Title: National Animal Identification System.

OMB Number: 0579-0259.

Type of Request: Revision and extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: As part of its ongoing efforts to safeguard U.S. animal health, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) initiated the implementation of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) in 2004. NAIS is a cooperative State-Federal-industry partnership to standardize and expand animal identification programs and practices to all livestock species and poultry. NAIS is being developed through the integration of three components—premises registration, animal identification, and animal tracing. The goal of NAIS, for which participation at the Federal level is voluntary, is to have the information necessary to trace all animals associated with an incident of an animal disease within 48 hours in order to limit disease spread and thereby reduce the impact of diseases on America's agricultural producers.

The NAIS program involves a number of approved collection and recordkeeping activities, including animal identification; premises registration; group/lot movement records; cooperative agreements; accomplishment reports; applications, registrations, and agreements associated with the Animal Identification Number (AIN) Management System; and applications for evaluation of animal tracking databases. New activities under the NAIS program include applications, agreements, and updates submitted by AIN manufacturers, managers, and resellers; cooperator quarterly accomplishment reports; and applications for cooperative agreements to support NAIS outreach, education, and premises registration activities.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for 3 years.

This notice includes a description of the information collection requirements currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the NAIS program under numbers 0579-0259, 0579-0283, and 0579-0288. After OMB approves and combines the burden for the three collections under a single collection (number 0579-0259), the Department will retire numbers 0579-0283 and 0579-0288. The new activities described above will also be combined under OMB collection 0579-0259.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.7644215 hours per response.

Respondents: State and Tribal animal health authorities; owners/operators of feedlots, markets, and slaughter plants; producers; and nonproducer participants such as accredited veterinarians, AIN device managers/resellers (individuals or firms responsible for distributing AIN devices to producers), AIN device manufacturers (companies that manufacture animal identification devices approved for use in the NAIS), third-party service providers (companies that provide herd management, dairy herd improvement, genetic evaluation, and other services to producers), and diagnostic laboratories and livestock buyers/dealers who submit data to the national database.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 500,472.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 7.4036789.

Estimated annual number of responses: 3,705,334.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 2,832,437 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

Background

The potato cyst nematode (PCN) ( Globodera pallida ) is a major pest of potato crops in cool-temperature areas. Other solanaceous hosts include tomatoes, eggplants, peppers, tomatillos, and some weeds. The PCN is thought to have originated in Peru and is now widely distributed in many potato-growing regions of the world. PCN infestations may be expressed as patches of poor growth. Affected potato plants may exhibit yellowing, wilting, or death of foliage. Even with only minor symptoms on the foliage, potato tuber size can be affected. Unmanaged infestations can cause potato yield loss ranging from 20 to 70 percent. The spread of this pest in the United States could result in a loss of domestic or foreign markets for U.S. potatoes and other commodities.

In an interim rule published in the Federal Register on September 12, 2007, and effective on November 1, 2007 (72 FR 51975-51988, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0143), we established the PCN quarantine regulations (§§ 301.86 through 301.86-9, referred to below as the regulations). These regulations set out procedures for determining the areas quarantined for PCN and impose restrictions on the interstate movement of regulated articles from quarantined areas.

Section 301.86-3 of the regulations sets out the procedures for determining the areas quarantined for PCN. Paragraph (a) of § 301.86-3 states that, in accordance with the criteria listed in § 301.86-3(c), the Administrator will designate as a quarantined area each field that has been found to be infested with PCN, each field that has been found to be associated with an infested field, and any area that the Administrator considers necessary to quarantine because of its inseparability for quarantine enforcement purposes from infested or associated fields.

Paragraph (c) provides that the Administrator will designate a field as an infested field when PCN is found in the field. Paragraph (c) also provides that the Administrator will designate a field as an associated field when PCN host crops, as listed in § 301.86-2(b), have been grown in the field in the last 10 years and the field shares a border with an infested field; the field came into contact with a regulated article listed in § 301.86-2 from an infested field within the last 10 years; or, within the last 10 years, the field shared ownership, tenancy, seed, drainage or runoff, farm machinery, or other elements of shared cultural practices with an infested field that could allow spread of the PCN, as determined by the Administrator.

Paragraph (b) describes the conditions for the designation of an area less than an entire State as a quarantined area. Less than an entire State will be designated as a quarantined area only if the Administrator determines that:

• The State has adopted and is enforcing restrictions on the intrastate movement of the regulated articles that are equivalent to those imposed by the regulations on the interstate movement of regulated articles; and

• The designation of less than the entire State as a quarantined area will prevent the interstate spread of PCN.

We have determined that it is not necessary to designate the entire State of Idaho as a quarantined area. Idaho has adopted and is enforcing restrictions on the intrastate movement of regulated articles from that area that are equivalent to those we are imposing on the interstate movement of regulated articles.

Paragraph (a) of § 301.86-3 further provides that the Administrator will publish the description of the quarantined area on the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Web site, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/potato/pcn.shtml . The description of the quarantined area will include the date the description was last updated and a description of the changes that have been made to the quarantined area. The description of the quarantined area may also be obtained by request from any local office of PPQ; local offices are listed in telephone directories. Finally, paragraph (a) establishes that, after a change is made to the quarantined area, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register informing the public that the change has occurred and describing the change to the quarantined area.

We are publishing this notice to inform the public of changes to the PCN quarantined area in accordance with § 301.86-3(a).

The PCN quarantined area was first updated when the regulations became effective on November 1, 2007. That update to the quarantined area expanded the list of associated fields based on new information regarding shared cultural practices. This added associated fields in Jefferson County, ID, as well as fields in Bonneville and Bingham Counties, ID.

On November 28, 2007, surveys confirmed the detection of PCN in one new field. It was not necessary to add that field to the quarantined area, as it had already been listed as an associated field. However, the finding of an infestation in that field led to new fields being designated as associated fields. These fields were in Bonneville and Bingham Counties.

On January 9, 2008, the quarantined area was further updated to remove four fields from the quarantined area. Although these fields had appeared to be associated fields, further investigation demonstrated that these fields were not associated with an infested field. The fields removed from quarantine were in Bonneville County.

On March 21, 2008, the quarantined area was updated to remove 24 fields from the quarantined area. These fields had been associated fields, and were found to be free of PCN according to a survey protocol approved by the Administrator as sufficient to support removal from quarantine, under paragraph (d)(2) of § 301.86-3. The fields removed from quarantine were in Bonneville and Bingham Counties.

The current map of the quarantined area can be viewed on the PPQ Web site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/potato/pcn.shtml .

Title: FNS User Access Request.

OMB Number: 0584-0532.

Form Number: FNS 674.

Expiration Date: November 30, 2008.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: The FNS 674 is designed to collect user information required to gain access to FNS Information Systems.

Respondents: FNS Employees, Contractors, FNS Regions, State Agencies, Field Offices, Partners and Compliance Offices.

Estimated Number of Respondents: Two hundred twenty-five (225).

Number of Responses per Respondent: One (1).

Estimated Time per Response: 0.1666667 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 75.50145 hours.

Additions

On April 4 and April 11, 2008, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (73 FR 18495; 19808) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services added to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following products and services are added to the Procurement List:

On February 8 and April 11, 2008, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (73 FR 7521; 19808) of proposed deletions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action should not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services deleted from the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following products and services are deleted from the Procurement List:

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in the notice for each product or service will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.

2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following products and services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

On April 17, 2008, SARSAT published and requested comments on a proposed Privacy Act System of Records notice entitled Commerce/NOAA-20, Search and Rescue Satellite Aided Tracking (SARSAT) 406 MHz Emergency Beacon Registration Database. No comments were received in response to the request for comments. By this notice, the Department is adopting the proposed system as final without changes effective June 6, 2008.

On October 31, 2007, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews , 72 FR 61621 (October 31, 2007). The period of review is September 1, 2006, through August 31, 2007. The preliminary results of the administrative review are currently due no later than June 1, 2008.

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and a final determination within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary determination is published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary determination to a maximum of 365 days after the last day of the anniversary month.

We determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of the review within the current time limit because we require additional time to analyze several complex sales-reporting issues. Therefore, we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of the review by 60 days until July 31, 2008. The deadline for the final results of the review continues to be 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results.

This extension notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).

On March 31, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of this administrative review. See Stainless Steel Bar from France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 73 FR 16839 (March 31, 2008) ( Preliminary Results ). We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results of review. No interested party submitted comments. We have conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

For purposes of this order, the term “stainless steel bar” (SSB) includes articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished stainless steel bars that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process.

Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products ( i.e. , cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), products that have been cut from stainless steel sheet, strip or plate, wire (i.e., cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes and sections.

The SSB subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentage exists:

The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). With respect to Ascometal, we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all the U.S. sales examined and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales examined. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated is above de minimis (i.e. , is not less than 0.50 percent). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by the company included in these final results of review for which the reviewed company did not know its 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.

As stated in our preliminary results, we have instructed CBP to discontinue collection of cash deposits of antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise made on or after March 7, 2007 (the effective date of the revocation of this order). See Preliminary Results at 16842; Revocation of Antidumping Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Bar From France, Germany, Italy, South Korea, and the United Kingdom and the Countervailing Duty Order on Stainless Steel Bar From Italy , 73 FR 7258 (February 7, 2008).

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 the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

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

Background

On April 23, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated the countervailing duty investigation of circular welded carbon quality steel line pipe from the People's Republic of China. See Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 73 FR 23184 (April 29, 2008). Currently, the preliminary determination is due no later than June 27, 2008.

Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a countervailing duty investigation within 65 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, if the Department concludes that the parties concerned in the investigation are cooperating and determines that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, section 703(c)(1)(B) of the Act allows the Department to postpone making the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which the administering authority initiated the investigation.

The Department is currently investigating alleged subsidy programs involving debt-for-equity swaps, loans, grants, income tax incentives, and the provision of goods and services for less than adequate remuneration. Due to the number and complexity of the alleged countervailable subsidy practices being investigated, it is not practicable to complete the preliminary determination of this investigation within the original time limit ( i.e. , by June 27, 2008). Therefore, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are fully extending the due date for the preliminary determination to no later than 130 days after the day on which the investigation was initiated. However, as that date falls on a Sunday, the deadline for completion of the preliminary determination is now September 2, 2008, the next business day after the Labor Day holiday.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act.

On February 9, 1994, the Department published the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India. See Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India , 59 FR 5994 (February 9, 1994) ( Amended Final Determination ). On August 31, 2007, we received a request for a new shipper review from Hotmetal for the period February 1, 2007 through July 31, 2007. On October 4, 2007, we initiated the new shipper review. See Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review , 72 FR 56723 (October 4, 2007). 1

On October 4, 2007, the Department issued its questionnaire to Hotmetal. Hotmetal submitted its section A response on November 2, 2007, and its section B and C responses on November 16, 2007.

The products covered by this order are certain forged stainless steel flanges, both finished and not finished, generally manufactured to specification ASTM A-182, and made in alloys such as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L. The scope includes five general types of flanges. They are weld-neck, used for butt-weld line connection; threaded, used for threaded line connections; slip-on and lap joint, used with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; socket weld, used to fit pipe into a machined recession; and blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes of the flanges within the scope range generally from one to six inches; however, all sizes of the above-described merchandise are included in the scope. Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are cast stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are manufactured to specification ASTM A-351. The flanges subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive of whether or not the merchandise is covered by the scope of the order.

As indicated above, we have preliminarily determined that Hotmetal’s sales to the United States during the POR were not bona fide sales. We based our determination on the following factors: (1) the U.S. price and expenses associated with the sale were unusually high; (2) the sale involved a method of shipping not standard for the industry; (3) the shipment did not enter U.S. customs territory as a dumping entry; and (4) there were unusual circumstances surrounding the resale of the subject merchandise by Hotmetal’s U.S. customer. For further information, see the Memorandum to the File, “Bona Fide Nature of the Sale in the New Shipper Review of Hotmetal Forge (India) Pvt., Ltd.,” dated May 29, 2008, for a complete explanation of our analysis. Based on these factors, we preliminarily intend to rescind this new shipper review.

Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary intent to rescind. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309( c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d), rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later than 5 days after the time limit for filing the case briefs. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Further, the Department requests parties submitting written comments to provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette.

At the completion of this new shipper review, if a final rescission notice is published, a cash deposit rate of 162.14 percent ad valorem shall continue to be collected for any entries produced by Hotmetal. Should the Department reach a final result other than a rescission, we will calculate an appropriate antidumping duty rate for both assessment and cash deposit purposes. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final rescission or final results of review.

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. See Notice of Policy Concerning Assessment of Antidumping Duties , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) ( Assessment Policy Notice ). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Hotmetal for which Hotmetal did not know that the merchandise it sold to an intermediary ( e.g. , a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the 162.14 percent all-others rate established in the original less than fair value (LTFV) investigation if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification.

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

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

The Department published an antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC on January 4, 2005. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China , 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005) (“the Order”). On July 27, 2007, Mu Si and Bon Ten requested that the Department conduct NSRs of sales of their subject merchandise during the period of review POR January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2007. On July 31, 2007, Dongguan Sunshine Furniture Co., Ltd. (“Sunshine”) requested that the Department conduct an NSR covering its sales of subject merchandise. On August 31, 2007, the Department initiated semi-annual NSRs of Mu Si and Bon Ten. See Initiation of NSRs. The Department did not initiate a review of Sunshine's sales because CBP import data did not demonstrate that Sunshine sold subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.

On October 5, 2007, the Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to Mu Si and Bon Ten. Mu Si and Bon Ten submitted their section A questionnaire responses on November 5, 2007, and submitted their sections C and D questionnaire responses on November 20, 2007. The Department subsequently issued supplemental questionnaires to Bon Ten and to Mu Si on March 21, 2008 and April 2, 2008, respectively, to which they responded on April 14, 2008 and April 25, 2008, respectively.

On February 28, 2008, the Department extended the deadline for the issuance of the preliminary results of these NSRs until May 27, 2008. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of New Shipper Reviews , 73 FR 11395 (March 3, 2008).

The POR is January 1, 2007, through July 31, 2007. 1

The product covered by the Order is wooden bedroom furniture. Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not exclusively, designed, manufactured, and offered for sale in coordinated groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the individual pieces are of approximately the same style and approximately the same material and/or finish. The subject merchandise is made substantially of wood products, including both solid wood and also engineered wood products made from wood particles, fibers, or other wooden materials such as plywood, oriented strand board, particle board, and fiberboard, with or without wood veneers, wood overlays, or laminates, with or without non-wood components or trim such as metal, marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other resins, and whether or not assembled, completed, or finished.

The subject merchandise includes the following items: (1) wooden beds such as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds; (2) wooden headboards for beds (whether stand-alone or attached to side rails), wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds; (3) night tables, night stands, dressers, commodes, bureaus, mule chests, gentlemen's chests, bachelor's chests, lingerie chests, wardrobes, vanities, chessers, chifforobes, and wardrobe-type cabinets; (4) dressers with framed glass mirrors that are attached to, incorporated in, sit on, or hang over the dresser; (5) chests-on-chests, 2 highboys, 3 lowboys, 4 chests of drawers, 5 chests, 6 door chests, 7 chiffoniers, 8 hutches, 9 and armoires; 10 (6) desks, computer stands, filing cabinets, book cases, or writing tables that are attached to or incorporated in the subject merchandise; and (7) other bedroom furniture consistent with the above list.

The scope of the Order excludes the following items: (1) seats, chairs, benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds, stools, and other seating furniture; (2) mattresses, mattress supports (including box springs), infant cribs, water beds, and futon frames; (3) office furniture, such as desks, stand-up desks, computer cabinets, filing cabinets, credenzas, and bookcases; (4) dining room or kitchen furniture such as dining tables, chairs, servers, sideboards, buffets, corner cabinets, china cabinets, and china hutches; (5) other non-bedroom furniture, such as television cabinets, cocktail tables, end tables, occasional tables, wall systems, book cases, and entertainment systems; (6) bedroom furniture made primarily of wicker, cane, osier, bamboo or rattan; (7) side rails for beds made of metal if sold separately from the headboard and footboard; (8) bedroom furniture in which bentwood parts predominate; 11 (9) jewelry armoires; 12 (10) cheval mirrors; 13 (11) certain metal parts; 14 (12) mirrors that do not attach to, incorporate in, sit on, or hang over a dresser if they are not designed and marketed to be sold in conjunction with a dresser as part of a dresser-mirror set; and (13) upholstered beds. 15

Imports of subject merchandise are classified under subheading 9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS as “wooden . . . beds” and under subheading 9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as “other . . . wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom.” In addition, wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds may also be entered under subheading 9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS as “parts of wood” and framed glass mirrors may also be entered under subheading 7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as “glass mirrors . . . framed.” This order covers all wooden bedroom furniture meeting the above description, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Consistent with the Department's practice, the Department investigated the bona fide nature of the sales made by Mu Si and Bon Ten for these reviews. In evaluating whether or not a single sale in an NSR is commercially reasonable, and therefore bona fide , the Department considers, inter alia , such factors as: (1) the timing of the sale; (2) the price and quantity; (3) the expenses arising from the transaction; (4) whether the goods were resold at a profit; and (5) whether the transaction was made on an arm's-length basis. See , e.g. , Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. United States , 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1250 (CIT 2005). Accordingly, the Department considers a number of factors in its bona fide analysis, “all of which may speak to the commercial realities surrounding an alleged sale of subject merchandise.” See Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. v. United States , 374 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1342 (CIT 2005) ( citing Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review and Rescission of New Shipper Review , 67 FR 11283 (March 13, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum).

The Department preliminarily finds that the new shipper sales made by Mu Si and Bon Ten were made on a bona fide basis. Specifically, the Department finds that: (1) the price and quantity of each new shipper sale was within the range of the prices and quantities of other entries of subject merchandise from the PRC into the United States during the POR; (2) the new shippers and their respective customers did not incur any extraordinary expenses arising from the transactions; (3) each new shipper sale was made between unaffiliated parties at arm's length; (4) there is no record evidence that indicates that each new shipper sale was not made based on commercial principles; (5) the merchandise was resold at a profit; and (6) the timing of each of the new shipper sales does not indicate the sales were made on a non- bona fide basis. See the Memorandum regarding, “Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Bona Fide Nature of the Sale Under Review for Dongguan Mu Si Furniture Co., Ltd.” dated May 27, 2008; and the Memorandum regarding, “Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Bona Fide Nature of the Sale Under Review for Dongguan Bon Ten Furniture Co., Ltd.” dated May 27, 2008. Therefore, the Department has preliminarily found that Mu Si's and Bon Ten's sales of subject merchandise to the United States were bona fide for purposes of these NSRs.

In every antidumping case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (“NME”) country. See , e.g. , Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper Review , 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 2006). In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, the Department calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.

In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities. The Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ Sparklers ”), as further developed in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ Silicon Carbide ”). 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), available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bulletin05-1.pdf at p. 6 (stating: “ [w]hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates” because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. However, if the Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate-rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government control.”)

Mu Si and Bon Ten are wholly Chinese-owned companies and are located in the PRC. Therefore, the Department must analyze whether they can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over their 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.

Throughout the course of this proceeding, Mu Si and Bon Ten have placed a number of documents on the record to demonstrate absence of de jure control including: business licenses, financial statements, and narrative information regarding government laws and regulations on corporate ownership, and the companies' operations and selection of management. For example, Mu Si and Bon Ten have placed on the record their articles of association, the “Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China” and the “The Company Law of the People's Republic of China.” See Exhibit 1 of their respective Section A questionnaire responses dated November 5, 2007. The evidence provided by Mu Si and Bon Ten supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of government control based on the following: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporters' business and export licenses; (2) there are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and (3) and there are formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.

Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of its export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by or are subject to the approval of a government agency; (2) whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide , 59 FR at 22586-87; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China , 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are subject to a degree of government control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.

The Department conducted a separate-rates analysis for both Mu Si and Bon Ten. In their questionnaire responses, Mu Si and Bon Ten submitted evidence indicating an absence of de facto government control over their export activities. The evidence placed on the record of this review by Mu Si and Bon Ten demonstrates an absence of de facto government control with respect to each of the exporters' exports of the merchandise under review, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide . Specifically, this evidence indicates that:

When the Department is reviewing imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the the Act directs it to base NV, in most circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (“FOPs”), 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 FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market economy countries that are: (1) at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the “Normal Value” section below and in the Memorandum to the File, “New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results,” dated May 27, 2008 (“Factor Valuation Memorandum”).

The Department has determined that India, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Indonesia, and the Philippines, are comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. See the Memorandum regarding, “New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries,” dated October 3, 2007. It is the Department's practice to select from among these countries based on the availability and reliability of data. See Department Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004).

In the final results of the first administrative review of the Order, the most recently completed segment of this proceeding, the Department used India as the surrogate country for the PRC. However, in the ongoing second administrative review, the Department preliminarily selected the Philippines as the surrogate country because, in addition to the Philippines meeting the economic comparability and significant producer factors, the financial data from the Philippines better reflected the overall experience of producers of comparable merchandise in a surrogate country. Unlike the ongoing administrative review, for these new shipper reviews, there is no information on the record which would enable us to consider the Philippines as a surrogate country. Therefore, the Department is preliminarily selecting India as the surrogate country for the PRC. India is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC; it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; and the Department has reliable, publicly available data from India that it can use to value the FOPs.

To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise made by Mu Si and Bon Ten to the United States were at prices below NV, the Department compared each company's export price (“EP”) to NV, as described below.

In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department calculated the EP for sales to the United States for Mu Si and Bon Ten because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made before the date of importation and the use of constructed EP was not otherwise warranted. The Department calculated EP based on the price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, the Department deducted from the starting price to unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland freight, and brokerage and handling. For Mu Si and Bon Ten, each of these services was either provided by an NME vendor or paid for using an NME currency. Thus, the Department based the deduction of these movement charges on surrogate values. See Factor Valuation Memorandum for details regarding the surrogate values for movement expenses.

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if: (1) the merchandise is exported from an NME country; and (2) the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home market prices, third country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. When determining NV in an NME context, the Department will base NV on FOPs because the presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under our normal methodologies. Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOPs include but are not limited to: (1) hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. The Department used FOPs reported by respondents for materials, energy, labor and packing.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will normally use publicly available information to find an appropriate SV to value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a market economy and pays for it in market-economy currency, the Department may value the factor using the actual price paid for the input. See Lasko Metal Products, Inc. v. United States , 43 F.3d 1442, 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994). However, when the Department has reason to believe or suspect that such prices may be distorted by subsidies, the Department will disregard the market economy purchase prices and use SVs to determine the NV. See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews and Partial Rescission of the 2005-2006 Administrative Review , 72 FR 42386 (August 2, 2007) (“ Brake Rotors ”), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

In avoiding the use of prices that may be subsidized, the Department does not conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized, but rather relies on information that is generally available at the time of its determination. See H.R. Rep. 100-576, at 590-91 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-24. It is the Department's practice to find a reason to believe or suspect that inputs may be subsidized if the facts developed in the United States or third country countervailing duty findings indicate the existence of subsidies that appear to be used generally (in particular, broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies. See Brake Rotors and China National Machinery Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States , 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1338-39 (CIT 2003). The Department has reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. Through other proceedings, the Department has learned that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, finds it reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these countries may be subsidized. See e.g. , Brake Rotors at Comment 1. Accordingly, the Department has disregarded prices from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand in calculating the Indian import-based SVs.

In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department calculated NV based on FOPs reported by respondents for the POR. To calculate NV, the Department multiplied the reported per-unit factor consumption quantities by publicly available Indian SVs (except as noted below). In selecting the SVs, the Department considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, the Department adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, the Department added to Indian import SVs a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory where appropriate ( i.e. , where the sales terms for the market-economy inputs were not delivered to the factory). This adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States , 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed description of all SVs used to value the respondents' reported FOPs, see Factor Valuation Memorandum.

During the POR, Mu Si and Bon Ten purchased all or a portion of certain inputs from a market economy supplier and paid for these inputs in a market economy currency. The Department has instituted a rebuttable presumption that market economy input prices are the best available information for valuing an input when the total volume of the input purchased from all market economy sources during the period of investigation or review exceeds 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from all sources during the period. See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments , 71 FR 61716 (October 19, 2006) (“Market Economy Inputs”). In these cases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to rebut the Department's presumption, the Department will use the weighted-average market economy purchase price to value the input. Alternatively, when the volume of an NME firm's purchases of an input from market economy suppliers during the period is below 33 percent of its total volume of purchases of the input during the period, but where these purchases are otherwise valid and there is no reason to disregard the prices, the Department will weight average the weighted-average market economy purchase price with an appropriate SV according to their respective shares of the total volume of purchases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to rebut the presumption. Where the quantity of the input purchased from market-economy suppliers is insignificant, the Department will not rely on the price paid by an NME producer to a market-economy supplier because it cannot have confidence that a company could fulfill all its needs at that price. Furthermore, when a firm has made market economy input purchases that may have been dumped or subsidized, are not bona fide , or are otherwise not acceptable for use in a dumping calculation, the Department will exclude them from the numerator of the ratio to ensure a fair determination of whether valid market economy purchases meet the 33-percent threshold.

Consistent with the aforementioned methodology, the Department valued Mu Si's and Bon Ten's inputs using the market economy prices paid for the inputs where the total volume of the input purchased from all market economy sources during the POR exceeded 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from all sources during that period. Alternatively, when the volume of Mu Si's and Bon Ten's purchases of an input from market economy suppliers during the POR was below 33 percent of the company's total volume of purchases of the input during the POR, the Department weight averaged the weighted-average market economy purchase price with an appropriate SV according to their respective shares of the total volume of purchases, as appropriate. Where appropriate, the Department increased the market economy prices of inputs by freight and brokerage and handling expenses. See Factor Valuation Memorandum; see also Memorandum to the File, “Company Analysis Memorandum in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Mu Si,” dated May 27, 2008 and Memorandum to the File “Company Analysis Memorandum in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Bon Ten,” dated May 27, 2008 (for a detailed description of all actual values used for market-economy inputs.).

In order to calculate SVs for the reported FOPs purchased from NME sources, the Department used contemporaneous import data from the World Trade Atlas online, published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics, Ministry of Commerce of India. Among the FOPs for which the Department calculated SVs using Indian Import Statistics are plywood, woodscrews, dowels, glue, paint, drawerslides, abrasive paper, and packing materials. For a complete listing of all the inputs and the valuation for each mandatory respondent. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.

Where the Department could not obtain information contemporaneous with the POR with which to value FOPs, the Department adjusted the SVs using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index (“WPI”) available at the website of the Office of the Economic Adviser, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, http://eaindustry.nic.in/. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.

For direct labor, indirect labor, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), the Department used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported on Import Administration's website, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in May 2008, using 2005 data, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/05wages/05wages-051608.html#table1. The source of these wage-rate data is the International Labour Organization, Geneva, Labour Statistics Database, Copyright International Labour Organization, 1998-2007 Yearbook, Selection: years: 2004-2005, 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, the Department has applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondents. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.

To value electricity, the Department used data from the International Energy Agency Key World Energy Statistics (2003 edition). See Factor Valuation Memorandum. Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POR, the Department adjusted the rate for inflation.

To calculate the value for domestic brokerage and handling, the Department used information from the public version of two questionnaire responses placed on the record of two separate antidumping proceedings. The first source was December 2003-November 2004 data contained in the public version of Essar Steel's February 28, 2005 questionnaire response submitted in the antidumping duty administrative review of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India. See Certain Hot- Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 71 FR 2018 (January 12, 2006) (unchanged in the final results, Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 71 FR 40694 (July 18, 2006)). This value was averaged with the February 2004-January 2005 data contained in the public version of Agro Dutch Industries Limited's (“Agro Dutch”) May 24, 2005 questionnaire response submitted in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 70 FR 37757 (June 30, 2005). The brokerage expense data reported by Essar Steel and Agro Dutch in their public versions are ranged data. The Department derived an average per-unit amount from each source and then adjusted each average rate for inflation using the WPI. The Department then averaged the two per-unit amounts to derive an overall average rate for the POR. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.

The Department used Indian transport information in order to value the freight-in cost of the raw materials. The Department determined the best available information for valuing truck and rail freight to be from www.infreight.com. This source provides daily rates from six major points of origin to five destinations in India during the POR. The Department obtained a price quote on the first day of each month of the POR from each point of origin to each destination and averaged the data accordingly. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.

To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”), and profit, the Department used the audited financial statements for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007, from twelve Indian producers of comparable merchandise. From this information, the Department was able to determine factory overhead as a percentage of the total raw materials, labor and energy (“ML&E”) costs; SG&A as a percentage of ML&E plus overhead ( i.e. , cost of manufacture); and the profit rate as a percentage of the cost of manufacture plus SG&A. For further discussion, see Factor Valuation Memorandum.

The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period January 1, 2007, through July 31, 2007:

The Department will disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttals to written comments may be filed no later than five days after the written comments are filed. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Further, parties submitting written comments and rebuttal comments are requested to provide the Department with an additional copy of those comments on diskette. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing normally will be held seven days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal comments. See 19 CFR 351.310(d).

The Department will issue the final results of these NSRs, which will include the results of its analysis of any issues raised in written comments, within 90 days of the date on which these preliminary results are issued, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1), unless the time limit is extended. See 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1).

Upon completion of the final results, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of reviews. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of reviews, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department will calculate importer-specific (or customer) ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. The Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by these reviews if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of these reviews is above de minimis .

On August 17, 2006, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (“H.R. 4”) was signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4 temporarily suspends the authority of the Department to instruct CBP to collect a bond or other security in lieu of a cash deposit in NSRs. Therefore, the posting of a bond under section 751(a)(B)(iii) of the Act in lieu of a cash deposit is not available in this case.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of these NSRs for shipments of subject merchandise from the Mu Si and Bon Ten entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) Subject merchandise produced and exported by Mu Si or produced and exported by Bon Ten, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of these reviews; (2) subject merchandise exported by Mu Si but not produced by MuSi and subject merchandise exported by Bon Ten but not produced by Bon Ten, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the PRC-wide rate of 216.01 percent; (3) for subject merchandise produced by Mu Si or Bon Ten, and exported by any party but themselves, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

The Department is issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(h) and 351.221(b)(4).

Background

On May 11, 1999, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a countervailing duty order on stainless steel plate in coils (“SSPC”) from Belgium. See Notice of Amended Final Determinations: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium and South Africa; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, Italy and South Africa, 64 FR 25288 (May 11, 1999) ( “CVD Order” ). On March 11, 2003, as a result of litigation, the Department published an amended countervailing duty order on stainless steel plate in coils from Belgium. See Notice of Amended Countervailing Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium, Italy, and South Africa, 68 FR 11524 (March 11, 2003) ( “Amended CVD Order” ). On May 1, 2007, the Department published a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” for this countervailing duty order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 72 FR 23796, 23797 (May 1, 2007). On May 31, 2007, we received a request for review from U&A. 1 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i) (2004), we published a notice of initiation of the review on June 29, 2007. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part and Deferral of Administrative Review, 72 FR 35690, 35693 (June 29, 2007) ( “Initiation Notice” ).

On July 13, 2007, we issued countervailing duty questionnaires to the Government of Belgium (“GOB”), the Commission of the European Union (“EC”), and U&A. We received responses to these questionnaires on September 21, and 24, 2007. On April 3, 2008, we issued supplemental questionnaires to the GOB and U&A. We issued a further supplemental questionnaire to U&A on April 24, 2008. We received a response from U&A for both supplemental questionnaires on April 28, 2008. The GOB requested an extension to file its supplemental response, which we granted. The GOB, however, did not respond to the supplemental questionnaire by the extended deadline. We issued additional supplemental questionnaires to U&A on May 1, and 8, 2008, and received responses to our supplemental questionnaires on May 8, 13, 2008, and 16, 2008.

On May 20, 2008, Allegheny Ludlum Corporation; North American Stainless; United Auto Workers Local 3303; Zanesville Arco Independent Organization; and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC (collectively, “the petitioners”) submitted comments for consideration in the preliminary results. We received a response from U&A to petitioners' pre-preliminary comments on May 22, 2008.

On January 9, 2008, we published a postponement of the preliminary results in this review until May 30, 2008. See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 1599 (January 9, 2008).

The products covered by this order are imports of certain stainless steel plate in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject plate products are flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more in thickness, in coils, and annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject plate may also be further processed ( e.g. , cold-rolled, polished, etc.) provided that it maintains the specified dimensions of plate following such processing. Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) Plate not in coils, (2) plate that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled, (3) sheet and strip, and (4) flat bars.

The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.05, 7219.12.00.06, 7219.12.00.20, 7219.12.00.21, 7219.12.00.25, 7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.50, 7219.12.00.51, 7219.12.00.55, 7219.12.00.56, 7219.12.00.65, 7219.12.00.66, 7219.12.00.70, 7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.80, 7219.12.00.81, 7219.31.00.10, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope of this order remains dispositive.

This scope language reflects the March 11, 2003, amendment of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders and suspension of liquidation which the Department implemented in accordance with the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) decision in Allegheny Ludlum v. United States, Slip Op. 02-147 (Dec. 12, 2002). See, also, Notice of Amended Antidumping Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, Canada, Italy, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, 68 FR 11520 (March 11, 2003) and Amended CVD Order.

The period for which we are measuring subsidies, i.e. , the period of review (“POR”), is January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006.

Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, provide that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if, inter alia, necessary information is not on the record or an interested party or any other person: (A) Withholds information that has been requested; (B) fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding; or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act.

Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department “shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements established by the administering authority” if the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so without undue difficulties.

In this case, the Department sent a supplemental questionnaire to the GOB seeking confirmation that U&A did not receive benefits during the 15-year average useful life of renewable physical assets (“AUL”) for programs under the program headings “Industrial Reconversion Zones;” “Regional Subsidies under the Economic Expansion Law of 1970 (GOB)” and “Regional Subsidies under the Economic Expansion Law of 1970 (Government of Flanders (“GOF”))”. The GOB, through U&A, requested an extension to respond to the supplemental questionnaire, which was granted until April 28, 2008. The GOB did not provide a response to the supplemental questionnaire by this deadline, but we received an extension request on May 6, 2008. The Department granted the GOB's request, but the GOB did not file a response by the May 19, 2008, deadline. On May 23, 2008, the Department received a letter from the GOB stating it was still working on providing a response to the supplemental questions and would submit an answer as soon as it becomes available.

Thus, in reaching our finding for the preliminary results, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, we are relying on facts otherwise available to determine the countervailable subsidy conferred by the GOB under the “Industrial Reconversion Zones” and both “Economic Expansion Law of 1970” programs.

Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available (“AFA”) information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as “{i}nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session (1994) at 870. Corroborate means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. The SAA emphasizes, however, that the Department need not prove that the selected facts available are the best alternative information. See SAA at 869.

The Department states in Certain In-shell Roasted Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of Countervailing Duty New Shipper Review, 73 FR 9993 (February 25, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2 ( “Pistachios from Iran 2008” ), that where the foreign government fails to adequately respond to the Department's questionnaires, the Department's practice is to apply adverse inferences and assume the alleged subsidy programs constitute a financial contribution and are specific within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D) and 771(5A) of the Act, respectively. However, if information on the record indicates that the respondent did not use the program, the Department will find the program not used, regardless of whether the foreign government participated to the best of its ability.

In its September 24, 2007, questionnaire response, the GOB and U&A responded fully to the Department's questions regarding potential subsidy programs during the POR. In a subsequent supplemental questionnaire to the GOB, the Department asked the GOB to confirm that U&A did not receive benefits during the AUL period for programs under the “Industrial Reconversion Zones” and both “Economic Expansion Law of 1970” programs. Upon examination of the programs listed under each of these headings, we note that several of the programs described are recurring subsidy programs that are associated with tax programs (Industrial Reconversion Zones: Albufin and Regional Subsidies under the Economic Expansion Law of 1970 (GOB): Real Estate Tax Exemption and Accelerated Depreciation). As such, we have examined U&A's responses on these programs and find that statements by U&A in its questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses regarding the use of these programs during the POR, as well as documentation ( e.g. , financial statements and U&A's 2006 tax return) on the record, support the company's assertion that it did not receive benefits under these recurring programs in 2006. Although the GOB did not respond to the Department's questions regarding these programs, the information on the record supports U&A's assertion that it did not use these programs during the POR. Therefore, we preliminarily find that U&A did not receive benefits under these programs according to section 771(5)(E) of the Act.

For the programs under the Regional Subsidies under the 1970 Law (GOF) (Corporate Income Tax Exemption, Capital Registration Tax Exemption Government Loan Guarantees, and 1993 Loan Grant programs), the Department found these programs to be not used by U&A in the investigation and first administrative review (the only administrative review for which a request for a review was made). We note that no new information on the record contradicts our previous finding of non-use for the above GOF programs. Moreover, U&A's submitted documentation (2006 financial statements and 2006 tax returns) provides additional support that the recurring subsidy programs within this group continue to be not used. Therefore, consistent with our previous findings of non-use and no new information on the record that U&A started to use these programs, we preliminarily continue to find the programs under the Regional Subsidies under the 1970 Law (GOF) not used.

The remaining program under these headings involves one non-recurring program (Industrial Reconversion Zones: Alfin). The Department found this program countervailable during the investigation and stated that the benefit found had been fully allocated by the end of the first administrative review. In the GOB's and U&A's responses to the Department regarding this program, both parties stated that the benefit the Department found countervailable had been fully allocated out in the first administrative review POR, that the program had not changed, and that no benefits were provided/received in the POR. The GOB and U&A, however, did not address whether benefits were conferred upon U&A during the full AUL period. In its supplemental questionnaire to the GOB, the Department attempted to clarify those statements and confirm that no benefits were provided to U&A for the full AUL period. The GOB did not respond to the supplemental questionnaire, and as stated above, U&A only provided an incomplete answer in its questionnaire response. Thus, the Department has no information on the record from which to analyze whether the GOB provided additional benefits to U&A under this program over the full AUL period.

In selecting from among the facts available for U&A, the Department has determined that an adverse inference is warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. The Department preliminarily determines that records relating to subsidy distribution by the GOB are records that are, or should be kept by both the GOB and U&A. Further, by failing to submit a response to the Department's supplemental CVD questionnaire, we preliminarily determine that the GOB did not cooperate to the best of its ability in providing pertinent information on non-recurring programs over the full AUL period. Further, U&A failed to provide a complete response to the Department's questionnaire addressing the full AUL period. As no information on the record exists for the program beyond the original countervailable benefit and POR of this review, and neither the GOB nor U&A provided an adequate response for this program, we find, as adverse facts available, that the GOB conferred a benefit to U&A under the Industrial Reconversion Zones: Alfin program, during the AUL period, as per section 771(5)(E) of the Act. We note that supplemental questions regarding the use of the above programs during the full AUL period were directed only at the GOB. Therefore, we will issue an additional supplemental questionnaire to U&A that will request supporting documentation regarding the usage of the above programs during the full AUL period.

In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any information placed on the record. It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the highest calculated rate in any segment of the proceeding. See, e.g., Certain In-shell Roasted Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 66165 (November 13, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Analysis of Programs.” Therefore, the Department has preliminarily assigned the first administrative review rate of 0.17% (the highest calculated rate for the program during any previous segment) subsidy rate to the “Industrial Reconversion Zones: Alfin” program. In order to satisfy itself that such information has probative value, the Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information used. With regard to the reliability aspect of corroboration, unlike other types of information, such as publicly available data on the national inflation rate of a given country or national average interest rates, there typically are no independent sources for data on company-specific benefits resulting from countervailable subsidy programs. The only source for such information normally is administrative determinations.

In the instant case, no evidence has been presented or obtained which contradicts the reliability of the evidence relied upon in previous segments of this proceeding.

With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render benefit data not relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the information is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will not use it. See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996). In the instant case, no evidence has been presented or obtained which contradicts the relevance of the benefit data relied upon in previous segments of this proceeding. Thus, in the instant case, the Department finds that the information used has been corroborated to the extent practicable.

Effective June 30, 2003, the Department adopted a new methodology for analyzing privatizations in the countervailing duty context. See Notice of Final Modification of Agency Practice Under Section 123 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 68 FR 37125 (June 23, 2003) (“ Modification Notice ”). The Department's new methodology is based on a rebuttable “baseline” presumption that non-recurring, allocable subsidies continue to benefit the subsidy recipient throughout the allocation period (which normally corresponds to the AUL of the recipient's assets). Id. , at 37127. However, an interested party may rebut this baseline presumption by demonstrating that, during the allocation period, a change in ownership occurred in which the former owner sold all or substantially all of a company or its assets, retaining no control of the company or its assets, and that the sale was an arm's-length transaction for fair market value. Id.

U&A's ownership changed during the AUL period as a result of mergers and ownership changes. However, during the current administrative review, U&A has not attempted to rebut the Department's baseline presumption that the non-recurring, allocable subsidies received prior to any changes in ownership continue to benefit the company throughout the allocation period. See U&A's September 24, 2007, questionnaire response at pages 12-13.

In earlier proceedings, we found that ALZ N.V.'s (“ALZ's”) parent company, Sidmar N.V. (“Sidmar”), owned either directly or indirectly 100 percent of ALZ's voting shares and was the overall majority shareholder of U&A Belgium. See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination; Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, 64 FR 15567 (March 31, 1999) (“ SSPC from Belgium Investigation”); Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 45007 (August 27, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“ SSPC from Belgium First Review ”). Therefore, in accordance with section 351.525(a)(6)(iii) of the Department's regulations, because ALZ was a fully consolidated subsidiary of Sidmar, any untied subsidies provided to Sidmar are attributable to ALZ.

In the current review, U&A provided evidence on the record that it is wholly owned by Arcelor and that Sidmar transferred shares to Arcelor pursuant to the 2002 merger of Sidmar's parent, Arbed, with Aceralia and Usinor. Certain details of this transfer are proprietary in nature and are discussed in U&A's Calculation Memo. See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, Director, regarding “Calculations for the Preliminary Results for U&A Belguim” (May 30, 2008) (“ U&A's Calculation Memo ”). Based on the information provided, we preliminary find it appropriate to attribute any non-recurring subsidy benefits provided to Sidmar and that are still outstanding during the POR to U&A's sales.

In SSPC from Belgium Investigation , in accordance with a CIT decision, we calculated company-specific allocation periods for non-recurring subsidies using company-specific AUL data. See British Steel plc v. United States, 929 F. Supp. 426, 439 (CIT 1996). We determined that the AUL for ALZ was 15 years, and that the AUL for Sidmar was 19 years. See SSPC from Belgium , 64 FR at 15568.

In the first administrative review, the Department adopted new CVD regulations, which were applicable to the review, and determined to use a 15-year AUL for the review including any new subsidies received by Sidmar. See SSPC from Belgium First Review , and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. However, with respect to non-recurring subsidies received prior to the first administrative review which had already been countervailed and allocated based on an allocation period established in SSPC from Belgium Investigation , we continued to allocate those non-recurring subsidies over 19 years for Sidmar. As we noted at the time, this methodology was consistent with our approach in Certain Carbon Steel Products from Sweden; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review , 62 FR 16549 (April 7, 1997) and Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of Third Countervailing Duty Administrative Review , 66 FR 11269 (February 23, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Allocation Period.” See SSPC from Belgium First Review, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.

During the current administrative review, U&A has not commented on the Department's use of the 15-year AUL period or the use of a 19-year AUL for Sidmar's non-recurring subsidies received by the company in the investigation. For the preliminary results, we will continue to employ our previous methodology and use the 15-year AUL for U&A and allocate any non-recurring subsidies received by Sidmar in the investigation over the 19-year AUL.

Because Sidmar did not obtain long-term commercial loans in the year in which the grant was received, as described in section 351.505(a)(2)(iii), we used a national average rate for long-term, fixed-rate debt as the discount rate. See section 351.505(a)(3)(ii) of the Department's regulations.

We examined the following program determined to confer subsidies in the investigation and the first administrative review and preliminarily find that U&A continued to receive benefits under this program during the POR.

SidInvest was incorporated on August 31, 1982, as a holding company jointly owned by Sidmar and the Societe Nationale d'Investissement, S.A. (“SNI”) (a government financing agency). SidInvest was given drawing rights on SNI to finance specific projects. The drawing rights took the form of conditional refundable advances (“CRAs”), which were interest-free, but repayable to SNI based on a company's profitability. See SSPC From Belgium Investigation , 64 FR at 15572.

SidInvest made periodic repayments of the CRAs it had drawn from SNI. However, in 1987, the GOB moved to accelerate the repayment of the CRAs. Later, in July 1988, an agreement was reached for the government agency Nationale Maatschappig voor de Herstructurering van de Nationale Sectoren (“NMNS”) to become a shareholder in SidInvest by contributing the CRAs owed to the government by SidInvest in exchange for SidInvest stock. The Sidmar Group then repurchased the SidInvest shares obtained by NMNS. Id.

We determined that this program conferred a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Id. This program provided a financial contribution as described in section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. Id. Moreover, because the right to establish “Invests” (and, consequently, any forgiveness of loans given to the Invests) was limited to the five national sectors, we determined that the program was specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. Id. In this administrative review, no new information has been placed on the record which would warrant reconsideration of this determination.

To measure the benefit arising from the events of July 29, 1988, we have deducted from SidInvest's outstanding indebtedness the cash received by the GOB. We have treated the remainder as a grant and allocated the benefit over Sidmar's 19-year AUL. We divided the total benefit attributable to 2006 by U&A Belgium's total sales during 2006. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy for 2006 to be 0.31 percent ad valorem.

As noted in the “Use of Facts Otherwise Available ”section above, we preliminarily find U&A to have benefitted from the Industrial Reconversion Zones: Alfin program during the POR in the amount of 0.17 percent.

We examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that U&A did not apply for or receive benefits under these programs during the POR:

On May 1, 2008, the Department sought information from U&A concerning amounts appearing in its 2005 and 2006 financial statements. U&A submitted some requested information on May 8, 2008, and May 13, 2008. In addition, in its May 22, 2008, response to petitioners' pre-preliminary comments, U&A stated that it had inadvertently not included all of its divisions and cross-owned companies in its submitted total sales and export data. After reviewing the provided documentation, we have determined that we do not have sufficient information at this time to make a finding on these amounts or the revised sales value and export data. Therefore, we intend to seek further information on these amounts and revised data and to issue an interim analysis describing our preliminary findings with respect to these items before the final results so that parties will have the opportunity to comment.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for U&A, the only producer/exporter subject to this administrative review. For the period January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy rate for U&A to be 0.48 percent ad valorem. This rate is less than 0.5 percent. Consequently, if these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate shipments of SSPC by U&A 2 entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006, without regard to countervailing duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). These instructions will be issued fifteen days after publication of the final results of this review.

The final results of this review shall be the basis for future deposits of estimated duties. If the cash deposit rate calculated in the final results is zero or de minimis , no cash deposit will be required. The cash deposit requirement, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

We will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies covered by this order at the most recent company-specific rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rate that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this order will be the rate for that company established in the investigation or most recent administrative review. See CVD Order. The “all others” rate shall apply to all non-reviewed companies that have not received an individual rate.

Interested parties may submit written arguments in case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date of filing the case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit briefs in this proceeding should provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). Copies of case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).

Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Unless otherwise specified, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1).

The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this administrative review within 120 days from the publication of these preliminary results. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

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

The subject amendments to Permit No. 716-1705-00, issued on June 30, 2004, and Permit No. 545-1761-00 issued on September 16, 2005, are requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).

Permit No. 716-1705-00 authorizes Dr. Sharpe to conduct research on the behavior, social structure, and foraging ecology of North Pacific humpback whales ( Megaptera novaeangliae ), including close approach for photo-identification and behavioral observation, takes by acoustic recordings and playbacks of conspecific sound, and takes by suction cup tagging with Crittercam/TDR dive tags. Dr. Sharpe is also permitted to conduct opportunistic photo-identification and behavioral observation of killer whales (Orcinus orca). Research occurs in the waters of southeastern Alaska including Chatham Strait, Dixon Entrance, Cross Sound, and Icy Strait and the waters of Washington state. The permit expires on June 30, 2009.

The permit holder requests authorization to use a novel filming technique, a mini-helicopter, during an opportunistic, limited time period in southeast Alaska during July and August 2008. The applicant indicates that the use of the mini-helicopter would provide information that could be used for: (1) predicting energetic models of lunge-feeding humpback whales; (2) discerning physical positioning to determine whether lunge-feeding whales maintain specialized positions; and (3) studying the functional morphology of engulfment feeding. Such information would complement the already permitted behavioral study of lunge-feeding humpback whales. Based on video documentation of the use of the mini-helicopter to film humpback whales in foreign waters, this technique is not expected to result in added harassment to the whales, and in fact, is expected to reduce potential harassment from boat approaches.

Permit No. 545-1761-00 authorizes the North Gulf Oceanic Society to conduct population studies on numerous cetacean species with a particular emphasis on killer whales. The research focuses on the study of: (1) mating and social systems and feeding behavior of killer whales; and (2) diving behavior, feeding, movement and contaminant loads of several cetacean species. Takes may occur by close approach for vessel surveys, photo-identification, behavioral observation, passive acoustic recording, tagging, biopsy sampling, export of parts, and incidental harassment. Research takes place in waters off Alaska, including Glacier Bay/Icy Strait, Sitka Sound, Prince William Sound, Kenai Fjords, Resurrection Bay, Eastern Aleutian chain, and Kodiak Island. The permit expires on September 15, 2010.

The permit holder requests authorization to use the same mini-helicopter, during an opportunistic, limited time period in Alaska during August/September 2008. The mini-helicopter would be used to measure total body length of killer whales in order to assess individual growth, make population size comparisons, and model the energetic requirements of killer whales. Data obtained from the mini-helicopter would allow researchers to obtain proportional measurements of blowhole-dorsal and full body length, which can be used to construct a regression to describe this relationship.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register , NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

Section 204(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1824(d)) provides, among other things, that the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) may issue a transshipment permit which authorizes a vessel other than a vessel of the United States to engage in fishing consisting solely of transporting fish or fish products at sea from a point within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) or, with the concurrence of a state, within the boundaries of that state to a point outside the United States. In addition, Public Law 104-297, sec. 105(e) directs the Secretary to issue section 204(d) permits for up to 14 Canadian transport vessels to receive Atlantic herring harvested by United States fishermen within the boundaries of the State of Maine or within the portion of the EEZ east of the line 69 degrees 30 minutes west and within 12 nautical miles from the seaward boundary of that State.

Section 204(d)(3)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides that an application may not be approved until the Secretary determines that “no owner or operator of a vessel of the United States which has adequate capacity to perform the transportation for which the application is submitted has indicated ... an interest in performing the transportation at fair and reasonable rates.” NMFS is publishing this notice as part of its effort to make such a determination with respect to the application described below.

NMFS has received an application requesting authorization for 11 Canadian transport vessels to receive transfers of herring from U.S. purse harvesting vessels for the purpose of transporting the herring to processing plants in Canada. The transshipment operations will occur within the boundaries of the State of Maine or within the portion of the exclusive economic zone east of the line 69 degrees 30 minutes west and within 12 nautical miles from the seaward boundary of that State.

Interested U.S. vessel owners and operators may obtain a copy of the complete application from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ).

The workshop schedules, registration information, and a list of frequently asked questions regarding these workshops are posted on the internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/workshops/ .

Effective December 31, 2007, an Atlantic shark dealer may not receive, purchase, trade, or barter for Atlantic shark unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate is on the premises of each business listed under the shark dealer permit (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). Dealers who attend and successfully complete a workshop will be issued a certificate for each place of business that is permitted to receive sharks.

Dealers may send a proxy to an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, however, if a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer must designate a proxy for each place of business covered by the dealer's permit. Only one certificate will be issued to each proxy. A proxy must be a person who: is currently employed by a place of business covered by the dealer's permit; is a primary participant in the identification, weighing, and/or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and fills out dealer reports. Additionally, after December 31, 2007, an Atlantic shark dealer may not renew a Federal shark dealer permit unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate for each business location has been submitted with the permit renewal application. Sixteen free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops were held in 2007.

1. July 31, 2008, from 9 a.m. - 3 p.m., Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research, 219 Fort Johnson Road, Charleston, SC 29412.

2. August 28, 2008, from 9:30 a.m. - 3 p.m., George Memorial Library, 1001 Golfview Drive, Richmond, TX 77649.

3. September 16, 2008, from 9 a.m. - 3 p.m., Piggotte Community Center, 504 Big Tree Road, South Daytona, FL 32119.

4. September 30, 2008, from 9 a.m. - 3 p.m., Piggotte Community Center, 504 Big Tree Road, South Daytona, FL 32119.

To register for a scheduled Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, please contact Eric Sander by email at esander@peoplepc.com or by phone at (386) 852-8588.

To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following items to the workshop:

Atlantic shark dealer permit holders must bring proof that the individual is an agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable permit, and proof of identification.

Atlantic shark dealer proxies must bring documentation from the shark dealer acknowledging that the proxy is attending the workshop on behalf of the Atlantic shark dealer, a copy of the appropriate permit, and proof of identification.

The shark identification workshops are designed to reduce the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks reported in the dealer reporting form and increase the accuracy of species-specific dealer-reported information. Reducing the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks will improve quota monitoring and the data used in stock assessments. These workshops will train shark dealer permit holders or their proxies to properly identify Atlantic shark carcasses.

Effective January 1, 2007, shark limited access and swordfish limited access permit holders must submit a copy of their Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop certificate in order to renew either permit (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). As such, vessel owners who have not attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate must attend one of the workshops offered in July, August, or September 2008 to fish with or renew either permit. Additionally, new shark and swordfish limited access permit applicants must attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and must submit a copy of their workshop certificate before such permits will be issued.

In addition to certifying permit holders, all longline and gillnet vessel operators fishing on a vessel issued a limited access swordfish or limited access shark permit are required to attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop. Vessels that have been issued a limited access swordfish or limited access shark permit may not fish unless both the vessel owner and operator have valid workshop certificates. Vessel operators must possess on board the vessel valid workshop certificates for both the vessel owner and the operator at all times. Seven free Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops were held in 2006, and 34 were held in 2007.

1. July 22, 2008, from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 1101 North Highway 231, Panama City, FL 32405.

2. July 29, 2008, from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m., La Quinta Inn and Suites, Islip MacArthur Airport, 10 Aero Road, Bohemia, NY 11716.

3. August 27, 2008, from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m., Holiday Inn Express, 727 South 11 th Street, Port Aransas, TX 78373.

4. September 3, 2008, from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m., Holiday Inn Oceanfront, 67 th Street Oceanside, Ocean City, MD 21842.

To register for a scheduled Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop, please contact Aquatic Release Conservation ((877) 411-4272), 1870 Mason Ave., Daytona Beach, FL 32117.

To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following items with them to the workshop:

Individual vessel owners must bring a copy of the appropriate permit(s), a copy of the vessel registration or documentation, and proof of identification.

Representatives of a business owned or co-owned vessel must bring proof that the individual is an agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable permit(s), and proof of identification.

Vessel operators must bring proof of identification.

The protected species safe handling, release, and identification workshops are designed to teach longline and gillnet fishermen the required techniques for the safe handling and release of entangled and/or hooked protected species, such as sea turtles, marine mammals, and smalltooth sawfish. Identification of protected species will also be taught at these workshops in an effort to improve reporting. Additionally, individuals attending these workshops will gain a better understanding of the requirements for participating in these fisheries. The overall goal for these workshops is to provide participants the skills needed to reduce the mortality of protected species, which may prevent additional regulations on these fisheries in the future.

Participants in the industry-sponsored workshops on safe handling and release of sea turtles that were held in Orlando, FL (April 8, 2005) and in New Orleans, LA (June 27, 2005) were issued a NOAA workshop certificate in December 2006 that is valid for three years. Grandfathered permit holders must include a copy of this certificate when renewing limited access shark and limited access swordfish permits each year. Failure to provide a valid NOAA workshop certificate may result in a permit denial.

The Port of Los Angeles and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will jointly hold a public meeting on June 26, 2008 in the Board of Harbor Commissioner Hearing Room in San Pedro, California, to receive public comments and to assess public concerns regarding this Draft SEIS/SEIR and proposed project. Written comments will be accepted until the close of the public review period on July 29, 2008.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Revision.

Title: National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) Wave 5 Interviews and Questionnaires.

Frequency: Biennial.

Affected Public: Individuals or household.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 3,912.

 Burden Hours: 1,423.

Abstract: This ICR is for Wave 5 data collection for the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). This study was begun in 2000 with a sample of approximately 12,000 youth who were aged 13 through 16 and receiving educational services. Wave 5 data collection will take place in the 9th year of the project and will consist of parent and youth interviews conducted by phone or mail.This will be the last round of data collection for NLTS2 and will focus primarily on early adulthood, including postsecondary education, employment, and community adjustment.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3698. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) School Letter.

Frequency: One time.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Abstract: On March 4, 2008, a letter was sent via e-mail to 4,155 financial aid administrators at institutions that participate in the Federal Family Educational Loan Program. The purpose of the letter is to inform the financial aid administrators that the Department of Education is monitoring the current uncertainty in the credit markets and the impact of that uncertainty on student loan programs. The letter invites the financial aid administrator to provide the Department with any information he or she has related to any lender that plans to reduce, suspend, or discontinue making student loans. The letter requests this information for both federal and non-federal student loans. The Department uses the information received from the financial aid administrators to prepare an analysis and summary for presentation to the Secretary. The Secretary continues to use the information to make her decisions related to ensuring the continued availability of educational loans for students and their families.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3657. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

An LEA is eligible for an award under the SRSA program if—

(a) The total number of students in average daily attendance at all of the schools served by the LEA is fewer than 600, or each county in which a school served by the LEA is located has a total population density of fewer than 10 persons per square mile; and

(b) All of the schools served by the LEA are designated with a school locale code of 7 or 8 by the Department's National Center for Education Statistics (using the NCES school locale methodology in place at the time of NCLB's enactment), or the Secretary has determined, based on a demonstration by the LEA and concurrence of the SEA, that the LEA is located in an area defined as rural by a governmental agency of the State.

An eligible LEA must submit an application to receive a FY 2008 SRSA grant award if it falls under any of the following categories:

1. The LEA never submitted an application for SRSA funds in any prior year;

2. The LEA received an SRSA grant award for FY 2005 and, as of February 15, 2008, had not drawn down from the Department's Grant Administration and Payment System any of its FY 2005 SRSA funds; or

3. The LEA received an SRSA grant award for FY 2006 and, as of March 31, 2008, had not drawn down from the Department's Grant Administration and Payment System any of its FY 2006 SRSA funds.

Under the regulations in 34 CFR 75.104(a), the Secretary makes grants only to an eligible party that submits an application. Given the limited purpose served by the application under the SRSA program, the Secretary considers the application requirement to be met if the LEA submitted an SRSA application for any prior year and does not fall under any of the categories listed above requiring the submission of a new application. In this circumstance, unless the LEA advises the Secretary by the application deadline that it is withdrawing its application, the Secretary deems the application that the LEA previously submitted to remain in effect for FY 2008 funding, and the LEA does not have to submit an additional application.

We intend to provide, by May 23, 2008, a list of LEAs eligible for FY 2008 funds on the Department's Web site at http://www.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/index.html under the “Eligibility” hyperlink. The Web site will also indicate which of these eligible LEAs must submit a new application to the Department to receive their FY 2008 SRSA grant award, and which eligible LEAs are considered already to have met the application requirement.

Eligible LEAs that must submit a new application in order to receive FY 2008 SRSA funds must do so electronically by the deadline established in this notice.

An eligible LEA that is required to submit an application to receive FY 2008 SRSA funds must submit an electronic application by June 30, 2008, 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time. Submission of an electronic application involves the use of the Department's Electronic Grant Application System (e-Application) available through the Department's e-GRANTS system.

You can access the electronic application for the SRSA Program at: http://e-grants.ed.gov.

Once you access this site, you will receive specific instructions regarding the information to include in your application.

The regular hours of operation of the e-Grants Web site are 6 a.m. Monday until 7 p.m. Wednesday; and 6 a.m. Thursday until midnight, Saturday (Washington, DC time). Please note that the system is unavailable on Sundays, Federal holidays, and after 7 p.m. on Wednesdays for maintenance (Washington, DC time).

This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-5127; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Weatherization Assistance Program; (3) Purpose: The Weatherization Assistance Program provides grants to States, the District of Columbia and Native American Tribes annually; (4) Estimated Number of Respondents: 52 (Fifty Two) States and Territories; (5) Estimated Total Burden Hours: 3 hours per respondent; (6) Number of Collections: The information collection request contains 3 information and/or recordkeeping requirements.

This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-5126; (2) I nformation Collection Request Title: State Energy; Program (3) Purpose: Promote the conservation of energy, reduce the rate of growth of energy demand, and reduce dependence on imported oil; (4) Estimated Number of Respondents: 56 (Fifty Six) States and Territories; (5) Estimated Total Burden Hours: 162; (6) Number of Collections: The information collection request contains one (1) information and/or recordkeeping requirement.

Purpose of the Board: To make recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy regarding goals and objectives, programmatic and administrative policies, and to otherwise carry out the Board's responsibilities as designated in the State Energy Efficiency Programs Improvement Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-440).

Tentative Agenda: Update members on routine business matters.

Public Participation: The teleconference is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Gary Burch at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests to make oral comments must be received five days prior to the conference call; reasonable provision will be made to include requested topic(s) on the agenda. The Chair of the Board is empowered to conduct the call in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. This notice is being published less than 15 days before the date of the meeting due to programmatic issues that had to be resolved prior to publication.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0438, which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is 202-566-2426.

Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.

6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES .

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

Affected entities: New and existing public water systems (PWS), primacy agencies, and EPA.

Title: Microbial Rules (Renewal).

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1895.04, OMB Control No. 2040-0205.

ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on September 30, 2008. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: The Microbial Rules Renewal ICR examines public water system, primacy agency and EPA burden and costs for recordkeeping and reporting requirements in support of the microbial drinking water regulations. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are mandatory for compliance with 40 CFR parts 141 and 142. The following microbial regulations are included: Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), Total Coliform Rule (TCR), Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR), Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR), Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR), and Ground Water Rule. Future microbial-related rulemakings will be added to this consolidated ICR after the regulations are finalized and the initial, rule-specific, ICRs are due to expire.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.79 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 161,274.

Frequency of response: Varies by requirement (i.e., on occasion, monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, and annually).

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 72.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 9,151,424 hours.

Estimated total annual costs: $118,653,327. This includes an estimated burden cost of $14,698,327 and an estimated cost of $22,793,000 for capital investment and $81,162,000 for maintenance and operational costs.

There is an increase of 526,559 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase is primarily due to restructuring adjustments (i.e., incorporation of the approved burden hours from the previously stand-alone ICRs for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, and Ground Water Rule

EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0437, which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is 202-566-2426.

Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.

6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES .

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

Affected entities: New and existing public water systems (PWS), primacy agencies, and EPA.

Title: Public Water System Supervision Program (Renewal).

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0270.43, OMB Control No. 2040-0090.

ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on September 30, 2008. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: The Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program Renewal ICR examines public water system, primacy agency, EPA and tribal operator certification provider burden and costs for “cross-cutting” recordkeeping and reporting requirements (i.e., the burden and costs for complying with drinking water information requirements that are not associated with contaminant-specific rulemakings). These activities which have recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are mandatory for compliance with 40 CFR parts 141 and 142 include the following: Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs), Primacy Regulation Activities, Variance and Exemption Rule (V/E Rule), General State Primacy Activities, Public Notification (PN) and Proficiency Testing Studies for Drinking Water Laboratories. The information collection activities for both the Operator Certification/Expense Reimbursement Program and the Capacity Development Program are driven by the grant withholding and reporting provisions under sections 1419 and 1420, respectively, of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Although the Tribal Operator Certification Program is voluntary, the information collection is driven by grant eligibility requirements outlined in the Drinking Water Infrastructure Grant Tribal Set-Aside Program Final Guidelines and the Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program Guidelines.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 6.5 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 161,682.

Frequency of response: Varies by requirement (i.e., on occasion, monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, and annually).

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 3.1.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 3,249,695 hours.

Estimated total annual costs: $119,174,000. This includes an estimated burden cost of $97,636,000 and an estimated cost of $21,538,000 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

There is an increase of about 23,668 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase is due to restructuring adjustments (i.e., incorporation of the approved burden hours from the previously stand-alone ICR for the Proficiency Testing Studies for Drinking Water Laboratories).

EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On February 28, 2008 (73 FR 10765), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ\OAR-2008-0145, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is 202-566-1742.

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at www.regulations.gov , to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to www.regulations.gov.

Title: National-Scale Activity Survey (N-SAS).

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2293.01, OMB Control No. 2060-NEW.

ICR Status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: EPA supports the Air Quality Index (AQI), a program that uses data from air quality monitors to forecast pollution levels and to notify the public of health hazards associated with air pollution, primarily ozone and particulate matter pollution (PM). EPA, specifically the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, which manages the AQI program, is interested in assessing the public's awareness, knowledge and both stated and actual behavioral response to AQI warnings. To address this need, OAQPS wishes to conduct the National-Scale Activity Surveys (N-SAS) to gather information on perceptions, awareness, attitudes, and stated and actual behaviors in response to AQI warnings.

EPA is requesting permission from OMB to conduct a survey of 1,600 individuals age 35 or older who meet minimal activity requirements living in Washington, DC; Sacramento (also other cities in San Joaquin Valley—San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno), Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, or St. Louis. The data will be collected through a web-based survey of members from Knowledge Network's web panel.

The N-SAS consists of a series of nine surveys. A screening survey at the beginning and a debriefing survey at the end will provide information on the research participants, their awareness and knowledge of air pollution and the Air Quality Index (AQI), risk perceptions regarding health effects, and reported behaviors on high ozone days. After the screening survey, research participants will be administered a set of seven activity diaries administered on both high and low ozone days to collect information on actual behavior.

The information obtained from N-SAS will be used by EPA to assess hypotheses for the N-SAS research participants regarding:

• Extent of awareness of and knowledge about the AQI;

• The effects of the AQI-based warnings on behavior in eight cities with significant pollution problems;

• The correlation between awareness, knowledge, stated behavior on high pollution days and data on behavior reported in the activity diariesl;

• Differences in behavior, awareness and knowledge among different sub-samples of the N-SAS research participants.

In addition to assessing the effectiveness of AQI-based ozone warnings, the data will also be used to supplement the limited data available to develop exposure profiles for older Americans.

Participation in N-SAS and response to individual questions are voluntary. The respondents will be anonymous to EPA and contractor staff and Knowledge Networks keeps identify of respondents confidential.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.25 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Members of the Knowledge Networks web panel (1) age 35 or older, (2) who respond yes to “During the past month, did you participate in any physical activities or exercises such as running, calisthenics, golf, gardening, or walking for exercise?” and (3) live in Washington, DC; Sacramento (also other cities in San Joaquin Valley—San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno), Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, or St. Louis.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,600.

Frequency of Response: Up to 10 responses per respondent over 4 months.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 828 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $22,803, includes $0 annualized capital or O&M costs.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are interested in SFIREG information exchange relationship with EPA regarding important issues related to human health, environmental exposure to pesticides, and insight into EPA's decision-making process are invited and encouraged to attend the meetings and participate as appropriate. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: Those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0143. 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 .

1. Web Based Labeling for Pesticides

2. Report from OPP and Office of Water on Cooperation on Pesticide Issues

3. Enforceability/Accountability of Label Language

4. PR Notice on HAVC Labeling and Regulated Community Concerns

5. Endangered Species Implementation

6. Update on Container/Containment Regulations and Revisions

7. Recycling Regulations

8. Tribal Pesticide Program Council Update

9. OPP and OECA Program Updates

10. AAPSE Update

11. Regional Reports

12. Working Committee Reports

13. Part Measures and Goals

14. Drift Mitigation Statements for Pyrethroids and 2,4-D

15. Update on Region 5 Pilot Project on Water Quality Benchmark Methods.

Notice is hereby given that a petition has been received from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts requesting a determination by the Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, pursuant to section 312(f)(3) of Public Law 92-500 as amended by Public Law 95-217 and Public Law 100-4, that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the area within the following boundaries:

The seaward boundary of the NDA is defined by municipal boundaries and, where possible, aids to navigation.

The landward boundaries of the proposed NDA are:

The proposed NDA boundary includes the municipal waters of Boston, Braintree, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Hingham, Hull, Milton, Newton, Quincy, Watertown, Weymouth, and Winthrop.

Massachusetts has provided documentation indicating that the total vessel population is estimated to be 8,720 in the proposed area. It is estimated that 4,047 of the total vessel population may have a Marine Sanitation Device (MSD) of some type. There are marinas, yacht clubs and public landings/piers in the proposed area with a combination of mooring fields and dock space for the recreational and commercial vessels.

Massachusetts has certified that there are 35 pumpout facilities within the proposed area available to the boating community and four additional facilities pending. The majority of facilities are connected directly into the local wastewater treatment system. A list of the facilities, phone numbers, locations, and hours of operation is provided at the end of this petition.

Boston Harbor is rich in natural resources and includes the Boston Harbor Islands National Park Area, four state-recognized Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (Rumney Marshes, Neponset River Estuary, Weir River Estuary, and Weymouth Back River), and numerous local parks and beaches. Boston Harbor has eelgrass beds, salt marshes, estuaries and mud flats that provide suitable habitat for blue mussels, razor clams, soft shell clams, lobsters, coastal and pelagic birds (including 5 listed species), striped bass, smelt, alewives and herring. The area supports over 300 migratory bird species. In addition to the natural resources, the area has regional and national attractions such as the Children's Museum, New England Aquarium, Faneuil Hall Marketplace, the USS Constitution, Navy Yard Historical Park, and many other attractions that bring an estimated 16 million visitors per year.

GSAR clause 552.232-72 requires building services contractors to submit a release of claims before final payment is made.

Respondents: 2000.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Hours Per Response: .1.

Total Burden Hours: 200.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0080, Final Payment Under Building Services Contract, in all correspondence.

The OWH was established in 1991 to improve the health of American women by advancing and coordinating a comprehensive women's health agenda throughout HHS. This program has two goals: development and implementation of model programs on women's health; and leading education, collaboration, and coordination on women's health. The program fulfills its mission through competitive contracts and grants to an array of community, academic, and other organizations at the national and community levels. National educational campaigns provide information about the important steps women and girls can take to improve and maintain their health.

In addition to womenshealth.gov, OWH produces girlshealth.gov, a Web site dedicated to providing relevant, trustworthy, and commercial-free health information for girls ages 10-16. The Web site gives girls reliable information on the health issues they will face as they become young women. Under the purview of OWH, the Web site for the National Bone Health Campaign, girlshealth.gov/bones, will be accessible through the girlshealth.gov site to reach girls ages 9 to 14 with the goal of increasing calcium and vitamin D consumption and weight-bearing physical activity.

In 2004, the Surgeon General exhorted public, private, nonprofit, academic, and scientific stakeholders to increase awareness about bone health. The Surgeon General stated that, by 2020, half of all Americans older than age 50 will be at risk for fractures from osteoporosis. His report emphasized prevention of osteoporosis in adolescence through increased calcium and vitamin D consumption and weight-bearing physical activity.

Osteoporosis has been called a “pediatric disease with geriatric consequences.” Though the disease most often strikes later in life, the stage is set during adolescence, when almost one-half of the adult skeleton is formed. In addition some groups, such as those with anorexia nervosa, can develop osteoporosis much earlier. Sadly, only 15 percent of adolescent girls get enough calcium, according to the National Osteoporosis Foundation. The Surgeon General's Report also cited one study that found only half of the participants ages 12-21 exercise vigorously on a regular basis and 25 percent report no exercise at all.

The National Bone Health Campaign is intended to help girls adopt healthy habits, specifically increased calcium and vitamin D consumption and weight-bearing physical activity, to build strong bones. The campaign will plan, develop, implement, and evaluate a national social marketing campaign to increase awareness of bone-healthy habits and affect behavior change. The campaign will target the girls, their parents, and healthcare providers.

In order to implement the National Bone Health Campaign, OWH is interested in establishing partnerships with private and public bone health- and girls' health-related organizations. As partners with HHS, these health organizations can bring their ideas and expertise, administrative capabilities, and resources that are consistent with the goals of the National Bone Health Campaign.

Given the National Bone Health Campaign's objectives, entities that have similar goals and consistent interests, appropriate expertise and resources, and would like to pursue bone health awareness activities in collaboration with OWH are encouraged to reply to this notice. Working together, these partnerships will provide innovative opportunities to promote an increased national awareness of positive bone-healthy behaviors, with the end goal of increased calcium and vitamin D consumption and weight-bearing physical activity.

In a notice containing a cumulative list of guidances available from the agency that published in the Federal Register on March 28, 2006 (71 FR 15422 at 15453), FDA included the Compliance Policy Guides Manual, which includes CPG Sec. 560.700. FDA is withdrawing CPG Sec. 560.700 because it is obsolete.