Section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA) (Pub. L. 107-171) established a program for the procurement of biobased products by Federal agencies and a voluntary program for labeling of biobased products. USDA refers to the program for the Federal procurement of biobased products and the voluntary program for labeling of biobased products, collectively, as the BioPreferred Program. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246) continues and expands provisions related to the BioPreferred Program.

Under the voluntary labeling program, the Department will authorize manufacturers and vendors of biobased products to use the label “USDA Certified Biobased Product.” In establishing the voluntary labeling program, USDA must identify criteria for determining which products may qualify to receive the label and specific requirements for how the label can be used.

USDA has one primary objective in establishing the voluntary labeling program: To encourage the purchase of biobased products. USDA believes that products carrying the label will become readily recognizable as biobased products, distinct from those that do not carry the label. Further, as the program matures and the label is used over time, consumers will recognize that products carrying the label meet certain criteria that set them apart from other biobased products.

In establishing the voluntary labeling program, USDA is seeking information from interested stakeholders in the following areas:

1. Who can apply for the label.

USDA is considering allowing both manufacturers and vendors of biobased products to apply for use of the label for their products. USDA is interested in comments on whether it is appropriate to include vendors as an entity eligible to apply the label, as some of the requirements associated with approval for use of the label will require information generally only available to the manufacturer. However, vendors may have more incentive to sell products carrying the label than the product manufacturer. USDA thus believes allowing vendors to apply for the label could further promote biobased products.

2. Applicable minimum biobased contents required for products to receive label certification.

USDA is considering allowing labeling for three categories of products: (a) Products within one or more designated biobased items within the BioPreferred Program; (b) products within non-designated items that are not mature market products; and (c) products not eligible for designation because of market maturity. For the latter two categories, where no minimum content has previously been designated, USDA is considering requiring a 50 percent minimum biobased content for use of the label.

USDA is also considering a process to allow a manufacturer, vendor, or trade association to seek an “alternative minimum biobased content” for products within categories (b) and (c) above, if they believe that the 50 percent minimum biobased content is not appropriate for their product(s). As part of seeking the alternative content levels, certain analysis and information, such as identifying similar biobased products and their manufacturers, would likely be required. While the specific analysis required will be determined on a case-by-case basis, USDA anticipates that each analysis will be similar to the process USDA uses to set minimum biobased contents under the preferred procurement program.

The public meeting discussion in part will address (a) the 50 percent applicable minimum biobased contents that products within these two categories must meet in order to be eligible for use of the label and (b) the procedure under which an applicant can request alternative applicable minimum biobased content (that is, an applicable minimum biobased content other than 50 percent).

3. Testing procedures.

USDA is seeking comment on where required testing procedures for determining and validating biobased content and the life-cycle costs and environmental and human health effects of the labeled products [as determined by the Building Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) or American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) analyses] are performed. USDA is considering permitting these tests to be performed by either a qualified third-party testing entity or by the manufacturer or vendor whose testing facilities are ASTM or International Organization for Standardization (ISO) compliant. Additionally, USDA is considering requiring that if the manufacturer or vendor chose to perform the tests that they be practitioners certified by a professional body, such as the American Center for Lifecycle Analysis.

4. Label content.

USDA is seeking comment on what information should be included on the label, such as a statement identifying the biobased content of the product, whether the label applies to the product, its packaging, or both, and use of the word “BioPreferred” in the label.

a. Biobased Content. USDA is considering requiring that the biobased content of the product be included on the label. USDA believes that including the biobased content of the product on the label will provide all consumers and purchasers of biobased products additional information that will further the purchase of such products.

b. Biobased Product Statement. It may also be important to identify for the consumer that the label applies to either the product or the packaging or both. Therefore, USDA is considering that the label include the appropriate biobased product statement(s) to make this clear. USDA is seeking comment on whether the biobased product statement or similar statements are needed. USDA is considering that the biobased product statement be integrated into the actual label that would be applied to the product or its packaging. USDA is also seeking comment and suggestion on how to clearly demonstrate the applicability of the label on the product, packaging, or in some other fashion.

c. Other possible label content. USDA in also considering the possible advantages and disadvantages of requiring additional information on the label. For example, information on product performance and/or on the life-cycle costs and environmental and human health effects of the labeled products (as determined by the BEES or ASTM analyses). The primary advantage of providing additional information on the label is to further educate purchasers about the environmental and health attributes of the biobased products they choose to purchase. However, because the results of the BEES and ASTM analyses are not available for non-labeled products and because they are only comparable between products within the same designated item or grouping of products, the labels could be misleading to purchasers. Also, the amount of space that would be needed for a legible presentation of this information could be a serious drawback for many small products (for example, household cleaners, hair care products, lip care products).

The public meeting in part will address the value of providing additional information on the label, what types of information should be included, and how it should be presented. Consideration should also be given to the fact that some of this additional information may be made available on the BioPreferred Program Web site.

d. Identifying products that are also eligible for preferred procurement under the BioPreferred Program. USDA is proposing to include the word “BioPreferred” on the label to identify those labeled products that are also eligible for preferred procurement under the BioPreferred Program. USDA is seeking comments on other options that can be used to identify products that are also eligible for preferred procurement under the BioPreferred Program. For example, one alternative USDA considered was requiring the use of a separate label that would simply say “BioPreferred.” Another alternative USDA considered was to require manufacturers to indicate in the product's literature that the product is eligible for preferred procurement under the BioPreferred Program rather than requiring such information on the label itself.

The Access Board will hold a public information meeting on beach access routes to gather additional information to assist in developing final accessibility guidelines. The meeting will consist of short presentations and interactive discussions with state and Federal representatives, advocates, environmentalists, and manufacturers of beach access products. In particular, the Board seeks input on the location of beach access routes, their distance, endpoints, coverage area, and frequency, as well as information on factors or conditions that may impact compliance. For additional information regarding this public information meeting, please contact Bill Botten, Accessibility Specialist, (202) 272-0014 (voice); (202) 272-0082 (TTY); or by e-mail: botten@access-board.gov.

At the Board meeting, the Access Board will consider the following agenda items:

• Approval of the draft April 2008 Board Meeting Minutes.

• ADA/ABA Accessibility Guidelines; Federal Agency Updates.

• Planning and Evaluation Committee Report.

• Technical Programs Committee Report.

• Budget Committee Report.

• Executive Committee Report.

• Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Ad Hoc Committee Report.

• Transportation Vehicles Ad Hoc Committee Report.

• Outdoor Developed Areas Ad Hoc Committee Report.

• Passenger Vessels Ad Hoc Committee Report.

• Emergency Transportable Housing Ad Hoc Committee Report.

• Public Rights-of-Way Ad Hoc Committee Report.

• Airport Terminal Access Ad Hoc Committee Report.

• Accessible Design in Education Ad Hoc Committee Report.

• Election Assistance Commission Report.

All meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. An assistive listening system, computer assisted real-time transcription (CART), and sign language interpreters will be available at the Board meetings. Persons attending Board meetings are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances for the comfort of other participants.

The POR for this administrative review is June 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007.

On June 16, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on SSBWPFs from Taiwan. See Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan, 58 FR 33250 (June 16, 1993). On June 1, 2007, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request administrative review for the period June 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 72 FR 30542 (June 1, 2007).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1) and (2), on June 28, 2007, petitioners requested an antidumping duty administrative review for Ta Chen, Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, Censor, and PFP. On June 28, 2007, Ta Chen requested an administrative review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1) and (2). On July 26, 2007, the Department published the notice of initiation of this administrative review. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation In Part , 72 FR 41057 (July 26, 2007).

On August 6, 2007, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to Ta Chen, Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, Censor, and PFP. On September 10, 2007, the Department received statements from Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, Censor, and PFP, certifying that they had neither sales nor exports of subject SSBWPFs to the United States during the POR. On September 11, 2007, Ta Chen submitted its response to section A of the Department's questionnaire. On September 24, 2007, Ta Chen submitted its responses to sections B, C, and D of the Department's questionnaire.

On October 10, 2007, petitioners submitted comments regarding Ta Chen's section A response, primarily regarding alleged affiliation issues. On October 31, 2007, petitioners submitted comments on Ta Chen's section B and C responses. On November 29, 2007, petitioners submitted comments regarding Ta Chen's section D response. On December 28, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental section A through D questionnaire to Ta Chen. Ta Chen responded to the Department's section A through D supplemental questionnaire on January 28, 2008. On February 4 and 5, 2008, the Department issued additional A through D supplemental questionnaires requesting minor corrections and additional information to respondent's January 28, 2008 submission. On February 7, 2008, respondent submitted the information requested by the Department in its February 4 and 5, 2008, supplemental questionnaires. On February 28, 2008, and March 6, 2008, the Department issued additional supplemental questionnaires.

On March 7, 2008, the Department extended the time limit for the preliminary results of this administrative review by 120 days, to not later than June 30, 2007. See Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 73 FR 12375 (March 7, 2008).

Ta Chen submitted a response to the Department's February 28, 2008, questionnaire on March 13, 2008. In addition, on March 13, 2008, respondent submitted a response to petitioners' affiliation allegations made on October 10, 2007. This submission was rejected by the Department on March 27, 2008, for being untimely filed. See Memorandum to the File from John Drury entitled “2006-2007 Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: E-mail conversation between counsel for Ta Chen and the Department of Commerce” dated March 27, 2008. On March 14, 2008, respondent submitted a response to the Department's March 6, 2008 questionnaire. In addition, on March 14, 2008, the Department issued its verification agenda outlining the general procedures for the Department's verification of Ta Chen's information in Taiwan. On March 18, 2008, respondent submitted a revised section D database to the Department. On March 19, 2008, the Department issued an addendum to its March 14, 2008, verification agenda for Ta Chen. On March 19, 2008, the Department issued verification agendas for Liang Feng Stainless Steel Fitting Co. Ltd., and Liang Feng Enterprise, outlining the general procedures for its verifications of those companies in Taiwan. On March 24, 2008, petitioners submitted a letter in response to respondent's March 14, 2008 comments. 1

The Department verified Ta Chen's home market sales, partial U.S. sales, and cost information as submitted on the record, in Tainan, Taiwan from March 24, 2008, through April 4, 2008. The Department verified information regarding Liang Feng Stainless Steel Fitting Co. Ltd., and Liang Feng Enterprise on April 1, 2008. See Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Review of Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan (Ta Chen Verification Report), June 10, 2008, and Verification of the Sales Questionnaire Response of Liang Feng Stainless Steel Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Review of Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan (Liang Feng Verification Report). On March 25, 2008, Ta Chen submitted its minor corrections presented at verification.

On April 4, 2008, the Department issued Ta Chen a verification agenda outlining the general procedures for verification of its sales made through its U.S. affiliate, Ta Chen International (TCI). The Department verified TCI's U.S. sales from April 14, 2008, through April 17, 2008, in Long Beach, California. On April 14, 2008, Ta Chen submitted a response to petitioners' April 1, 2008, submission. On April 21, 2008, Ta Chen submitted its minor corrections presented at its U.S. verification. On May 8, 2008, Ta Chen submitted corrections to its minor correction presented at its U.S. verification, as requested by the Department.

On June 12, 2008, the Department received comments from petitioners regarding Ta Chen's selling activities and the Department's findings regarding Ta Chen's selling activities in the home and U.S. markets. On June 18, 2008, both petitioners and respondent filed comments regarding the Department's verification reports. On June 20, 2008, respondent filed comments in response to petitioners' June 12, 2008, comments.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind an administrative review, in whole or with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if the Secretary concludes that there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise during the POR. See, e.g. , Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission, 71 FR 27676-78 (May 12, 2006); Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Japan: Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 71 FR 26041 (May 3, 2006).

On September 10, 2007, Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, PFP, and Censor each submitted letters on the record certifying that their firms had no sales, entries, or exports of SSBWPFs to the United States during the POR. To confirm their statements, the Department conducted a CBP data inquiry and determined that there were no identifiable entries of SSBWPFs during the POR manufactured or exported by Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, PFP or Censor. See Memorandum to the File, through Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager from Judy Lao, Analyst: Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. No Shipments Inquiry dated May 29, 2008. Based on the Department's verification of Liang Feng on April 1, 2008, the Department preliminarily determines that Liang Feng's certification of no shipments is correct. See the Analysis Memorandum dated June 30, 2008, for further information. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department preliminarily intends to rescind this review with respect to Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, PFP and Censor.

The products covered by this order are certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings, whether finished or unfinished, under 14 inches inside diameter. Certain welded stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings are used to connect pipe sections in piping systems where conditions require welded connections. The subject merchandise is used where one or more of the following conditions is a factor in designing the piping system: (1) corrosion of the piping system will occur if material other than stainless steel is used; (2) contamination of the material in the system by the system itself must be prevented; (3) high temperatures are present; (4) extreme low temperatures are present; and (5) high pressures are contained within the system.

SSBWPFs come in a variety of shapes, with the following five shapes the most basic: elbows, tees, reducers, stub ends, and caps. The edges of finished SSBWPFs are beveled. Threaded, grooved, and bolted fittings are excluded from the order. The SSBWPFs subject to the order are currently classifiable under subheading 7307.23.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the review is dispositive. SSBWPFs manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials specification A774 are included in the scope of this order.

Petitioners claim that Ta Chen and its U.S. subsidiary, Ta Chen International (TCI), have several related parties that were not disclosed in its financial statements. Therefore, petitioners contend that Ta Chen's and TCI's financial statements (and thus its underlying accounting records) should not be relied upon for the purposes of these preliminary results. For the preliminary results, we have determined that the evidence on the record does not warrant a finding that the Department should disregard Ta Chen's or TCI's financial statements.

With respect to petitioners' argument that Ta Chen withheld from the Department the identities of a significant number of companies documented as Ta Chen affiliates, but not acknowledged as such by Ta Chen, the Department addressed this issue in the most recently completed antidumping duty administrative review for this order. See Notice of Final Results and Final Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan , 73 FR 1202 (January 7, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1, ( Ta Chen 05-06). In addressing the issues of affiliation raised by petitioners, the Department noted that on May 30, 2007, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a decision and remand with respect to a number of identical issues raised by petitioners for the 2002-2003 administrative review of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Taiwan. See Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. v. United States , Consol. Court No. 05-00094, Slip Op. 07-87 (CIT May 30, 2007) ( Ta Chen v. United States 2007). Based on the remand decision in Ta Chen v. United States 2007, the Department undertook an exhaustive review of Ta Chen's affiliated parties, and determined that Ta Chen had been a cooperative respondent and had accurately reported its affiliated parties as defined under section 771(33) of the Act (or 19 U.S.C. § 1677(33)). See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. v. United States , Consol. Court No. 05-00094, Slip Op. 07-87 (CIT May 30, 2007), October 2, 2007.

On September 11, 2007, Ta Chen provided its response to the Department's section A antidumping duty questionnaire and reported a number of affiliated parties. See Ta Chen's section A questionnaire response dated September 11, 2007, at pages 7—12. In a supplemental questionnaire response, Ta Chen stated that it had reported all affiliated parties. See Ta Chen's supplemental questionnaire response dated January 28, 2008, at page 9. Based on an analysis of the information on the record, the Department preliminarily determines that Ta Chen's reported affiliates, and the relationships between Ta Chen and the reported affiliates, have not changed since the Department's analysis in Ta Chen 05-06. Additionally, the Department notes that in Alloy Piping Products, Inc. v. United States , Ct. No. 06-00454, Slip Op. 08-30 (CIT March 13, 2008), the CIT held that because “the language of the Act and the regulations restrict antidumping reviews to cases where the foreign producer or affiliated parties deal in the subject merchandise, Commerce need not make a finding of affiliation for each company that does not actually sell the subject merchandise” Id . at 10. Based on the decisions of the CIT, and the analysis of the evidence on the record, the Department preliminarily determines that Ta Chen has been a cooperative respondent with respect to the issue of reporting affiliated parties, and that Ta Chen accurately reported its affiliated parties as defined under section 771(33) of the Act.

For the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to SSBWPFs sold in the United States, we considered all SSBWPFs covered by the scope that were sold by Ta Chen in the home market during the POR to be “foreign like products,” in accordance with section 771(16) of the Act. Where there were no contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the physical characteristics reported by Ta Chen, as follows: specification, seam, grade, size and schedule.

The record shows that Ta Chen both purchased from and entered into tolling arrangements with unaffiliated Taiwanese manufacturers of SSBWPFs. We have preliminarily determined that Ta Chen is the sole exporter of the SSBWPFs under review, as the record evidence does not indicate that these manufacturers had knowledge that the purchased SSBWPFs would be exported to the United States. See Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Administrative Review of Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (June 30, 2008). Therefore, knowledge that the SSBWPFs would also be sold to the United States cannot be imputed to those unaffiliated manufacturers. See 19 CFR 351.401(h).

Section 771(16)(A) of the Act defines “foreign like product” to be “{t}he subject merchandise and other merchandise which is identical in physical characteristics with, and was produced in the same country by the same person as, that merchandise.” Thus, consistent with the Department's past practice in reviews under this order, for products that Ta Chen has identified with certainty that it purchased from a particular unaffiliated producer and resold in the U.S. market, we have restricted the matching of products to products purchased by Ta Chen from the same unaffiliated producer and resold in the home market. See, e.g. , Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 72 FR 35970 (July 2, 2007) and Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part , 71 FR 39663 (July 13, 2006). For those products which Ta Chen cannot identify with certainty from which producers the merchandise was purchased, the Department has applied adverse facts available. See the “Application of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available” section below.

The Department's regulations state that it will normally use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). If the Department can establish “a different date {that} better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale,” the Department may choose a different date. Id .

In the present review, Ta Chen claimed that invoice date should be used as the date of sale for its sales in the home market and to the United States. See Ta Chen's section A questionnaire response at 20-22 (Sept. 11, 2007). For home market (HM) sales, the Department examined whether the date Ta Chen issued its pro forma invoice or its actual invoice best reflects the date of sale. Based upon our review of the record evidence, we have preliminarily determined that actual invoice date should be the sale date because the material terms are set on the invoice date, and can potentially be changed up until the point of invoice date. This methodology is consistent with the practice in all the previous reviews of this proceeding. See Ta Chen's section B through D questionnaire response at B8-B9 and C9-C-10 (September 24, 2007). For U.S. sales, Ta Chen reported only constructed export price (CEP) sales, and we used the invoice date for sales to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer as changes to the terms of the sale may occur up to the issuance of the invoice. See Verification of the Sales Responses of Ta Chen International, United States Affiliate of Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (“Ta Chen”) in the Antidumping Review of Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan (TCI Verification Report), June 10, 2008, at page 10.

To determine whether sales of SSBWPFs by Ta Chen to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared CEP to NV, as described below. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted-average NV of the foreign like product.

Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter “ Consistent with recent past reviews, pursuant to section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated the price of Ta Chen's sales based on CEP because the sale to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer was made by Ta Chen's U.S. affiliate, TCI. See the Analysis Memorandum dated June 30, 2008, for further information. Ta Chen has two channels of distribution for U.S. sales: 1) Ta Chen ships the merchandise to TCI for inventory in its warehouses and subsequent resale to unaffiliated buyers (stock sales), and 2) Ta Chen ships the merchandise directly to TCI's U.S. customer (indent sales). The Department finds that both stock and indent sales qualify as CEP sales because the original sale is between TCI and the U.S. customer. In addition, TCI handles all communication with the U.S. customer, from customer order to receipt of payment, and incurs the risk of non-payment. In addition, TCI handles customer complaints concerning issues such as product quality, specifications, delivery, and product returns. TCI is also responsible for payment of the ocean freight for all U.S. sales, while Ta Chen arranges the ocean freight logistics and paperwork. See Ta Chen's section A questionnaire response at A18 (Sept. 11, 2006).

We calculated CEP based on ex-warehouse or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States and, where appropriate, we added billing adjustments and deducted discounts. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department deducted direct and indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs incurred by TCI for stock sales, related to commercial activity in the United States. We also made deductions for movement expenses, which include foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, containerization expense, Taiwan harbor construction tax, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. customs duties. Finally, in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act, we deducted CEP profit.

To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared Ta Chen's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. As Ta Chen's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. See Ta Chen's Section A Resp., at 2 and Exhibit 1 (September 11, 2007).

Because we disregarded sales below the cost of production (COP) in the prior administrative review, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by Ta Chen in its home market were made at prices below the COP, pursuant to sections 773(b)(1) and 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. See Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part , 72 FR 35972-35973 (July 2, 2007), and Notice of Final Results and Final Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan , 73 FR 1202 (January 7, 2008).

Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we conducted a COP analysis of home market sales by Ta Chen.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of the respondent's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative (G&A) expenses, financial expenses and all costs and expenses incidental to packing the merchandise. See the “Test of Home Market Sales Prices” section below for treatment of home market selling expenses. In our COP analysis, we relied on the COP data submitted by Ta Chen in its original and supplemental cost questionnaire responses, and adjusted the reported direct materials costs based on our findings at verification. See below.

We compared the weighted-average COP to home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and were not at prices that permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act.

In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, when less than 20 percent of Ta Chen's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities, as defined by section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. When 20 percent or more of Ta Chen's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined that such sales have been made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. In such cases, because we use POR average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices that would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of this administrative review, we appropriately disregarded below-cost sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

As there were sales at prices above the COP for all product comparisons, we based NV on prices to home market customers. We deducted credit expenses and added interest revenue. In addition, we made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Finally, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we also deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs.

Pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the Department finds that the use of facts available (“FA”) is appropriate with regard to Ta Chen's reported costs of production. The Department preliminarily finds that Ta Chen significantly under-reported the direct material costs used in the cost of production of the subject merchandise. Furthermore, pursuant section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the Department preliminarily finds that the application of FA is warranted with regard to Ta Chen's sales in the United States of merchandise purchased from other Taiwanese producers because the Department is unable to identify with certainty the actual producer of the merchandise being sold by Ta Chen.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that, if an interested party: (A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department must inform the interested party of the nature of any deficiency in its response and, to the extent practicable, allow the interested party to remedy or explain such deficiency. We find that pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the application of FA is warranted for the calculation of Ta Chen's costs of production because Ta Chen provided information that could not be fully verified. Furthermore, we find that pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the application of FA is warranted because Ta Chen failed to identify with certainty the manufacturer for certain sales of SSBWPFs made by Ta Chen.

Ta Chen purchases stainless steel coils to produce pipe, which it in turn processes into pipe fittings. See Ta Chen's sections B—D questionnaire response, September 27, 2007, at D-5. At verification, the Department found that Ta Chen's per-unit pipe fittings direct material cost ( i.e. , the standard cost of pipe, plus the variance) inexplicably rose much more slowly throughout the POR than the price of Ta Chen's raw material input for making pipes ( i.e. , stainless steel coils). See Ta Chen Verification Report, June 10, 2008, Section XIV at page 72. Normally, if raw material prices increase significantly then either the standard cost must increase significantly or the variance between actual and standard cost must increase significantly. For Ta Chen, neither of these increases appears to have occurred, with the result being that for some months the recorded cost of the input stainless steel coils used to produce the pipe exceeded Ta Chen's reported direct materials costs for fittings. Company officials could not explain this discrepancy at verification. Id . Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that an adjustment is necessary to correct for this unexplained difference.

To adjust for the under-reporting of direct materials costs, the Department estimated direct material cost for the two sample products reviewed at verification ( i.e. , one 304L and one 316L), yielded for pipe making and fittings fabrication. To adjust for the apparent underestimation of reported pipe costs, the Department first calculated estimated pipe input (coil) costs by using per kilogram (kg) coil purchase costs (for which data are available on the record for both coil grades, 304L and 316L, for all months of the POR). See Ta Chen's March 13, 2008, supplemental response at Exhibit 4th Supp.-18. The Department applied the per-kg. coil costs to the total reported weight of the pieces produced, by month. See Ta Chen Verification Report at Verification Exhibits 4 and 19. The Department then added to the estimated pipe input (coil) costs additional adjustments to account for yield loss from coil to pipe, yield loss from pipe to fittings, and pipe conversion costs. These additional adjustments were based upon the company's reported standard costs. Id . We compared the results of our calculation to Ta Chen's reported costs to calculate the adjustment to cost. We then applied these adjusted costs to Ta Chen's reported costs for merchandise produced and toll-produced by others for Ta Chen.

Pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, we determine that these adjustments are an appropriate application of FA to direct materials cost. Ta Chen could not provide an explanation of the discrepancies between the reported per-unit costs and other verified information, the Department determines that the application of FA is warranted. Also, we preliminarily conclude that Ta Chen did not fail to act to the best of its ability because the underlying data verified and Ta Chen provided the information that highlighted the apparent discrepancies. As such, the Department determines that adverse FA pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act is not warranted in this instance. Therefore as noted above, we are adjusting the costs of production. See the Analysis Memo for a more detailed discussion of the calculations.

Ta Chen not only manufactures subject fittings, but it also purchases completed fittings and has some toll processing performed by other unaffiliated Taiwanese manufacturers. See Ta Chen's section A questionnaire response dated September 11, 2007, at page 30. Ta Chen indicated that it reported itself ( i.e. , Ta Chen) as the manufacturer for sales observations which it produced or which were toll processed. In instances where the sale was made of fittings purchased from a supplier, Ta Chen stated that it reported the supplier as the manufacturer in its sales databases.

However, during verification the Department found that Ta Chen had reported the other manufacturers' names in the manufacturing field for the sales database for all fittings that were purchased as well as toll processed. The Department also found that Ta Chen was apparently unable to distinguish between the manufacturers that toll process from those that supply certain types of subject fittings that Ta Chen re-sells, once the fittings that are toll-produced or purchased enter into Ta Chen's inventory system. See Ta Chen Verification Report at Section V, page 24.

For all fittings, the cost test and the DIFMER data must be manufacturer specific. The cost database does not distinguish control numbers (CONNUMs) by supplier. However, we can distinguish between toll processed and purchased merchandise by CONNUM in the cost database as the Department found at verification that CONNUMs of merchandise purchased by Ta Chen were unique. See Ta Chen's supplemental questionnaire response, March 13, 2008, at page 4. For the sales database, as stated above, for merchandise not identified as manufactured by Ta Chen, we are unable to distinguish between sales of toll processed merchandise from sales of merchandise purchased from other producers.

During verification, Ta Chen stated that in the normal course of business, it does not keep track of each specific manufacturer for each sale of fittings once the fittings enter into Ta Chen's inventory system. Ta Chen stated that the manufacturer identity of fittings that are toll processed and supplied is lost within its inventory before they are sold. See Ta Chen Verification Report at Section V, page 24. Ta Chen claims that companies that toll process and supply it fittings are not knowledgeable of Ta Chen's final customer or destination for the fittings. Although Ta Chen was able to identify which products it had purchased or toll processed during the POR for purposes of reporting its cost database, it is allegedly unable to link those with its sales database because of the loss of the manufacturer's identity that takes place when the subject fittings are commingled in inventory.

In examining the issue of manufacturer further at verification, Ta Chen informed the Department that for merchandise supplied by other manufacturers, “when the fittings were supplied to Ta Chen Taiwan it knew which supplier had supplied the merchandise, but once the fittings entered into its inventory it could no longer distinguish” who the manufacturer was. Id. With respect to the toll-processed merchandise, Ta Chen stated that “when the fittings were shipped to Ta Chen Taiwan it knew which subcontractor had toll processed the fittings, but once the fittings entered into its inventory it could no longer distinguish which subcontractor had done the toll processing.” Id . In response to questions about merchandise quality issues, Ta Chen stated that its “quality control department checks the merchandise. The company stated that if there are problems with the merchandise, the subcontractor or supplier would have to return to pick it up. The company said that in theory a mill test certificate would be provided to Ta Chen Taiwan by the subcontractors and suppliers.” Id . at 26. Finally, the Department examined the system by which Ta Chen records purchases of fittings, and noted that there are codes available to denote the manufacturer from which fittings are purchased. Id . at 26-27.

The Department preliminarily determines, contrary to Ta Chen's statements at verification, that it is able to segregate those sales which were toll-produced on behalf of Ta Chen from those sales of merchandise which were purchased from unrelated manufacturers. See the Analysis Memorandum dated June 30, 2008, for further information. Additionally, while Ta Chen did not report the actual manufacturer of certain sales of SSBWPFs as requested by the Department, claiming that it was unable to distinguish from which producer it purchased certain fittings, the Department found at verification that Ta Chen was aware of the individual manufacturer of fittings both for quality assurance purposes and at least before the merchandise entered into Ta Chen's inventory system.

As noted above, section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, inter alia , if an interested party or any other person withholds information that has been requested by the Department or significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, the administering authority and the Commission shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title.

We preliminarily find that the use of FA is warranted in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, because Ta Chen did not specifically identify the manufacturer of the subject merchandise, as requested by the Department in its antidumping duty questionnaire and in its March 6, 2008, supplemental questionnaire. Consistent with Section 782(d) of the Act, the Department requested clarification of Ta Chen's reporting of the manufacturers' identities with respect to the purchased fittings. However, Ta Chen reported that it “is unable to discern which company manufactured the fitting.” See Ta Chen's supplemental questionnaire response dated March 13, 2008, at page 1. At verification, Ta Chen again stated to Department officials that it was unable to discern which company manufactured the purchased fittings. See Ta Chen Verification Report, Section V at pages 23—28. See also TCI Verification Report, Section IV at page 8 and Section IX.A.30 at page 21. Additionally, at verification, the Department found that Ta Chen had not reported toll-processed merchandise as being produced by Ta Chen, as it had previously indicated to the Department. See Ta Chen's section B-D response, September 24, 2007, at pages B-31 and C-53 and 54. Instead, Ta Chen had reported the toll-producer as the manufacturer, rather than Ta Chen. The Department also found that the toll-producers were the same companies from which Ta Chen also purchased fittings. Id . at 24.

Pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, we determine that an application of FA to those sales identified as purchased from other manufacturers is appropriate. Despite Ta Chen's claims to the contrary, the Department found numerous instances where it appears that Ta Chen could segregate toll-produced and purchased material according to manufacturer. However, because Ta Chen has stated that it is unable segregate merchandise once it enters into its accounting system, the Department will apply FA to those sales of merchandise purchased from other sources. The Department intends to examine this issue more closely for the final results of this review. Therefore the Department will apply as FA to those sales identified as sales of purchased merchandise the average rate calculated for all merchandise produced or toll processed by Ta Chen.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the CEP transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examine different selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, where possible, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales for which we are unable to quantify an LOT adjustment, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in levels between NV and CEP sales affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision).

Ta Chen reported two channels of distribution in the home market: unaffiliated distributors and end-users. We examined the selling activities reported for each channel of distribution and organized the reported selling activities into the following four selling functions: sales process and marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory maintenance and warehousing, and warranty and technical services. We found that Ta Chen's level of selling functions to its home market customers for each of the four selling functions did not vary significantly by channel of distribution. See Ta Chen's section A Resp., at 16-25 (Sept. 11, 2007); see also Ta Chen's supplemental questionnaire response, at 6 and Exhibit 8, (January 28, 2008). Therefore, we preliminarily conclude that the selling functions for the reported channels of distribution constitute one LOT in the comparison market.

For CEP sales, we examined the selling activities related to each of the selling functions between Ta Chen and its U.S. affiliate, TCI. Ta Chen reported that all of its sales to the United States are CEP sales made through TCI, i.e. , through one channel of distribution, and claimed that there is only one LOT. We examined the four selling functions and found that Ta Chen's selling functions for sales to TCI are performed regardless of whether shipments are going to TCI or directly to the unaffiliated customer. Therefore, we preliminary determine that Ta Chen's U.S. sales constitute a single LOT.

We then compared the selling functions Ta Chen provided in the home market LOT with the selling functions provided to the U.S. LOT. In the home market, Ta Chen provides significant selling functions related to the sales process and marketing support, warranty and technical service, inventory maintenance, and some technical services in the comparison market, which it does not for the U.S. LOT. On this basis, we determined that the HM LOT is at a more advanced level than Ta Chen's U.S. LOT. However, since we have preliminarily determined that there is only one LOT in the home market, we are unable to calculate a LOT adjustment. Because we have preliminarily determined that NV is established at a LOT that is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP transactions, and we are unable to quantify a LOT adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we have applied a CEP offset to the NV-CEP comparisons, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

The Department intends to examine this issue fully for the final results in light of comments by parties on this issue.

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

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-average dumping margin for the producer/exporter listed below for the period June 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007, to be as follows:

Weighted-Average Margin

Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd

2.93%

The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: 1) a statement of the issue; 2) a brief summary of the argument; and, 3) a table of authorities.

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room 1870, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: 1) the party's name, address and telephone number; 2) the number of participants; and, 3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. The Department will issue the final results of the administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Upon completion of this review the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific ad valorem rate for merchandise exported by Ta Chen which is subject to this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of final results of this review.

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). 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 Ta Chen or by any of the companies for which we are rescinding this review and for which Ta Chen or each no-shipment respondent did not know its merchandise would be exported by another company to 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.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate listed in the final results of review; (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the “all others” rate of 51.01 percent, which is the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

The following events have occurred since the publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register on April 11, 2008. On April 14, 2008, petitioner (General Chemical LLC) submitted a letter, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requesting alignment of the final countervailing duty determination with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation of sodium nitrite from the PRC. On April 28, 2008, the Department aligned the final countervailing duty determination with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation of sodium nitrite from the PRC. See Sodium Nitrite from the People's Republic of China: Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination , 73 FR 22920 (April 28, 2008).

The period of investigation (POI) for which we are measuring subsidies is calendar year 2006. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).

The merchandise covered by this investigation is sodium nitrite in any form, at any purity level. In addition, the sodium nitrite covered by this investigation may or may not contain an anti-caking agent. Examples of names commonly used to reference sodium nitrite are nitrous acid, sodium salt, anti-rust, diazotizing salts, erinitrit, and filmerine. The chemical composition of sodium nitrite is NaNO2 and it is generally classified under subheading 2834.10.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The American Chemical Society Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) has assigned the name “sodium nitrite” to sodium nitrite. The CAS registry number is 7632-00-0. For purposes of the scope of this investigation, the narrative description is dispositive, not the tariff heading, CAS registry number or CAS name, which are provided for convenience and customs purposes.

Because the PRC is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the International Trade Commission (ITC) is required to determine pursuant to section 701(a)(2) of the Act whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a United States industry. On January 14, 2008, the ITC published its preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of allegedly subsidized imports from the PRC of subject merchandise. See Sodium Nitrite from China and Germany: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-453 and 731-TA-1136-1137 (Preliminary) , 73 FR 2278, (January 14, 2008).

Section 776 of the Act, governs the use of facts available and adverse facts available. Section 776(a) provides that if an interested party or any other person (1) withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (2) fails to provide such information by deadlines or in the form and manner requested; (3) significantly impedes a proceeding; or (4) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall use the facts otherwise available in reaching its determination. The statute requires that certain conditions be met before the Department may resort to facts available. 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 an opportunity to remedy or to explain the deficiency.

If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable timelines, the Department may, subject to section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not decline to consider information deemed “deficient” under section 782(d) of the Act if: (1) the information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.

Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an inference adverse to the interests of a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for information. See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, 889-90 (1994) (SAA) at 870.

In the Preliminary Determination , the Department based the CVD rates for the two mandatory company respondents, Shanxi Jiaocheng Hongxing Chemical Co., Ltd. (Shanxi Jiaocheng) and Tianjin Soda Plant, together with its subsidiary company, Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone Pan Bohai International Trading Co., Ltd. (Tianjin Soda Plant) on facts otherwise available, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act because they did not respond to the Department's countervailing duty questionnaire. Furthermore, in selecting from the facts available, the Department determined that an adverse inference was warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act because Shanxi Jiaocheng and Tianjin Soda Plant did not respond to the Department's questionnaire and therefore did not cooperate to the best of their abilities in the investigation. Preliminary Determination at 19817-18.

Neither the GOC nor Shanxi Jiaocheng or Tianjin Soda Plant have provided any information or argument that would warrant a reconsideration of the Department's Preliminary Determination that the reliance on facts available and the application of adverse inferences is warranted. Therefore, for purposes of this final determination we are relying on facts available and applying adverse inferences in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act.

In deciding which facts to use as adverse facts available, 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 other information placed on the record. The Department has no information on the record of this proceeding from which to select appropriate AFA rates for any of the subject programs, and because this is an investigation, we have no previous segments of the proceeding from which to draw potential AFA rates. In such cases, it is the Department's practice to select, as adverse facts available, 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 (Pistachios from Iran), 71 FR 66165 (November 13, 2006) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures “that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” See SAA at 870. In choosing the appropriate balance between providing a respondent with an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior rate “reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.” See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States , 899 F. 2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

As stated in the Preliminary Determination , the Department determined that Shanxi Jiaocheng and Tianjin Soda Plant each failed to act to the best of its ability in this investigation; thus, for each program examined, the Department made the adverse inference that each company benefitted from the program, consistent with our practice. See, e.g. , Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea; Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 67 FR 62102 (October 3, 2002). In addition, we stated in the Preliminary Determination that our practice is to rely upon the highest calculated program rate for the same program or for a similar type of program. 1 See e.g. , Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 31966 (June 5, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 2 (CWP from the PRC); CFS from the PRC at Comment 24; Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Determination, in Part, of Critical Circumstances , 73 FR 35639 (June 24, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 6-8 ( LWS from the PRC); see also Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Investigation Determination , 73 FR 35642 (June 24, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 2 ( LWRP from the PRC ). We have selected the adverse facts available rate to apply to each program, for purposes of this final determination, consistent with this practice.

Information from the petition indicates that during the POI, the standard income tax for corporations in China was 30 percent and there is an additional local income tax at the rate of three percent. See the November 8, 2007 letter to the Secretary of Commerce, at Exhibit IV-12. To determine the program rate for the 16 alleged income tax programs under which companies receive either a reduction or exemption of income tax, we have applied an adverse inference that Shanxi Jiaocheng and Tianjin Soda Plant paid no income taxes during the POI. Therefore, the highest possible combined countervailable subsidy for the 16 national, provincial, and local income tax programs subject to this investigation total 33 percent. Thus, we are applying a countervailable rate of 33 percent on an overall basis for the 16 income tax programs ( i.e. , the 16 income tax programs combined provided a countervailable subsidy of 33 percent). This 33 percent AFA rate does not apply to income tax credit or income tax refund programs.

For the remaining programs subject to this investigation (including income tax credit and income tax refund programs), we are applying, where applicable, the highest countervailable subsidy rate that was calculated in a prior final countervailing duty determination for a product from the PRC for the same or similar type of program ( i.e. , subsidy programs regarding tax refunds or credits, value-added tax (VAT), and government-provided grants and loans). See CFS from the PRC at Comment 24 and LWS from the PRC at 6-8. Absent a subsidy rate for the same or similar type of program, we are applying the highest countervailable subsidy rate for any program otherwise listed in any prior final countervailing duty determination involving the PRC. 2 See id .

For a discussion of the application of the AFA rates for each program determined to be countervailable, see Memorandum to the File, Sodium Nitrite from the PRC; Calculation of Countervailable Subsidy Rates for the Final Determination , dated concurrently with this notice ( Sodium Nitrite Calculation Memorandum ). Attached to this memorandum are copies of CFS from the PRC, LWS from the PRC, CWP from the PRC, and LWRP from the PRC , which contain the public information concerning subsidy programs, including the subsidy rates, upon which we are relying as adverse facts available. See Sodium Nitrite Calculation Memorandum .

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. 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.

With regard to the reliability aspect of corroboration, we note that these rates were calculated in prior final countervailing duty determinations. No information has been presented that calls into question the reliability of these calculated rates that we are applying as AFA. Unlike other types of information, such as publicly available data on the national inflation rate of a given country or national average interest rates, there typically are no independent sources for data on company-specific benefits resulting from countervailable subsidy programs.

With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal in considering the relevance of information used to calculate a countervailable subsidy benefit. Where circumstances indicate that the information is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will not use it. See, e.g. , Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996). In the absence of record evidence concerning these programs due to respondents' decision not to participate in the investigation, the Department has reviewed the information concerning China subsidy programs in this and other cases. For those programs for which the Department has found a program-type match, we find that programs of the same type are relevant to the programs of this case. For the programs for which there is no program-type match, the Department has selected the highest calculated subsidy for any China program from which the respondents could conceivably receive a benefit to use as AFA. The rate is therefore relevant to the respondents in that it is an actual calculated CVD rate for a China program from which the respondents could receive a benefit. No evidence had been presented or obtained which contradicts the reliability or relevance of the secondary information which was information from a prior China CVD investigation. See Preliminary Determination at 19819. Due to the lack of participation by the respondents and the resulting lack of record information concerning these programs, the Department has corroborated the rates it selected to the extent practicable.

In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have assigned a subsidy rate to each of the two producers/exporters of the subject merchandise that were selected as mandatory respondent companies in this CVD investigation. We determine the total net countervailable subsidy rates to be:

With respect to the all others rate, section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act provides that if the countervailable subsidy rates established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are determined entirely in accordance with section 776 of the Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish an all others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. In this case, the rate established for the two mandatory respondents is based entirely on facts available under section 776 of the Act. There is no other information on the record upon which we could determine an all others rate. As a result, we have used the AFA rate assigned for Shanxi Jiaocheng and Tianjin Soda Plant as the all others rate. This method is consistent with the Department's past practice. See e.g. Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Argentina, 66 FR 37007, 37008 (July 16, 2001); see also Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Prestressed Steel Wire Strand From India , 68 FR 68356, 68357 (December 8, 2003).

In accordance with sections 705(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we directed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of the subject merchandise from the PRC, which are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 11, 2008, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination . In accordance with sections 705(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to require cash deposits at the rates shown above on all entries of the subject merchandise from the PRC, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this final determination.

If the ITC issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a countervailing duty order under section 706(a) of the Act. If the ITC determines that material injury to, threat of material injury to, or material retardation of, the domestic industry does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305(a)(3) of the Department's regulations. Failure to comply is a violation of the APO.

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

On April 23, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register the notice of its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV in the antidumping duty investigation of sodium nitrite from the PRC. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Nitrite from the People's Republic of China , 73 FR 21906 (April 23, 2008) ( Preliminary Determination ).

With respect to the Department's invitation to comment on the Preliminary Determination , on May 23, 2008, General Chemical LLC (the petitioner) submitted a case brief. No other party submitted case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding.

The merchandise covered by this investigation is sodium nitrite in any form, at any purity level. In addition, the sodium nitrite covered by this investigation may or may not contain an anti-caking agent. Examples of names commonly used to reference sodium nitrite are nitrous acid, sodium salt, anti-rust, diazotizing salts, erinitrit, and filmerine. The chemical composition of sodium nitrite is NaNO2 and it is generally classified under subheading 2834.10.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The American Chemical Society Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) has assigned the name “sodium nitrite” to sodium nitrite. The CAS registry number is 7632-00-0.

While the HTSUS subheading, CAS registry number, and CAS name are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

In its May 23, 2008, case brief, the petitioner argues that the Department should base its final determination, like the Preliminary Determination , on adverse facts available (AFA) because the two mandatory respondents, Qingdao Hengyuan Chemical Co., Ltd. (Qingdao) and Hualong Ammonium Nitrate Company Ltd. (Hualong), did not submit responses to the Department's questionnaire. In addition, the petitioner explains that it does not object to the preliminary AFA rate used by the Department (which is the highest margin alleged in the petition, as adjusted by the Department at initiation) because it believes the rate is consistent with both the dumping margins alleged in the petition and the dumping margins used for purposes of initiating the investigation. The petitioner notes that the Department's practice is to base an AFA rate on the highest margin in a proceeding and here the highest margin is the most probative evidence of current margins because, if it were not, evidence showing the margins to be less would have been provided. 1 See the May 23, 2008, submission, Sodium Nitrite from China: Case Brief of General Chemical LLC.

The petitioner also notes that no party filed separate rate information in this investigation. Given the PRC's status as a non-market economy (NME) country, and the lack of information on the record rebutting the Department's presumption that all companies in the PRC are subject to government control, the petitioner argues that the rate applied to the PRC-wide entity cannot be lower than the rate applied to Qingdao and Hualong. See the May 23, 2008, submission, Sodium Nitrite from China: Case Brief of General Chemical LLC.

We agree that the dumping margin in this case should be based on total AFA because the two mandatory respondents, Qingdao and Hualong, failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire. Moreover, by not responding to the Department's questionnaire, Qingdao and Hualong failed to establish their entitlement to separate rates, and thus they are part of the PRC-wide entity. Therefore, the AFA rate will be applied to the PRC-wide entity. See “The PRC-Wide Rate” section of this notice below for a full discussion of this topic.

Based on our analysis of the comments received, the Department has made no changes to its Preliminary Determination .

No party filed separate rates information in this investigation. Therefore, as was the case in the Preliminary Determination , we have considered all PRC exporters of subject merchandise to be part of the PRC-wide entity.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party withholds information requested by the Department, fails to provide information by the deadline or in the form or manner requested, or significantly impedes a proceeding, the Department shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Furthermore, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act permits the Department to use inferences that are adverse to a party if it finds that the party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Because, as noted above, Qingdao and Hualong are part of the PRC-wide entity, and they withheld information that is required by the Department to calculate dumping margins, the Department continues to conclude that it is appropriate to base the PRC-wide entity's dumping margin on facts available, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act. 2

Moreover, because Qingdao and Hualong did not respond to our request for information, we continue to find that the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Therefore, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is warranted. See , e.g. , Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products From Japan , 65 FR 42985, 42986 (July 12, 2000) (applying total adverse facts available because the respondent failed to respond to the antidumping questionnaire). For the reasons noted in the Preliminary Determination , we continue to find that the highest dumping margin from the petition, 190.74 percent, as revised by the Department, is the appropriate AFA rate in this case. See Preliminary Determination , 73 FR at 21907-21908. As explained in the Preliminary Determination , we corroborated this rate pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act. See Preliminary Determination , 73 FR at 21908.

Since we begin with the presumption that all companies within an NME country are subject to government control, and no company submitted information to rebut that presumption, we are applying a single antidumping duty rate, the PRC-wide rate, to all exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC. See , e.g. , Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value , 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000) (applying the PRC-wide rate to all exporters of subject merchandise in the PRC based on the presumption that the export activities of the companies that failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire were controlled by the PRC government). Thus, the PRC-wide rate will apply to all entries of subject merchandise.

We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period April 1, 2007, through September 30, 2007:

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise that is entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 23, 2008, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register . We will instruct CBP to continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond for all companies based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margin shown above. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final determination of sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise within 45 days of this final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

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

This determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On April 23, 2008, the Department published the preliminary determination of sales at LTFV in the antidumping investigation of sodium nitrite from Germany. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany , 73 FR 21909 (April 23, 2008) ( Preliminary Determination ). We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination . We received case briefs from the petitioner, General Chemical LLC, and the respondent, BASF AG (BASF), on May 23, 2008. The petitioner submitted a rebuttal brief on May 28, 2008. No party requested a hearing.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this antidumping investigation are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Sodium Nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany” (Decision Memorandum) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated June 30, 2008, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in the Decision Memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room 1117, of the main Department Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The period of investigation is October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007.

The merchandise covered by this investigation is sodium nitrite in any form, at any purity level. In addition, the sodium nitrite covered by this investigation may or may not contain an anti-caking agent. Examples of names commonly used to reference sodium nitrite are nitrous acid, sodium salt, anti-rust, diazotizing salts, erinitrit, and filmerine. The chemical composition of sodium nitrite is NaNO2 and it is generally classified under subheading 2834.10.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The American Chemical Society Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) has assigned the name “sodium nitrite” to sodium nitrite. The CAS registry number is 7632-00-0.

While the HTSUS subheading, CAS registry number, and CAS name are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

For the final determination, we continue to find that, by failing to respond to the antidumping duty questionnaire, BASF, the sole mandatory respondent in this investigation, did not act to the best of its ability in this investigation. Therefore, the use of adverse facts available (AFA) is warranted for this company under sections 776(a)(2) and (b) of the Act. See Preliminary Determination , 73 FR at 21909-21910. As we explained in the Preliminary Determination , we selected as the AFA rate the highest margin alleged in the petition, 237.00 percent, as referenced in the notice of initiation. See Sodium Nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations , 73 FR 68563, 68567 (December 5, 2007). Further, as discussed in the Preliminary Determination , we corroborated the AFA rate pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act. See Preliminary Determination , 73 FR at 21910-21912, and Comment 1 of the Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice for further discussion.

For the final determination, we have continued to assign as the all-others rate the simple average of the margins in the petition in accordance with the Department's current practice. See Preliminary Determination , 73 FR at 21912, and Comment 2 of the Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice for further discussion.

We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007:

Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from Germany, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 23, 2008, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination . We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average dumping margins, as indicated in the chart above, as follows: (1) the rate for the firm listed above will be the rate we have determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation, but the producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise; (3) the rate for all other producers or exporters will be 150.82 percent. 1 These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final determination. As our final determination is affirmative and in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

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

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

An application for an EFP was submitted on June 12, 2008, by Dr. James Sulikowski, from the Marine Science Center of UNE, for a project funded by the NOAA Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program. The primary goal of this project is to provide data to determine the immediate and short-term survivability of winter, smooth, little, and thorny skates. This research could provide valuable information for future skate management objectives. Results will be provided to the Northeast Fisheries Science Center and the New England Fishery Management Council. Researchers will also disseminate results to a public audience at the NEA to increase awareness of skate conservation.

Since the stocks of these species are at or near overfished biomass thresholds, and winter and little skates are subject to directed fisheries, research on bycatch mortality of these species is needed. In order to conduct this research, the principal investigators have requested an exemption from possessing and handling prohibited skate species. Additionally, an exemption from skate possession restrictions would authorize project investigators to temporarily possess fish for scientific data collection purposes prior to returning all fish to the sea.

Two vessels would each conduct 50 trips in conjunction with commercial days-at-sea (DAS) trips, with one vessel fishing with commercial otter trawl gear and the other fishing with commercial gillnets. Both vessels would use standard commercial gear. Tows would vary in time among 30, 60, and 120 minutes to account for variations in tow duration that occur under normal fishing conditions. Gillnet soak times would vary but not exceed 24 hr. Two fishing trials would be conducted. The first would occur from September through November 2008. The second would occur from March through May 2009. Research would occur in the inshore and offshore waters off of New Hampshire and southern Massachusetts. These areas support the vast majority of skate landings that can also be accessed during normal fishing operations. All fishing would occur as day trips, and no fishing would occur in closed areas or during rolling closures. Only winter, thorny, smooth and little skates would be used for scientific research purposes. Northeast multispecies would be landed and sold, up to the current DAS possession limits.

The researchers propose fishing a total of 100 sea days; 50 days fishing with gillnet gear and 50 fishing with trawl gear. In other words, each vessel would fish for 25 days during each of the 2 trials (fall and spring). The objective is to assess at least 300 specimens of each of the 4 skate species per season, for a total 1,200 specimens per season, and 2,400 specimens for the entire project. The researchers plan to stagger trials in order to both deploy and retrieve pens on a given day, thus maximizing the number of trials that can be conducted in the proposed number of sea days.

In order to identify possible influences on discard mortality, the following variables would be recorded: Deck-time, season (fall, spring), depth of fishing, air and bottom seawater temperatures, estimated weight of catch, the total length and gender of skates, and handling techniques (e.g., picked or not picked; duration of deck exposure). When catch is hauled aboard, all skates would be tagged with spaghetti tags. Skates would either be immediately placed into a live well by one of the handling methods (without a pick or with a pick) or remain on the deck for 15 and 30 minutes before being transferred to live wells. While in the wells, specimens would be visually assessed. Any specimens that die prior to placement within a net pen would be placed on ice for subsequent necropsy.

Viable skates would be placed in experimental holding pens to be submerged and deployed to the seafloor for 72-hour trials. A total of 8 net pens would be used, with 20 to 40 skates in each pen. The modified basic shape would form a three-dimensional hexagon with each of the six rectangular sides measuring 5 ft (height) x 6 ft (length). Two PVC skeletons would be used for the bottom and top of each pen. Six vertical sections 5 feet in height would support the structure. The netting covering the pen would consist of 3 or 4-inch diamond mesh tetra twine. The base of each pen would be filled and weighted down with a heavy composite and would be affixed to the seafloor by 2 or 3 40-pound mushroom anchors to reduce the likelihood of pen rollover. Pens would be maneuvered in the water column using bridles secured to whale-safe swivels connected to a main tag line. Each pen would be marked at the surface with a highflyer and buoy.

In order to conduct control trials, UNE proposes to capture a few skates by handlines. If it proves to be unfeasible to capture enough skates by this method to make a statistically robust number of trials, vessels would conduct abbreviated trawls (e.g., 5-minute tows) to obtain minimally stressed controls.

The applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

On February 15, 2008, TCA filed notice of an appeal with the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. , and implementing regulations found at 15 CFR Part 930, Subpart H. TCA appealed an objection by the California Coastal Commission (Commission) to TCA's proposed construction of an extension to California State Route 241 in northern San Diego and southern Orange Counties, California.

Under the CZMA, the Secretary may override the Commission's objection if he determines that the project is consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA or is otherwise necessary in the interest of national security. To make the determination that the proposed activity is “consistent with the objectives or purposes” of the CZMA, the Secretary must find that: (1) The proposed activity furthers the national interest as articulated in sections 302 or 303 of the CZMA, in a significant or substantial manner; (2) the adverse effects of the proposed activity do not outweigh its contribution to the national interest, when those effects are considered separately or cumulatively; and (3) no reasonable alternative is available that would permit the activity to be conducted in a manner consistent with enforceable policies of the state's coastal management program. 15 CFR 930.121.

On March 17, 2008, NOAA published a notice in the Federal Register announcing, among other things, that a public hearing might be held concerning this appeal. The hearing will be held. This notice provides scheduling and procedural information about the hearing.

The hearing in this appeal will commence at 10:30 a.m. at the Bren Events Center and will continue throughout the day with afternoon and evening sessions. Intermissions are expected near noon and late in the afternoon (around 4:30 p.m.). Other recesses may be called as necessary. Speakers must register on the day of the hearing, on site, at the Bren Events Center. Registration of speakers will begin at 10 a.m. The order of the speakers will be determined by the NOAA officials administering the hearing. Speakers generally will be recognized in the order in which they register (a first-come-first-served basis), alternating between individuals from the general public and those representing organizations. Specific periods are expected to be set aside during the afternoon and evening sessions for remarks by elected officials. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak, speakers from the general public will receive up to three minutes to present their oral comments. Elected officials and individuals representing organizations will receive five minutes to speak. Only one individual may speak on behalf of an organization.

Written comments on issues relevant to the Secretary's decision in this appeal may be submitted to NOAA at the hearing by any person in attendance. In addition, written comments may be submitted by e-mail to gcos.comments@noaa.gov or by mail addressed to Thomas Street, NOAA Office of General Counsel for Ocean Services, 1305 East-West Highway, Room 6111, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Comments must be received by August 4, 2008.

This hearing is being held to obtain information on issues the Secretary will likely consider in deciding the TCA's appeal. A summary of relevant issues as well as additional background on the appeal appeared in the Federal Register notice of March 17, 2008, announcing the appeal, and may be found on the Internet at http://www.ogc.doc.gov/czma.com.htm . This Web site also includes additional information on the hearing, including conduct and decorum that is required, restrictions on the use of cameras and recording equipment and the display of signs and banners in the hearing room, the process by which testimony will be transcribed and made part of the record, and other rules and guidelines. (Please see the set of Frequently Asked Questions regarding the hearing.)

Questions concerning the hearing should be directed to Thomas Street, Attorney-Advisor, NOAA Office of the General Counsel, 301-713-2967, or Stephanie Campbell, Attorney-Advisor, NOAA Office of the General Counsel, 301-713-2967, or gcos.inquiries@noaa.gov .

The meeting will be open to the public and public comment periods will be scheduled at various times throughout the meeting. These comment periods will be part of the final agenda that will be published before the meeting date on the HSRP website listed above. Each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of five (5) minutes. Written comments (at least 30 copies) should be submitted to the DFO by July 16, 2008. Written comments received by the DFO after July 16, 2008, will be distributed to the HSRP, but may not be reviewed before the meeting date. Approximately 25 seats will be available for the public, on a first-come, first-served basis.

Matters To Be Considered: (1) Swearing in of new member; (2) Panel discussion with various stakeholders in the region on use of and interest in NOAA Navigation Services; (3) Updates on NOAA/California partnership on Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping (IOCM) project, NOAA's Height Modernization and Print on Demand; (4) briefing on Climate and the Coasts and Arctic issues; and (5) public statements.

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) directs NMFS to allow, on request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region, if certain findings are made by NMFS and regulations are issued. Under the MMPA, the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill marine mammals.

Authorization may be granted for periods up to 5 years if NMFS finds, after notice and opportunity for public comment, that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) of marine mammals for subsistence uses. In addition, NMFS must prescribe regulations setting forth the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species and its habitat, and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses. The regulations also must include requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. Regulations governing the taking of marine mammals incidental to construction and operation of the offshore oil and gas facility at Northstar were made effective on April 6, 2006 (71 FR 11314, March 7, 2006), and remain in effect until April 6, 2011. For detailed information on this action, please refer to that document. These regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements. The six species of marine mammals that BP may take in small numbers during construction and operation of the Northstar facility are bowhead whales, gray whales, beluga whales, ringed seals, spotted seals, and bearded seals.

On May 27, 2008, NMFS received a request from BPXA for a renewal of an LOA issued on July 6, 2007, for the taking of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to oil production operations at Northstar, under the regulations issued on March 7, 2006 (71 FR 11314). This request (BPXA, 2008) contains information in compliance with 50 CFR 216.209, which updates information provided in BPXA's original application for takings incidental to construction and operations at Northstar. BPXA also submitted the required activity and monitoring report under the 2007-2008 LOA.

One offshore ice road was built during the 2006-2007 ice-covered season. Helicopters made 135 round trips to Northstar during the 2006-2007 ice-covered season to transport crew and materials to and from the facility and recommended flight corridors and altitude restrictions were maintained. Hagglunds tracked vehicles made 37 round trips between West Dock and Northstar Island, and the hovercraft made 574 round trips during the 2006-2007 ice-covered season.

Drilling activities were conducted at two well sites from November 17, 2006, to May 1, 2007. No vibratory or impact pile driving activities took place during the present reporting period. The 2007 repair activities consisted of removing the concrete blocks in areas that had sustained erosion and/or block damage, installing a new layer of filter fabric, installing gravel bags of various sizes to build up and stabilize the subgrade, installing another layer of filter fabric and an overlying layer of geogrid to reduce the susceptibility of the fabric to abrasion, and installing the concrete block armor.

Each month, four to seven aerial surveys were conducted to inspect the pipeline for leaks or spills. There were 25 reportable Northstar-related spills during the 2006-2007 ice-covered season and the 2007 open-water season. Material spilled included drilling mud, corrosion inhibitor, sewage, methanol, motor oil, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, lube oil, and propylene glycol. Most of this material remained in contaminant and was recovered. All spilled material was contained and cleaned up. Contaminated snow, ice, and gravel were removed with various types of equipment, hand tools, and absorbents. No clean-up activity was necessary after Northstar flare events during the reporting period. On May 18, 2007, one quart of hydraulic fluid was released from a ditch witch; a portion of this fluid reached Beaufort Sea surface water. Shovels were used to scrape up the contaminated snow and ice from the spill site and sorbents were used to soak up the materials from the water surface. All the contaminated materials were recovered from the ice and water surface, thereby avoiding impact to the environment.

During the open-water period, there were 190 helicopter round trips, 347 hovercraft round trips, 40 tug and barge trips, and 137 Alaska Clean Seas Bay-class boat round trips to Northstar. There were an additional three trips by Bay-class boats in association with acoustic monitoring of the bowhead whale migration.

Seal observations in 2007 began on May 15 and were conducted almost daily through July 31. Over the standard period of May 15-July 15, a total of three seals were counted during 57 days. This was much less than the total number of observations in 2005 and 2006 over the same period. As in 2005 and 2006, no seals were observed after July 15, when some monitoring continued. Results of seal counts conducted from Northstar Island during the reporting period did not provide evidence, or reason to suspect, that any seals were killed or injured by Northstar-related activities during 2007. No activities were conducted that could have exposed pinnipeds and whales to underwater received levels greater than 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) or 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms), respectively.

Seven Directional Autonomous Seafloor Acoustic Recorders (DASARs) were installed in August, 2007. Five of the devices were deployed at locations 11.4-21.4 km (7.1-13.3 mi) NNE of Northstar Island and recorded low-frequency sounds continuously for approximately 36 days, until October 3. Simultaneously, near-island recordings were obtained from two DASARs placed 410-480 m (1,345-1,575 ft) from Northstar over the same period. In total, 11,780 bowhead whale calls were recorded in approximately 36 days at the four offshore DASAR locations. A total of 10,146 calls, or 282 calls/day, were detected by two of the offshore DASARs combined. The 282 calls/day figure for 2007 is less than those recorded for 2003-2004 but greater than those for 2001, 2002, 2005, and 2006. The much higher call counts in 2007 compared to the two previous years are probably related to the absence of nearshore pack ice during the 2007 season, meaning there were probably more whales closer to shore.

Based on boat traffic records, sound emissions associated with Northstar activities in 2007 were probably somewhat higher than in 2006 but lower than in 2001-2003. However, the weather was also considerably windier in 2006, which increases baseline sound levels. BPXA has no evidence that the island per se was producing sounds that were different in amplitude or frequency characteristics compared to previous years.

Subsistence hunters from Nuiqsut who traveled to Cross Island for the annual bowhead whale hunt did not report any negative effects from Northstar activities on their ability to conduct the hunt. In 2007, Nuiqsut whalers landed three whales. One whale was struck and lost.

BPXA complied with the requirements of the 2007 LOA, and NMFS has determined that the marine mammal take resulting from the 2007 construction and operation activities is within that analyzed in and anticipated by the associated regulations. Accordingly, NMFS has issued a 1-year LOA to BPXA, authorizing the taking of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to oil production operations at the Northstar offshore facility in state and Federal waters in the U.S. Beaufort Sea. Issuance of this LOA is based on findings described in the preamble to the final rule (71 FR 11314, March 7, 2006) and supported by information contained in BPXA's 2007 annual report that the activities described in the LOA will result in the taking of no more than small numbers of bowhead whales, beluga whales, ringed seals, and, possibly California gray whales, bearded seals, and spotted seals and that the total taking will have a negligible impact on these marine mammal stocks and would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of these species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses.

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) if certain findings are made and regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

Authorization for incidental takings may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have no more than a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth.

NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as:

With respect to military readiness activities, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

On June 13, 2008, NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting an LOA for the take of bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins by Level B harassment incidental to the proposed training activities within the Navy's Cherry Point Range Complex over the course of 5 years. These training activities are classified as military readiness activities. The Cherry Point Range Complex geographically encompasses offshore and near-shore operation areas (OPAREAs), instrumented ranges, and special use airspace located along the U.S. Atlantic coast, and is shown in Figure 1 of the Navy's LOA application. Please refer to Table 31 of the LOA application for detailed information of the potential exposures from explosive ordnance (per year) for marine mammals in the proposed Cherry Point Range Complex area.

In the application submitted to NMFS, the Navy requests authorizations for take of marine mammals incidental to conducting training operations within the Cherry Point Range Complex. These training activities consist of surface warfare, mine warfare, amphibious warfare, and vessel movement. A description of each of these training activities within each of the range complexes is provided below:

Surface Warfare (SUW) supports defense of a geographical area ( e.g. , a zone or barrier) in cooperation with surface, subsurface, and air forces. SUW operations detect, localize, and track surface targets, primarily ships. Detected ships are monitored visually and with radar. Operations include identifying surface contacts, engaging with weapons, disengaging, evasion and avoiding attack, including implementation of radio silence and deceptive measures.

For the proposed Cherry Point Range Complex training operations, SUW involving the use of explosive ordnance includes air-to-surface Missile Exercises (MISSILEX). The MISSILEX would involve helicopter crews launch missiles at at-sea surface targets with the goal of destroying or disabling the target. MISSILEX (A-S) training in the Cherry Point Range Complex could occur during the day or at night.

Mine Warfare (MIW) includes the strategic, operational, and tactical use of mines and mine countermine measures (MCM). MIW training is divided into (a) the laying of mines to degrade the enemy's capabilities to wage land, air, and maritime warfare, and (b) the countering of enemy-laid mines to permit friendly maneuver or use of selected land or sea areas.

MIW consists of two unit level operations: airborne mine countermeasures (AMCM) and mine neutralization. AMCM or Mine Countermeasures Exercises (MCMEX) train forces to detect, identify, classify, mark, avoid, and disable (or verify destruction of) underwater mines (bottom or moored) using a variety of methods including air, surface, sub-surface, and ground assets. The AMCM systems include mine hunting sonar (AQS-24A), influence mine sweeping systems (MK-105 and MK-104), anti-mine ordnance (Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS)), and moored mine sweep system (MK-103).

Mine Neutralization operations involve the detection, identification, evaluation, rendering safe, and disposal of underwater Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) that constitutes a threat to ships or personnel. Mine hunting techniques involve divers, specialized sonar, and unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) to locate and classify the mines and then destroy them using one of two methods: mechanical (explosive cutters) or influence (matching the acoustic, magnetic, or pressure signature of the mine).

In addition to the current mine exercises, the Organic Airborne Mine Countermeasures (OAMCM) training exercises would begin in the Navy Cherry Point Operating Area as these new systems are introduced into the fleet. The OAMCM systems include mine hunting sonar (AQS-20), influence mine sweeping towed arrays that emulates the magnetic and acoustic signatures of transit platforms, anti-mine ordnance systems, and mine hunting laser that uses a light imaging detecting and ranging (LIDAR) to detect, localize, and classify near-surface moored/floating mines.

MIW training using Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) underwater detonations in the Navy Cherry Point Study Area occur only during daylight hours.

Amphibious Warfare (AMW) involves the utilization of naval firepower and logistics in combination with U.S. Marine Corps landing forces to project military power ashore. AMW encompasses a broad spectrum of operations involving maneuver from the sea to objectives ashore, ranging from shore assaults, boat raids, ship-to-shore maneuver, shore bombardment and other naval fire support, and air strike and close air support training. In the Cherry Point Range Complex, AMW training is limited to Firing Exercises (FIREX).

During an FIREX, surface ships use their main battery guns to fire from sea at land targets in support of military forces ashore. On the east coast, the land ranges where FIREX training can take place are limited. Therefore, land masses are simulated during east coast FIREX training using the Integrated Maritime Portable Acoustic Scoring and Simulation System (IMPASS) system, a system of buoys that simulate a land mass. FIREX training using IMPASS in the Cherry Point Range Complex study area occurs only during daylight hours.

Vessel movements are associated with most activities under the training operations in the Cherry Point Range Complex. Currently, the number of Navy vessels operating in the Cherry Point study areas varies based on training schedules and can range from 0 to about 10 vessels at any given time. Ship sizes range from 362 ft (110 m) for a submarine to 1,092 ft (333 m) for an aircraft carrier and speeds generally range from 10 to 14 knots. Operations involving vessel movements occur intermittently and are variable in duration, ranging from a few hours up to 2 weeks. These operations are widely dispersed throughout the operation area, which is a vast area encompassing 18,617 nm 2 (an area approximately the size of West Virginia). The Navy logs about 950 total vessel days within the Cherry Point study area during a typical year. Consequently, the density of ships within the study area at any given time is extremely low ( i.e. , less than 0.005 ships/nm 2 ).

The Navy is developing an Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program (ICMP) for marine species to assess the effects of training activities on marine species and investigate population trends in marine species distribution and abundance in various range complexes and geographic locations where Navy training occurs. The primary tools available for monitoring include visual observations, acoustic monitoring, photo identification and tagging, and oceanographic and environmental data collection.

A list of proposed mitigation measures and standard operating procedures are described in the application for the proposed training operations. These mitigation measures include personnel training for watchstanders and lookouts in marine mammal monitoring, operating procedures for collision avoidance, specific measures applicable to the mid-Atlantic during North Atlantic right whale migration, and a series of measures for specific at-sea training events including surface-to-surface gunnery, etc. A detailed description of the monitoring and mitigation measures are provided in the applications.

Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning the Navy's request (see ADDRESSES ). All information, suggestions, and comments related to the Navy's Cherry Point Range Complex request and NMFS' potential development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals by the Navy's training activities will be considered by NMFS in developing, if appropriate, the most effective regulations governing the issuance of letters of authorization.

Purpose of the Meeting: The mission of the DBB is to advise the Secretary of Defense on effective strategies for implementation of best business practices of interest to the Department of Defense. At this meeting, the Board will deliberate on findings from three task groups: (1) Task Group Industrial Base Strategic Relationship, (2) Task Group on Enterprise Governance, and (3) Task Group on Capabilities Requirements. Copies of DRAFT Task Group presentations will be available on Friday, July 11th by contacting the DBB Office.

Agenda: 9 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Public Meeting.

• Task Group Reports:

• Industrial Base Strategic Relationship

• Enterprise Governance

• Capabilities Requirements

Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first-come basis. Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must contact the Defense Business Board no later than Noon on Monday, July 14th to arrange a Pentagon escort. Public attendees are required to arrive at the Pentagon Metro Entrance by 8:30 a.m and complete security screening by 8:45 a.m. Security screening requires two forms of identification: (1) a government-issued photo I.D., and (2) any type of secondary I.D. which verifies the individual's name (i.e. debit card, credit card, work badge, social security card).

Committee's Designated Federal Officer: Phyllis Ferguson, Defense Business Board, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C288, Washington, DC 20301-1155, Phyllis.ferguson@osd.mil, (703) 695-7563.

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Defense Business Board about its mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting of the Defense Business Board.

All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Defense Business Board, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Designated Federal Officer can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database— https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/public.asp.

Statements being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at the address listed above at least five calendar days prior to the meeting which is the subject of this notice. Written statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the Defense Business Board until its next meeting.

The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the Defense Business Board Chairperson and ensure they are provided to all members of the Defense Business Board before the meeting that is the subject of this notice.

This Draft PEIS assesses the environmental impacts associated with the stationing and training of new Soldiers at Fort Irwin. In October 1999, the senior leadership of the Army expressed a new vision regarding future readiness, force structure, personnel and transformation of the Army to meet the challenges and demands of the 21st century. In December 2000, the Army proposed to undertake a synchronized program as stated in the Army Transformation Campaign Plan to transform the existing force structure (from a “division-based” force to a modular “brigade-based” force) in three phases over a 30-year period as described in the PEIS for Army Transformation. A Record of Decision for that PEIS was signed in April 2002 to proceed with the 30-year phased implementation of Army Transformation.

The Army leadership determined that the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR) should transform over a period of several years to become a MultiComponent Heavy Brigade Combat Team (HBCT), deployable throughout the world. Other smaller units would also be stationed at Fort Irwin. Training rotations would increase and additional new Soldiers would be stationed at Fort Irwin. Additional cantonment and range construction would be necessary to support the increase in rotations and troops.

This Draft PEIS examines several alternatives for implementation of Army transformation at Fort Irwin. The PEIS will provide the Army senior leadership with a hard look at environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action and better inform their decision-making process for selecting the final HBCT transformation option. This PEIS effort will assist the Army in arriving at a decision that can accommodate the Brigade's training, operations, and quality of life requirements while meeting the strategic defense needs of the nation.

After reviewing the full range of potential Army transformation options, four alternatives have been identified by the Army as reasonable for meeting the Army's needs and screening criteria. Alternatives include: (1) Increase of approximately 690 Soldiers and add capability to increase training rotations from 10 to 11 per year; (2) increase of approximately 5,000 Soldiers and add capability to increase training rotations from 10 to 11 per year; (3) increase of approximately 690 Soldiers and add capability to increase training rotations from 10 to 12 per year; and (4) increase of approximately 5,000 Soldiers and add capability to increase training rotations from 10 to 12 per year. The alternatives also include construction of new facilities, an increase in installation operations, and an adjustment of institutional programs to support realigned units and organizations. The No Action Alternative is described and its environmental impacts fully assessed and considered.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the alternatives have been considered in the Draft PEIS. The Draft PEIS identifies significant impacts of each of the four alternative HBCT transformation scenarios. Potential impacts of concern regarding transformation activities (not in priority order) are: water supply, air quality, land uses, utility system capacities, traffic increases, and increase in hazardous material usage and hazardous waste generation. Impacts from alternatives would result from new construction, additional rotations, and additional personnel. Significant impacts to resources would be direct and long term. The No Action Alternative provides the baseline conditions for comparison to the other action alternatives. Additional concerns or impacts may be identified as a result of comments received on this Draft PEIS.

Public comment meetings on the Draft PEIS will be held with exact dates and locations to be determined and published in the local news media, via public notices or mailings well in advance of the meetings.

CSG JTFEX (July 2008) is a major Navy Atlantic Fleet training exercise proposed to occur in July 2008 in the offshore Charleston and Jacksonville Operating Areas (OPAREAs) and adjacent military installations. The purpose of this exercise is to certify naval forces as combat-ready. Activities conducted during the exercise include air-to-ground (ATG) bombing at land ranges, Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR), Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIO), Naval Gunfire using non-explosive ordnance, Fast Attack Craft/Fast Inshore Attack Craft (FAC/FIAC), and Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), including use of mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar.

The FONSI is based on analysis contained in a Comprehensive Environmental Assessment (EA) addressing environmental impacts associated with land-based training for Major Atlantic Fleet Training Exercises on the East and Gulf Coasts of the U.S. (February 2006). The FONSH is based on analysis contained in a Comprehensive Overseas Environmental Assessment (OEA) (February 2006) and a Supplement to the Comprehensive OEA (SOEA) for environmental impacts associated with Navy's conduct of major exercise training in offshore operating areas along the East and Gulf Coasts of the U.S. (April 2008).

Environmental concerns addressed in the EA included land use, community facilities, coastal zone management, socioeconomics, cultural resources, airspace, air quality, noise, geology, soils, water resources, biological resources, munitions and hazardous materials management, and safety. The EA and OEA addressed potential impacts to the ocean physical environment, fish and Essential Fish Habitat; sea turtles and marine mammals; seabirds and migratory birds; endangered and threatened species; socioeconomics; and cultural resources. The SOEA included an updated analysis of MFA sonar use.

This action includes mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant. In accordance with the Major Atlantic Fleet Training Exercise EA and OEA and the SOEA and the evaluation of the nature, scope and intensity of the proposed action, the Navy finds that the conduct of the CSG JTFEX in July 2008 will not significantly impact or harm the environment and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement or Overseas Environmental Impact Statement is not required.

We published a notice of proposed priorities (NPP) for NIDRR's RRTC program in the Federal Register on April 28, 2008 (73 FR 22932). The NPP included background statements that described our rationale for the priorities proposed in that notice.

There are differences between the NPP and this notice of final priorities (NFP) as discussed in the following section.

In response to our invitation in the NPP, five parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities. An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priorities since publication of the NPP follows.

Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed priorities.

Comment: With regard to priorities 1 through 3, one commenter noted that “scientifically based research” is required only for research activities that require testing interventions. This commenter recommended that all research conducted under these priorities be “scientifically based.”

Discussion: NIDRR only requires “scientifically based research” for research activities that involve testing interventions. The definition of “scientifically based research” used in all of the priorities in this notice emphasizes the use of “experimental or quasi-experimental designs in which individuals, entities, programs, or activities are assigned to different conditions and with appropriate controls to evaluate the effects of the condition of interest, with a preference for random-assignment experiments” (See section 9101(37) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 for the definition of the term “scientifically based research.”). NIDRR believes that experimental research designs are appropriate for research that involves testing interventions, but not necessarily for the other research activities to be carried out under these priorities. For example, experimental designs are not generally appropriate or necessary in the initial stages of developing new measures and methods, identifying or developing interventions, or determining the experiences and outcomes of individuals with disabilities who seek to return to work.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter noted that each of the proposed priorities included an incorrect reference for the Department's definition of the term scientifically based research.

Discussion: We agree and will make this change.

Changes: In all four priorities, we have changed the reference for the Department's definition of scientifically based research to section 9101(37) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Comment: Two commenters recommended that NIDRR remove all references to employment from priorities 1 through 3. One of these commenters noted that NIDRR's Long Range Plan for fiscal years 2005-2009 (Plan) acknowledges the continued need for research on medical rehabilitation interventions to improve function, as well as health research to improve outcomes such as health and wellness. This commenter suggested that including an employment-related outcome in the priorities that focus primarily on health and function topics will dilute the impact of research carried out under NIDRR's employment and health and function domains. This commenter also expressed concern that the focus on employment outcomes would preclude research on community participation outcomes and recommended that NIDRR include in each priority a statement from its Plan that acknowledges the importance of health and function among people with disabilities to achieve NIDRR's mission and the goals of employment and community participation.

Discussion: NIDRR does not agree with these comments and the associated recommendations. In the Plan, we state: “While the proposed plan is organized along domains of research [e.g., employment, health and function, participation and community living] for the sake of manageability, it also makes clear that disability is a holistic phenomenon that involves many overlapping and cross-domain issues.” (See 71 FR 8166, 8166.) We also note, “In addition, with respect to those programs for which NIDRR establishes annual priorities—Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTCs), Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs), and Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRPs)—NIDRR may require applicants to focus on one or more target populations or issues that cut across domains.” We indicate clearly in the Plan that RRTCs are expected to be multidisciplinary—in other words, to combine the strengths and perspectives of researchers from multiple disciplines and areas of expertise. (See 71 FR 8166, 8177.) Therefore, we believe that a focus on employment in priorities 1 through 3 is consistent with the multidisciplinary approach in the Plan.

Although a mandatory focus on employment outcomes in these priorities may limit research activities related to outcomes in other domains, NIDRR believes that research involving both the health and function and employment domains will generate knowledge that can be used to improve both medical rehabilitation and vocational rehabilitation (VR) services for individuals with disabilities. NIDRR recognizes that there are many factors likely to affect the relationship between health and functional abilities, on the one hand, and employment outcomes, on the other. Research under these priorities can help provide insight into this relationship so that medical and VR services can be optimized and targeted appropriately.

Changes: None.

Comment: Referring to priorities 1 through 3, one commenter recommended removing the requirement that the centers recruit research participants from VR populations. The commenter noted that such a requirement would unnecessarily limit study populations, create recruitment barriers, and result in unnecessarily expensive and lengthy studies to demonstrate empirical relationships between health and functional status and employment outcomes.

Discussion: Proposed priorities 1 through 3 did not require recruitment of research participants from populations of individuals who are served by State VR programs. The priorities state that the center must conduct research on individuals who are served by the State VR Services program, or who receive rehabilitation services from other sources.

Changes: None.

Comment: In reference to language in paragraph (b) of this priority, one commenter noted that research and clinical information indicate that the vast majority of individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS) already live in community settings. The commenter stated that it is important to support research that improves the ability of individuals with MS to participate in the community and suggested that NIDRR revise the priority to reflect that focus.

Discussion: We intended to emphasize the need for research to improve employment and community participation outcomes in this priority. We will change the priority to clarify our intent.

Changes: In paragraph (b) of this priority, we have clarified that the grantee must examine, among other things, interventions to enhance community participation.

Comment: One commenter stated that there is a need for research on strategies and assistive devices that enhance the functional and community participation outcomes among individuals with MS.

Discussion: While NIDRR agrees with the commenter that there is a need for research about strategies and assistive devices to enhance the functional and community participation outcomes for individuals with MS, NIDRR does not believe that it is necessary to revise the priority to address this specific need. Applicants under this priority already have flexibility to choose the types of interventions they propose to identify, or to develop and evaluate. Assistive devices are one specific type of intervention that could be examined under this priority.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter asked whether applicants under this priority must choose from the list of impairment groups in the second paragraph of the priority when selecting the groups that will be the focus of their research.

Discussion: The short list of impairment groups in the priority provides examples; applicants are not restricted to this list. Applicants are free to select the group or groups that will be the focus of their research.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter asked whether the focus of this priority is exclusively on individuals with disabilities who are 65 years of age or older, or if the focus is also on adults with disabilities in middle age.

Discussion: NIDRR does not intend for this center to focus only on individuals with disabilities who are 65 years of age or older. As we describe in the background statement for this priority, NIDRR is interested in the experience of individuals who acquired their disability at birth, childhood, or early adulthood and who are now aging. We will add language to the priority to make this clear.

Changes: We have changed the language to clarify that the center funded under this priority must focus its research on individuals with a physical disability, including those who acquired their disability at birth, in childhood, or in early adulthood and who are now aging into middle or late adulthood.

Comment: One commenter noted that the prevention of falls among individuals with physical disabilities should be a key research priority.

Discussion: NIDRR agrees that the prevention of falls is a topic that is relevant to individuals who are aging with physical disabilities. Applicants are free to propose research on this topic under this priority.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter requested that NIDRR provide references to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA's) Best Practices Planning and Implementation Grants program, to facilitate collaboration of the center funded under this priority with this program.

Discussion: NIDRR agrees that SAMHSA's Best Practices Planning and Implementation Grants program may be a potential source of information for, or potential collaborator of, the center funded under this priority. NIDRR typically references in its priorities only those programs or entities with which the grantee is required to collaborate. In this case, NIDRR does not believe it is appropriate to require all applicants to propose to collaborate with this SAMHSA program. For this reason, NIDRR declines to reference the SAMHSA program in the text of this priority.

Changes: None.

This notice of final priorities (NFP) is in concert with President George W. Bush's New Freedom Initiative (NFI) and NIDRR's Final Long-Range Plan for FY 2005-2009 (Plan). Background information on the NFI can be accessed on the Internet at the following site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/newfreedom .

The Plan, which was published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2006 (71 FR 8165), can be accessed on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/nidrr/policy.html .

Through the implementation of the NFI and the Plan, NIDRR seeks to: (1) Improve the quality and utility of disability and rehabilitation research; (2) foster an exchange of expertise, information, and training to facilitate the advancement of knowledge and understanding of the unique needs of traditionally underserved populations; (3) determine best strategies and programs to improve rehabilitation outcomes for underserved populations; (4) identify research gaps; (5) identify mechanisms of integrating research and practice; and (6) disseminate findings.

In this notice, we are announcing four priorities for RRTCs.

• Priority 1—Enhancing the Functional and Employment Outcomes of Individuals Who Experience a Stroke.

• Priority 2—Enhancing the Functional and Employment Outcomes of Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis.

• Priority 3—Aging With Physical Disability: Reducing Secondary Conditions and Enhancing Health and Participation, Including Employment.

• Priority 4—Participation and Community Living for Individuals With Psychiatric Disabilities.

The purpose of the RRTC program is to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, through advanced research, training, technical assistance, and dissemination activities in general problem areas, as specified by NIDRR. Such activities are designed to benefit rehabilitation service providers, individuals with disabilities, and the family members or other authorized representatives of individuals with disabilities. In addition, NIDRR intends to require all RRTC applicants to meet the requirements of the General Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTC) Requirements priority, which was published in a notice of final priorities in the Federal Register on February 1, 2008 (73 FR 6132). Additional information on the RRTC program can be found at: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#RRTC .

RRTCs must—

• Carry out coordinated advanced programs of rehabilitation research;

• Provide training, including graduate, pre-service, and in-service training, to help rehabilitation personnel more effectively provide rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities;

• Provide technical assistance to individuals with disabilities, their representatives, providers, and other interested parties;

• Demonstrate in their applications how they will address, in whole or in part, the needs of individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds;

• Disseminate informational materials to individuals with disabilities, their representatives, providers, and other interested parties; and

• Serve as centers of national excellence in rehabilitation research for individuals with disabilities, their representatives, providers, and other interested parties.

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority for a Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (RRTC) on Enhancing the Functional and Employment Outcomes of Individuals Who Experience a Stroke. This RRTC must conduct rigorous research, training, technical assistance, and dissemination activities to enhance the functional and employment outcomes of individuals who experience a stroke.

In doing so, the RRTC must focus on no more than two of the following dimensions: Improved mobility, secondary conditions (e.g., pain, fatigue), and emotional well-being. Under this priority, the RRTC must be designed to contribute to the following outcomes:

(a) Improved outcome measures for use with individuals who experience a stroke. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by identifying or developing and testing methods and measures to assess outcomes in the dimensions that the RRTC chooses to focus on (e.g., mobility, secondary conditions, emotional well-being).

(b) Improved medical rehabilitation or community-based rehabilitation interventions for individuals who experience a stroke. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by identifying or developing and testing new rehabilitation interventions that are designed to improve mobility, reduce the onset of secondary conditions, or improve emotional well-being among individuals who experience a stroke. Where possible, the RRTC must use scientifically based research (as this term is defined in section 9101(37) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) methods to test these interventions.

(c) Improved employment outcomes among individuals who experience a stroke. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by conducting research on the experiences and outcomes of individuals who experience a stroke and who seek to return to work. The RRTC's research must include research on individuals who are served by the State Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Services program or who receive stroke/neuro-rehabilitation services from other sources, and must identify neuro-rehabilitation services that are associated with positive outcomes in the treatment of specific stroke-related impairments and functional limitations thereby allowing individuals to return to work.

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority for a Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (RRTC) on Enhancing the Functional and Employment Outcomes of Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis. This RRTC must conduct rigorous research, training, technical assistance, and dissemination activities to enhance the functional and employment outcomes of individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS).

In doing so, the RRTC must focus on how one or both of the following dimensions affect the employment outcomes of individuals with MS: The prevention or reduction of secondary conditions (e.g., pain, fatigue, depression, cognitive impairment) and improved mobility. Under this priority, the RRTC must be designed to contribute to the following outcomes:

(a) Improved outcome measures for use with individuals with MS. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by identifying or developing and testing methods and measures to assess outcomes in the dimensions on which the RRTC chooses to focus.

(b) Improved medical rehabilitation or community-based rehabilitation interventions. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by improving the ability of individuals with MS to remain in the workforce and to participate in the community through identifying or developing and testing new rehabilitation interventions. Where possible, the Center must use scientifically based research (as this term is defined in section 9101(37) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) methods to test these interventions.

(c) Improved employment outcomes among individuals with MS. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by conducting research on the experiences and outcomes of individuals with MS who are served by the State Vocational Rehabilitation Services (VR) program or who receive MS-rehabilitation services from other sources, and by identifying rehabilitation services that are associated with the reduction of specific MS-related symptoms and functional limitations. Research must include investigation of job modifications and accommodations associated with successful employment.

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority for a Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (RRTC) on Aging With Physical Disability: Reducing Secondary Conditions and Enhancing Health and Participation, Including Employment. This RRTC must conduct rigorous research, training, technical assistance, and dissemination activities to improve rehabilitation outcome measures and rehabilitation interventions that can be applied in clinical or community-based settings and used by other researchers. The intended outcome of the RRTC is to enhance community participation, including employment, of individuals aging with long-term physical disabilities by advancing knowledge about the identification, assessment, treatment, and improved management of the secondary conditions likely experienced by individuals aging with a physical disability. Individuals aging with a physical disability include those who acquired their disability at birth, in childhood, or in early adulthood and who are now aging into middle or late adulthood.

In addressing this priority, the RRTC must propose a limited number of high-quality, cross-disability research projects to address the secondary conditions that are most relevant to the lives of individuals with physical disabilities. To ensure the feasibility of the RRTC's proposed activities and increase the likelihood of achieving the planned outcomes, the RRTC must focus on two to four discrete impairment groups (e.g., spinal cord injury, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, stroke, post-polio) and must limit intervention strategies to no more than two of the following modalities: exercise, health promotion, psychological adaptation, life planning or self-management skills, and environmental or technological supports. Under this priority, the RRTC must be designed to contribute to the following outcomes:

(a) Enhanced understanding of the natural course of aging with a physical disability. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by documenting the life trajectories and average age of onset of the major types of secondary conditions experienced by individuals living with long-term physical disabilities in the selected impairment groups, and examining the interrelationships among different types of secondary conditions and the consequences of variations in timing of onset for health and community participation.

(b) Improved tools and measures for use with individuals aging with long-term physical disabilities. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by identifying, developing or modifying, and testing measurement tools that improve the identification and assessment of the major types of secondary conditions affecting individuals in the selected impairment groups, as well as the outcomes of interventions designed to prevent or reduce these conditions.

(c) Improved rehabilitation or community-based interventions that enhance the health and participation in work and the community of individuals aging with physical disabilities. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by identifying, developing or modifying, and testing interventions that show promise in preventing the onset of or improving the management and reducing the impact of secondary conditions on individuals in the selected impairment groups. Where possible, the RRTC must use scientifically based research (as this term is defined in section 9101(37) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) methods to test these interventions.

(d) Improved employment outcomes among working-age individuals aging with long-term physical disabilities. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by conducting research on the experiences, including employment outcomes, of individuals aging with long-term physical disabilities in the selected impairment groups who are served by the State Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Services program or who receive rehabilitation services from other sources, and by identifying specific secondary conditions that require improved and unique VR services and approaches.

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority for a Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (RRTC) on Participation and Community Living for Individuals With Psychiatric Disabilities. The RRTC must conduct rigorous research, training, technical assistance, and dissemination activities that contribute to improved community participation and community living outcomes for individuals with psychiatric disabilities. Under this priority, the RRTC must be designed to contribute to the following outcomes:

(a) Improved individual and system capacity to maximize the participation of individuals with psychiatric disabilities in community life. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by:

(1) Generating new knowledge through research on effective strategies to meet the needs of individuals with psychiatric disabilities who are served by centers for independent living and identifying independent living services and service-delivery approaches that meet the unique needs of this population.

(2) Increasing the knowledge base and advancing the application of theories, measures, methods, or interventions that facilitate participation and community living of individuals with psychiatric disabilities. In this regard, the RRTC must focus its efforts on at least three of the following areas: Employment, housing, education, health and mental health care, recreation, social relationships, or other public and private sector activities related to community living. If the RRTC engages in testing interventions, the RRTC must use scientifically based research (as this term is defined in section 9101(37) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) methods.

(3) Reducing disparities in service delivery and program development by focusing its work on one or more of the following understudied areas: (i) Emergency preparedness for individuals with psychiatric disabilities; (ii) individuals with psychiatric disabilities from diverse racial, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds; or (iii) individuals with psychiatric disabilities who have co-occurring sensory or physical disabilities.

(b) Increased incorporation of mental health research findings into practice or policy. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by coordinating with appropriate NIDRR-funded knowledge translation grantees to advance or add to their work in the following areas:

(1) Developing and implementing procedures to evaluate the readiness of mental health research findings for translation into practice.

(2) Collaborating with stakeholder groups to develop, evaluate, or implement strategies to increase utilization of mental health research findings.

(3) Conducting training, technical assistance, and dissemination activities to increase utilization of mental health research findings.

Information on knowledge translation projects funded by NIDRR can be found at http://www.naric.com/research/pd/priority.cfm .

This NFP has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.

The potential costs associated with this NFP are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently.

In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of this NFP, we have determined that the benefits of the final priorities justify the costs.

The benefits of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Programs have been well established over the years in that similar projects have been completed successfully. These final priorities will generate new knowledge and technologies through research, development, dissemination, utilization, and technical assistance projects.

Another benefit of these final priorities is that the establishment of new RRTCs will support the President's NFI and improve the lives of individuals with disabilities. The new RRTCs will generate, disseminate, and promote the use of new information that will improve employment and community living options for individuals with disabilities.

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 350.

You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister .

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

The President's Board of Advisors on Tribal Colleges and Universities was established under Executive Order 13270, dated July 3, 2002, and Executive Order 13446, dated September 28, 2007. The Board was established: (a) To report to the President annually on the results of the participation of Tribal Colleges and Universities in Federal programs, including recommendations on how to increase the private sector role, including the role of private foundations, in strengthening these institutions, with particular emphasis also given to enhancing institutional planning and development, strengthening fiscal stability and financial management, and improving institutional infrastructure, including the use of technology, to ensure the long-term viability and enhancement of these institutions; (b) to advise the President and the Secretary of Education (Secretary) on the needs of TCUs in the areas of infrastructure, academic programs, and faculty and institutional development; (c) to advise the Secretary in the preparation of a three-year Federal plan for assistance to TCUs in increasing their capacity to participate in Federal programs; (d) to provide the President with an annual progress report on enhancing the capacity of TCUs to serve their students; and (e) to develop, in consultation with the Department of Education and other Federal agencies, a private sector strategy to assist TCUs.

The purpose of the meeting is to update and document the Board's Action Agenda through a review of collaborative efforts, to review the final draft of the Fiscal Year 2006 Report to the President, and to discuss relevant issues to be addressed as the Board pursues opportunities to strengthen capacity of programs at the Tribal Colleges and Universities.

Additional Information: Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (e.g., interpreting services, assistive listening devices, or material in alternative format) should notify Tonya Ewers 1990 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, Telephone: 202-219-7040, no later than July 10, 2008. We will attempt to meet requests for accommodations after this date, but we cannot guarantee their availability. The meeting sites are accessible to individuals with disabilities.

An opportunity for public comment is available on Tuesday, July 15, 2008, between 2:15 p.m. and 2:45 p.m. Comments will be limited to five (5) minutes for those who sign up to speak. Those members of the public interested in submitting written comments may do so by submitting them to Tonya Ewers, 1990 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, by Thursday, July 10, 2008.

Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for public inspection at the Office of the White House Initiative on Tribal Colleges and Universities, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, during the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

Electronic Access to this Document: You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF), on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/federegister.

To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or, in the Washington, DC area at 202-512-1530.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number OW-2008-0357, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through the Regulations.gov Web site ( http://www.regulations.gov/ ). Use 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 public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, then key in the docket ID number identified above in the Comment or Submission field. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA within 60 days of this notice.

EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing on Regulations.gov without change as they are received by EPA, with the exception of comments containing copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed on Regulations.gov. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. For those comments containing information claimed as CBI, or information otherwise restricted by statute, that material will be identified as an item in the official docket but will not be included in the official public docket or available for public viewing on Regulations.gov. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or online at: http://www.regulations.gov .

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those coastal and Great Lakes state, local, and tribal governments which are eligible for BEACH Act grants. These are governments that develop and implement programs for the monitoring and notification of coastal (marine and Great Lakes) recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public.

Title: Reporting Requirements for BEACH Act Grants.

Abstract: Congress passed the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act in October 2000 to amend the Clean Water Act, in part by adding Section 406, “Coastal Recreation Water Monitoring and Notification.”

Section 406(b) authorizes EPA to make grants to state and local governments to develop and implement programs for the monitoring and public notification of coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public upon satisfaction of the requirements of the BEACH Act. The Section obligates a grant recipient to collect and submit information to EPA as a condition for receiving the grant. Specific provisions of 406(b) include the requirements that a grant recipient submit the factors used to prioritize funds and a list of waters for which the grant funds will be used, and that a grant recipient's program be consistent with the performance requirements set by EPA under section 406(a). EPA needs this information from the grant recipients to determine if their monitoring and notification programs are consistent with these criteria. On July 19, 2002, EPA published the National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants (67 FR 47540). Section 406(b) obligates grant recipients to submit a report to EPA describing the data collected as part of a monitoring and notification program and the actions taken to notify the public when water quality standards are exceeded.

Section 406(c) requires a grant recipient to identify lists of coastal recreation waters, processes for states to delegate the responsibility for implementing a monitoring and notification program to local governments, and the content of the monitoring and notification program.

The information encompassed by this ICR is required of states and local governments that seek to obtain BEACH Act funding. It allows EPA to properly review state and local governments' monitoring and notification programs to determine if they are eligible for BEACH Act grant funding, and enables EPA to fulfill its obligations to make this information available to the public under Sections 406(e) and (g).

An agency may not conduct nor 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 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

The EPA would like to solicit comments 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.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1,993 hours per grant recipient per year. This burden represents a report and accompanying data to be are submitted each year by the 40 eligible states and territories. In subsequent years, authorized tribes and local governments may also become eligible for BEACH Act grants. 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: (1) Review instructions; (2) 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; (3) adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; (4) search data sources; (5) complete and review the collection of information; and (6) transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0674.

Title: Section 76.1618, Basic Tier Availability.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 8,250 respondents; 8,250 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 2.25 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Section 4(i) and Section 632 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 18,563 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality.

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 76.1618 states that a cable operator shall provide written notification to subscribers of the availability of basic tier service to new subscribers at the time of installation. This notification shall include the following information: (a) That basic tier service is available; (b) the cost per month for basic tier service; and (c) a list of all services included in the basic service tier. These notification requirements are to ensure the subscribers are made aware of the availability of basic cable service at the time of installation.