Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1622), 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.” USDA is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural products. One way of achieving this objective is through the development and maintenance of voluntary standards by AMS. AMS is seeking comments on a proposed voluntary U.S. Standard for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims, Naturally Raised Claim for Livestock and the Meat and Meat Products Derived from such Livestock, in accordance with procedures that are contained in Title 7 Part 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

On November 28, 2007, AMS published a notice (72 FR 67266) with request for comments for the proposed voluntary standard for a naturally raised marketing claim. The comment period closed on January 28, 2008. However, a number of interested producers, processors, and marketers have requested additional time to evaluate the full impact of the requirements of the proposed standard in order to provide more meaningful and substantive comments. Therefore, AMS has determined that there is sufficient justification to reopen and extend the comment period.

Electronic Access: Applicants are advised to carefully read the FFO announcement for a detailed description of program information and application requirements. The FFO for the Postsecondary Internship Program is available via the Internet at: http://www.grants.gov .

Funding Availability: Projections based upon previous experience indicate an average availability of between $300,000-$1,000,000 to support from 25 up to about 100 interns. However, the exact level of funding available is not yet known until DOC and other agency host offices project their participation levels. Actual awards may differ from these estimates. Funding for the program listed in this notice is contingent upon the availability of Fiscal year 2008 appropriations under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (Pub. L. 110-161).

Statutory Authority: Authority for the Postsecondary Internship Program is provided by 5 U.S.C. 7201, which requires that each Executive agency conduct a continuing program for the recruitment of members of minorities to address under representation of minorities in various categories of federal employment. Executive Order 13256 provides for Executive departments to enter into, among other things, cooperative agreements with Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) to further the goals of the Executive Order, principally that of strengthening the capacity of HBCUs to provide quality education, and to increase opportunities to participate in and benefit from federal programs. Executive Order 13230 calls for increasing opportunities for Hispanic Americans to participate in and benefit from federal education programs. Executive Order 13270 helps ensure that greater federal resources are available to the tribal colleges. Executive Order 13216 directs federal agencies to increase participation of Asian and Pacific Islanders in federal programs. Applications will be accepted from any eligible institution, and applications for internships shall be accepted from all students meeting program eligibility criteria. Application, referral and selection processes shall be conducted without any consideration of race, ethnicity, gender, or other personal factors.

Eligibility: Accredited universities, colleges and nonprofit organizations are eligible to apply. Eligible institutions may form joint ventures to submit a joint application to share costs and administration roles and responsibilities. In such cases, one of the institutions must be designated as the lead organization for purposes of receipt and overall accountability for any financial assistance award received under this program.

Cost Sharing or Matching Requirement: Cost sharing or matching is not required for the internship program.

Intergovernmental Review: Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

Evaluation and Selection Procedures: Prior to the formal paneling process, each application will receive an initial screening to ensure that all required forms, signatures and documentation are present. Each application will receive an independent, objective review by a panel qualified to evaluate the applications submitted. The Independent Review Panel, consisting of at least three individuals (who are federal employees), will review all applications based on the criteria stated above. The Independent Review Panel will evaluate and rank the proposals. Each reviewer will evaluate and provide a score for each proposal. After all proposals are assigned a score, each proposal will be ranked according to the average total score given by reviewers. The final decision on awards will be based upon the proposal ranking, availability of funding, and the Selecting Official's (DOC Program Manager) determination of which proposals best meet the objectives of the program, specifically related to ensuring who will best reach the targeted audience of intern candidates. The amount of funds awarded to each recipient will be determined in pre-award negotiations between the applicant, the Grants Officer, and the DOC Program Manager.

Evaluation Criteria (total 100 points, plus 5 bonus points): The evaluation criteria and weighting of the criteria are as follows:

1. Quality of Program Plan (45 total points). Includes quality of strategy for outreach, recruitment, and publicity; procedures for collecting and evaluating applications; comprehensiveness of program design to include plans for onsite orientation for summer sessions; other program activities; and practicality of approach. This criterion is broken down into the following sub-criteria:

(1a.) Recruitment (20 points). DOC internship positions will require academic studies in the diverse fields of business, math, science and engineering. Recruitment must be conducted so that students who have the required academic background are identified for the program. Applications should be solicited from a broad range of students who meet defined program criteria such as U.S. citizenship, Grade Point Average (GPA) and academic standing.

(1b.) Outreach and Publicity (15 points). Must be conducted so that women and minorities that are underrepresented in the DOC are included in the target groups. Publicity should be conducted to inform academic institutions and students about upcoming program opportunities. Participation in the program must be open to all eligible students without regard to age, race, ethnicity, gender, or other pertinent factors.

(1c.) Other Program Activities (10 points). Includes procedures for collecting and evaluating applications, comprehensiveness of program design to include plans for onsite orientation for summer sessions, and other required program activities described in Section I.B of this FFO.

2. Proposed Costs (20 points). The proposed budget must be comprehensive and should include all costs for program personnel, fringe benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, and other associated items. The stipend level and other benefits (i.e., housing, local transportation, etc.) proposed for students should be stated in the budget and the budget narrative. Proposals should be based upon the cost of administering a summer program for 25 student interns and should include a per capita cost for additional interns. Proposals for a semester or quarter session (spring and fall) should be projected on the basis of 5 interns, and should include a per capita cost for additional interns. Actual awards may differ from these estimates.

3. Key Personnel Qualifications (15 points). This includes an assessment of the number, qualifications, and proposed roles of staff who will administer the internship program. Resumes of proposed personnel will facilitate the evaluation of the competency and experience of the proposed staff.

4. Capabilities of the Applicant Organization (20 points). This considers, among other things, previous experience and success administering similar programs, and staff and resources to assure adequate development, supervision, and execution of the proposed program. Additionally, an organization's commitment to educate/advance the education of women and minorities will be a consideration in evaluating this factor.

5. Bonus criteria: Accredited universities, colleges and nonprofit organizations that form joint ventures to increase the diversity of their talent pool and submit a joint application to share costs and administration roles and responsibilities will receive five (5) bonus points to their score.

Limitation of Liability: In no event will the DOC be responsible for proposal preparation costs if this program fails to receive funding or is cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige the DOC to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds.

The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements: The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the Federal Register notice of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389) are applicable to this notice.

Paperwork Reduction Act: This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Executive Order 12866: This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act: Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for rules concerning public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared.

On September 11, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of this antidumping administrative review. Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 72 FR 51781 (September 11, 2007). On December 28, 2007, the Department extended the deadline for these results by 23 days. Floor-standing, Metal-top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Second Antidumping Administrative Review , 72 FR 73758 (December 28, 2007). The period of review for this administrative review is August 1, 2005, to July 31, 2006.

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 Error! Main Document Only.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 February 1, 2008, is not practicable. The Department requires additional time to conduct surrogate value research and review and analyze interested party comments. As a result, the Department has determined to extend the current time limits of this administrative review by an additional 37 days. Since a 37-day extension would result in the deadline for the final results falling on March 9, 2008, which is a Sunday, the new deadline for the final results will be the next business day, March 10, 2008. Notice of Clarification: Application of “Next Business Day” Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended , 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(I) of the Act.

On August 8, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CPF from Thailand. See Preliminary Results . We conducted a sales and cost verification of Vita from September 17 through September 25, 2007. See Verification of the U.S. and Comparison Market Sales Information and the Cost Information in the Response of Vita Food Factory (1989) Co., Ltd. for the 2005-06 Administrative Review of Canned Pineapple Fruit (CPF) from Thailand , issued on November 30, 2007 ( Vita Verification Report ). Furthermore, we conducted a sales verification of Trofco on September 26 through September 28, 2007. See Verification of the U.S. and Comparison Market Sales Information of Tropical Food Industries Co., Ltd. for the 2005-06 Administrative Review of Canned Pineapple Fruit (CPF) from Thailand , issued on November 30, 2007 ( Trofco Verification Report ). We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results and the verification reports. We received no comments.

The product covered by this order is CPF, defined as pineapple processed and/or prepared into various product forms, including rings, pieces, chunks, tidbits, and crushed pineapple, that is packed and cooked in metal cans with either pineapple juice or sugar syrup added. CPF is currently classifiable under subheadings 2008.20.0010 and 2008.20.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). HTSUS 2008.20.0010 covers CPF packed in a sugar-based syrup; HTSUS 2008.20.0090 covers CPF packed without added sugar ( i.e. , juice-packed). Although these HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive. There have been no scope rulings for the subject order.

Based on our findings at verification, we have made minor adjustments in the methodology that was used in the Preliminary Results for Trofco and Vita and accounted for corrections to their reported data.

At verification, Vita provided minor corrections relating to its reported commissions in the comparison market. Moreover, the Department identified additional minor corrections to Vita's reported commissions data. As a result, we have made adjustments to certain comparison market commissions made by Vita. Vita also provided minor corrections to its packing expenses and its direct selling expenses. As a result, we have made adjustments to Vita's packing expenses and direct selling expenses. For a further explanation of these changes, see Vita Verification Report at pages 3-4. Furthermore, based on information obtained since the preliminary results of this review, we have determined that Vita's reported commissions are more appropriately treated as discounts for the majority of sales by Vita to the United States. See Vita Verification Report at page 7; see also the Memorandum to the File, from Douglas Kirby through Dana Mermelstein (Program Manager) re: Analysis of Vita for the Final Results , dated January 24, 2008, on file in the Central Record Unit, room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building (CRU).

Trofco also provided minor corrections at verification to its reported packing expenses. As a result, we have revised Trofco's packing expenses. Furthermore, Trofco provided minor corrections to its direct selling expenses for U.S. sales. As a result, we have revised Trofco's direct selling expenses for U.S. sales. See Trofco Verification Report at page 2; see also the Memorandum to the File, from Myrna Lobo through Dana Mermelstein (Program Manager) re: Analysis of Trofco for the Final Results , dated January 24, 2008, on file in the Central Record Unit, room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building (CRU).

As a result of this review, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006:

The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated importer- specific duty assessment rates (or, when the importer was unknown by the respondent, customer-specific duty assessment rates) on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales observations involving each importer to the total entered value of the examined sales observations for that importer. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the “All Others” rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a discussion of this clarification, see Notice of Policy Concerning Assessment of Antidumping Duties , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results of this administrative review for all shipments of canned pineapple fruit from Thailand entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a) of the Act: (1) for companies covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above; (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 investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the producer of the merchandise in these final results of review, a prior review, or in the final determination; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 24.64 percent, the “all-others” rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred, and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice is the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the 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.

We are issuing and publishing these results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On October 18, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) initiated the antidumping duty investigation of raw flexible magnets from the People's Republic of China. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan , 72 FR 59071 (July 24, 2007) (“ Initiation Notice ”). The notice of initiation stated that, unless postponed, the Department would make its preliminary determination in these antidumping duty investigations no later than 140 days after the date of the initiation. See Initiation Notice.

On January 16, 2008, Magnum Magnetics Corporation (“Petitioner”) made a timely request pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e) for a fifty-day postponement of the preliminary determination in this investigation. Petitioner requested postponement of the preliminary determination because of the complexity of the case, the Department's unfamiliarity with the industry, and the difficult time schedule ahead.For the reasons identified by the Petitioner, and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, the Department is postponing the preliminary determination under section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), by fifty days from February 29, 2008 to April 19, 2008. However, as that date falls on a Saturday, the preliminary determination will be due no later than the next business day, Monday, April 21, 2008. The deadline for the final determination will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless extended.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

On July 17, 2007, the Department initiated the antidumping duty investigation of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from the Republic of Korea. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Turkey, and the People's Republic of China , ( Initiation Notice ), 72 FR 40274 (July 24, 2007). The Petitioners in this investigation are Allied Tube and Conduit, Atlas Tube, Bull Moose Tube Company, California Steel and Tube, EXLTUBE, Hannibal Industries, Leavitt Tube Company, Maruichi American Corporation, Searing Industries, Southland Tube, Vest Inc., Welded Tube, and Western Tube and Conduit (Petitioners).

The Department set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit comments. See Initiation Notice , 72 FR 40274, 40275 (July 24, 2007). No party submitted comments on the scope.

On August 28, 2007, the United States International Trade Commission (the Commission) preliminarily determined there is a reasonable indication that imports of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Korea, Mexico and Turkey are materially injuring the U.S. industry and notified the Department of its findings. See Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From China, Korea, Mexico, and Turkey , Investigation Nos. 701-TA-449 and 731-TA-1118-1121 (Preliminary), 72 FR 49310 (August 28, 2007).

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the subject merchandise. The Department identified a large number of producers and exporters of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from the Republic of Korea (Korea) and determined that it was not practicable to examine each known exporter/producer of the subject merchandise, as provided in section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act. The Department sent quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires to the companies identified in the petition, as well as to other companies identified during our analysis. On July 31, 2007, the Department sent Q&V questionnaires to the following companies: Ahshin Pipe & Tube, Dong-A Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., Han Gyu Rae Steel, Co., Ltd., HiSteel Co. Ltd., Jinbang Steel Co. Ltd., Joong Won, Kukje Steel Co. (Kukje), Ltd., Miju Steel Mfg. Co. Ltd., Nexteel, SeAH Steel Corporation, Ltd. (SeAH), and Yujin Steel Industry Co.

Ahshin Pipe & Tube mailed its response by first class mail dated August 20, 2007, but that letter was not submitted as required through our Central Records Unit, did not include a complete response to the Department's Q&V questionnaire or include the required certifications, and was not served on all interested parties. Consequently, the response did not comport with 19 CFR 351.103, 351.302(d)(1), 351.303(f)(2) and 351.303(g), and was returned to Ahshin Pipe & Tube on September 7, 2007.

On August 27, 2007 and September 28, 2007, the Department requested that Han Gyu Rae Steel Co., Ltd., (Han Gyu Rae) resubmit its public version of its response to the Q&V questionnaire which it had submitted on August 17, 2007, because a proper public version was not provided. In its September 28, 2007, letter the Department warned Han Gyu Rae that it may not accept the response as currently filed and that the Department may apply facts available in accordance with section 776 of the Tariff Act, and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.308. The Department received no reply from Han Gyu Rae and thus returned its August 17, 2007, submission on November 9, 2007. Furthermore, the Department did not receive any response at all to either its July 31, 2007, quantity and value questionnaire or its August 16, 2007, follow-up letter from the following companies: Dong-A Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., HiSteel Co. Ltd., Jinbang Steel Co. Ltd., Joong Won, Miju Steel Mfg. Co. Ltd., and Yujin Steel Industry Co. 1

Three respondents—SeAH, Kukje and Nexteel—responded to the Department's Q&V questionnaire. Kukje and Nexteel accounted for the largest volume of subject merchandise exported to the United States during the period of investigation (POI). Hence, these two firms were selected as mandatory respondents pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. See the September 5, 2007, Memorandum to Deputy Assistant Secretary Stephen J. Claeys, entitled “Antidumping Duty Investigation on Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the Republic of Korea (Korea) (A-580-859), Respondent Selection” (Respondent Selection Memorandum). We issued antidumping questionnaires to Kukje and Nexteel on September 7, 2007.

The Department received the Section A response from Kukje on October 5, 2007, and from Nexteel on October 10, 2007. Petitioners provided comments on Kukje's and Nexteel's Section A responses on October 16, 2007. On October 19, 2007, the Department issued Nexteel a supplemental questionnaire concerning its October 10, 2007, Section A response. On October 22, 2007, Kukje informed the Department that Kukje was unable to respond further to the antidumping questionnaire. We received the Sections B and C responses from Nexteel on October 29, 2007. Nexteel also responded voluntarily to Section D, Cost of Production, in this submission.

On November 9, 2007, Petitioners provided comments on Nexteel's Sections B and C response, and submitted a cost allegation with respect to Nexteel. On November 27, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Nexteel concerning Nexteel's Sections B and C response, to which Nexteel responded on December 19, 2007.

On December 7, 2007, the Department initiated a cost investigation on Nexteel. See memorandum from Mark Flessner, Case Analyst, and Christopher J. Zimpo, Accountant, to Richard O. Weible, Director, Office 7, entitled “Petitioners” Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Nexteel Co. Ltd.,” dated December 7, 2007 (Cost Allegation Memorandum). On December 21, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Nexteel concerning Nexteel's Section D response, to which Nexteel responded on January 10, 2008.

On December 26, 2007, petitioners timely filed with the Department an allegation of targeted dumping for Nexteel. Nexteel filed comments regarding petitioners' allegation on January 3, 2008. Upon review of petitioners' allegation, the Department determined that further information was needed in order to adequately analyze petitioners' allegation. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to petitioners on January 14, 2008, requesting that they address deficiencies identified by the Department. See Letter from Richard O. Weible, Director, Office 7, to Petitioners, dated January 14, 2008. Because there was a need for supplemental information regarding the allegation, we do not have sufficient bases for making a finding of targeted dumping prior to the January 23, 2008, deadline for issuance of the preliminary determination. We intend to address the allegation in full upon receipt of a satisfactory response by Petitioners to our request for additional information.

On October 19, 2007, the Petitioners requested the Department postpone the preliminary determination by 50 days pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e). The Department published a notice of postponement on November 14, 2007, which set the new deadline for the preliminary determination at January 23, 2008. See Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico, Turkey, and the Republic of Korea: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigations , 72 FR 64044 (November 14, 2007).

The POI is April 1, 2006, to March 31, 2007.

The merchandise that is the subject of this investigation is certain welded carbon quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 4 mm.

The term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy steel which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. Specifically, the term carbon-quality includes products in which none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity by weight respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. The description of carbon-quality is intended to identify carbon-quality products within the scope. The welded carbon-quality rectangular pipe and tube subject to this investigation is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, all products produced by the respondents covered by the description in the Scope of Investigation section, above, and sold in Korea during the POI are considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales.

On August 16, 2007, the Department asked all parties in the investigation of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from the Republic of Korea and in the concurrent antidumping duty investigations of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Mexico, Turkey, and the People's Republic of China, for comments on the appropriate product characteristics for defining individual products; parties in this investigation and in the concurrent antidumping duty investigations of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Mexico and Turkey were also invited to comment on the appropriate model matching methodology. See Letter from Richard Weible, Director, Office 7, dated August 16, 2007. The Department received comments from the Mexican company Perfiles y Herrajes LM on August 23, 2007; from the Mexican companies Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V. and Prolamsa USA, Inc. on August 24, 2007 August 27, 2007 and September 4, 2007; from the Turkish company Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S. on August 24, 2007; from the Chinese producer/exporter Zhangjiagang Zhongyuan Pipe-Making Co., Ltd.; and from the Petitioners on August 24, 2007. The Department did not make any changes to its proposed characteristics and model matching methodology as a result of the comments submitted by parties.

We have relied on six criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like product: steel input type, whether metallic coated or not, whether painted or not, perimeter, wall thickness and shape. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above.

For the reasons discussed below, we determine the use of adverse facts available (AFA) is appropriate for the preliminary determination with respect to the following nine companies: Dong-A Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., HiSteel Co. Ltd., Jinbang Steel Co. Ltd., Joong Won, Miju Steel Mfg. Co. Ltd., Yujin Steel Industry Co., Ahshin Pipe & Tube, Han Gyu Rae, and Kukje. As noted in the Supplementary Information section above, the first six companies failed to respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire and to the Department's follow up letter of August 16, 2007. Ahshin Pipe & Tube submitted an improper, incomplete, and untimely Q&V questionnaire response that the Department returned; Han Gyu Rae failed to resubmit its August 17, 2007 Q&V response and the Department returned Han Gyu Rae's Q&V submission on November 9, 2007. On October 22, 2007, Kukje informed the Department that it was unable to respond further to the antidumping questionnaire.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act provides that, if an interested party withholds information requested by the administering authority, fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the information and in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782, significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in 782(I), the administering authority shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Tariff Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Tariff Act provides that, if the administering authority determines a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, the administering authority shall promptly inform the responding party and provide an opportunity to remedy the deficient submission. Section 782(e) of the Tariff Act states further that the Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.

In this case, Dong-A Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., HiSteel Co. Ltd., Jinbang Steel Co. Ltd., Joong Won, Miju Steel Mfg. Co. Ltd., Yujin Steel Industry Co., Ahshin Pipe & Tube, and Han Gyu Rae all failed to provide necessary information by the deadlines for submission of the information and/or in the form or manner requested. Thus, for these eight companies in reaching our preliminary determination, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Tariff Act, we have based the dumping margin on facts otherwise available.

Kukje, one of the mandatory respondents, did not provide pertinent information we requested that is necessary to calculate an antidumping margin for the preliminary determination. Specifically, Kukje failed to provide a complete response to our questionnaire, thereby withholding, among other things, home-market and U.S. sales information that is necessary for reaching the applicable determination, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act. Thus, in reaching our preliminary determination, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Tariff Act, we have based the dumping margin for Kukje on facts otherwise available.

According to section 776(b) of the Tariff Act, if the Department finds that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from the facts otherwise available. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India , 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (September 13, 2005); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil , 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). It is the Department's practice to apply adverse inferences to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully. See, e.g. , id. Furthermore, “affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule , 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States , 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon); see also Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Final Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 72 FR 69663, 69664 (December 10, 2007).

Although the Department provided all respondents, including Dong-A Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., HiSteel Co. Ltd., Jinbang Steel Co. Ltd., Joong Won, Miju Steel Mfg. Co. Ltd., Yujin Steel Industry Co., Ahshin Pipe & Tube, Han Gyu Rae and Kukje, with notice informing them of the consequences of their failure to respond adequately to the questionnaire in this case, pursuant to section 782(d) of the Tariff Act, the companies listed above did not respond as requested. This constitutes a failure on the part of these companies to cooperate to the best of their ability to comply with a request for information by the Department within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Tariff Act. 2 Based on the above, the Department has preliminarily determined that Dong-A Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., HiSteel Co. Ltd., Jinbang Steel Co. Ltd., Joong Won, Miju Steel Mfg. Co. Ltd., Yujin Steel Industry Co., Ahshin Pipe & Tube, Han Gyu Rae and Kukje failed to cooperate to the best of their ability and, therefore, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is warranted. See, e.g. , Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Japan , 65 FR 42985, 42986 (July 12, 2000) (the Department applied total AFA where the respondent failed to respond to the antidumping questionnaire).

Where the Department applies AFA because a respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information, section 776(b) of the Tariff Act authorizes the Department to rely on information derived from the petition, a final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. See also 19 CFR 351.308(c). It is the Department's practice to use the highest rate from the petition in an investigation when a respondent fails to act to the best of its ability to provide the necessary information. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, 69 FR 77216 (December 27, 2004) (unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, 70 FR 28279 (May 17, 2005)). Therefore, because an adverse inference is warranted, we have assigned to Dong-A Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., HiSteel Co. Ltd., Jinbang Steel Co. Ltd., Joong Won, Miju Steel Mfg. Co. Ltd., Yujin Steel Industry Co., Ahshin Pipe & Tube, Han Gyu Rae and Kukje the highest margin alleged in the petition, as referenced in the Initiation Notice, of 30.66 percent. See Initiation Notice at 40278.

When using facts otherwise available, section 776(c) of the Tariff Act provides that when the Department relies on secondary information (such as the petition) rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation, it must corroborate, to the extent practicable, information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal.

To “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, vol. 1 (1994) at 870 (SAA), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198-4199. As stated in 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) (unchanged in 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; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825, 11843 (March 13, 1997)), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information used. The Department's regulations state that independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. See 19 CFR 351.308(d).

For the purposes of this investigation, to the extent appropriate information was available, we reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the Petition during our pre-initiation analysis and for purposes of this preliminary determination. See Initiation Checklist. We examined evidence supporting the calculations in the Petition to determine the probative value of the margins alleged in the Petition for use as AFA for purposes of this preliminary determination. During our pre-initiation analysis we examined the key elements of the export price and normal value calculations used in the Petition to derive margins. During our pre-initiation analysis we also examined information from various independent sources provided either in the Petition or in supplements to the Petition that corroborates key elements of the export price and normal value calculations used in the Petition to derive estimated margins.

Specifically, the Petitioners calculated an export price using U.S. price quotes it obtained for light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Korea. These price quotes identify the price that the first U.S. purchaser unaffiliated with the foreign producer, i.e. , the international trader/importer, offered to its customer. The Petitioners also calculated a second export price using the average monthly Customs Unit Values (AUVs) ((Free Alongside Ship) (F.A.S.)) of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Korea for consumption in the United States, classified under HTSUS numbers 7306.60.50.00 and 7306.61.50.00, gathered from the Bureau of the Census IM145 import statistics. We then compared the U.S. price quote to the AUVs for this period and confirmed that the value of the U.S. price quote was consistent with the AUV's. Further, we obtained no other information that would make us question the reliability of the pricing information provided in the Petition.

The Petitioners adjusted export prices for international freight and dealer mark-up. The Petitioners used the difference between the F.A.S. and C.I.F. AUVs for imports from Korea to the United States to calculate international freight costs. See Petition at page II-10; see also July 6, 2007 Supplement to the Petition at 6. These data are from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Census Bureau, which are sources of information that we consider reliable. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Superalloy Degassed Chromium from Japan, 70 FR 48538, 48540 (August 18, 2005), (unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Superalloy Degassed Chromium from Japan, 70 FR 65886 (November 1, 2005)). Further, we obtained no other information that would make us question the reliability of the adjusted information provided in the Petition. The Petitioners estimated the distributor mark-up based on Searing Industries sales personnel's knowledge of importer's mark-ups in the domestic light-walled rectangular tubing industry. The Petitioners provided an affidavit from persons attesting to the validity of the distributor mark-up value the Petitioners used in the calculation of net U.S. price. See Initiation Checklist at 9.

Based on our examination of the aforementioned information, we consider the Petitioners' calculation of net U.S. prices corroborated.

With respect to normal value, the Petitioners derived Korean home market prices from a January 2007 edition of the Korean Metal Journal, a recognized industry journal; no evidence on the record questions the validity of this source. Two series of prices were listed: a “consumer” price (based on destination) and a “wholesale price.” As a conservative measure, the lower-valued wholesale price was selected; this is more reflective of sales to distributors. Prices were quoted in won per meter and were converted into U.S. dollars using an average dollar weight for the proposed POI. The prices were also converted from meters to hundred-pound-weight (cwt), as cwt is the weight by which the subject merchandise is typically sold in the United States. Petitioners claim the delivery term for the wholesale price is ex-factory as demonstrated by the single price for all regions of the country, whereas consumer prices vary by different regions of the country suggesting the inclusion of freight. Petitioners note the products for which they obtained U.S. prices fall within the product category used for Normal Value (NV) from the Korean Metal Journal. See Volume II of the Petition at pages 9-10 and Exhibits II 21-23 and Volume II of the Supplement to the Petition dated July 6, 2007 at pages 1-2 and Exhibit 1.

Based on our examination of the aforementioned information, we consider the Petitioners' calculation of net home market prices corroborated.

We also examined information obtained from interested parties to corroborate the home market and U.S. prices. Margin percentages calculated for Nexteel exceeded those from the Petition.

Therefore, because we confirmed the accuracy and validity of the information underlying the derivation of margins in the Petition by examining source documents, publicly available information, and primary information submitted by respondent Nexteel, we preliminarily determine that the margins in the Petition are reliable for the purposes of this investigation.

In making a determination as to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not relevant. Where circumstances indicate the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin as “best information available” (the predecessor to “facts available”) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense that resulted in an unusually high dumping margin.

In American Silicon Technologies v. United States, 273 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1346 (CIT 2003), the court affirmed Commerce's adverse facts-available rate, noting that it bore a “rational relationship” to the respondent's “commercial practices,” and was, therefore, relevant. As described above, in the pre-initiation stage of this investigation, we confirmed the calculation of margins in the Petition reflects commercial practices of the particular industry during the period of investigation. Further, no information has been presented in the investigation that calls into question the relevance of this information. As such, we preliminarily determine the highest margin in the Petition, which we determined during our pre-initiation analysis was based on adequate and accurate information and which we have corroborated for purposes of this preliminary determination, is relevant as the adverse facts-available rate for Dong-A Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., HiSteel Co. Ltd., Jinbang Steel Co. Ltd., Joong Won, Miju Steel Mfg. Co. Ltd., Yujin Steel Industry Co., Ahshin Pipe & Tube, Han Gyu Rae and Kukje in this investigation.

Similar to our position in Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 53405, 53407 (September 11, 2006) (unchanged in Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 1982 (January 17, 2007)), because this is the first proceeding involving these companies, there are no probative alternatives. Accordingly, by using information that was corroborated in the pre-initiation stage of this investigation and preliminarily determined to be relevant to Dong-A Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., HiSteel Co. Ltd., Jinbang Steel Co. Ltd., Joong Won, Miju Steel Mfg. Co. Ltd., Yujin Steel Industry Co., Ahshin Pipe & Tube, Han Gyu Rae and Kukje in this investigation, we have corroborated the adverse facts-available rate “to the extent practicable.” See section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, 19 CFR 351.308(d), and NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1336 (CIT 2004) (stating, “pursuant to the ‘to the extent practicable’ language * * * the corroboration requirement itself is not mandatory when not feasible”). Therefore, we find that the estimated margin of 30.66 percent in the Initiation Notice has probative value. Consequently, in selecting AFA with respect to Dong-A Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., HiSteel Co. Ltd., Jinbang Steel Co. Ltd., Joong Won, Miju Steel Mfg. Co. Ltd., Yujin Steel Industry Co., Ahshin Pipe & Tube, Han Gyu Rae and Kukje, we have applied the margin rate of 30.66 percent, the highest estimated dumping margin set forth in the notice of initiation. See Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 40278.

Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states the Department normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the producer's or exporter's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale. The regulations further provide that the Department may use a date other than the date of the invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale are established. See 19 CFR 351.401(I). The Department has a long-standing practice of finding that, where shipment date precedes invoice date, shipment date better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale are established. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams from Germany, 67 FR 35497 (May 20, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products From Brazil, 64 FR 38756, 38767 (July 19, 1999). Nexteel maintains the quantity is fixed on the date of shipment from its factory but that the price is only finalized when Nexteel issues the commercial and tax invoices. The issuance of commercial and tax invoices is frequently after shipment, but was not before shipment for any POI sales in both the home and U.S. markets. Therefore, Nexteel has reported the date of shipment from its factory as the date of sale under the field SALEDATH. See Nexteel's Section B response dated October 29, 2007, at pages B-14 to B-15. However, since the material terms of sale are not finalized until issuance of the commercial invoice, we have preliminarily determined to use date of invoice as the date of sale in both the home and U.S. markets. See Nexteel's supplemental Section B response dated December 26, 2007, at pages 17 to 18.

To determine whether sales of subject merchandise from Korea were made in the United States at less than NV, we compared the export price (EP) to the NV, as described in the U.S. Price and Normal Value sections below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1) of the Tariff Act, we calculated the weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to the weighted-average of EP.

For the price to the United States, we used EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff Act. Pursuant to section 772(a) of the Tariff Act, we used the EP methodology when the merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter outside the United States directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and when constructed export price (CEP) was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. Nexteel has no affiliate in the United States and reports all its sales as EP sales. See Nexteel's Section C response at page C-9. Nothing on the record indicates that Nexteel's U.S. market sales are CEP sales, so we did not use the CEP methodology. We based EP on the packed prices charged to the unaffiliated Korean trading companies (as Nexteel knew the merchandise it was selling to that trading company was destined for the United States). See Nexteel's Section A questionnaire response dated October 9, 2007, at page A-11; see also Wonderful Chemical Industrial, Ltd., et al. v. United States, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1273, 1279 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). There were no reported billing adjustments or duty drawback claims.

In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Tariff Act, we make deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland freight and brokerage expenses from plant to delivery. Due to the nature of Nexteel's U.S. sales (all were made to unaffiliated Korean trading companies who took possession at the Korean port), however, Nexteel had no expenses from plant to delivery other than transportation.

To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared Nexteel's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Tariff Act, because Nexteel had an aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable.

Nexteel reported sales of the foreign like product to affiliated customers. The Department calculates 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 price at which sales are made to parties not affiliated with the producer or exporter, i.e. , the sales were at “arm's length.” See 19 CFR 351.403(c). To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and packing. Id. In accordance with the Department's current practice, if the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise identical or most similar to that sold to the affiliated party, we considered the sales to be at arm's-length prices and included such sales in the calculation of NV. Conversely, where sales to the affiliated party did not pass the arm's-length test, all sales to that affiliated party would be excluded from the NV calculation. See 19 CFR 351.403(c) see also Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002), and memorandum from Mark Flessner, Case Analyst, to the file entitled, “Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the Republic of Korea,” dated January 23, 2008 (Analysis Memorandum). No such sales were excluded for Nexteel.

Based on our analysis of the Petitioners' allegation, we found that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Nexteel's sales of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube in the home market were made at prices below their COP. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, we initiated a sales-below-cost investigation to determine whether Nexteel had sales that were made at prices below their respective COPs. See Cost Allegation Memorandum.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff Act, we calculated Nexteel's COP based on the sum of its costs of materials and conversion for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative (G&A) expenses and interest expenses ( see the Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices section below for the treatment of home market selling expenses).

The Department relied upon Nexteel's COP and CV information from the company's submission dated January 10, 2008. To determine COP, the reported cost of manufacturing data (TOTCOM) were adjusted by incorporating G&A expenses and financial expenses based on Nexteel's financial statements, and included in Nexteel's section D response at Exhibits D-9 and D-10, respectively.

On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the home market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, in order to determine whether the sale prices were below the COP. The prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, direct and indirect selling expenses, and packing expenses.

In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act, whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(c) of the Tariff Act, where less than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales of a given model were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's home market sales of a given model were at prices less than COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because: (1) They were made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities,” in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Tariff Act, and (2) based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act.

Our cost test indicated that for certain Nexteel models, 20 percent or more of the home market sales volume (by weight) were sold at prices below COP within an extended period of time and were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, we excluded these below-cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales in the calculation of NV.

We based home market prices on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Korea. We adjusted the starting price for inland freight, warehouse expense, and warehouse revenue, where appropriate, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Tariff Act. In addition, for comparisons made to EP sales, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expense) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit and other direct selling expenses), where appropriate. See 19 CFR 351.410(c).

When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b).

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transaction. In identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales ( i.e. , NV based on home market), we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and the difference affects 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 make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act (the CEP offset provision). Nexteel reported sales through one LOT corresponding to two channels of distribution in the home market. In the U.S. market, Nexteel reported one LOT corresponding to one channel of distribution for the EP sales made through unaffiliated Korean trading companies (as stated above, there were no CEP sales during the POI). In our analysis, we determined that there is one LOT in the home market and one LOT in the U.S. market. Nexteel did not claim that there were differing LOTs in the home and U.S. markets. Our analysis of the various selling functions indicates no differing LOTs in the home and U.S. markets. See Nexteel's section A questionnaire response dated October 9, 2007, at Exhibit A-5; Nexteel's Selling Function Chart shows the same level of activity in each market for every function listed in this exhibit. We have therefore preliminarily determined that sales to the U.S. and home markets were made at the same LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment was warranted.

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Tariff Act based on exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Tariff Act states: “If the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or de minimis margins, or are determined entirely under section 776, the administering authority may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated, including averaging the estimated weighted average dumping margins determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated.” Nexteel is the only respondent in this investigation for which the Department has calculated a company-specific rate. This rate, however, is de minimis . Nine remaining companies all received a margin based entirely on AFA under section 776 of the Tariff Act. One company, SeAH, will receive the all-others rate ( i.e. , its rate was not calculated, as stated above). Therefore, for purposes of determining the all-others rate, because there are no other rates than de minimis or those based on AFA, we have reasonably determined to take a simple average of the AFA rate (30.66 percent) and the de minimis rate calculated for Nexteel (1.30 percent); therefore, 15.98 percent is the average to be assigned for the all-others rate, as referenced in the Suspension of Liquidation section, below.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act, we intend to verify information upon which we will rely in making our final determination.

We preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2007:

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of LWR pipe and tube from the Republic of Korea, with the exception of those produced by Nexteel Co., Ltd. and exported by Nexteel Co., Ltd. or either of the two exporters named in its questionnaire responses, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice 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, as indicated in the chart above, as follows: (1) The rate for the firms listed above (except for Nexteel, see below) will be the rate we have determined in this preliminary 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 15.98 percent. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.204(e)(2), because the weighted-average margin for Nexteel is de minimis , we will instruct CBP not to suspend liquidation of merchandise produced by Nexteel Co., Ltd. and exported by Nexteel Co., Ltd. or either of the two exporters named in its questionnaire responses.

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Tariff Act, we have notified the Commission of the Department's preliminary affirmative determination. If the Department's final determination is affirmative, the Commission will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether imports of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Korea are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. Because we have postponed the deadline for our final determination to 135 days from the date of the publication of this preliminary determination, the Commission will make its final determination within 45 days of our final determination.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in this preliminary determination within five days of the date of the public announcement.

Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the Department no later than seven days after the date of the issuance of the final verification report in this proceeding. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days from the deadline date for the submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1) and (2). A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Further, we request that parties submitting briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the Department with a copy of the public version of such briefs on diskette. In accordance with section 774 of the Tariff Act, the Department will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing is made in this investigation, the hearing will tentatively be held two days after the rebuttal brief deadline date at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and place to be determined. However, parties should confirm by telephone, the date, time, and location of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled date.

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate in a hearing if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days of the 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 the issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). At the hearing, oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Tariff Act, on January 3, 2008, Nexteel, which accounted for a significant proportion of exports of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube, requested that in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 days. At the same time, Nexteel requested that the Department extend by 60 days the application of the provisional measures. See Section 735(a)(2) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2). In accordance with section 733(d) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative, (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are granting Nexteel's request and are postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Suspension of liquidation will be extended accordingly.

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

On June 28, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) received a petition on imports of laminated woven sacks from the PRC from the Laminated Woven Sacks Committee and its individual members, Bancroft Bags, Inc., Coating Excellence International, LLC, Hood Packaging Corporation, Mid-America Packaging, LLC, and Polytex Fibers Corporation (collectively, “Petitioners”). This investigation was initiated on July 18, 2007. See Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 72 FR 40833 (July 25, 2007) (“ Initiation Notice ”). On August 14, 2007, the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded by reason of imports from the PRC of laminated woven sacks. The ITC's determination was published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2007. See, Laminated Woven Sacks From China, 72 FR 46246 (August 17, 2007) (“ ITC Preliminary Determination ”).

In accordance with the preamble to our regulations, 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. On August 7, 2007, Petitioners provided comments to the scope and requested that the Department include their suggested revisions and additions into the language of the scope. No other party provided scope comments or commented on Petitioners' August 7, 2007, submission. The Department has analyzed the comments received and has preliminarily determined to amend the scope from the Initiation Notice . We will afford interested parties an opportunity to provide comments on our preliminary finding on this issue in their case and rebuttal briefs, and, if any are provided, we will address these comments in our final determination.

On July 19, 2007, the Department sent a letter requesting quantity and value (“Q&V”) information to the China Bureau of Fair Trade for Imports & Exports (“BOFT”) of the Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) requesting that BOFT transmit the letter to all companies who manufacture and export subject merchandise to the United States, or produce the subject merchandise for the companies who were engaged in exporting the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”). The Department did not receive any type of communication from BOFT regarding its request for Q&V information. Also on July 19, 2007, we requested Q&V information from 41 potential exporters or producers of laminated woven sacks from the PRC. The Department received Q&V responses from 16 producers and/or exporters that exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POI.

On August 16, 2007, the Department selected two mandatory respondents, Shandong Shouguang Jianyuanchun Co., Ltd. (“SSJ”), and Zibo Aifudi Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd.(”Aifudi”), which were two exporters, of those companies that responded to the Department's request for Q&V information, that accounted for the largest volume measured by total pieces of subject merchandise shipped to the United States during the POI. See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, from Catherine Bertrand, Senior International Trade Analyst: Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China, dated August 16, 2007.

We received fifteen separate rate applications by the due date of September 17, 2007. However on September 27, 2007, we rejected two of these applications for filing deficiencies. The rejected applications were from The Seventh Plastic Factory of Danyang City and Jiangmen Jing Long Plastic Packing Co/Jiangmen Xinhui Sanjiang Plastic. We gave these two companies a deadline of October 11, 2007, to re-submit a corrected application. We did not receive an application from either company by the new deadline, and therefore we do not consider these two companies to be separate rate applicants. We also sent supplemental questionnaires to Jiangsu Hotson Plastics Co. Ltd., Shandong Qilu Plastic Fabric Group Stock Co., Ltd., Zibo Linzi Luitong Plastic Fabric Co. Ltd., Zibo Linzi Qitianli Plastic Fabric Co., Ltd., Zibo Linzi Worun Packing Product Co., Ltd., and, Zibo Qigao Plastic Cement Co. Ltd., and we received timely responses from all of these companies.

On August 17, 2007, the Department received comments from Petitioners on product characteristics to be used in the designation of control numbers (“CONNUMs”) to be assigned to the subject merchandise. On August 17, 2007, the Department issued its sections A, C, D, and E, questionnaire to the two mandatory respondents, SSJ and Aifudi. After receiving responses to the questionnaire from both companies, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to both companies and received timely responses. Petitioners submitted deficiency comments throughout the investigation for both companies.

On October 15, 2007, the Department determined that India, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Indonesia, and Philippines are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. See Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, China/NME Group, Office 9: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, dated October 15, 2007.

On October 15, 2007, the Department requested comments on the surrogate country selection from the interested parties in this investigation. Petitioners submitted surrogate country comments on October 31, 2007. No other interested parties commented on the selection of a surrogate country. For a detailed discussion of the selection of the surrogate country, see the “Surrogate Country” section below.

On December 19, 2007, Petitioners, SSJ, and Aifudi submitted comments on surrogate information with which to value the factors of production in this proceeding. On January 2, 2008, Petitioners, SSJ, and Aifudi filed rebuttal comments on the surrogate information. Also, on January 2, 2008, SSJ submitted additional surrogate value information.

On November 2, 2007, Petitioners alleged that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist with respect to the antidumping investigation of laminated woven sacks from the PRC. On November 9, 2007, the Department issued questionnaires requesting data for monthly exports to the United States from January 2005 through October 2007 from SSJ and Aifudi, and received timely responses. For a detailed discussion, please see the “Critical Circumstances” section below.

On November 9, 2007, Petitioners made a timely request, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e), for a 50-day postponement of the preliminary determination in this investigation, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act. The Department extended the preliminary determination by 50 days. See Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Laminated Woven Sacks From the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 65706 (November 23, 2007).

On January 11, 2008, Aifudi requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department: (1) Postpone its final determination by 60 days in accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(2)(ii) and 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act; and (2) extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a 4-month period to a 6-month period.

The POI is October 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition. See 19 CFR *351.204(b)(1).

The merchandise covered by this investigation is laminated woven sacks. Laminated woven sacks are bags or sacks consisting of one or more plies of fabric consisting of woven polypropylene strip and/or woven polyethylene strip, regardless of the width of the strip; with or without an extrusion coating of polypropylene and/or polyethylene on one or both sides of the fabric; laminated by any method either to an exterior ply of plastic film such as biaxially-oriented polypropylene (“BOPP”) or to an exterior ply of paper that is suitable for high quality print graphics;  1 printed with three colors or more in register; with or without lining; whether or not closed on one end; whether or not in roll form (including sheets, lay-flat tubing, and sleeves); with or without handles; with or without special closing features; not exceeding one kilogram in weight. Laminated woven sacks are typically used for retail packaging of consumer goods such as pet foods and bird seed.

Effective July 1, 2007, laminated woven sacks are classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 6305.33.0050 and 6305.33.0080. Laminated woven sacks were previously classifiable under HTSUS subheading 6305.33.0020. If entered with plastic coating on both sides of the fabric consisting of woven polypropylene strip and/or woven polyethylene strip, laminated woven sacks may be classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 3923.21.0080, 3923.21.0095, and 3923.29.0000. If entered not closed on one end or in roll form (including sheets, lay-flat tubing, and sleeves), laminated woven sacks may be classifiable under other HTSUS subheadings including 3917.39.0050, 3921.90.1100, 3921.90.1500, and 5903.90.2500. If the polypropylene strips and/or polyethylene strips making up the fabric measures more than 5 millimeters in width, laminated woven sacks may be classifiable under other HTSUS subheadings including 4601.99.0500, 4601.99.9000, and 4602.90.000. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

For purposes of initiation, Petitioners submitted LTFV analyses for the PRC as a non-market economy (“NME”). See Initiation Notice , 72 FR at 40835. The Department considers the PRC to be an NME country. See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China , 72 FR 30758, 30760 (June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China , 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007). In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. No party has challenged the designation of the PRC as an NME country in this investigation. Therefore, we continue to treat the PRC as an NME country for purposes of this preliminary determination.

When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value, in most circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate values we have used in this investigation are discussed under the normal value section below.

We find that India, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Indonesia, and Philippines are all at an economic level of development equally comparable to that of the PRC. Based on the data provided by Petitioners, we recognize that India is a producer of comparable merchandise. See Petitioners' Surrogate Country Letter at 2. Petitioners provided a list of Indian laminated woven sacks producers. See id. at Exhibit 2. Additionally, the Department obtained worldwide export data for laminated woven sacks. Because the Department was unable to find production data, we are relying on export data as a substitute for overall production data in this case. Although India and Indonesia appear to both be significant producers of comparable merchandise, no party in this proceeding requested that Indonesia be selected as the surrogate country. Furthermore, Petitioners and both mandatory respondents submitted recommended surrogate values using Indian sources, suggesting greater availability of appropriate surrogate value data in India rather than Indonesia.

As noted above, the Department only received surrogate country comments from the Petitioners stating that the appropriate surrogate country is India, and the two mandatory respondents submitted suggested surrogate values from India. The Department is preliminarily selecting India as the surrogate country on the basis that: (1) It is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to 733(c)(4) of the Act; (2) it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; and (3) we have reliable data from India that we can use to value the factors of production. Thus, we have calculated normal value using Indian prices when available and appropriate to value SSJ and Aifudi's factors of production. See Memorandum to the File from Javier Barrientos, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, and James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Determination, dated January 24, 2008 (“Surrogate Value Memorandum”).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final determination in an antidumping investigation, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value the factors of production within 40 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. 2

We preliminarily find SSJ and Shandong Longxing Plastic Pack Co., Ltd. (“Longxing”) to be affiliated parties within the meaning of section 771(33)(E) and (F) of the Act, based on ownership and common control. See SSJ's October 26, 2007, supplemental response at Exhibits SA-6, SA-8A, and SA-8b. Furthermore, we find that they should be considered as a single entity for purposes of this investigation. See 19 CFR 351.401(f). In addition to being affiliated, they have production facilities for similar or identical products that would not require substantial re-tooling in order to restructure manufacturing priorities and there is a significant potential for manipulation of production based on the level of common ownership and control, shared management, and an intertwining of business operations. See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2); SSJ's October 26, 2007, supplemental response at pages SA-4, and SA-6-SA-8. For a detailed discussion of this issue, please see the proprietary Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Catherine Bertrand, Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Affiliation and Single Entity status of Shandong Shouguang Jianyuanchun Co., Ltd., and Shandong Longxing Plastic Pack Co., Ltd., in the Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China, dated January 24, 2008.

Because the Department finds SSJ and Longxing to be a single entity, the Department is utilizing the integrated FOP database SSJ provided for purposes of the preliminary determination which includes the factors of production from Longxing and SSJ. Additionally, the Department plans to further investigate whether any other entities are affiliated with SSJ or Longxing.

In the Initiation Notice , the Department notified parties of the application process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations. See Initiation Notice . The process requires exporters and producers to submit a separate-rate status application. See also Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries , (April 5, 2005), (“ Policy Bulletin 05.1 ”) available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov . 3 However, the standard for eligibility for a separate rate (which is whether a firm can demonstrate an absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over its export activities) has not changed.

In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. As discussed below, SSJ and Aifudi, and all but one of the companies that submitted a separate rate application, have provided company-specific information to demonstrate that they operate independently of de jure and de facto government control, and therefore satisfy the standards for the assignment of a separate rate.

We have considered whether each PRC company that submitted a complete application is eligible for a separate rate. We note that because we rejected the applications filed by The Seventh Plastic Factory of Danyang City and Jiangmen Jing Long Plastic Packing Co/Jiangmen Xinhui Sanjiang Plastic and because these companies did not re-file an application as instructed, they do not qualify for a separate rate.

The Department's separate-rate test is not concerned, in general, with macroeconomic/border-type controls, e.g. , export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China , 63 FR 72255, 72256 (December 31, 1998). The test focuses, rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the individual firm level. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value , 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review , 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).

To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ Sparklers ”), as further developed in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ Silicon Carbide ”). In accordance with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export activities. Additionally, if the Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government control.

In its separate-rate application, Polywell Industrial Co. (also known as Firstway (H.K.) Limited) (“Polywell”) reported that it is wholly foreign-owned. Polywell explained that it is a limited liability company incorporated in Hong Kong and its ultimate owners are citizens of a market-economy country. Therefore, because there is no PRC ownership of Polywell and because it is wholly foreign-owned, and we have no evidence indicating that it is under the control of the PRC, further separate rates analysis is not necessary to determine whether Polywell is independent from government control. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the People's Republic of China , 64 FR 71104, 71104 (December 20, 1999) (where the respondent was wholly foreign-owned, and thus, qualified for a separate rate). Accordingly, we have preliminarily granted a separate rate to Polywell.

Certain separate rate applicants stated that they are either joint ventures between Chinese and foreign companies or are wholly Chinese-owned companies (“SR Applicants”). Therefore, the Department must analyze whether these respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export activities.

The Department considers the following de jure criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers , 56 FR at 20589.

The evidence provided by SSJ, Aifudi and the SR Applicants supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of governmental control based on the following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporters' business and export licenses; (2) there are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and (3) there are formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.

Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide , 59 FR at 22586-87; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China , 60 FR 22544, 22544-45 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.

We determine that, for SSJ, Aifudi and all of the SR Applicants except Shandong Qilu Plastic Fabric Group Stock Co., Ltd. (“Qilu”), the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of de facto absence of governmental control based on record statements and supporting documentation showing the following: (1) Each exporter sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) each exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management.

Therefore, the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by SSJ, Aifudi and the SR Applicants, with the exception of Qilu, demonstrate an absence of de jure and de facto government control with respect to each of the exporters' exports of the merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide . As a result, for the purposes of this preliminary determination, we have granted a separate company-specific rate to SSJ and Aifudi. Additionally, we have granted all the SR Applicants, except Qilu as explained below, a weighted-average margin, for the purposes of this preliminary determination. Finally, and as discussed previously, we granted Polywell a separate company-specific rate because it is wholly foreign-owned.

The Department is not granting a separate rate to Qilu because it did not fully report all of its ultimate owners, and because its financial statements are unreliable. Qilu failed to report all of its ultimate owners, and without this information, the Department cannot conclude that Qilu operates independently of the government and without the approval of a government authority. Further, we determine that Qilu's financial statements are unreliable, and because the financial statements have a direct impact on determining whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses, which is one of the critical elements considered in the analysis of de facto control, we conclude that Qilu is not entitled to a separate rate. For a detailed discussion of this issue, please see the proprietary Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Catherine Bertrand, Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Separate Rate Memorandum in the Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China, dated January 24, 2008.

The Department has data that indicate there were more exporters of laminated woven sacks from the PRC than those indicated in the response to our request for Q&V information during the POI. See Respondent Selection Memorandum . We issued our request for Q&V information to 41 potential Chinese exporters of the subject merchandise, in addition to BOFT and MOFCOM. 4 We received 16 Q&V responses filed by the deadline. See Respondent Selection Memorandum at 1. We did not receive Q&V responses from the remaining companies to which we sent our request for Q&V information. See id . Based upon our knowledge of the volume of imports of subject merchandise from the PRC, the companies which responded to the Q&V questionnaire, SSJ, Aifudi, and the companies that submitted separate rate applications do not account for all imports into the United States. Although all exporters were given an opportunity to provide Q&V information, not all exporters provided a response to the Department's Q&V letter. Further, the Government of the PRC did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. Therefore, the Department determines preliminarily that there were PRC exports of the subject merchandise during the POI from PRC producers/exporters that did not respond to the Department's request for information. We have treated these PRC producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not qualify for a separate rate.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party (A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department, (B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(i) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.

Information on the record of this investigation indicates that the PRC-wide entity was non-responsive. Certain companies did not respond to our request for Q&V information and did not respond to the Department's questionnaire, and, as previously noted, the Government of the PRC did not respond. See Respondent Selection Memorandum at Attachment II for a full list of non-responsive companies. As a result, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find that the use of facts available is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam , 68 FR 4986, 4991 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam , 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003).

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 Uruguay Round Agreements Act Statement of Administrative Action H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (“ SAA ”). We find 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 preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference is appropriate.

Further, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available (“AFA”) information derived from the petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for adverse facts available, the Department selects a rate that 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.” 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). It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the higher of the (a) highest margin alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest calculated rate of any respondent in the investigation. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Flat-Rolled Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's Republic of China , 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at “Facts Available.”

In the instant investigation, as AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-wide entity a margin based on the highest calculated rate of the mandatory respondents, which in this case is Aifudi. Therefore, we are applying the highest calculated rate of the mandatory respondents which is 108.09 percent. Section 776(c) of the Act requires that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. 5 Here, we are not using secondary information as the basis of the PRC-wide rate, and therefore, corroboration is not necessary.

Consequently, we are applying 108.09 percent as the single antidumping rate to the PRC-wide entity. The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the merchandise under investigation except for entries from SSJ, Aifudi, and the separate rate applicants receiving a separate rate.

The Department received timely and complete separate rate applications from the Separate Rate Applicants, who are all exporters of laminated woven sacks from the PRC, which were not selected as mandatory respondents in this investigation. Through the evidence in their applications, with the exception of Qilu, these companies have demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate, as discussed above. Consistent with the Department's practice, as the separate rate, we have established a weighted-average margin for the Separate Rates Applicants based on the rates we calculated for SSJ and Aifudi, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis , or based entirely on AFA. Companies receiving this rate are identified by name in the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice.

Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that, “in 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 normal 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); see also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States , 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090-1093 (CIT 2001) (“ Allied Tube ”). The date of sale is generally the date on which the parties agree upon all substantive terms of the sale. This normally includes the price, quantity, delivery terms and payment terms. In order to simplify the determination of date of sale for both the respondent and the Department and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i), the date of sale will normally be the date of the invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, unless satisfactory evidence is presented that the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale on some other date. In Allied Tube , the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) found that a “party seeking to establish a date of sale other than invoice date bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence to ‘satisfy' the Department that a ‘different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale.’ ” Allied Tube 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1090 (quoting 19 CFR 351.401(i)). In other words, the date of the invoice is the presumptive date of sale, although this presumption may be overcome. For instance, in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan , 61 FR 14064, 14067 (March 29, 1996), the Department used the date of the purchase order as the date of sale because the terms of sale were established at that point.

After examining the questionnaire responses and the sales documentation that SSJ and Aifudi placed on the record, we preliminarily determine that invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale for all of SSJ's sales. For Aifudi's constructed export price (“CEP”) sales where shipment date preceded invoice date, we used shipment date as the date of sale. For Aifudi's CEP sales where shipment date was the same as or after the invoice date, we used the invoice date as the date of sale. See Aifudi's December 11, 2007, supplemental Section C response at Exhibit S2-2. Aifudi did not have any EP sales.

To determine whether sales of laminated woven sacks to the United States by SSJ and Aifudi were made at less than fair value, we compared the export price (“EP”) or CEP, as appropriate, to normal value (“NV”), as described in the “U.S. Price,” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice.

For SSJ, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based the U.S. price on EP because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and the use of CEP was not otherwise warranted. In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, we calculated EP by deducting, where applicable, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, and rebates from the gross unit price.

We based these movement expenses on surrogate values where a PRC company provided the service and was paid in Renminbi (“RMB”) ( see “Factors of Production” section below for further discussion). If market-economy service providers, who were paid in a market economy currency, provided movement services for over 33 percent of subject merchandise shipments, by volume, we based the movement expenses on the actual price charged by the service provider. If market-economy service providers, who were paid in a market economy currency, provided movement services for less than 33 percent of subject merchandise shipments, by volume, we calculated the movement expenses by weight-averaging surrogate values with the actual price charged by the service provider. See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments , 71 FR 61716, 61717-18 (October 19, 2006) (“ Notice for Antidumping Methodologies ”). For details regarding our EP calculation, see Memorandum to the File from Catherine Bertrand, Senior Case Analyst: Preliminary Analysis Memorandum for the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China: SSJ, dated January 24, 2008 (“SSJ Analysis Memorandum”).

In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, for Aifudi's sales we based the U.S. price on CEP because the sale to the unaffiliated customer was made after importation. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we calculated CEP by deducting, where applicable, the following expenses from the gross unit price charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States: marine insurance, discounts, rebates, inland freight from warehouse to the unaffiliated customer, other U.S. transportation expenses, U.S. customs duty, U.S. brokerage, credit expenses, advertising expenses, inventory carrying costs, billing adjustments, foreign movement expenses, and international freight. Further, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), where appropriate, we deducted from the starting price the following selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States: credit expenses, warranty expenses, other direct selling expenses, and indirect selling expenses. In addition, pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an adjustment to the starting price for CEP profit. We based movement expenses on either surrogate values, actual expenses, or an average of the two as explained above in the “EP” section of this notice. For details regarding our CEP calculations, see Memorandum to the File from Javier Barrientos, Senior Case Analyst: Program Analysis for the Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China: Aifudi, dated January 24, 2008 (“Aifudi's Analysis Memorandum”).

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the NV using a factors-of-production (“FOP”) methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on the FOP because the presence of government controls on various aspects of non-market economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.

In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP data reported by respondents for the POI. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available surrogate values (except as discussed below). In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to the Indian surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States , 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all surrogate values used for respondents can be found in the Surrogate Value Memorandum and company-specific analysis memoranda.

Additionally, for detailed descriptions of all actual values used, see the company-specific analysis memoranda dated January 24, 2008. We also made an adjustment to the factors of production for SSJ and Aifudi to account for the cost of the printing plates and engraving costs used in the production of laminated woven sacks. See SSJ's Analysis Memorandum and Aifudi's Analysis Memorandum. Further, we were unable to take into account the January 16, 2008, supplemental responses of SSJ and Aifudi due to the close proximity to the preliminary determination. We will consider these submissions for the final determination.

For this preliminary determination, in accordance with the Department's practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics and other publicly available Indian sources in order to calculate surrogate values for the mandatory respondents' FOPs (direct materials, energy, and packing materials) and certain movement expenses. In selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are non-export average values, most contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See , e.g. , Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam , 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). The record shows that data in the Indian Import Statistics, as well as that from the other Indian sources, represent data that are contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. In those instances where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to the POI with which to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index (“WPI”) as published in the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund.

Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based surrogate values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these countries may be subsidized. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China , 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7. We are also instructed by the legislative history not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 , Conference Report to Accompanying H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988). Rather, Congress directed the Department to base its decision on information that is available to it at the time it makes its determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries either in calculating the Indian import-based surrogate values or in calculating market-economy input values. In instances where a market-economy input was obtained solely from suppliers located in these countries, we used Indian import-based surrogate values to value the input. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From The People's Republic of China , 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

The Department used the Indian Import Statistics to value the raw material and packing material inputs that SSJ and Aifudi reported were used to produce the subject merchandise during the POI, except where listed below. For direct, indirect, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in January 2007, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. The source of these wage-rate data on the Import Administration's Web site is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, ILO (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. Because this regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondent. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.

To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit, we used the 2006-2007 audited financial statements of Mody Plastics Industries Ltd, an Indian producer of laminated woven sacks. For a detailed discussion of all surrogate values used for this preliminary determination, see Surrogate Values Memorandum.

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

On November 2, 2007, Petitioners alleged that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist with respect to the antidumping investigation of laminated woven sacks from the PRC. On November 16, 2007, and November 19, 2007, 6 SSJ and Aifudi, respectively, submitted information on their exports of laminated woven sacks from January 2005 through October 2007 as requested by the Department (collectively, “mandatory respondents”) ( see mandatory respondents' December 16, 2007, and December 19, 2007, Critical Circumstances Questionnaire responses (“CCQR”)). 7 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), because Petitioners submitted critical circumstances allegations more than 20 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination, the Department must issue preliminary critical circumstances determinations not later than the date of the preliminary determination.

Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) There is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise; or (ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales; and (B) there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been “massive,” the Department normally will examine: (i) The volume and value of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, section 351.206(h)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that an increase in imports of 15 percent during the “relatively short period” of time may be considered “massive.” Section 351.206(i) of the Department's regulations defines “relatively short period” as normally being the period beginning on the date the proceeding begins ( i.e. , the date the petition is filed) and ending at least three months later ( i.e. , the comparison period). The comparison period is normally compared to the three months prior to the filing of the petition ( i.e. , the base period). The regulations also provide, however, that if the Department finds that importers, exporters, or producers had reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, the Department may establish the base and comparison periods based on the earlier date. See 19 CFR 351.206(i).

In determining whether the above statutory criteria have been satisfied, we examined: (1) The evidence presented in Petitioners' November 2, 2007, submission; (2) new evidence obtained since the initiation of the LTFV investigation ( i.e. , additional import statistics released by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection); and (3) additional information obtained from SSJ and Aifudi ( see CCQR).

In accordance with section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, to determine whether importers of laminated woven sacks from the PRC knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, the Department must rely on the facts before it at the time the determination is made. The Department generally bases its decision with respect to knowledge on the margins calculated in the preliminary antidumping duty determination and the ITC preliminary injury determination.

The Department normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for export price EP sales and 15 percent or more for CEP sales sufficient to impute importer knowledge of sales at LTFV. See , e.g. , Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Germany, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances , 67 FR 6224, 6225 (February 11, 2002). In this preliminary determination, SSJ has a margin of 63.89 percent and Aifudi has a margin of 108.09 percent. The separate rate companies which have preliminarily received a separate rate have a margin of 87.60 percent, based on a weighted-average of the margins of the mandatory respondents. The PRC-wide entity has a margin of 108.09 percent. We find that the antidumping duty preliminary margins for Aifudi, SSJ, the separate rate companies, and the PRC-wide entity support a finding that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the importers knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury by reason of sales at LTFV of laminated woven sacks from the PRC from these respondents.

In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that an importer knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports, consistent with section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department also looks to the preliminary injury determination of the ITC. See , e.g. , Lemon Juice from Argentina: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances , 72 FR 20820, 20828 (April 26, 2007). On August 14, 2007, the ITC issued a preliminary affirmative determination for laminated woven sacks from the PRC. See ITC.

In accordance with section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department must determine whether there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h), we will not consider imports to be massive unless imports in the comparison period have increased by at least 15 percent over imports in the base period. As discussed above, the Department normally determines the comparison period for massive imports based on the filing date of the petition.

Based on the June 28, 2007, filing date, we have determined that July 2007 is the month in which importers, exporters or producers knew or should have known an antidumping duty investigation was likely. Additionally, we have used a period of four months as the period for comparison in preliminarily determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been massive. We believe that a four-month period is most appropriate as the basis for analysis because using four months captures all data available at this time, based on July 2007 as the beginning of the comparison period. Additionally, a four-month period properly reflects the “relatively short period” set forth in the statute for determining whether imports have been massive. See section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(i). It is our practice to base the critical circumstances analysis on all available data, using base and comparison periods of no less than three months. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from India , 69 FR 47111 (August 4, 2004) unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From India , 69 FR 76916 (December 23, 2004); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China , 69 FR 20594 (Apr. 16, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. Therefore, we have used all available data in our critical-circumstances analysis for the preliminary determination. Therefore, in applying the four-month period, we used a comparison period of March 2007 to June 2007, and a base period of July 2007 to October 2007.

The Department used the shipment data of Aifudi and SSJ to examine the relevant comparison period of four months before July 2007, i.e. , March-June 2007, and four months following that period, i.e. , July-October 2007. When we compared these companies' import data during the base period with the comparison period, Aifudi had an increased volume of exports over the base period of greater than 15 percent while SSJ did not and, consequently, we only find Aifudi's imports to be massive. See Memorandum to the File from Javier Barrientos, Senior Case Analyst: Critical Circumstances Data for the Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China, dated January 24, 2008, at Attachment I (“CC MTF”) for the exact percentage changes.

For the separate rate companies, we did not request the monthly shipment information necessary to determine if there were massive imports. As the basis to measure whether massive imports existed for purposes of critical circumstances, we relied on the experience of the mandatory respondents receiving a separate rate. When we compared the weight-averaged import data during the base period with the comparison period from the mandatory respondents, we found that the weight-averaged volume of imports of laminated woven sacks for the separate rate companies did have an increased volume of exports over the base period of greater than 15 percent. Therefore, we find the imports of the separate rate companies to be massive. See CC MTF at Attachment I for the exact percentage changes.

Because the PRC-wide entity failed to respond to the Department's antidumping questionnaire, we were unable to obtain shipment data from the PRC-wide entity for purposes of our critical circumstances analysis, and there is no information on the record with respect to its export volumes. We relied on the ITC Dataweb site ( http://databweb.usitc.gov ) to determine whether there were imports of laminated woven sacks from the PRC during the base and the comparison periods not accounted for in the shipment data for the mandatory respondents. We found that there were such imports and we were able to rely on such data to quantify the imports attributed to the PRC-wide entity because the HTSUS article codes covering imported laminated woven sacks from the PRC contain data for subject merchandise, allowing us to segregate the mandatory respondents and separate rate companies' data from the PRC-wide import data.

We have deducted the mandatory respondents' data from the China-wide import data as to avoid possibly double-counting. When we compared the PRC entity import data during the adjusted base period with the adjusted comparison period, we found that the volume of imports of laminated woven sacks for the PRC-wide entity during the comparison period was not greater than 15 percent over the base period. The total import volume difference is −15.95 percent. See CC MTF at Attachment I. Consequently, we find that the PRC-wide entity did not have an increased volume of exports over the base period of greater than 15 percent, and therefore, we do not find their imports to be massive.

In addition, as a result of the ITC's affirmative preliminary determination in the instant LTFV investigation, the Department preliminarily finds there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that importers knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports, consistent with section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act. See ITC Preliminary Determination. As discussed above, the volume of imports of laminated woven sacks from the PRC from Aifudi and the separate rate companies was massive within the meaning of section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act. The volume of imports of laminated woven sacks from the PRC for SSJ and the PRC-wide entity, however, were each below 15 percent, and thus not massive within the meaning of section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act. As a result, we preliminarily find that critical circumstances exist for Aifudi and the separate rate companies, but do not exist for imports of laminated woven sacks for SSJ and the PRC-wide entity.

We will make a final determination concerning critical circumstances for all producers/exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC when we make our final dumping determination in this investigation.

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify the information upon which we will rely in making our final determination.

In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. See Initiation Notice, 72 FR 40833, 40837. This change in practice is described in Policy Bulletin 05.1, available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/.

The preliminary weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

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).

In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of laminated woven sacks from the PRC as described in the “Scope of Investigation” section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from SSJ and the PRC-wide entity on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. For Aifudi, and the companies receiving a separate rate, we will direct CBP to suspend liquidation of any entries of laminated woven sacks from the PRC as described in the “Scope of Investigation” section, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 90 days prior to the date of publication in the Federal Register of our preliminary determination. The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of laminated woven sacks, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise within 45 days of our final determination.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days after the date the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in case briefs no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs. A list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Parties are also requested to submit an electronic version of their case and rebuttal briefs.

In accordance with section 774 of the Act, and if requested, we will hold a public hearing, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing three days after the deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

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, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief.

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on January 11, 2008, Aifudi requested that in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 days. At the same time, Aifudi requested that the Department extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a four month period to a six month period. In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative, (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are granting the request and are postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Suspension of liquidation will be extended accordingly.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Established by Presidential Executive Order 13089 in 1998, the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force mission is to lead, coordinate, and strengthen U.S. government actions to better preserve and protect coral reef ecosystems. Co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and Interior, Task Force members include leaders of 12 federal agencies, seven U.S. states and territories, and three freely associated states. For more information about the meeting, registering, and submitting public comment, go to http://www.coralreef.gov.

SAB activities and advice provide necessary input to ensure that NOAA science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to NOAA's

• Protect, Restore, and Manage the Use of Coastal and Ocean Resources Through an Ecosystem Approach to Management

• Understand Climate Variability and Change to Enhance Society's Ability to Plan and Respond

• Serve Society's Needs for Weather and Water Information

• Support the Nation's Commerce with Information for Safe, Efficient, and Environmentally Sound Transportation

• Provide Critical Support for NOAA's Mission

The SAB meets at least twice each year, exclusive of subcommittee, task force, and working group meetings. Board members must be willing to participate in periodic reviews of the conduct, support, and use of science in NOAA laboratories and programs. Board members are appointed for a 3-year term.

Nominations should provide: (1) The nominee's full name, title, institutional affiliation, and contact information; (2) the nominee's area(s) of expertise; and (3) a short description of their qualifications relative to the kinds of advice being solicited. Inclusion of a resume is desirable.

The Ocean.US Office, operating by interagency agreement under the statutory authority of the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP, 10 U.S.C. 7901 et seq. ), serves as the national agent for integrating ocean observing activities ( http://www.ocean.us ). Ocean.US is also the focal point for relating U.S. ocean observing system elements to associated international efforts, such as the Global Earth Observing System of Systems (GEOSS) and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) sponsored Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS). The U.S. IOOS represents the U.S. contribution to the ocean components of these international partnership efforts. Key to the realization of the U.S. IOOS is the establishment of an integrated DMAC infrastructure. This infrastructure will enable users to discover, retrieve, and use data from Federal and State government, government-sponsored, other public, private, and commercial coastal and ocean observing activities regardless of source or location. In 2005 Ocean.US established an IOOS DMAC Steering Team drawn from government, industry, academia, public, and non-profit communities to: (a) Coordinate and oversee the evolution of DMAC standards; (b) identify and provide recommendations regarding gaps in needed standards; and, (c) help ensure that the DMAC standards process is conducted in an open, objective, and balanced manner. That team adopted a standards process in May 2006 that includes these public comment periods as a critical input to any decisions on a particular standard.

Proposed standards have been reviewed by members of the DMAC Steering Team and its Expert Teams for non-technical and technical criteria. Their designation as ‘proposed’ indicates the standard has potential merit for application in IOOS and should be evaluated further based on actual use in pilot projects and demonstrations and based on public comments on experience using the standard in IOOS applications.

This notice supersedes all previous notices on MTU type approval requirements. Previously installed MTU approved under prior notices will continue to be approved for the remainder of their service life. New installations of a previously approved MTU occurring 120 days or more after the publication date of this notice must comply with all of the requirements herein. All new requests for type approval must comply with all of the requirements herein.

The Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office for Law Enforcement (OLE) maintains MTU specification requirements as an OLE National Directive. This notice sets prerequisite standards for the purpose of type approval that must be met by an MTU and any associated software before it is authorized for use in the NOAA VMS program. Vessels participating in VMS program must acquire an NMFS-approved MTU to comply with the specific VMS standards set forth in NMFS rules requiring the use of VMS. The MTU is a transceiver or communications device, including antennae, dedicated message terminal and display, and an input device such as a keyboard installed on fishing vessels participating in the VMS requirement. The MTU allows OLE to determine the geographic position of the vessel during specified intervals or events. In addition, it enables mobile communications services between OLE and the vessel when using an NMFS-accepted Mobile Communication Service Provider (MCSP). (Note: Standards for the MCSP are written in the complementary directive titled Mobile Communication Service Provider Specification of Requirements.)

OLE seeks to deploy an “open system,” whereby the fishing industry participants may select from a variety of suppliers that qualify and have been approved to participate in VMS program. Fishermen must comply with applicable Federal fishery regulations regarding VMS and therefore may be cited for a violation and held accountable for monitoring anomalies not attributable to faults in the MCSP or MTU. Therefore, type approval is essential to establish and maintain uniformly high system integrity. By this directive, OLE seeks to approve reliable, robust, and secure MTU products and thereby create and maintain a VMS meeting the requirement of high integrity. Specific VMS programs are created to support particular NMFS rules requiring the use of VMS, which typically are designed to manage or protect fish and other marine species within designated areas.

Based on a request for type approval from an MTU supplier and certification of certain minimal standards, OLE will conduct a thorough evaluation and then issue a statement accepting or denying the type approval of the particular MTU. An MTU must meet the minimal national VMS standards, as required by this directive, and the requirements of the specific fisheries for which approval is sought. MTU supplier requesters are encouraged to review the national VMS standards and NMFS rules requiring the use of VMS prior to submitting a request for approval. Upon successful demonstration of compliance with the requirements set forth in this directive, NMFS will issue an MTU type approval within a particular communications Class applicable to one or more VMS operations targeting particular NMFS rules requiring the use of VMS. OLE will maintain a current list of type approved MTU(s), and will forward lists of type approved MTU(s) to the respective regional Fisheries Management Council(s), post the information on the OLE website and provide it by fax upon request.

NMFS approval will not necessarily result in agency procurement of the MTU. Instead, OLE will request that the MTU supplier provide a fact sheet to the fishing industry. The fact sheet will allow fishermen to make purchase decisions that are compatible with the VMS standards and their individual needs. Purchasing strategies are determined on a per implementation basis.

OLE will initiate the MTU type approval process upon written request from the supplier, subject to the demonstration of compliance with this directive and the availability of test units. The requestor for type approval may include the manufacturer, or an OEM/labeler, distributor, and/or reseller acting as a representative of the manufacturer. The evaluation may include consideration if that MTU has already passed a comparable type approval process to qualify for use in a foreign fisheries management effort. If applicable, the supplier should provide the MTU's identifying characteristics, the details of the foreign VMS requirement specifications, the MTU's level of compliance with them, and appropriate contact details of the approving authorities. NMFS also will consider approving an MTU OEM (original equipment manufacturer) model built from an equivalent MTU that already has received agency type approval under this directive.

A supplier of an MTU seeking type approval within a particular communications class for VMS shall demonstrate that it meets the standards when using at least one qualified MCSP within that same class. The standards in this directive are intended to ensure that type approval for a particular MTU will permit its interoperability with all qualified MCSPs within its same class. A class refers to the medium, protocol, and frequency of the mobile communications technology. Some examples of existing classes include Inmarsat-C and Qualcomm/OmniTracs. To best promote interoperability within a class, MTU and MCSP acceptance standards are outlined in separate directives. However, concurrent with the approval process for an MTU, the approval for a same-class MCSP must be either in place or pending. Data received by OLE from the MTU via an approved MCSP must be in a format compatible with OLE tracking software.

A supplier of an MTU requesting type approval shall begin by certifying that the MTU meets the minimum national VMS standards as required by this directive. Suppliers must describe in detail the extent to which its MTU complies with each of the requirements for the VMS implementation of interest as stated within this directive. The supplier, or requestor for type approval, must provide OLE with two MTUs for each fishery for which application is made for a minimum of 90-days for testing and evaluation. The supplier must also provide thorough MTU documentation, including fact sheets, installation guides, operator manuals, user handbooks, the applicable interfacing software, and technical support. OLE shall review the submissions against the criteria of this directive. Next, OLE shall perform field test and sea trials. For this, OLE will either coordinate test conditions with volunteer and/or contract fishing vessels, or contract a third-party to accomplish this task. The tests may involve demonstrating every aspect of MTU operation, including installation of a registered MTU, location tracking, messaging, and maintenance procedures.

Submit requests for type approval, along with hard and soft copies of support material to: U.S. Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; National Marine Fisheries Service; Office for Law Enforcement; Attention: Vessel Monitoring System Program; 8484 Georgia Ave. Suite 415; Silver Spring, MD 20910 USA; voice 301-427-2300; fax 301-427-0049.

Due to the use of VMS for law enforcement, all technical aspects of a supplier's submission are subject to being admitted as evidence in a court of law, if needed. The reliability of all technologies utilized in the MTU may be analyzed in court for, inter alia, testing procedures, error rates, peer review, and general industry acceptance. Further, the supplier may be required to provide technical and expert support for a litigation to support the MTU capabilities to establish OLE's case against violators. If the technologies have previously been subject to such scrutiny in a court of law, the supplier should describe the evidence and any court finding on the reliability of the technology. Additionally, to maintain the integrity of VMS for fisheries management, the supplier will be required to sign a non-disclosure agreement limiting the release of certain information that might compromise the effectiveness of the VMS operations, such as, but not limited to, details of anti-tampering safeguards. The supplier shall include a statement confirming its agreement with these conditions.

Once an MTU is approved, it is the supplier's responsibility to notify OLE of any substantive change in the original submission, such as changes to firmware versions, and customer support contacts. OLE reserves the right to reconsider and revoke the MTU approval if as a result of a change to the MTU or VMS requirement the unit no longer satisfies the requirement.

Any modification to the functionality of an approved MTU including but not limited to firmware, software, services, or passwords unless expressly authorized by NMFS OLE will invalidate the type approval of the unit and render it out of compliance with NMFS rules requiring the use of VMS. Any addition, deletion or change of the firmware, software, services, or passwords of an MTU unless expressly authorized by NMFS OLE will also invalidate the type approval of the unit and render it out of compliance with NMFS rules requiring the use of VMS. Fishermen that are determined to be out of compliance with Federal Fisheries VMS regulations may be cited for violations and held accountable for monitoring anomalies not attributable to faults in the MCSP or MTU.

Requesters must respond to each of the items listed in sections 1 through 6 of this document. The response should indicate how the requestor complies with the requirement referred to in the item. Items that the requestor does not currently comply with must be responded to by explaining how the requestor will comply with the requirement prior to approval.

1. 1. Specify the identifying characteristics of the MTU:

1.1.1. Communications Class.

1.1.2. Manufacturer.

1.1.3. Brand Name.

1.1.4. Model Name.

1.1.5. Model Number.

1.1.6. Software Version Number and Date.

1.1.7. Firmware Version Number and Date.

1.1.8. Hardware Version Number and Date.

1.1.9. Antenna Type.

1.1.10. Antenna Model Number and Date.

1.1.11. Monitor or terminal Model Number and Date.

1.1.12. MCSP Providing Communications Services.

1.2. For the following responsibilities, name the business entities who act on behalf of the manufacturer and supplier applying for type approval. Include the address, phone, contacts, email, and designated geographic territory where applicable.

1.2.1. Manufacturer.

1.2.2. Label or use MTU for an OEM. This includes re-labeling OEM MTUs or reselling. Reselling includes value-added reselling. The MTU that is type approved is the final, value-added product and not the original manufacturer's MTU, if enhancements or modifications have been made. For example, if a transceiver is contained within an enclosure, it is the new enclosure including the transceiver that is being type approved.

1.2.3. Distribute.

1.2.4. Sell.

1.2.5. Bench configures the MTU at the warehouse or point of supply.

1.2.6. Install MTU onboard the vessel.

1.2.7. Offer limited warranty.

1.2.8. Offer maintenance and service agreement.

1.2.9. Repair.

1.2.10. Train.

1.2.11. Advertise.

The MTU must provide the following messaging functionality:

2.1. Transmit mandatory, automatically generated position reports.

2.2. Onboard visible or audible alarms for malfunctioning of the MTU.

2.3. Ability to disable non-essential alarms in non-Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) installations.

2.4. Ability to provide comprehensive and transparent communications, which function uniformly within the entire geographic coverage area for that communications class.

2.5. Two-way communications between MCSP and MTU.

2.6. The ability to send and receive free-form Internet email text messages and electronic forms.

2.7. All messages should be relayed so that OLE automatically receives no less than 97 percent of all messages within 15 minutes or less of the MTU timestamp and be transparent to the geographic region.

3.1. The MTU must provide position information as required by the applicable VMS rule in addition to:

3.1.1. Position fixes latitude and longitude, including the hemisphere of each.

3.1.2. The position fix precision must be to the decimal minute hundredths.

3.1.3. Accuracy of the reported position must be within 100 meters, unless otherwise indicated by an existing regulation or VMS requirement.

3.1.4. Communications between MTU and MCSP must be secure from tampering or interception, including the reading of passwords and data. Therefore, the MTU must have mechanisms to prevent to the extent possible:

3.1.4.1. Interception and “sniffing” during transmission from the MTU to MCSP via either wireless or terrestrial facilities.

3.1.4.2. Spoofing, whereby one MTU is fraudulently identifying itself as another MTU.

3.1.4.3. Modification of MTU identification.

3.1.4.4. Interference with GMDSS or other safety/distress functions.

3.1.4.5. Introduction of viruses that may corrupt, disturb, or disrupt messages, transmission, or the VMS system.

3.1.4.6. Introduction of software modifications through the use of input/output devices. Item such as CDDVD readers or writers should be removed, physically disabled, or rendered inaccessible, ports and connections not directly used for connecting to the VMS device or authorized peripherals should be removed or permanently sealed.

3.2. MTU shall provide the ability to meet minimum reporting requirements and intervals as required for specific NMFS rules requiring the use of VMS.

3.2.1. Provide automatically generated position reporting, for vessels managed individually or grouped by fleet, such that OLE automatically receives no less than 97 percent of the position reports sent at defined intervals within 15 minutes or less of the MTU timestamp and be transparent to the geographic region.

3.2.2. Have the ability to store 100 position fixes in local, non-volatile memory.

3.2.3. Allow for defining variable reporting intervals between 5 minutes and 24 hours.

3.2.4. MTU must be able to change reporting intervals remotely, and only by authorized users.

3.3. An MTU must be able to transmit automatically generated position reports, which contain the following:

3.3.1. Unique identification of an MTU within the communications class.

3.3.2. Date (year/month/day with century in the year) and time (GMT) stamp of the position fix.

3.4. In addition to automatically generated position reports, specially identified position reports shall be generated upon:

3.4.1. Antenna disconnection

3.4.2. Loss of the positioning reference signals.

3.4.3. Loss of the mobile communications signals.

3.4.4. Security events, power-up, power-down, and other status data.

3.4.5. The vessel crossing a pre-defined geographic boundary.

3.4.6. MTU status information such as configuration of programming and reporting intervals.

3.4.7. When an MTU is powered up, it must automatically re-establish its position reporting function without manual intervention.

4.1.1. Text messaging from vessel to shore with a minimum supported message length of 1kb.

4.1.2. User interface must support an 'address book' capability and a function permitting a “reply” to a received message without re-entry of the senders e-mail address.

4.1.3. A confirmation of delivery function is required such that a user can ascertain whether a specific message was successfully transmitted via the satellite system to the MCSP e-mail server(s).

4.1.4. Onward delivery to NMFS must be reliable and make use of features such as SMTP retries and delivery confirmation to ensure a reliable transport path exists for text messages sent from the vessel to NMFS.

4.1.5. The user interface must provide the ability to review by date order, or by recipient, messages that were previously sent. The terminal must support a minimum message history of 20 messages - commonly referred to as an “Outbox” or “Sent” messages display.

4.1.6. Text messaging from shore to vessel with a minimum supported message length of 1kb.

4.1.7. The user interface must provide the ability to review by date order, or by sender, all messages received. The terminal must support a minimum message history of 20 messages-commonly referred to as an “Inbox”.

4.1.8. Negative delivery notifications must be sent to the originator where delivery to the terminal could not be completed for any reason. Such Non Delivery Notification must include sufficient information to uniquely identify the message that failed and the cause of failure (i.e., mobile number invalid, mobile switched off etc.).

4.2. Electronic Forms

Pre-formatted messages are required for the collection of validated data for specific fisheries programs (i.e., declaration systems, catch effort reporting). This capability is referred to as Electronic Forms. The E-MTU must support a minimum of 20 Forms, selectable by the user from a menu. Forms must be able to be updated over the air. Copies of forms currently used by NMFS are available upon request. From time to time NMFS will provide all E-MTU approved vendors with updates defining new forms or modifying existing forms. Such notice will be at least 60 (sixty) days prior to the implementation date for the new or changed form. Vendors will be responsible for translating the requirements into MTU specific forms definitions and transmitting the same to all VMS terminals supplied to fishing vessels. All forms software provided with the E-MTU must be capable of supporting the requirements described in this specification. Additional capabilities beyond those stated here are acceptable, provided that the minimum requirements are satisfied.

4.2.1. A form is defined as: (a) 1-40 characters describing the form, (b) Delivery address (i.e., e-mail or other network identifier), (c) Form number as defined by NMFS to uniquely identify the form, (d) Form version number (numeric with one decimal place; i.e., 1.2), and (e) a collection of 1-30 fields and associated logic rules.

4.2.2. Each field (within a form) is defined by the following elements. Except where noted, all elements of the field definition are mandatory: (a) Label (0 to 40 characters, alpha numeric), (b) Context Help Text (0 to 200 characters, alpha numeric), (c)Type (Either; enumeration, numeric, alpha, alphanumeric or Boolean), (d) Default Value, (e) Optional/Mandatory/Hidden/ Logic indicator, (f) Min/Max values (for numeric fields only) in range 0.000 to 999,999, (g) Decimal places (for numeric fields only) 0-3, and (h) Min/Max characters (for alpha/alphanumeric fields only).

4.2.3. Up to 100 code/value/help text pairs (enumerations only) must be provided, where codes are defined as 1-20 alphanumeric characters, values are 1-80 alphanumeric characters and help text is 0-200 characters. Such fields are typically used to permit a user to select from a range of options (i.e., geographic areas, gear types, fish species). Codes are used to compress the form data for efficient transmission. Help text would typically be displayed only when the user selects a specific value from the enumeration.

4.2.4. Form Validation: Each field must be defined as; Optional, Mandatory or Logic Driven. Mandatory fields must be entered by the user before the form is complete, optional fields that do not require data entry, and logic driven fields have their attributes determined by earlier form selections. Specifically; it must be possible for selection of an enumeration to change the optional/mandatory setting, min/ max values, or the permitted enumeration values on a later field within the same form.

4.2.5. State Information: The capability to populate a form based on the last values used must be available. This provides the user with an easy mechanism to “modify” or “update” a prior submission - without unnecessary re-entry of data. The user must be able to review a minimum of 20 past form submissions and ascertain for each form when the form was transmitted and whether delivery was successfully completed to the vendor's processing center. In the case of a transmission failure, the user must be provided with details of the cause and have the opportunity to retry the form submission.

4.2.6. Inclusion of VMS Position Report: In addition to the manually entered fields, the forms package must permit the inclusion of VMS position report fields such as latitude, longitude, date and time. Such fields must be obtained from the GPS function of the MTU and transmitted along with the manually entered form data within the same transaction.

4.2.7. Delivery Format for Form Data: It is preferred that form data be transferred from the terminal to NMFS using the same transport as for either text messages or VMS position reports (the selected option to be at the election of the E-MTU vendor). Currently supported protocols for transfer are; FTP, SMTP, XML and HTTP Post. The SMTP protocol is not permitted for the transmission of data sent to the OLE. The field coding within the data must follow either CSV or XML formatting rules. For CSV format the form must contain an identifier and the version number, and then the fields in the order defined on the form. In the CSV format strings that may contain ”,” (comma) characters must be quoted. XML representations must use the field label to define the XML element that contains each field value.

The MTU supplier or its designated entities shall provide customer service that is professional, courteous, and responsive. It should provide MTU diagnostic and troubleshooting support to OLE and the fishermen. No services shall be billed to any NOAA or any OLE office without being specifically contracted for in writing by an authorized entity. Services shall include:

5.1. Service level, warranty, and maintenance agreements. Clarify constraints, if any, on the geographic territory, personnel availability, and escalation procedures for problem resolution covered by such services.

5.2. Facilities and procedures in place to assist the fisherman in maintaining and repairing their MTU on a 24 hour basis, including timely responses to requests, and general system service turnaround time.

5.3. Help in the determination and isolation of the cause of communications anomalies.

5.4. Assist in the resolution of communications anomalies that are traced to the MTU.

5.5. All services will be considered to be free of charge unless specifically listed in service or purchase agreements.

6.1. The MTU must have the durability and reliability necessary to provide acceptable service in a marine environment where the unit may be subjected to saltwater (spray) in smaller vessels, and in larger vessels where the unit may be maintained in a wheelhouse. The unit, cabling and antenna must be resistant to moisture and shock associate with the marine environments.

6.2. The MTU must comply with any additional requirements specified in the regulations for the VMS implementation for which application is made. The requestor must review the applicable NMFS rules requiring the use of VMS and respond here to any specific requirements listed therein.

6.3. All personally identifying information provided by vessels owners or other authorized personnel for the purchase or activation of MTU or E-MTU, or for the participation in any NMFS VMS-approved fishery must be protected from unauthorized disclosure. Personally identifying information includes, but is not limited to, names, addresses, telephone numbers, social security account numbers, credit card numbers, vessel names, federal, state, and local documentation numbers, e-mail addresses, and crew lists. Any information sent electronically to the OLE must be transmitted by a secure means that prevents interception, spoofing, or viewing by unauthorized individuals. Any release of such information must be requested and approved in writing by the vessel owner, authorized personnel, or the OLE. Inadvertent or intentional unauthorized release of personally identifying information will be grounds for reconsideration and possible revocation of the type approval for any MTU supplied by the offending provider.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The specific changes to the record systems being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a (r), of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on January 24, 2008, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,' dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

The Defense Information Systems Agency systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The proposed system reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a (r), of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on January 23, 2008, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government of Oversight and Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, `Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,' dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

The Defense Logistics Agency notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on January 23, 2008, to the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

The present invention uses image frame synchronization and multiplexing to reduce the bandwidth needed to transmit the plurality of images to a remote location. The use of readily available and inexpensive commercial imaging sensors significantly decreases the cost while increasing the capabilities.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is preparing an EIS to analyze the impacts of the work proposed by SAFCA from the implementation of the NLIP. The NLIP is being constructed by SAFCA to improve flood protection to portions of the City and County of Sacramento and Sutter County lying within the Natomas Basin.

The EIS will address an array of flood control improvement alternatives. Alternatives analyzed during the investigation will include a combination of one or more flood protection measures. These measures include seepage berms, adjacent setback levees, seepage wells, seepage cutoff walls, and relocation of irrigation ditches.

a. A public scoping meeting was held on January 9, 2008 to present information to the public and to receive comments from the public. The Corps has initiated a process to involve concerned individuals, and local, State, and Federal agencies.

b. Significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the EIS include effects on hydraulic, wetlands and other waters of the U.S., vegetation and wildlife resources, special-status species, esthetics, cultural resources, recreation, land use, fisheries, water quality, air quality, transportation, and socioeconomics; and cumulative effects of related projects in the study area.

c. The Corps is consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to provide a Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report as an appendix to the EIS.

d. A 45-day public review period will be provided for individuals and agencies to review and comment on the draft EIS. All interested parties are encouraged to respond to this notice and provide a current address if they wish to be notified of the draft EIS circulation.

The draft EIS is scheduled to be available for public review and comment in early 2008.

The Department of the Navy systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The specific changes to the record system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

The SAB was established by 42 U.S.C. 4365 to provide independent scientific and technical advice, consultation, and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., App. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.

Background: The purpose of this meeting will be to allow the SAB to discuss with Agency representatives the research priorities that are a component of the Fiscal Year 2009 research budget. The SAB conducts a review of the EPA research budget each year and as a result of discussions and evaluations that are a part of this review, provides written advice to the EPA Administrator and testimony to the U.S. Congress on how that budget might contribute to the achievement of EPA's overall research goals.

The SAB will also conduct a quality review of one draft SAB Committee report, SAB Advisory on EPA's “Report on the Environment 2007: Science Report.” The EPA Report on the Environment (ROE) 2007 addresses key questions about the current status of and trends in the condition of the environment and human health. These questions are intended to be relevant to EPA's current regulatory and programmatic activities and mission. In its review, the SAB was asked to comment on: (1) The adequacy of the formulation and scope of the questions addressed in the ROE 2007 Science Report, (2) the appropriateness of the indicators used to answer the questions in the report, (3) the accuracy of the characterization of gaps and limitations in the indicators used in the report, (4) the appropriateness of regionalization of national indicators in the report, (5) the utility of regional indicators in the report, and (6) the overall quality of the report with respect to technical accuracy, clarity, and appropriateness of level of communication. Additional information on this review can be found in the announcement of the review in the Federal Register (see FR 72 29498-29499 of May 29, 2007) and the EPA SAB Web Site at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/02ad90b136fc21ef85256eba00436459/2457aac81d2003a98525701900616b47!OpenDocument .

Availability of Meeting Materials: Materials in support of this meeting will be placed on the SAB Web Site at: http://www.epa.gov/sab in advance of this meeting.

Procedures for Providing Public Input: Interested members of the public may submit relevant written or oral information for the SAB to consider on the topics included in this advisory activity and/or the group conducting the activity.

Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a public meeting will be limited to five minutes per speaker, with no more than one hour for all speakers. Interested parties should contact Mr. Miller, DFO, at the contact information provided above, by February 21, 2008, to be placed on the public speaker list for the February 28-29, 2008 meeting. Written Statements: Written statements should be received in the SAB Staff Office by February 14, 2008, so that the information may be made available to the SAB for their consideration prior to this meeting. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO via e-mail to miller.tom@epa.gov (acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat PDF, WordPerfect, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format).

Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Thomas Miller at (202) 343-9982, or via e-mail at miller.tom@epa.gov . To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Mr. Miller, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

Background: The SAB was established by 42 U.S.C. 4365 to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., App. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.

Section 112(f)(2)(A) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA) requires EPA to evaluate whether emission standards that were previously adopted under the technology-based, Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) program provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse environmental effects (taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors). Within eight years of the promulgation of a MACT standard for the source category, EPA is mandated by the CAA to assess the risks to determine whether additional standards are needed.

EPA's Office of Air and Radiation has developed a Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Assessment Plan (referred to as RTR II) that has a streamlined approach. The SAB provided advice in a consultation on the RTR II in December 2006 [Consultation on EPA's Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Assessment Plan (EPA-SAB-07-009) available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/33152C83D29530F08525730D006C3ABF/$File/sab-07-009.pdf ]. The SAB identified some key scientific issues and provided recommendations for the Plan. The SAB Panel being formed will review EPA's draft risk assessments developed under the RTR II approach, as modified to reflect SAB recommendations. These draft risk assessments will evaluate the potential risks to human health and the environment that remain after sources come into compliance with MACT.

Request for Nominations: The SAB Staff Office is requesting nominations for nationally and internationally recognized, non-EPA scientists with expertise and experience related to: Airborne (and possibly multi-pathway) fate-and-transport modeling of organic and inorganic chemicals; modeling of potential human exposures; modeling of human health risk; health effects of individual chemicals and mixtures of chemicals; risk assessment models and practices; uncertainty or sensitivity analyses; and risk communication theory and practice. The Agency is particularly interested in nominees with in-depth knowledge and experience in evaluating effects, exposure, and risk of hazardous air pollutants.

Process and Deadline for Submitting Nominations: Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals with expertise and experience described above for consideration of service on the SAB Panel on Risk and Technology Review Assessments for Phase II Source Categories. Nominations should be submitted in electronic format through the SAB Web site at the following URL: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/Web/participatepanelformation?OpenDocument . Please follow the instructions for submitting nominations carefully. To be considered, nominations should include all of the information required on the associated forms. Anyone unable to submit nominations using the electronic form or who has any questions concerning the nomination process may contact Dr. Resha M. Putzrath, as indicated above in this notice. Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than February 21, 2008.

To be considered, all nominations should include: A current curriculum vitae (C.V.) which provides the nominee's background, qualifications, research expertise, and relevant publications for service on the Panel; and a brief biographical sketch (“biosketch”). The biosketch should be no longer than one page and should contain the following information for the nominee: (a) Current professional affiliations and positions held; (b) area(s) of expertise, and research activities and interests relevant to the Panel; (c) leadership positions in national associations or professional publications or other significant distinctions; (d) educational background, especially advanced degrees, including when and from which institutions these were granted; and (e) service on other advisory committees or professional societies, especially those associated with issues under discussion in this review. Incomplete biosketches will not be considered. The EPA SAB Staff Office will acknowledge receipt of nominations.

The names and biosketches of qualified nominees identified by respondents to the Federal Register notice and additional experts identified by the SAB Staff will be posted on the SAB Web site accessible through a link for this panel at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebBOARD/CommitteesandMembership?OpenDocument . Public comments on this “Short List” of candidates will be accepted for 21 calendar days. The public will be requested to provide relevant information or other documentation on nominees that the SAB Staff Office should consider in evaluating candidates.

For the EPA SAB Staff Office, a balanced subcommittee or review panel includes candidates who possess the necessary domains of knowledge, the relevant scientific perspectives (which, among other factors, can be influenced by work history and affiliation), and the collective breadth of experience to adequately address the charge. To establish individual expert panels for the advisory activities described above, the SAB Staff Office will consider public comments on the “Short List” of candidates, information provided by the candidates themselves, and background information independently gathered by the SAB Staff Office. Specific criteria to be used for Panel membership include: (a) Scientific and/or technical expertise, knowledge, and experience (primary factors); (b) availability and willingness to serve; (c) absence of financial conflicts of interest; (d) absence of an appearance of a lack of impartiality; and (e) skills working in committees, subcommittees, and advisory panels; and (f) for the Panel as a whole, diversity of, and balance among, factors such as scientific expertise and viewpoints.

The SAB Staff Office's evaluation of an absence of financial conflicts of interest will include a review of the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form allows Government officials to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between that person's public responsibilities (which includes membership on an EPA Federal advisory committee) and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a lack of impartiality, as defined by Federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded from the following URL address: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebSABSO/ethics?OpenDocument .

The approved policy under which the EPA SAB Office selects subcommittees and review panels is described in the following document: Overview of the Panel Formation Process at the Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board (EPA-SAB-EC-02-010), which is posted on the SAB Web site at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebSABSO/OverviewPanelForm?OpenDocument .

Background: The SAB was established by 42 U.S.C. 4365 to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., App. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.

In EPA's 1998 appropriations bill, Congress directed EPA to establish as many as five university-based particulate matter (PM) research centers as part of the expanded Office of Research and Development (ORD) PM research program. The first research centers were funded from 1999 to 2005. The total budget for each center over five years was $8 million, for a program total of $40 million. In the original Request for Applications (RFA), prospective Centers were asked to propose an integrated research program on the health effects of PM, including exposure, dosimetry, toxicology and epidemiology. In 2004, a second competition was held. This RFA asked respondents to address the central theme of “linking health effects to PM sources and components,” and to focus on the research priorities of susceptibility, biological mechanisms, exposure-response relationships, and source linkages. From the second competition, five current centers are funded for 2005-2010 (the budget remains $40 million total).

ORD's PM Research Centers program was initially shaped by recommendations from the National Research Council. The SAB conducted an interim review of the Centers program in 2002 (see: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/6374FD2B32EFE730852570CA007415FE/$File/ec02008.pdf) , which was instrumental in providing additional guidance for the second phase of the program (2005-2010). The Agency now seeks the advice of an SAB expert panel on the structure and strategic direction for the program as ORD contemplates funding a third round of air pollution research centers into the future. This Federal Register notice solicitation is seeking nominations for the SAB PM Research Centers Program Review Panel.

Request for Nominations: The SAB Staff Office is requesting nominations for nationally- and internationally-recognized, non-EPA scientists with extensive research program management expertise and experience related to airborne pollution and the application of research results in reducing air pollution in protection human health and the environment. The experts should also have had direct research experience related to PM.

Process and Deadline for Submitting Nominations: Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals to add expertise to the SAB PM Research Centers Program Review Panel in the areas of expertise listed above. Nominations should be submitted in electronic format through the SAB Web site: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/Web/participatepanelformation?OpenDocument. Please follow the instructions for submitting nominations carefully. To be considered, nominations should include all of the information required on the associated forms. Anyone unable to submit nominations using the electronic form and who has any questions concerning the nomination process may contact Mr. Fred Butterfield, DFO, as indicated above in this notice. Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than February 21, 2008.

To be considered, all nominations should include: A current curriculum vitae (C.V.) which provides the nominee's background, qualifications, research expertise and relevant publications for service on the Panel; and a brief biographical sketch (“biosketch”). The biosketch should be no longer than one page and should contain the following information for the nominee:

(a) Current professional affiliations and positions held;

(b) Area(s) of expertise, and research activities and interests relevant to the Panel;

(c) Leadership positions in national associations or professional publications or other significant distinctions;

(d) Educational background, especially advanced degrees, including when and from which institutions these were granted; and

(e) Service on other advisory committees or professional societies, especially those associated with issues under discussion in this review.

The EPA SAB Staff Office will post the biosketches of qualified nominees for public comment on the SAB Web site. Information will be made available via the link to this panel found at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebBoard/SABAdHocCommitteesandPanels?OpenDocument, and will include, for each candidate, the nominee's name and their biosketch. Public comments on this “Short List” of candidates will be accepted for 21 calendar days. The public will be requested to provide relevant information or other documentation on nominees that the SAB Staff Office should consider in evaluating candidates.

For the EPA SAB Staff Office, a balanced subcommittee or review panel includes candidates who possess the necessary domains of knowledge, the relevant scientific perspectives (which, among other factors, can be influenced by work history and affiliation), and the collective breadth of experience to adequately address the charge. In establishing the final SAB PM Research Centers Program Review Panel, the SAB Staff Office will consider public comments on the “Short List” of candidates, information provided by the candidates themselves, and background information independently gathered by the SAB Staff Office. Specific criteria to be used for Panel membership include: (a) Scientific and/or technical expertise, knowledge, and experience (primary factors); (b) availability and willingness to serve; (c) absence of financial conflicts of interest; (d) absence of an appearance of a lack of impartiality; and (e) skills working in committees, subcommittees and advisory panels; and, for the Panel as a whole, (f) diversity of, and balance among, scientific expertise, viewpoints, etc.

The SAB Staff Office's evaluation of an absence of financial conflicts of interest will include a review of the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form allows Government officials to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between that person's public responsibilities (which includes membership on an EPA Federal advisory committee) and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a lack of impartiality, as defined by Federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded from the following SAB Web site: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/Web/Ethics?OpenDocument.

The approved policy under which the EPA SAB Office selects subcommittees and review panels is described in the following document: Overview of the Panel Formation Process at the Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board (EPA-SAB-EC-02-010, September 2002), which is posted on the SAB Web site: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebSABSO/OverviewPanelForm?OpenDocument.

This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0002. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov , or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr .

Under IAG No. EP-W-050-24, which supports the OPP's regulatory efforts, the System Research and Application Corporation, will perform configuration management and monitor tasks for the Office of Information Technology Resources Management Division.

The OPP has determined that the IAG described involves work that is being conducted in connection with FIFRA, in that pesticide chemicals will be the subject of certain evaluations to be made under this IAG. These evaluations may be used in subsequent regulatory decisions under FIFRA.

Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment. The information has been submitted to EPA under sections 3, 4, 6, and 7 of FIFRA and under sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA.

In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.309(c), 2.307(h), and 2.308(h)(2), this IAG with the System Research and Application Corporation, prohibits use of the information for any purpose not specified in the IAG; prohibits disclosure of the information to a third party without prior written approval from the Agency; and requires that each official and employee of the subcontractor sign an agreement to protect the information from unauthorized release and to handle it in accordance with the FIFRA Information Security Manual . In addition, the System Research and Application Corporation, are required to submit for EPA approval a security plan under which any CBI will be secured and protected against unauthorized release or compromise. No information will be provided to the System Research and Application Corporation, until the requirements in this document have been fully satisfied. Records of information provided under this IAG will be maintained by EPA Project Officers for this contract. All information supplied to the System Research and Application Corporation, by EPA for use in connection with this IAG will be returned to EPA when the System Research and Application Corporation, have completed their work.