality managers and scientists a summary and synthesis of the scientific results that have emerged from the EPA ORD Global Change Research Program (ORD GCRP) assessment of the impact of global change on U.S. regional air quality. The report discusses the studies that have focused on the sensitivity of U.S. air quality to meteorological changes associated with a warming climate in large regions within the continental U.S. The EPA recognizes that climate-air quality interactions occur at multiple scales (both spatial and temporal), and that an understanding of these interactions demands contributions from several scientific disciplines. The EPA ORD GCRP developed a research and assessment program that combines the resources and expertise of the ORD labs and centers toward the goal of developing the necessary scientific underpinnings. The ultimate goal of the Program is to provide air quality managers with the scientific information and tools needed to evaluate the implications of global change and to enhance their ability to consider global change in their decisions. The “2007 Interim Report of the U.S. EPA Global Change Research Program Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Preliminary Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on O <sup>3</sup> ” is a preliminary step in that direction. This report provides an update of the progress that has been made in applying climate and atmospheric chemistry models to investigate potential future meteorological effects on air quality. It does not include changes in air pollutant emissions other than those that are explicitly linked to meteorological variables and incorporated within the models (e.g., biogenic VOC emissions). In addition, it provides a preliminary interpretation of what this improved scientific understanding means for air quality management. Future assessment reports will cover the combined impacts of changing climate and air pollutant emissions on air quality. The program also plans to develop additional reports that focus on additional pollutants, including PM and mercury. NCEA worked collaboratively with the EPA Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), and ORD's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL), National Exposure Research Laboratory
(NERL)and National Center for Environmental Research
(NCER)on this report. II. How To Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at http://www.regulations.gov Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0983, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *ORD.Docket@epa.gov* • *Fax:* 202-566-1753 • *Mail:* Office of Environmental Information
(OEI)Docket (Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-566-1752. • *Hand Delivery:* The OEI Docket is located in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center, Room 3334 EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 202-566-1744. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0983. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will be marked “late,” and may only be considered if time permits. It is EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket without change and to make the comments available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless a 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:* 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 materials, such as copyrighted material, are 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 OEI Docket in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center. Dated: June 24, 2008. Rebecca Clark, Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment. [FR Doc. E8-15727 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8690-1] Agency Information Collection Activities OMB Responses AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This document announces the Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB)responses to Agency Clearance requests, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). 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 are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Westlund
(202)566-1682, or e-mail at *westlund.rick@epa.gov* and please refer to the appropriate EPA Information Collection Request
(ICR)Number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB Responses to Agency Clearance Requests OMB Approvals EPA ICR Number 1698.07; EPA's WasteWise Program (Renewal); was approved 06/24/2008; OMB Number 2050-0139; expires 06/30/2011. EPA ICR Number 1736.05; EPA's Natural Gas STAR Program (Renewal); was approved 07/01/2008; OMB Number 2060-0328; expires 07/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 1800.05; Information Requirements for Locomotives and Locomotive Engines (Final Rule for Locomotive and Marine Engines); in 40 CFR part 1033, subparts C, D, E and G; was approved 07/03/2008; OMB Number 2060-0392; expires 07/31/2009. EPA ICR Number 0559.10; Application for Reference and Equivalent Method Determination (Final Rule); in 40 CFR part 53; was approved 07/03/2008; OMB Number 2080-0005; expires 07/31/2011. Short Term Extension of Expiration Date EPA ICR Number 0922.07; Data Call-ins for the Special Review and Registration Review Programs; a short term extension of the expiration date was granted by OMB on 06/30/2008; OMB Number 2070-0057; expires 09/30/2008. EPA ICR Number 1911.02; Data Acquisition for Anticipated Residue and Percent of Crop Treated; a short term extension of the expiration date was granted by OMB on 06/30/2008; OMB Number 2070-0164; expires 09/30/2008. EPA ICR Number 1504.05; Data Generation for Pesticide Reregistration; a short term extension of the expiration date was granted by OMB on 06/30/2008; OMB Number 2070-0107; expires 09/30/2008. Comment Filed EPA ICR Number 2294.01; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Plating and Polishing Area Sources (Proposed Rule); in 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWWWW; OMB filed comments on 07/01/2008. EPA ICR Number 2298.01; NESHAP for Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Source Categories (Proposed Rule); in 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXXXX; OMB filed comments on 07/01/2008. EPA ICR Number 2307.01; NSPS for Portland Cement Plants (Proposed Rule); in 40 CFR part 60, subpart F; OMB filed comments on 07/03/2008. EPA ICR Number 0940.21; Ambient Air Quality Surveillance (Proposed Rule for Lead); OMB filed comments on 07/03/2008. Dated: July 3, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-15724 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8689-6] Proposed Past Cost Administrative Settlement Under Section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act; In the Matter of New Carlisle Well Contamination Site, New Carlisle, Clark County, OH AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice; request for public comment. SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement for recovery of past response costs concerning the New Carlisle Well Contamination (“NCWC”) Site, New Carlisle, Clark County, Ohio, Waste Management of Ohio, Inc., (“WMOI”). The settlement requires WMOI to pay $335,000.00 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund, which represents approximately 90% of U.S. EPA's documented past costs. Under the terms of the settlement, WMOI agrees to pay the settlement amount. In exchange for its payment, the United States covenants not to sue or take administrative action pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), relating to the NCWC Site. In addition, WMOI is entitled to protection from contribution actions or claims as provided by Sections 113(f) and 122(h)(4) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9613(f) and 9622(h)(4), for all response costs incurred and to be incurred by any person at the NCWC Site. For thirty
(30)days after the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the settlement. 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. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at EPA's Region 5 Office at 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, and at the New Carlisle Public Library, 111 E. Lake St., New Carlisle, OH 45344, Contact: Ted Allison. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 11, 2008. ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at EPA's Record Center, 7th floor, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604. A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from Jeffrey A. Cahn, Associate Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Mail Code C-14J, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone
(312)886-6670. Comments should reference the New Carlisle Well Contamination Site, New Carlisle, Clark County, Ohio, and EPA Docket No. V-W-08-C-904, and should be addressed to Jeffrey A. Cahn, Associate Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Mail Code C-14J, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey A. Cahn, Associate Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Mail Code C-14J, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone
(312)886-6670. Authority: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601, *et seq.* Dated: July 1, 2008. Richard C. Karl, Director, Superfund Division. [FR Doc. E8-15723 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices, Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank Holding Companies; Correction This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. E8-14916 published on page 37970 of the issue for Wednesday, July 2, 2008. Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City heading, the entry for Brian Wallman, Denver, Colorado, is revised to read as follows: **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City** (Todd Offenbacker, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001: *1. Brian Wallman, individually and as a member of the Wallman Family Group; and Liam Wallman* , both of Denver, Colorado; Zachary Sherwin, Adam Sherwin and Emily Sherwin, all of Union, Nebraska; Molly Sherwin, Omaha, Nebraska; and Susan Sherwin, Nebraska City, Nebraska, all members of the Wallman Family Group, to retain control of Wallco, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain control of Nehawka Bank, both in Nehawka, Nebraska Comments on this application must be received by July 16, 2008. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 7, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E8-15689 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank Holding Companies The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than July 25, 2008. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta** (Steve Foley, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309: *1. Mark R. Dickert Revocable Living Trust, Mark R. Dickert, Lori Dickert, of Brandenton, Florida; and Paul W. Dickert, trustees; Paul W. Dickert and Laura H. Dickert, of Gainesville, Florida; Jerry D. Dickert Revocable Living Trust, Perry, Florida; Mark R. Dickert and Paul W. Dickert, trustees; and Coleene S. Dickert Revocable Living Trust, Perry, Florida; Mark R. Dickert and Paul W. Dickert, trustees* , to retain voting shares of Perry Banking Company and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Citizens State Bank, both of Perry, Florida. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 7, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E8-15688 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Monday, July 14, 2008. PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th Street entrance between Constitution Avenue and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551. STATUS: Open. We ask that you notify us in advance if you plan to attend the open meeting and provide your name, date of birth, and social security number
(SSN)or passport number. You may provide this information by calling 202-452-2474 or you may **register online** . You may pre-register until close of business July 11, 2008. You also will be asked to provide identifying information, including a photo ID, before being admitted to the Board meeting. The Public Affairs Office must approve the use of cameras; please call 202-452-2955 for further information. If you need an accommodation for a disability, please contact Penelope Beattie on 202-452-3982. For the hearing impaired only, please use the Telecommunication Device for the Deaf
(TDD)on 202-263-4869. **Privacy Act Notice** : Providing the information requested is voluntary; however, failure to provide your name, date of birth, and social security number or passport number may result in denial of entry to the Federal Reserve Board. This information is solicited pursuant to Sections 10 and 11 of the Federal Reserve Act and will be used to facilitate a search of law enforcement databases to confirm that no threat is posed to Board employees or property. It may be disclosed to other persons to evaluate a potential threat. The information also may be provided to law enforcement agencies, courts, and others, but only to the extent necessary to investigate or prosecute a violation of law. **MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:** **Discussion Agenda** : 1. Final Amendments to Regulation Z (Truth in Lending). **Note:** 1. The staff memo to the Board will be made available to the public in paper and the background material will be made available on a computer disc in Word format. If you require a paper copy of the document, please call Penelope Beattie on 202-452-3982. 2. This meeting will be recorded for the benefit of those unable to attend. Computer discs
(CDs)will then be available for listening in the Board's Freedom of Information Office, and copies can be ordered for $4 per disc by calling 202-452-3684 or by writing to: Freedom of Information Office, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C. 20551. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-2955. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 for a **recorded announcement** of this meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at *http://www.federalreserve.gov* for an **electronic announcement** . (The Web site also includes procedural and other information about the open meeting.) Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 7, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. 08-1427 Filed 7-7-08; 4:09 pm]
Connectionstraces to 85
Traces to 85 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
45 references not yet in our index
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 26 CFR 1
  • Pub. L. 109-280
  • 120 Stat. 780
  • 28 CFR 32
  • Pub. L. 108-182
  • Pub. L. 110-161
  • 121 Stat. 1912
  • 469 F.3d 993
  • 469 F.3d 1376
  • 483 F.3d 1316
  • 493 F.3d 1343
  • Pub. L. 90-351
  • Pub. L. 94-430
  • 90 Stat. 1348
  • Pub. L. 107-37
  • 50 CFR 17
  • 50 CFR 424.14(b)
  • 50 CFR 424.14(a)
  • 50 CFR 424.20
  • 50 CFR 424
  • 50 CFR 648
  • 7 USC 1621-1627
  • 7 CFR 36
  • 7 CFR 51.1
  • 899 F.2d 1185
  • 50 CFR 216
  • 50 CFR 222
  • 50 CFR 216.24(f)
  • 37 CFR 2
  • Pub. L. 98-620
  • 41 CFR 105
  • 10 CFR 430
  • 42 USC 6291-6309
  • 42 USC 6311-6317
  • Pub. L. 109-58
  • 10 CFR 430.401(g)
  • 10 CFR 431
  • 18 CFR 380
  • 40 CFR 1501.6
+ 5 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 106
C.F.R.§ 39.19
U.S.C.§ 7805
U.S.C.§ 3796c
U.S.C.§ 605
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 3501
F. App'x469 F.3d 993
F. App'x469 F.3d 1376
F. App'x483 F.3d 1316
Cites 130 · 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.