The actions proposed are in direct response to management direction provided by the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The site specific actions are designed, based on Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, to move existing resource conditions in the Slate Castle Project Area toward meeting Forest Plan Goals and Objectives. The project area generally extends from northwest of Hill City, South Dakota and east of Deerfield Lake. Anticipated issues include: reducing MPB infestation and risk; protecting local communities, private and public lands, infrastructure and access from severe wildfire; associated fire and fuels hazard reduction needs in the wildland-urban interface; support or opposition to forest thinning using commercial timber harvest; impacts of vegetation treatment and multiple forest uses on wildlife habitat. The range of alternatives analyzed in the EIS is expected to be consistent with Sec. 104 of HFRA.

The purpose of the Slate Castle Project is to:

• Move toward achieving desired land and resource conditions, as provided by the Forest Plan.

• Reduce the threat to ecosystem components including forest resources, from the existing insect and disease (mountain pine beetle) epidemic.

• Restore resource conditions to a healthy, resilient fire-adapted ecosystem.

• Help protect local communities and resources from catastrophic wildfire.

This project is focused on implementing management actions that move toward achieving:

• Desired conditions and objectives embodied in Goals 2, 3, 7, and 10 of the Forest Plan (as amended).

• Goals and objectives applicable to Forest Plan Management Area (MA) 2.2—Research Natural Areas (~40 acres); MA 3.7—Late Successional Forest Landscape (~460 acres); MA 5.1—Resource Production Emphasis (~23,800 acres); and MA 5.4—Big Game Winter Range Emphasis (~13,960 acres), that lie within Slate Castle Project Area, described in Chapter III of the Forest Plan (Phase II Amendment).

• Goals of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003 (HR 1904) and other National level initiatives and policy that provide procedural tools to hasten processes focused on reducing insects or disease on public and adjacent private lands, and reducing the probability and occurrence of severe wildfire in the fire adapted ecosystems, especially near at risk communities and in the wildland-urban interface. Moreover, it is appropriate that proposed actions be designed in consideration of the fuels hazard reduction management recommendations and guidelines provided by the Pennington County Community Wildfire Protection Plan of 2007.

Proposed actions include the following:

• Thin and harvest approximately 31,000 acres of pine stands using a variety of methods to treat MPB infested stands, reduce the overall density of pine trees and create a mosaic of structural stages across the landscape. Both commercial and non-commercial sized trees would be removed utilizing multiple contracts including stewardship, timber sale, and service contracts.

• Disrupt the continuity of surface and canopy fuels to help reduce the potential for large-scale, intense wildfire spread. Treatment could include thinning, lopping, chipping, crushing, piling, and burning; restoring natural fuel breaks by removing conifers that have encroached upon meadows and hardwood stands on approximately 4,400 acres; creating fuel breaks along roads and adjacent to private property—particularly those properties with houses and subdivisions. Prescribed broadcast and pile burning of up to 35,000 acres is also planned to reduce the natural, as well as the management-caused accumulation of fuels and to benefit big game and other wildlife resources.

Robert J. Thompson, District Ranger, Mystic Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest, 8221 South Highway 16, Rapid City, South Dakota 57702.

The decision to be made is whether or not to implement the proposed action or possible alternative at this time.

Comments and input regarding the proposal will be received via direct mailing from the public, other groups, and agencies during the initial public comment period in November and December 2008. If you would like to be more involved, a public meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, December 2, 2008, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. in the City Hall conference room in Hill City, South Dakota. Comments submitted based on this NOI will be most useful if received within 30 days from the date of this notice. Response to the draft EIS will be sought from the interested public beginning in March 2009.

This notice of intent provides information that the agency will prepare an environmental impact statement in response to public comment and feedback during the November and December 2008, scoping period. Comments received will assist the planning team to develop the mailing list for the draft EIS and help identify key issues and opportunities used to refine the proposal or possible alternative and mitigation measures. Comments on the DEIS will be requested during the 45 day comment period following the Notice of Availability, expected to be published in the Federal Register in March 2009 (See discussion below).

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review: The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewers position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC , 435 US. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel , 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

The Forest Service Directive System consists of the Forest Service Manual (FSM) and the Forest Service Handbook (FSH), which contain the Agency's policies, practices, and procedures and serve as the primary basis for the internal management and control of programs and administrative direction to Forest Service employees. The directives for all agency programs are set out on the World Wide Web/Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives.

The FSM contains legal authorities, objectives, policies, responsibilities, instructions, and guidance needed on a continuing basis by Forest Service line officers and primary staff to plan and execute programs and activities, while the FSH is the principal source of specialized guidance and instruction for carrying out the policies, objectives, and responsibilities contained in the FSM.

On January 31, 2006, the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, issued final agency directives for National Forest System Land Management Planning and published a notice of issuance of agency final directives in the Federal Register (71 FR 5124). The final agency directives included FSH 1909.12, chapter 10, “Land Management Plan.” On April 21, 2008, the Department replaced the planning rule for the National Forest System that it had issued in 2005 (2005 rule) (70 FR 1022,), as amended 71 FR 10837, March 3, 2006) with a new planning rule (73 FR 21468, 36 CFR part 219, subpart A). The 2008 planning rule provides broad programmatic direction in developing and carrying out land management planning. The rule explicitly directs the Chief of the Forest Service to establish planning procedures in the Forest Service Directive System (36 CFR 219.1(c)).

This interim directive makes necessary changes to FSH 1909.12, Land Management Planning Handbook, chapter 10, to clarify the procedures on writing plan components, on describing the monitoring program, and on considering individual resources to aid consistent interpretation and application of the direction by agency personnel. Our Washington Office review of several proposed land management plans showed that changes in procedural and technical details are necessary. These changes in procedural and technical details associated with carrying out the 2008 planning rule at 36 CFR part 219 are needed immediately for use by units beginning plan revisions or resuming plan revisions under the 2008 rule. Approximately 40 plan revision efforts are currently ongoing. The Forest Service expects 38 unit supervisors of the ongoing current plan revisions to use the 2008 planning rule to finish their plan revisions. In the next few months, many of these units will be developing plan components, monitoring programs, and considering individual resources in collaboration with the public. It is imperative that this direction is effective immediately so that units use the proper procedures.

The interim directive guides agency employees to develop, amend, or revise land management plans that meet the intent of the 2008 planning rule. The interim directive sets forth the common characteristics of all land management plans developed, amended and revised under the 2008 rule and adds new direction or clarifies existing direction.

Specifically, the interim directive focuses on writing plan components, describing the monitoring program, and considering individual resources. The interim directive sets forth direction that special areas are limited to existing categories established by Congress, the Department, or the Agency. The interim directive adds a list of the characteristics of standards; in addition, adds guidance on appropriate NEPA for standards. The interim directive sets forth direction for how to include other information besides plan components such as explanatory narrative and management approaches. The interim directive clarifies how projects or activities must be consistent with applicable plan components, as required by the NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(i)). The interim directive sets forth that the responsible official should use the “NFS LMP Monitoring and Evaluation Framework” when describing the monitoring program. The framework is available on the Agency Web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/met/. The interim directive sets forth direction about soils. Finally, the interim directive clarifies direction for evaluation and establishing plan components for many individual resources including: Access, roads, trails, and travel management; air management; cultural resources; fire and fuels management; land use and special uses; minerals including energy minerals; paleontological resources; range management; recreation and scenery management; and water.

Section 10.2 Objectives. This section sets forth the objectives of this chapter. The interim directive removes obsolete direction on objectives and adds new direction on what employees should strive to accomplish by following direction in this chapter. This additional direction concerns adapting the plan to changing situations; carrying out the intent of the planning rule; including timber requirements in the content of the plan; and making wilderness recommendations, if appropriate. This section also reflects the nature of planning. The direction on adapting the plan to changing situations and the nature of planning is not new but is incorporated from the existing section 11 of chapter 10. Note that the heading “Objectives” here refers, not to the plan component but to the overall objectives of the chapter. “Objectives” is a standard section of Forest Service directives.

Section 10.4 Responsibility. This section describes the responsibilities of line officers. The interim directive adds direction to use a collaborative and participatory approach to plan development, plan amendment, and plan revision. This section sets forth responsibilities for about adapting the plan to changing situations, projects, and activities previously in section 11.

Section 11 Plan Components and Other Plan Contents. This section provides direction for writing plan components and other plan content. The interim directive removes direction about the nature of planning, about adapting the plan to changing situations, and about developing projects and activities because the direction was added to sections 10.2 and 10.4. Removes obsolete direction about developing budgets.

Section 11.1 Plan Components. This section describes appropriate desired conditions, objectives, guidelines, suitability of areas, special areas, and standards. The interim directive removes direction that a plan must include provisions required by 16 U.S.C. 1604 and 1611 and substitutes the requirement that the plan must include resource management provisions required by 36 CFR 219.9(b). The interim directive adds direction that plan components should not include explanatory narrative. The interim directive adds the definition of geographic areas. The interim directive removes obsolete reference to technical guide “Developing Plan Components with Examples.”

Section 11.1, Exhibit 01, Sample Plan Components. The interim directive revised the examples of plan components that had been in this exhibit in the existing FSH chapter 10.

Section 11.11 Desired Conditions. The interim directive clarifies and adds direction so that desired conditions are written to meet the intent of the planning rule. The interim directive adds a list of the characteristics of desired conditions.

Section 11.12 Objectives. The interim directive clarifies and adds direction so that objectives are written to meet the intent of the planning rule. The interim directive adds a list of the characteristics of objectives.

Section 11.13 Guidelines. The interim directive clarifies and adds direction so that guidelines are written to meet the intent of the planning rule. The interim directive adds a list of the characteristics of guidelines.

Section 11.14 Suitability of Areas. The interim directive clarifies and adds direction so that identifications of suitability of areas are written to meet the intent of the planning rule. The interim directive adds that plans may identify areas as “not generally suitable” for uses. The interim directive adds that any substantive change in plan suitability for timber production may only be made by a plan amendment. The interim directive clarifies that identification in a plan of suitability is tentative and final suitability is determined when projects and activities are approved.

Section 11.15 Special Areas. The interim directive clarifies and adds direction so that identification of special areas meets the intent of the planning rule. The interim directive adds that the intent to include special areas in plans is not to expand special areas into new categories, but rather to assure that plans recognize existing categories established by Congress, the Department, or the Agency. The interim directive adds direction to deal with the situation where the responsible official lacks authority to designate a special area. The interim directive removed direction about proposed adjustments in national forest boundaries (now discussed in section 13.13f of the interim directive). The interim directive adds direction that a plan may establish other plan components for special areas. The interim directive adds direction that if an area does not meet the qualifications for a special area it may be identified as a management area.

Section 11.5, Exhibit 01, Special Area—Designating Official and Guidance Cross-Reference. The interim directive adds the following areas to the list of potential special areas: historical area, national heritage area, paleontological area, recreational area, scenic area, and zoological area. The interim directive clarifies the designation authority for these areas.

Section 11.16 Standards. This is a new section, which sets forth direction for writing standards in accordance with 36 CFR 219.7(a)(3). The interim directive adds a list of the characteristics of standards; adds guidance about actions that are not standards, and adds guidance on NEPA compliance and standards. Also, adds guidance on retaining, revising, or removing existing standards based on the Federal Register notice for “National Environmental Policy Act Documentation Needed for Developing, Revising, or Amending Land Management Plans; Categorical Exclusion” (71 FR 75481, December 15, 2006, page 75486).

Section 11.2 Project and Activity Consistency with the Plan. This section was section 11.4 in the existing chapter 10 of this handbook. The “Plan Consistency Template” has also been moved to this section, from section 11.4 in the existing chapter. This section modifies the wording to clarify how projects or activities must be consistent with applicable plan components similar to the tentative wording set out in the preamble to the final rule, Volume 73 of the Federal Register , page 21491, April 21, 2008. This section clarifies the previous direction and adds new wording in the template that explains how projects and activities are consistent with applicable components, including standards.

Section 11.3 Possible Actions. This section was section 11.2 in the prior chapter 10 of this handbook. This section modifies the wording of the prior section to meet the intent of section 6(f)(2)(g) of the National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(2)), which states plans shall “be embodied in appropriate written material, * * * reflecting proposed and possible actions, including the planned timber sale program and the proportion of timber harvest within the unit necessary to fulfill the plan.”

Section 11.4 Plan Guidance for Special Conditions or Situations. This section sets forth the guidance for special conditions or situations that was previously in section 11.3.

Section 11.5 Other Information. This new section sets forth direction for including “other information” in plans in addition to plan components such as: explanatory narrative, general management principles, management approaches, management challenges, referenced material, or roles and contributions.

Section 11.6 Management Approaches. This new section sets forth direction for including “management approaches” in plans.

Section 12 Monitoring. The interim directive clarifies and adds additional direction about using the monitoring and evaluation framework described in the “NFS LMP Monitoring and Evaluation Framework” available on the Agency Web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/met/. The interim directive removes the requirement that monitoring must “address the minimum timber management requirements of the National Forest Management, for example, restocking, cut block size and shape, and watershed protection.” The interim directive adds the requirement that monitoring should focus on where there is substantial uncertainty over the effectiveness of a plan component in contributing to the achievement or maintenance of desired conditions.

Section 12, Exhibit 01, Example of a Subset of a Monitoring Program for a Plan. The interim directive clarifies the examples of desired conditions and questions in the example of a monitoring program in a plan.

Section 12.1 Selecting Monitoring Questions. This section had been captioned “Monitoring Questions” in the existing chapter 10 of this handbook. The interim directive changes the discussion from screening monitoring questions to selecting monitoring questions.

Section 12.2 Performance Measures. The interim directive clarifies the discussion of performance measures and adds a definition of performance measures. The interim directive adds that measures should be based on standardized data in corporate data systems or other official sources.

Section 12.3 Documents Associated with the Monitoring Program. This section had been captioned “Documenting the Monitoring Program” in the existing chapter 10 of this handbook. The interim directive clarifies the description of the annual evaluation report, comprehensive evaluation report, monitoring guide, and annual monitoring work plan.

Section 13 Consideration of Individual Resources. The interim directive clarifies the references to direction in other chapters of this handbook for considering social, economic, and ecological sustainability; timber; wilderness; and wild and scenic rivers. To simplify the discussion and to be clear, the interim directive removes the obsolete discussion of three phases of the planning process: initial evaluation to determine the need for change, evaluation of plan components, and integration into the plan. Direction about the responsible official identifying and selecting the parameters for evaluation has been added to section 13.1.

Section 13.1 Resource Considerations. The interim directive adds direction to evaluate sustainability within an area large enough to consider broad-scale social, economic, and ecological factors and trends over large landscapes based on policy of FSM 1920.3.

Section 13.11a Paleontological Resources. The interim directive revised the discussion of paleontological resources from focus on special areas to a focus on desired conditions and objectives for paleontological resources.

Section 13.11b Air Management. The interim directive revises caption from “Air” to “Air Management” and clarifies the direction for evaluation and establishing plan components for air management.

Section 13.11 Water. The interim directive clarifies direction for evaluation and establishing plan components for water.

Section 13.11d Soil. This new section codes and sets forth direction for evaluation and establishing plan components for soil.

Section 13.12a Fire and Fuels Management. This section had been captioned “Fire, Aviation, and Fuels Management” in the existing chapter 10 of this handbook. The interim directive clarifies direction for evaluation and establishing plan components for fire and fuels management. The interim directive adds examples of desired conditions and guidelines for fire and fuels management.

Section 13.12b Large Fire Cost Containment. The interim directive clarifies direction for large fire cost containment. The interim directive removes reference to wildland fire situation analysis and wildland fire implementation plan.

Section 13.12c Wildlife and Fisheries. No change to this section.

Section 13.13a Recreation and Scenery Management. This section had been captioned “Recreation and Scenery” in the existing chapter 10 of this handbook. The interim directive clarifies direction for recreation and scenery management in the planning process.

Section 13.13b Cultural Resources. The interim directive revises caption from “Heritage Resources” to “Cultural Resources.” The interim directive clarifies direction for cultural resources in the planning process.

Section 13.13c Minerals Including Energy Minerals. This section was section 13.3d of the existing chapter 10 of this handbook. The interim directive adds direction for establishing desired conditions, objectives, and guidelines for minerals. The interim directive clarifies existing direction about recognizing minerals in the planning process previously contained at section 13.13d.

Section 13.13d Range Management. This section was section 13.3e of the existing chapter 10 of this handbook. The interim directive clarifies existing direction about range management and wild horse-burro territory boundaries in the planning process.

Section 13.13e Access, Roads, Trails, or Travel Management. This section was section 13.13f of the existing chapter 10 of this handbook. The interim directive clarifies existing direction about access, roads, trails, and travel management in the planning process previously contained at section 13.13f. The interim directive adds direction related to the requirement in the travel management regulations, at 36 CFR 212.5(b) to identify a minimum road system to be documented in the forest transportation atlas.

Section 13.13f Land Use and Special Uses. This section was section 13.3g of the existing chapter 10 of this handbook. The interim directive clarifies existing direction about land use and special uses in the planning process previously contained at section 13.13g. The interim directive adds requirement that if the administrative unit proposes to recommend adjustment in the national forest boundary that Washington Office notice is required.

Section 13.2.  The interim directive removes this section on individual resource analytical tools because the information about tools has been moved to appropriate places within section 13.

This interim directive has been reviewed under USDA procedures and Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. It has been determined that this is not a significant action. This interim directive to clarify agency guidance would not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy nor adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, nor State or local governments. This interim directive would not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency nor raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this interim directive would not alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs. Accordingly, this proposed action is not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866.

Moreover, this proposed action has been considered in light of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), and it has been determined that this proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the act because it will not impose recordkeeping requirements on them; it would not affect their competitive position in relation to large entities; and it would not affect their cash flow, liquidity, or ability to remain in the market.

This interim directive to Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, chapter 10, clarifies direction and guides agency employees on writing plan components, on describing the monitoring program, and on considering individual resources. This interim directive amends Forest Service Handbook 1902.12, chapter 10. The intended effect of issuance of this interim directive is to provide consistent overall guidance to Forest Service line officers and employees in developing, amending, or revising land management plans for units of the National Forest System about land management planning. Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, section 220.6(d)(2) excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement “Rules, regulations, or policies to establish servicewide administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions” (73 FR 43084, July 24, 2008). The Agency's conclusion is that this interim directive, which simply sets out guidance for the planning process and makes no resource management decisions, falls within this category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist as currently defined that require preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), which the President signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Agency has assessed the effects of this interim directive on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This interim directive would not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or tribal government or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the act is not required.

This interim directive does not contain any additional recordkeeping or reporting requirements associated with National Forest System land management planning or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already approved for use. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (Number 0596-00158) has approved the information collection associated with the submitting an objection under the planning rule (36 CFR part 219). Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply.

This interim directive provides consistent interpretation of the planning rule for line and staff officers, and interdisciplinary teams. Therefore, the Agency can fulfill its commitment to improve public involvement and decisionmaking associated with developing, amending, or revising a land management plan.

The full text of this handbook is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.fs.fed.us./im/directives. Single paper copies are available upon request from the address and telephone numbers listed earlier in this notice as well as from the nearest regional office, the location of which are also available on the Washington Office headquarters homepage on the World Wide Web at http://www.fs.fed.us.

The antidumping duty order on CTL Steel Plate from the PRC was published on October 21, 2003. See Suspension Agreement on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's Republic of China; Termination of Suspension Agreement and Notice of Antidumping Duty Order , 68 FR 60081 (October 21, 2003).

On November 30, 2007, we received a timely request for a new shipper review from Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (“Valin Xiangtan”) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(d)(2). In its request, Valin Xiangtan certified that it produced and exported the CTL Steel Plate on which it based its request for a new shipper review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Valin Xiangtan submitted documentation establishing the date on which the merchandise was first shipped for export to the United States, the volume of that first shipment, and the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.

On December 27, 2007, the Department initially determined that Valin Xiangtan did not meet the requirements under which the Department can initiate a new shipper review. On January 7, 2008, upon further review of subsequent information submitted by the requester, the Department reconsidered its decision and initiated the new shipper review on January 17, 2008. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's Republic of China; Initiation of New Shipper Review , 73 FR 3236 (January 17, 2008). On January 14, 2008, we issued the antidumping duty questionnaire to Valin Xiangtan. We issued supplemental questionnaires to Valin Xiangtan in April, May, and September 2008. On April 18, 2008, the Department extended the POR by one month to enable the Department to capture the entries corresponding to the respondent's sales to the United States.

The POR covers November 1, 2006, through October 31, 2007.

On March 25, 2008, Nucor Corporation (“Nucor”) submitted comments regarding Valin Xiangtan's eligibility for a new shipper review and separate rate status. Specifically, Nucor argued that the Department should rescind the new shipper review because Valin Xiangtan is affiliated with exporters that shipped to the United States during the original period of investigation (“POI”). Because one of Valin Xiangtan's corporate parents is wholly owned by the Hunan-Supervision and Administration Commission (“Hunan SASAC”), Nucor contends that the Hunan SASAC and Valin Xiangtan are affiliated by an excess of five percent ownership. Since the PRC-wide entity had shipments of subject merchandise during the POI, and because the Hunan SASAC, as an organ of the central-Supervision and Administration Commission (“central SASAC”), is the same as the PRC-wide entity, Nucor argued that Valin Xiangtan is affiliated with a producer/exporter that exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POI.

Nucor also argued that affiliation exists between Valin Xiangtan and two respondents in the original investigation ( i.e. , AISCO/Anshan International/Sincerely Asia Ltd. (collectively “Anshan Steel”) and Bao/Baoshan International Trade Corp/Bao Steel Metals Trading Corp. (collectively “Baoshan Steel”)). Nucor contends these two companies' financial statements demonstrate that they are directly owned by and under the control of the central SASAC. Therefore, Nucor argued, Valin Xiangtan, through the Hunan SASAC and the central SASAC, is affiliated with producers/exporters that exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POI.

On October 21, 2008, in its pre-preliminary comments submission, Valin Xiangtan argued the Department has reviewed similar allegations in other proceedings and rejected them. 1 Valin Xiangtan contended there is no rationale to justify the Department reversing its long-standing practice of allowing new shippers that are state-owned to request and receive reviews.

For the preliminary results, in response to Nucor's claims that Valin Xiangtan is state-owned and therefore affiliated with Anshan Steel and Baoshan Steel, we note first that the Department has considered and granted NSR requests in the past where the requesting firm was state-owned (“owned by the whole people”). 2 In this case, we determine that Valin Xiangtan is not affiliated with Anshan Steel and Baoshan Steel. In order to find these companies affiliated, section 771(33)(F) of the Act requires more than some degree of commonality of state ownership interest between them. Rather, to make a finding of affiliation between two or more entities, section 771(33)(F) of the Act requires the Department to find “common control.” Otherwise, all state-owned companies would automatically be found affiliated. Further, consistent with long-standing policy and practice, 3 we find that ownership by a government entity such as the Hunan SASAC or central SASAC, in and of itself, is not germane to Valin Xiangtan's eligibility for a new shipper review. In the instant case, as discussed in the “Separate Rates” section below, there is no evidence that the Hunan SASAC or central SASAC exerted control over Valin Xiangtan's export activities. In other words, absent evidence of such de jure or de facto control, government ownership alone does not warrant denying Valin Xiangtan eligibility for a new shipper review. Indeed, the Department has in previous proceedings granted separate rates to companies that were wholly owned by government entities when evidence of actual government control over export activities was not present. 4

On May 23, 2008, Nucor submitted comments regarding Valin Xiangtan's affiliated producers. Nucor urged the Department to conduct a full collapsing analysis on all of the companies with a relationship to Valin Xiangtan or its owners in addition to all of the subsidiaries of each of these entities. Nucor argued that any steel producer with a rolling mill would be capable of producing subject merchandise with only minor retooling, thus satisfying the collapsing criteria under 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1).

For the preliminary results, we have determined not to collapse Valin Xiangtan with any of its affiliates. We have determined that based on record evidence of the four affiliates we identified as possible candidates for a collapsing analysis, two do not have any production capabilities at all, and the remaining two produce steel wire and steel rod, respectively. 5 Further, we have determined that neither of the steel producing affiliates has a rolling mill, 6 and it would be cost prohibitive ( i.e. , require substantial retooling) to build a rolling mill capable of producing subject merchandise. Thus the collapsing criteria under 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) are not satisfied. In determining whether there is a significant potential for manipulation, as contemplated by 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2), the Department considers the totality of the circumstances of the situation and may place more reliance on some factors than others. In the instant case, because Valin Xiangtan's affiliates do not produce subject merchandise and do not have the capability to produce subject merchandise without a substantial retooling, the totality of the circumstances here shows that there is not a significant potential for the manipulation of price or production. Therefore, for the preliminary results, we have not collapsed Valin Xiangtan with its affiliates.

The products covered by the order include hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates ( i.e. , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included in the order are flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( i.e. , products which have been “worked after rolling”) for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from the order is grade X-70 plate. Also excluded from the order is certain carbon cut-to-length steel plate with a maximum thickness of 80 mm in steel grades BS 7191, 355 EM, and 355 EMZ, as amended by Sable Offshore Energy Project specification XB MOO Y 15 0001, types 1 and 2. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.

In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department has a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of subject merchandise in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities. The Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ Sparklers ”), as further developed in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ Silicon Carbide ”). However, if the Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate-rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government control.

Valin Xiangtan is a wholly Chinese-owned company. 7 Therefore, the Department must analyze whether Valin Xiangtan can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over its export activities.

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

In this case, Nucor, a domestic interested party, argued that Valin Xiangtan should not receive a separate rate because the State-owned entity ( i.e. , the central SASAC) exercised de jure control over Valin Xiangtan during the POR. 8 Among other things, Nucor alleged that the existence of a SASAC demonstrates a recentralization of control over companies in which it maintains ownership, and that because of the nature of the central SASAC's authority Valin Xiangtan cannot establish the absence of de jure control. We solicited additional information from Valin Xiangtan regarding Nucor's allegations as they relate to the Department's criteria in determining whether there is de jure control by the PRC government over a company's export activities. 9 In response, Valin Xiangtan submitted copies of relevant laws under which it operates including the Interim Measures for the Supervision and Administration of State-owned Assets of the Enterprises (“Interim Measures”) and the Company Law of the People's Republic of China (“Company Law”). After examining record evidence, we found no indication that these laws granted de jure government control. 10 Moreover, review of Valin Xiangtan's business license indicates an absence of restrictive stipulations. 11 Further, under Company Law, in addition to Valin Xiangtan's Articles of Association, indicates that control rests with the company's executive director and not the PRC government. 12

The evidence provided by Valin Xiangtan supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of government control based on the following: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporters' business and export licenses; (2) there are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and (3) there are formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See, e.g. , Valin Xiangtan's section A submissions dated March 5, 2008, and its supplemental questionnaire responses dated March 25, 2008, and October 18, 2008.

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

In this case Nucor alleged that Valin Xiangtan should not receive a separate rate because there is indirect de facto control over Valin Xiangtan by the PRC government. See Nucor's March 25, 2008, submission regarding its comments on Valin Xiangtan eligibility for a new shipper review and separate rate status; and Nucor's May 27, 2008, submission regarding Valin Xiangtan's supplemental section A Questionnaire Response. Among other things, Nucor alleged that the authorities of the central SASAC as outlined in the Interim Measures demonstrate control over the companies in which the central SASAC invests. We solicited additional information from Valin Xiangtan regarding Nucor's allegations as they relate to the Department's criteria in determining whether there is de facto control by the PRC government over a company's export activities. 13 In its responses, Valin Xiangtan reported that it sets its own export prices and has the authority to sign and negotiate its sales contracts without review or guidance from any governmental organization ( e.g. , the sales contract and correspondence between it and its U.S. customer). See Valin Xiangtan's section A supplemental submission dated April 28, 2008, at Exhibits A-24 and A-25. Valin Xiangtan further submitted evidence indicating autonomy in the process by which its managers and directors were elected to their positions ( e.g. , Valin Xiangtan's Articles of Association) See Valin Xiangtan's section A supplemental submission dated April 28, 2008, at Exhibit A-33. The mere fact that the Hunan SASAC has shareholder ownership in companies that have shareholder ownership in Valin Xiangtan does not in itself demonstrate that Valin Xiangtan is controlled by the PRC central government. 14 Indeed, the Department has in the past granted separate rates to companies that were wholly owned by government entities when evidence of actual government control was not present. 15 In this case, we have found no record evidence indicating that the Hunan SASAC exercised control over Valin Xiangtan's export activities or the disposition of its profits during the POR. 16 Therefore, we have determined that the roles and duties undertaken by the Hunan SASAC do not confer de facto government control over the day-to-day activities and decisions regarding Valin Xiangtan's export activities. Furthermore, Valin Xiangtan has supported its claim that it negotiates its own contracts and does not need approval from any government authority before making a sale ( i.e. , the sales contract and correspondence between Valin Xiangtan and its U.S. customer). 17

The evidence placed on the record of this new shipper review by Valin Xiangtan demonstrate an absence of de jure and de facto government control with respect to its exports of the merchandise under review, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide . Accordingly, the Department has preliminarily determined that Valin Xiangtan is eligible for a separate rate because it has demonstrated an absence of government control both in law and in fact.

In evaluating whether or not sales are commercially reasonable, and therefore bona fide , the Department has considered, inter alia, such factors as: (1) the timing of the sale; (2) the price and quantity of the sale; (3) the expenses arising from the transaction; (4) whether the goods were resold at a profit; and (5) whether the transaction was made on an arm's-length basis. See Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. United States , 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (CIT 2005) (“ TTPC ”) at 1249-1250, citing Am. Silicon Techs. v. United States , 110 F. Supp. 2d 992, 995 (CIT 2000). Therefore, the Department examines a number of factors, all of which may speak to the commercial realities surrounding the sale of subject merchandise. While some bona fides issues may share commonalities across various cases, each case is company-specific and the analysis may vary with the facts surrounding each sale. See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 68 FR 41304 (July 11, 2003). The weight given to each factor investigated will depend on the circumstances surrounding the sale. See TTPC , 366 F. Supp at 1263.

For the reasons stated below, we preliminarily find that Valin Xiangtan's reported U.S. sales during the POR appear to be bona fide sales, as required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(c), based on the totality of the facts on the record. Specifically, we find that the unit prices for Valin Xiangtan's sales were comparable to the unit values of other U.S. imports of CTL Steel Plate from the PRC during the POR. Further we find that the quantity of Valin Xiangtan's sales is commercially reasonable. 18 Furthermore, we found no unusual circumstances surrounding the sales ( e.g. , no unusual freight terms). Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, the Department preliminarily finds that Valin Xiangtan's U.S. sale during the POR is a bona fide commercial transaction.

In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as an NME country. In the investigation of certain lined paper products from the PRC, the Department examined the PRC's market status and determined that NME status should continue for the PRC. 19 In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 71 FR 7013 (February 10, 2006). The presumption of the NME status of the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of this new shipper review. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on the NME producer's factors of production (“FOPs”), valued in a surrogate market economy (“ME”) country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall use, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of the FOPs in one or more ME countries that are: (1) at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. For a detailed discussion of the surrogate values (“SVs”) used in this proceeding, see the “Factor Valuations” section below and the Department's memorandum to the file entitled, “New Shipper Review of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China: Factor Valuations for the Preliminary Determination,” dated concurrently with this notice (“Factor Valuation Memorandum”).

On January 14, 2008, the Department determined that India, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Colombia are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. 20 On January 16, 2008, the Department requested comments on the selection of a surrogate country from the interested parties in this new shipper review. Valin Xiangtan submitted comments on February 6, 2008, providing information regarding CTL Steel Plate production in Indonesia, Thailand and India.

Customarily, we select an appropriate surrogate country from the Policy Memorandum based on the availability and reliability of data from the countries that are significant producers of comparable merchandise. In this case, we found that India is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC; is a significant producer of comparable merchandise ( i.e. , CTL Steel Plate); and has publicly available and reliable data. 21 Accordingly, we selected India as the primary surrogate country for purposes of valuing the FOPs in the calculation of NV because it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate country selection. 22 We obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever possible. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in an antidumping new shipper review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value FOPs under 19 CFR 351.408(c) within 20 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. 23

To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by Valin Xiangtan to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared its export prices to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below.

We used export price (“EP”) methodology in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because the subject merchandise was first sold prior to importation by the exporter outside the United States directly to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and constructed export price was not otherwise indicated.

We calculated EP based on the packed delivery duty paid ex-docks delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for any movement expenses ( e.g. , foreign inland rail and barge freight from the plant to the port of exportation, domestic brokerage, marine insurance, U.S. Customs duty, U.S. brokerage and handling charges, other U.S. transportation expense, international freight expense, etc .) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, 24 Where foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling fees and foreign marine insurance were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based those charges on surrogate value rates from India. See “Factor Valuations” section below for further discussion of surrogate value rates.

In determining the most appropriate SVs to use in a given case, the Department's stated practice is to use period-wide price averages, prices specific to the input in question, prices that are net of taxes and import duties, prices that are contemporaneous with the POR, and publicly available data. 25 The data we used for brokerage and handling expenses fulfill all of the foregoing criteria except that they are not specific to the subject merchandise. There is no information of that type on the record of this new shipper review. The Department used two sources to calculate a surrogate value for domestic brokerage expenses: (1) data from the January 9, 2006, public version of the Section C questionnaire response from Kejriwal Paper Ltd. (“Kejriwal”) in the investigation of certain lined paper products from India; 26 and (2) data from Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. in the administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India. 27 Because these values were not concurrent with the POR of this new shipper review, we adjusted these rates for inflation using the Wholesale Price Indices (“WPI”) for India as published in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics , available at http://ifs.apdi.net/imf, and then calculated a simple average of the two companies' brokerage expense data. 28 See Factor Valuation Memorandum at Attachment 9.

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on the FOPs because the presence of government controls on various aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under its normal methodologies. The Department's questionnaire requires that the respondent provide information regarding the weighted-average FOPs across all of the company's plants that produce the subject merchandise, not just the FOPs from a single plant. This methodology ensures that the Department's calculations are as accurate as possible. 29

For purposes of calculating NV, we valued the PRC FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. The FOPs include: (1) hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. We used the FOPs reported by Valin Xiangtan for materials, energy, and labor. See section 773(c)(3) of the Act.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will normally use publicly available information to find appropriate SVs to value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a market economy and pays for it in market-economy currency, the Department will normally value the factor using the actual price paid for the input. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Lasko Metal Products, Inc. v. United States , 43 F.3d 1442, 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In examining SVs, we selected, where possible, the publicly available value, which was an average non-export value, representative of a range of prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China , 69 FR 75294, 75300 (December 16, 2004) (unchanged in final determination). For a detailed explanation of the methodology used to calculate SVs, see Factor Valuation Memorandum.

Valin Xiangtan reported that during the production process of CTL Steel Plate, it generated certain by-products that were recycled and resold during the POR. 30 However, Valin Xiangtan failed to provide the requested documentation for each sale of its by-products and each transaction of recycled by-product. 31 Nor did Valin Xiangtan provide an explanation as to why it did not provide the requested documentation. 32 In the original and supplemental questionnaires, we instructed Valin Xiangtan to provide evidence for the full amount of by-products that were sold or returned to production. Valin Xiangtan provided incomplete documentation that amounted to a non-response to this request. For example, Valin Xiangtan provided one by-product sales invoice for each type of by-product sold, which did not reconcile to its reported by-product sales. 33 Further, Valin Xiangtan provided inadequately translated screen prints from its internal accounting system for some recycled by-products. 34 These screen prints were also not reconciled to Valin Xiangtan's reported recycled product. The amount of products reused or sold during the POR is an integral part of the factor calculation for by-products. 35 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions from Belarus , 68 FR 9055 (February 27, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3 (“The Department allows such credits, but only for the amount of the by-product/recovery actually sold or reused.”); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin From the People's Republic of China , 68 FR 27530 (May 20, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6; and Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 71 FR 7515 (February 13, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Because Valin Xiangtan has not provided the Department with the requested information in order to determine whether Valin Xiangtan is entitled to its claimed offsets, for the preliminary results, we have determined to not grant any of Valin Xiangtan's claimed offsets. For further details, see Valin Xiangtan Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.

In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on the FOPs reported by Valin Xiangtan for the POR. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available Indian SVs. In selecting the SVs, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. 36 As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import SVs a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory, where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States , 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In those instances where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with the POI with which to value FOPs, we adjusted the SVs using, where appropriate, the Indian WPI, as published in the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund. For a detailed description of all SVs used for respondent, see the Factor Valuation Memorandum.

Except where discussed below, we valued raw material inputs using November 2006 through October 2007, weighted-average unit import values derived from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, as published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India and compiled by the World Trade Atlas (“WTA”), available at http:www.gtis.com/wta.htm. The Indian WTA import data is reported in rupees and is contemporaneous with the POR. 37 Indian SVs denominated in Indian rupees were converted to U.S. dollars using the applicable daily exchange rate for India for the POR. See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.

The products covered by the scope of the order are large newspaper printing presses, including press systems, press additions and press components, whether assembled or unassembled, whether complete or incomplete, that are capable of printing or otherwise manipulating a roll of paper more than two pages across. A page is defined as a newspaper broadsheet page in which the lines of type are printed perpendicular to the running of the direction of the paper or a newspaper tabloid page with lines of type parallel to the running of the direction of the paper.

In addition to press systems, the scope of the order includes the five press system components. They are: (1) a printing unit, which is any component that prints in monocolor, spot color and/or process (full) color; (2) a reel tension paster (RTP), which is any component that feeds a roll of paper more than two newspaper broadsheet pages in width into a subject printing unit; (3) a folder, which is a module or combination of modules capable of cutting, folding, and/or delivering the paper from a roll or rolls of newspaper broadsheet paper more than two pages in width into a newspaper format; (4) conveyance and access apparatus capable of manipulating a roll of paper more than two newspaper broadsheet pages across through the production process and which provides structural support and access; and (5) a computerized control system, which is any computer equipment and/or software designed specifically to control, monitor, adjust, and coordinate the functions and operations of large newspaper printing presses or press components.

A press addition is comprised of a union of one or more of the press components defined above and the equipment necessary to integrate such components into an existing press system.

Because of their size, large newspaper printing press systems, press additions, and press components are typically shipped either partially assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and are assembled and/or completed prior to and/or during the installation process in the United States. Any of the five components, or collection of components, the use of which is to fulfill a contract for large newspaper printing press systems, press additions, or press components, regardless of degree of assembly and/or degree of combination with non-subject elements before or after importation, is included in the scope of the order. Also included in the scope are elements of a LNPP system, addition or component, which taken altogether, constitute at least 50 percent of the cost of manufacture of any of the five major LNPP components of which they are a part.

For purposes of the scope, the following definitions apply irrespective of any different definition that may be found in customs rulings, U.S. Customs law or the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): (1) the term “unassembled” means fully or partially unassembled or disassembled; and (2) the term “incomplete” means lacking one or more elements with which the LNPP is intended to be equipped in order to fulfill a contract for a LNPP system, addition or component.

This scope does not cover spare or replacement parts. Spare or replacement parts imported pursuant to a LNPP contract, which are not integral to the original start-up and operation of the LNPP, and are separately identified and valued in a LNPP contract, whether or not shipped in combination with covered merchandise, are excluded from the scope of the order. Used presses are also not subject to this scope. Used presses are those that have been previously sold in an arm's-length transaction to a purchaser that used them to produce newspapers in the ordinary course of business.

Also excluded from the scope, in accordance with the Department's determination in a previous changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order which resulted in the partial revocation of the order with respect to certain merchandise, are elements and components of LNPP systems, and additions thereto, which feature a 22-inch cut-off, 50-inch web width and a rated speed no greater than 75,000 copies per hour. See Large Newspaper Printing Presses Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke Antidumping Duty Order, In Part , 64 FR 72315 (December 27, 1999). In addition to the specifications set out in this paragraph, all of which must be met in order for the product to be excluded from the scope of the order, the product must also meet all of the specifications detailed in the five numbered sections following this paragraph. If one or more of these criteria is not fulfilled, the product is not excluded from the scope of the order.

1. Printing Unit : A printing unit which is a color keyless blanket-to-blanket tower unit with a fixed gain infeed and fixed gain outfeed, with a rated speed no greater than 75,000 copies per hour, which includes the following features:

• Each tower consisting of four levels, one or more of which must be populated.

• Plate cylinders which contain slot lock-ups and blanket cylinders which contain reel rod lock-ups both of which are of solid carbon steel with nickel plating and with bearers at both ends which are configured in-line with bearers of other cylinders.

• Keyless inking system which consists of a passive feed ink delivery system, an eight roller ink train, and a non-anilox and non-porous metering roller.

• The dampener system which consists of a two nozzle per page spraybar and two roller dampener with one chrome drum and one form roller.

• The equipment contained in the color keyless ink delivery system is designed to achieve a constant, uniform feed of ink film across the cylinder without ink keys. This system requires use of keyless ink which accepts greater water content.

2. Folder : A module which is a double 3:2 rotary folder with 160 pages collect capability and double (over and under) delivery, with a cut-off length of 22 inches. The upper section consists of three-high double formers (total of 6) with six sets of nipping rollers.

3. RTP : A component which is of the two-arm design with core drives and core brakes, designed for 50 inch diameter rolls; and arranged in the press line in the back-to-back configuration (left and right hand load pairs).

4. Conveyance and Access Apparatus : Conveyance and access apparatus capable of manipulating a roll of paper more than two newspaper broadsheets across through the production process, and a drive system which is of conventional shafted design.

5. Computerized Control System : A computerized control system, which is any computer equipment and/or software designed specifically to control, monitor, adjust, and coordinate the functions and operations of large newspaper printing presses or press components.

Further, the scope covers all current and future printing technologies capable of printing newspapers, including, but not limited to, lithographic (offset or direct), flexographic, and letterpress systems. The products covered by the scope are imported into the United States under subheadings 8443.11.10, 8443.11.50, 8443.30.00, 8443.59.50, 8443.60.00, and 8443.90.50 of the HTSUS. Large newspaper printing presses may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 8443.21.00 and 8443.40.00. Large newspaper printing press computerized control systems may enter under HTSUS subheadings 8471.49.10, 8471.49.21, 8471.49.26, 8471.50.40, 8471.50.80, and 8537.10.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

On November 6, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of preliminary results of the reconsideration of sunset review of the antidumping duty order on LNPP from Japan, following the requirements of section 751(c) of the Act. See Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan: Preliminary Results of Reconsideration of Sunset Review , 71 FR 64927 (November 6, 2006) ( Preliminary Results ). In our Preliminary Results , we determined that, for purposes of this reconsideration of the sunset review, had the antidumping duty order not been revoked in Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan (A-588-837) and Germany (A-428-821): Notice of Final Results of Five-Year Sunset Reviews and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Orders , 67 FR 8522 (February 25, 2002) ( 2002 Sunset Review ), revocation of the antidumping duty order on LNPP from Japan would have likely led to continuation or recurrence of dumping with a margin of 59.67 percent for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI), 51.97 percent for Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. (TKS), and an all-others rate of 55.05 percent.

On December 6, 2006, MHI, TKS, and the domestic interested party, Goss International Corporation (known as Goss Graphics Systems Inc. during the period of the 2002 Sunset Review ) (Goss) submitted case briefs in response to the Department's preliminary results. TKS and Goss submitted rebuttal comments on December 11, 2006. We held a public hearing on December 18, 2006.

On January 24, 2007, the Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its decision in Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. v. United States , 473 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 1364 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2007), and ordered the Department to “discontinue any action in regard to a reconsideration” of the sunset review. In accordance with that decision, the Department discontinued action with respect to its reconsideration of the sunset review. See Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan: Discontinuation of Reconsideration of Sunset Review , 72 FR 9730 (March 5, 2007).

On June 17, 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed the CIT's decision directing the Department to discontinue its sunset review reconsideration. The CAFC held that the issue was not ripe for judicial review and that the CIT erred in finding that the Department's stated intention to reopen the sunset review proceeding (in the context of the March 2006 changed circumstances review final results) was final agency action. See Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. v. United States , 529 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the Department resumed its reconsideration of the sunset review. See Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan: Resumption of Reconsideration of Sunset Review , 73 FR 57059 (October 1, 2008).

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this sunset review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memo) to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference into this notice. Parties can find a discussion of the issues raised for the final results of this reconsideration of the sunset review and the corresponding recommendations in this public 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 Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

We determine that, for purposes of this reconsideration of the sunset review, had the antidumping duty order not been revoked in the 2002 Sunset Review , revocation of the antidumping duty order on LNPP from Japan would have likely led to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average margins:

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 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 reconsideration of sunset review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On August 22, 2007, the Department published its final results in the administrative review and on November 7, 2007, it published its amended final results. See Final Results and Amended Final Results . In the Final Results , the Department denied Macau Youcheng Trading Co. and Zhongshan Youcheng Wooden Arts and Crafts Co., Ltd. (collectively “Youcheng”) a separate rate stating that Youcheng failed to demonstrate that it made a sale of subject merchandise during the POR because Youcheng did not provide proof of payment for its reported sales transaction. The Department's determination to deny Youcheng a separate rate in the Final Results remained unchanged in the Amended Final Results .

On September 4, 2007, Youcheng filed a summons and complaint with the CIT challenging the Department's denial of a separate rate to Youcheng. On June 19, 2008, the Department requested a voluntary remand so that the Department could further analyze the record, explain its decision, and take such action as may be appropriate pertaining to the denial of separate-rate status to Youcheng. On June 20, 2008, the CIT granted the Department's voluntary remand motion. On August 22, 2008, we issued our draft redetermination pursuant to the remand to the interested parties for comment. On September 12, 2008, Petitioners 1 and Youcheng provided comments on the Department's draft redetermination results.

On October 3, 2008, the Department issued its final results of redetermination pursuant to Youcheng v. United States . The remand redetermination explained that, in accordance with the CIT's instructions, the Department analyzed the record and reconsidered the Final Results and determined to grant separate-rate status to Youcheng. Based on this reconsideration, Youcheng's status from the final results changed from an entity considered as part of the PRC-wide entity and subject to the PRC-wide rate to an entity eligible for separate-rate status and having a separate rate. Accordingly, Youcheng's revised antidumping duty margin is the weighted-average margin of the mandatory respondents ( i.e. , 35.78 percent) in the administrative review.

TIMKEN NOTICE:

In its decision in Timken , the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. See Timken , 893 F.2d at 341. The CIT's decision in Youcheng v. United States on October 10, 2008, constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Department's Final Results and Amended Final Results . This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken . Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties based on the weighted average of the cash deposit rates calculated for the mandatory respondents ( i.e. , 35.78 percent) in the administrative review pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Act.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) is managed by the Fisheries Sampling Branch (FSB) at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). NEFOP observers serve aboard commercial fishing vessels from Maine to North Carolina, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

NMFS NEFSC is renewing its request to collect information from fishermen who have had NEFOP observers on their vessels. This information would be collected on a voluntary basis as a qualitative survey to provide NMFS with direct feedback on an observer's performance. This information, upon receipt, will ensure higher data quality, help to detect fraud, assess contractor performance, provide feedback on observer performance, and offer a direct line of communication from fishermen to the NEFOP management.

Paper survey with a pre-addressed, pre-paid postage to be submitted to the NEFOP at the NEFSC. The survey will also be available on the Internet.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0536.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 520.

Estimated Time Per Response: 15 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 260.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. , as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act, Public Law 104-297, provided for the establishment of an AP to assist in the collection and evaluation of information relevant to the development of any Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for HMS. NMFS consults with and considers the comments and views of AP members when preparing and implementing FMPs or FMP amendments for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, billfish, and sharks. The AP has previously consulted with NMFS on: Amendment 1 to the Billfish FMP (April 1999), the HMS FMP (April 1999), Amendment 1 to the HMS FMP (December 2003), the Consolidated HMS FMP (October 2006), and Amendments 1 and 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP (April and October 2008). The February 2009 AP meeting will focus on conservation and management options for Atlantic tunas and sharks. NMFS is considering an amendment to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP for small coastal sharks to rebuild blacknose sharks which are overfished with overfishing occurring, and will consider management options for Atlantic bluefin tuna based on any potential management recommendations resulting from the 2008 International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) meeting.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Othel Freeman at (301) 713-2347, at least 7 days prior to the meeting.

The Monitor National Marine Sanctuary (MNMS or Sanctuary) was designated on January 30, 1975, and is located on the Atlantic continental shelf approximately 16 miles south-southeast of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. The Sanctuary encompasses a vertical column of water around the wreck site one nautical mile in diameter from the surface to the seabed. The present management plan for the Sanctuary was completed in February 1983, and a comprehensive long-range plan that focused on the stabilization, preservation, recovery, conservation, and exhibition of materials and artifacts from the Monitor site was implemented in April 1998. For detailed information on the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary, including the 1983 Management Plan and the 1998 Comprehensive Preservation Plan, please visit http://www.monitor.noaa.gov .

In accordance with Section 304(e) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, as amended (NMSA), 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. , the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is initiating a review of the current management plan to evaluate the substantive progress made toward implementing the goals for the Sanctuary, and to make revisions to the plan and regulations as necessary to fulfill the purposes and policies of the NMSA. The proposed revised management plan may involve changes to existing policies and regulations of the sanctuary, will address contemporary issues and challenges, and better protect and manage the Sanctuary's resources and qualities. The review process is composed of four primary stages:

(1) Information collection and characterization, including public scoping meetings;

(2) Preparation and release of a revised draft management plan/environmental evaluation that includes any proposed new regulations or amendments to current regulations;

(3) Public review and comment on the draft plan; and

(4) Preparation and release of a final management plan/environmental evaluation that could also include new regulations to fully implement the revised management plan.

NOAA anticipates that the completion of the revised management plan and concomitant documents will require approximately twenty-four to thirty-six months. This notice is to inform the public that NOAA will conduct scoping meetings to gather information and other comments from individuals, organizations, and government agencies on the scope, types, and significance of issues related to the Sanctuary's management plan and regulations. These scoping meetings will also help determine the scope of issues to be addressed in the preparation of an EIS pursuant to the NEPA, 43 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. , if warranted. The public scoping meeting schedule is presented below.

The public scoping meetings will be held on the following dates and at the following locations:

The following list identifies correspondence from the Department issued from April 1, 2008 through June 30, 2008. Included on the list are those letters that contain interpretations of the requirements of the IDEA and its implementing regulations, as well as letters and other documents that the Department believes will assist the public in understanding the requirements of the law and its regulations. The date of and topic addressed by each letter are identified, and summary information is also provided, as appropriate. To protect the privacy interests of the individual or individuals involved, personally identifiable information has been redacted, as appropriate.

○ Letter dated May 6, 2008 to individual (personally identifiable information redacted), clarifying how the definition of “specially designed instruction” applies to a child's access to the general education curriculum.

○ Letter dated April 22, 2008 to Texas Education Agency General Counsel David Anderson, reiterating that a State has no obligation under the IDEA to conduct child find or provide educational services to children residing in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement residential family facilities, but encouraging a State or local school district to enter into a voluntary agreement for these purposes.

○ Letter dated April 17, 2008 to Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center Director John Copenhaver, concerning the use of parents and other volunteers in State educational agency monitoring of local educational agencies.

○ Letter dated May 7, 2008 to Kinney Management Services, LLC representative Joseph Kinney, concerning access to public insurance benefits and applicable parental consent requirements.

○ Letter dated May 28, 2008 to American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Director of Education and Regulatory Advocacy Catherine D. Clarke, concerning the use of speech-language pathologists in a response to intervention model, and reiterating that State law governs the use of paraprofessionals and assistants in the provision of special education and related services and the scope of their responsibilities.

○ Letter dated April 8, 2008 to Washington, DC Attorney Christine Plagata-Neubauer, concerning certain fiscal requirements in Part B of the IDEA, including excess costs, maintenance of effort, and use of funds.

○ Letter dated April 8, 2008 to Lehigh University Professor Perry A. Zirkel, concerning the additional procedures for identifying children with specific learning disabilities.

○ Letter dated May 6, 2008 to New York Attorney Edward J. Sarzynski, clarifying that public agencies must obtain parental consent before conducting evaluations to determine whether services should be increased or decreased and to determine a child's continued eligibility for services or changes to services.

○ Letter dated June 3, 2008 to individual (personally identifiable information redacted), concerning the relationship of the child's evaluation to the IEP Team's determination of the special education and related services to be provided to the child.

○ Letter dated June 3, 2008 to Indiana Attorney Joseph Daniel Thomas, clarifying the requirements for ensuring parent participation at IEP Team meetings when parents or their experts are unable to attend IEP Team meetings scheduled during regular school or business hours.

○ Letter dated May 1, 2008 to West Virginia Attorney James Gerl, clarifying that the time period for an expedited due process hearing commences on the date that the due process complaint requesting the hearing is filed and includes the resolution period.

○ Letter dated June 5, 2008 to Austin Independent School District General Counsel Ylise Janssen, concerning requirements for functional behavioral assessments (FBAs), State personnel qualifications for individuals who conduct FBAs, and use of funds from Part B of the IDEA to assist LEAs in providing FBAs.

○ Letter dated June 3, 2008 to Michigan Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services Supervisor of Program Improvement Frances F. Loose, reiterating the Department's position that the requirements in Part B of the IDEA governing significant disproportionality based on race and ethnicity apply to disciplinary actions.

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/index.html .

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.

This information collection request contains:

(1) Information Collection Request Title: National Priority Project Designation.

(2) Type of Review: New collection.

(3) Purpose: This collection of information is a form that DOE will make available electronically on the internet and which persons or organizations seeking National Priority Project Designation under Section 1405 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58) must use in applying for such designation. The draft application is available at http://www.eere.energy.gov/office_eere/docs/npp_application.doc . Published also in today's Federal Register , DOE published a notice of the guidelines for requesting National Priority Project Designation. The purpose of Presidential designation is to recognize energy projects that have advanced the field of renewable energy technology and contributed to North American energy security.

(4) Respondents: 20 each year.

(5) Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 400 hours annually.

EPAct 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58), Section 1405, authorizes the President, on the basis of recommendations of the Secretary of Energy, annually to designate as National Priority Projects those projects shown to have advanced the field of renewable energy technology and/or building energy efficiency and contributed to North American energy independence. Organizations whose projects receive a Presidential designation will receive a medal bearing the inscription “National Priority Project,” and they may use the National Priority Project Designation in promotion of the organization. DOE also will work with recipients and with national media sources to spotlight these projects as models for the rest of the country and the world.

Section 1405 of EPAct 2005 establishes selection criteria for the following four categories of renewable energy projects: (1) Wind and biomass energy generation projects; (2) photovoltaic and fuel cell energy generation projects; (3) energy efficient building and renewable energy projects; and (4) first-in class projects. Section 1405 also directs the Secretary of Energy to publish in the Federal Register guidelines for submitting applications and annual invitations for applications. DOE's Guidelines for National Priority Project Designation are set forth as an Appendix to this notice.

Following approval of the collection of information published also in today's Federal Register , DOE will publish an invitation for applications.

EPA has established a public docket for each of the ICRs identified in this document (see the Docket ID numbers for each ICR that are provided in the text), which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the HQ-OARM Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is 202-566-1752.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.

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

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

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

(1) Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2008-0828; (2) Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2008-0829

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by these two ICRs are contractors performing work at sensitive sites or on sensitive projects, and not covered under the provisions of Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12. Specifically, all contractors involved with Emergency Response, Superfund, Information Systems, Facility Services, and Research Support that have significant security concerns, as determined by the Contracting Officer, on a case-by-case basis, will be required to provide qualified personnel that meet the background check and drug testing requirements developed by EPA.

Titles: (1) Background Checks for Contractor Employees; (2) Drug Testing for Contractor Employees.

ICR numbers: (1) Background Checks for Contractor Employees, EPA ICR Number 2159.03, OMB Control Number 2030-0043; (2) Drug Testing for Contract Employees, EPA ICR Number 2183.03, OMB Control Number 2030-0044.

ICR status: These two ICRs are being renewed and are both currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2008.

Abstract: (1) Background checks cover citizenship or valid visa, criminal convictions, weapons offenses, felony convictions, parties prohibited from receiving federal contracts. (2) Drug tests are for the presence of marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines and phencyclidine (PCP). The Contractor shall maintain records of all background checks and drug tests.

Burden Statement: (1) The number of contractor employees expected to submit the requested information for background checks is 3,000 for the life of this ICR (3 years) or 1,000 occurrences per year. The number of annual occurrences, 1,000, multiplied by the respondent burden effort of 1 hour to collect information, equals a total of 1,000 hours per year. The total annual respondent cost for performing background checks collection requests is $179,000. This is calculated by multiplying the number of annual occurrences, 1,000, by the respondent cost of one collection, $179. (2) The number of contractor employees expected to submit the requested information for drug testing is 450 occurrences per year. The number of annual occurrences, 450, multiplied by the respondent burden effort of 1 hour to collect information, equals a total of 450 hours per year. The total annual respondent cost for this collection request is $65,250. This is calculated by multiplying the number of occurrences, 450, by the cost of one collection, $145. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

EPA estimates that the annual hourly burden for this collection will remain the same as reported in the previous information collection because there has been no change in the information being collected and approximately the same number of contracts remain active.

(3) Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2008-0825.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those holding cost reimbursable, time and material, labor hour, or indefinite quantity/ indefinite delivery fixed rate contracts with EPA.

Titles: Monthly Progress Reports.

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1039.12, OMB Control No. 2030-0005.

ICR status: This ICR is being renewed and is currently scheduled to expire on April 30, 2009.

Abstract: Agency contractors who have cost reimbursable, time and material, labor hour, or indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity fixed rate contracts will report the technical and financial progress of the contract on a monthly basis. EPA will use this information to monitor the contractor's progress under the contract. Responses to the information collection are mandatory for contractors, and are required for the contractors to receive monthly payments. Information submitted is protected from public release in accordance with the Agency's confidentiality regulations, 40 CFR 2.201 et seq.

Burden Statement: EPA estimates that each response will take approximately 36 hours. EPA anticipates that the total active affected contracts will remain approximately 324, times 12 submissions per year to yield about 3,888 annual collections. Each collection is estimated to cost $2,592 based on a variety of contractor personnel performing individual tasks required for information gathering and submission. The anticipated 3,888 annual submissions are estimated to cost $10,077,696 annually. Minimal operation and maintenance costs are expected for photocopying and postage.

EPA estimates that the annual hourly burden for this collection will remain the same as reported in the previous information collection because there has been no change in the information being collected and approximately the same number of contracts remain active.

(4) Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2008-0827.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those holding cost reimbursable contracts with EPA.

Titles: Contractor Cumulative Claim and Reconciliation.

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0246.10, OMB Control No. 2030-0016.

ICR status: This ICR is being renewed and is currently scheduled to expire on April 30, 2009.

Abstract: At the completion of a cost reimbursement contract, contractors will report final costs incurred, including direct labor, materials, supplies, equipment, other direct charges, subcontracting, consultant fees, indirect costs, and fixed fee. Contractors will report this information on EPA Form 1900-10. EPA will use this information to reconcile the contractor's costs. Establishment of the final costs and fixed fee is necessary to close out the contract. Responses to the information collection are mandatory for those contractors completing work under a cost reimbursement contract, and are required to receive final payment. Information submitted is protected from public release in accordance with the Agency's confidentiality regulation, 40 CFR 2.201 et seq.

Burden Statement: EPA estimates that the annual hourly burden will be 165 hours based on the following: Each response will take approximately 40 minutes, and EPA closes out approximately 247 contracts per year. The annual dollar burden is estimated at $5,404.36 based on a combination of contractor employees providing the information. The total cost of the contractor-provided information is estimated to be $21.88 for the 40 minute period. Minimal operation and maintenance costs are expected for photocopying and postage.

EPA estimates that the annual hourly burden for this collection will remain the same as reported in the previous information collection request because there has been no change in the information being collected and approximately the same number of contracts are closed out each year.

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

Section 4314(c) (1) through (5) of title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more performance review boards. The board shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any recommendations to the appointing authority relative to the performance of the senior executive.

The members of the performance review board are:

1. Joseph E. Brennan, Commissioner.

2. Harold J. Creel, Jr., Commissioner.

3. Rebecca F. Dye, Commissioner.

4. Clay G. Guthridge, Administrative Law Judge.

5. Florence A. Carr, Director, Bureau of Trade Analysis.

6. Karen V. Gregory, Secretary.

7. Vern W. Hill, Director, Bureau of Enforcement.

8. Peter J. King, General Counsel.

9. Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.

10. Austin L. Schmitt, Director of Operations.

For forty years, the Federal Trade Commission has published periodic reports containing data on domestic cigarette sales and marketing expenditures by the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers. The Commission has published comparable reports on smokeless tobacco sales and marketing expenditures since 1987. Both reports originally were issued pursuant to statutory mandates. After those statutory mandates were terminated, the Commission continued to collect and publish information obtained from the cigarette and smokeless tobacco industries pursuant to Section 6(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(b). The current PRA clearance to collect this information is valid through January 31, 2009, under OMB Control No. 3084-0134.

The FTC plans to continue sending information requests annually to the ultimate parent company of several of the largest cigarette companies and smokeless tobacco companies in the United States (“industry members”). The information requests will seek data regarding, inter alia : (1) the tobacco sales of industry members; (2) how much industry members spend advertising and promoting their tobacco products, and the specific amounts spent in each of several specified expenditure categories; (3) whether industry members are involved in the appearance of their tobacco products in television shows or movies; (4) how much industry members spend on advertising intended to reduce youth tobacco usage; (5) the events, if any, during which industry members’ tobacco brands are televised; and (6) for the cigarette industry, the tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide ratings of their cigarettes, to the extent they possess such data. The information will again be sought using compulsory process under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act.

On August 7, 2008, the FTC sought public comment on its proposed information collection requests to the major cigarette and smokeless tobacco manufacturers. 73 FR 46006. One comment was received, which is discussed below. 2 Pursuant to the OMB regulations that implement the PRA, 5 CFR Part 1320, the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to extend the existing paperwork clearance for the information collection requests. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or before December 15, 2008.

Altria Client Services Inc. filed a comment on behalf of Philip Morris USA Inc. (“PM USA”), in which it stated that PM USA believes the FTC’s authority to collect the proposed information “should be extended given the important role that the FTC has played and should continue to play relative to these products.” The comment then referenced a separate Commission matter, noting that if the FTC were to rescind its guidance that factual statements of cigarette tar and nicotine yields based on the Cambridge Filter Method generally do not violate the FTC Act, 3 PM USA would question the Commission’s need to continue collecting such information.

The matter referred to by PM USA is still being considered by the Commission. If the 1966 guidance is rescinded, the Commission will decide whether to continue collecting tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide yield data to the extent the companies possess them.

The FTC staff’s estimate of the hours burden is based on the time required to respond to each information request. Although the FTC currently anticipates sending information requests to the six largest cigarette companies and the five largest smokeless tobacco companies in 2009, 4 the burden estimate is based on up to 15 information requests being issued per year to take into account any future changes in these industries. These companies vary greatly in size, in the number of products that they sell, and in the extent and variety of their advertising and promotion. Prior input received from the industries, combined with staff’s knowledge of them, suggests that the time most companies would require to gather, organize, format, and produce their responses would range from 30 to 80 hours per information request for the smaller companies, to as much as hundreds of hours for the very largest companies. As an approximation, staff continues to assume a per company average of 180 hours for the ten largest recipients of the Commission’s information request to comply with it; cumulatively, 1,800 hours per year. 5 Staff further estimates that for the eleventh recipient of the information request to be issued in 2009 and the four possible additional recipients, all of which would be smaller companies than the initial ten recipients, the burden should not exceed 60 hours per company or 300 hours, cumulatively. Thus, the overall estimated burden for a maximum of 15 recipients of the information request is 2,100 hours. These estimates include any time spent by separately incorporated subsidiaries and other entities affiliated with the ultimate parent company that has received the information request.

Estimated cost burden:

It is not possible to calculate with precision the labor costs associated with this data production, as they entail varying compensation levels of management and/or support staff among companies of different sizes. Financial, legal, marketing, and clerical personnel may be involved in the information collection process. Commission staff assumes that professional personnel will handle most of the tasks involved in gathering and producing responsive information, and have applied an average hourly wage of $150/hour for their combined labor. Staff’s best estimate for the total labor costs for up to 15 information requests is $315,000. Staff believes that the capital or other non-labor costs associated with the information requests are minimal. Although the information requests may necessitate that industry members maintain the requested information provided to the Commission, they should already have in place the means to compile and maintain business records.

GSA, on behalf of the Federal Grants Streamlining Initiative, proposes to issue a new standard form, the Tangible Personal Property Report (SF-XXXX). The SF-XXXX includes a cover page, an Annual Report attachment, a Final Report attachment, a Disposition/Request Report attachment and a Supplemental Sheet to provide detailed item information. The purpose of this new form is to provide a standard form for assistance recipients to use when they are required to provide a Federal agency with information related to federally owned property, or equipment and supplies (tangible personal property) acquired with assistance award funds. The form does not create any new reporting requirements. It does establish a standard annual reporting date of September 30 to be used if an award does not specify an annual reporting date. The standard form will replace any agency unique forms currently in use to allow uniformity of collection and to support future electronic submission of information.

On November 16, 2007, GSA, on behalf of the Federal Grants Streamlining Initiative, announced in the Federal Register its intent to issue a new standard form, the Tangible Personal Property Report (SF-XXXX) (72 FR 64648).

Public Law 106-107 required OMB to direct, coordinate, and assist Executive Branch departments and agencies in establishing an interagency process to streamline and simplify Federal financial assistance procedures for non-Federal entities. The law also required executive agencies to develop, submit to the Congress, and implement a plan to achieve streamlined and simplified procedures.

Twenty-six Executive Branch agencies jointly submitted a plan to the Congress in May 2001, as the Act required. The plan described the interagency process through which the agencies would review current policies and practices, and seek to streamline and simplify them. The process involved interagency work groups under the auspices of the Grants Management Committee of the Chief Financial Officers Council. The plan also identified substantive areas in which the interagency work groups had begun their review.

One of the substantive areas that the agencies identified in the plan was a need to streamline and simplify Federal grant reporting requirements and procedures and associated business processes to reduce unnecessary burdens on recipients and to improve the timeliness, completeness and quality of the information collected.

Under the standards for management and disposition of federally owned property, equipment and supplies (tangible personal property) in 2 CFR part 215, the “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations”, and the “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with State and Local Governments”, codified by Federal agencies at 53 FR 8048 (March 11, 1988), recipients may be required to provide Federal agencies with information concerning property in their custody annually, at award closeout, or when the property is no longer needed.

During the public consultation process mandated by Public Law 106-107, recipients suggested the need for a standard form to help them submit appropriate property information when required. The Public Law 106-107 Post Award Reports Subgroup developed the Tangible Personal Property Report (SF-XXXX) for submission of required data in the situations outlined in the Table below:

Comment: Requested clarification as to whether the new report would take precedence over specific reporting requirements in the provisions of their awards.

Response: The (SF-XXXX) will replace any agency unique forms currently in use, but it does not create any new reporting requirements. The provisions of individual awards still apply.

This report will be used to collect information related to tangible personal property (and supplies) when required by a Federal financial assistance award. Since this form will primarily be used for reporting under grants, and GSA does not award grants, we are providing a burden estimate for one respondent.

Respondents: Federal agencies and their assistance recipients.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2.75.

Estimated Cost: There is no expected cost to the respondents or to GSA.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4041, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 208-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-XXXX, Tangible Personal Property Report, in all correspondence.

The report will be used to collect information related to real property when required by a Federal financial assistance award. The SF-XXXX includes a cover page, attachment A, “General Reporting”, attachment B, “Request To Acquire, Improve or Furnish” and attachment C, “Disposition Request.” The purpose of this new report is to assist recipients of grants and cooperative agreements when they are required to provide a Federal agency with information related to real property to which the Federal government holds an interest as a result of the real property being acquired, improved or furnished under a Federal financial assistance award, and for real property that was donated to a Federal project in the form of a required match or cost sharing donation. The report establishes a standard format for reporting real property status under financial assistance awards. It does establish an annual reporting date of September 30 to be used if an award does not specify an annual reporting date, unless Federal interest in the real property extends 15 years or longer. To create uniformity of collection and support future electronic submission of information, the standard reporting form will replace any agency unique forms currently in use.

The GSA, on behalf of the Federal Grants Streamlining Initiative, announced in the Federal Register on November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64646), its intent to issue a new standard report, the Real Property Status Report (SF-XXXX).

Public Law 106-107 required the OMB to direct, coordinate, and assist Executive Branch departments and agencies in establishing an interagency process to streamline and simplify Federal financial assistance procedures for non-Federal entities. The law also required executive agencies to develop, submit to the Congress, and implement a plan to achieve streamlined and simplified procedures.

Twenty-six Executive Branch agencies jointly submitted a plan to the Congress in May 2001, as the Act required. The plan described the interagency process through which the agencies would review current policies and practices, and seek to streamline and simplify them. The process involved interagency work groups under the auspices of the Grants Management Committee of the Chief Financial Officers Council. The plan also identified substantive areas in which the interagency work groups had begun their review.

One of the substantive areas that the agencies identified in the plan was a need to streamline and simplify Federal grant reporting requirements and procedures and associated business processes to reduce unnecessary burdens on recipients and to improve the timeliness, completeness and quality of the information collected.

Under the standards for management and disposition of federally owned property, and real property acquired under assistance awards (real property status) in 2 CFR part 215, the “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations”, and the “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With State and Local Governments”, codified by Federal agencies at 53 FR 8048 (March 11, 1988), recipients may be required to provide Federal agencies with information concerning property in their custody annually, at award closeout or when the property is no longer needed.

During the public consultation process mandated by Pub. L. 106-107, recipients suggested the need for clarification of these requirements and the establishment of a standard report to help them submit appropriate property information when required. The Real Property Status Report is to be used in connection with the requirements listed in the table below and Federal awarding agency guidelines:

Sixty-eight (68) comments were received in response to the November 16, 2007, Federal Register notice (72 FR 64646) regarding the RPSR. The majority of comments came from Federal agencies. Following the close of the comment period, an interagency team met to review the comments and make appropriate upgrades to the draft report. A summary of the comments and the work group responses are below:

Comment 1: The team received 9 comments regarding Attachment B, which was designed to capture recipient disposition requests and requests for acquisition, improvement or furnishing of real property. Agencies that do not allow requests for acquisition, improvement or furnishing in the post-award context expressed concern that the attachment may mislead recipients into believing it would be allowable to make such requests.

Response: There was confusion about the purpose of the original Attachment B because it contains both post-award requests and disposition instructions. The team revised the report to separate requests from disposition and created a new Attachment C. If a recipient is not allowed to make post-award requests to acquire, improve or to be furnished real property, Attachment B will be removed from the recipient reporting requirements at the time of award.

Comment 2: The team received 1 comment expressing concern that “Conservation Easement” was listed as an Ownership type.

Response: As it is not an Ownership type, “Conservation Easement” has been removed as an Ownership type but can be reported in the “Other” category.

Comment 3: The team received 1 comment expressing concern that the report did not request information regarding a property's requirements associated with the National Historic Preservation Act.

Response: The report has been updated to include a data request for any National Historic Preservation Act requirements related to the property.

Comment 4: The team received 3 comments regarding requests for additional program specific data blocks, such as the inclusion of detailed floor plans.

Response: The RPSR is designed for government-wide use. Agencies have the latitude to modify the form, with the OMB's approval, to require the reporting of additional information based on program need.

Comment 5: The team received 3 comments regarding the use of current agency data collection systems and the development of a new electronic solution for real property reporting.

Response: OMB has not made a decision regarding the development of a system for collecting real property report information. The data elements used to develop the report were taken from reporting instruments used throughout the Federal government. Agencies will be required to collect the data elements and may use existing agency systems or formats to do so, as long as those collections are consistent with the report. The intent is to issue the report in paper format with the expectation that it will be implemented electronically in the future.

Comment 6: The team received 1 comment on the proposed reporting frequency.

Response: Agencies will have the option to require reporting on a less than once a year basis not to exceed 5 years, ( e.g. , on a 2, 3 or up to a 5 year basis) based on program needs. Agencies cannot require reporting more frequently than on a quarterly basis.

Comment 7: The team received 3 comments regarding the implementation of the report. Agencies were concerned about whether the form would be used to report on past and current awards.

Response: The team plans to require the use of the report for all awards issued after the report is released as final. Agencies can individually determine whether or not to use the report retroactively.

Comment 8: The team received 8 comments from agencies questioning the need to collect certain data elements or noting that many agencies already collect information appearing on the report.

Response: OMB is requiring the submission of all information appearing on the report so that the Federal Government, as a whole, can better track the vast amounts of real property in which the government holds an interest. Currently information on real property in which the Federal Government holds an interest is not being captured in a standardized manner; and in some cases, is not being captured at all.

The RPSR data elements will be the standard elements for reporting on real property once implemented by 2 CFR part 45. The data elements used to develop the report were taken from reporting instruments being used throughout the Federal Government. Agencies will be required to collect the data elements and may use existing agency systems or formats to do so, as long as those collections are consistent with the report.

Comment 9: The team received 1 comment concerning potential duplicative burden on recipients who receive funding from multiple agencies.

Response: Requesting reports on each funding stream is not duplicative because each agency needs to be able to establish and identify its Federal interest.

Comment 10: The team received 5 questions and/or comments concerning who the report applies to, when it is applicable, and the regulatory requirement associated with it.

Response: The requirement to use the report will apply to all Federal financial assistance programs for awards that establish a Federal interest on real property. Currently, there is no regulatory requirement for real property reporting. The related regulatory requirement is being developed by OMB and will be included in 2 CFR part 45.

Comment 11: The team received 2 comments from agencies and grantee organizations concerning whether legislative requirements will take precedence over RPSR reporting requirements.

Response: If there is a statutory or regulatory basis for the agency's requirements, then those requirements take precedence to the report.

Comment 12: The team received 1 comment questioning whether “Federal interest” refers to real property and improvements acquired with Federal funds, and whether such interest would continue to the end of any use restrictions.

Response: Yes, Federal interest in real property is obtained by virtue of the use of Federal funding to acquire or improve the property and, for real property donated as required cost sharing or matching, unless excluded by statute or award terms. The related award instrument should specify the terms and duration of the Federal interest.

Comment 13: The team received 1 comment questioning the need for the Federal Government to impose a reporting requirement extending beyond the grant period on property donated to the Federal Government.

Response: The government acquires an interest in the total project, including any property recipients donate to the project as required cost sharing or matching. Through such donation, the government acquires a financial interest in the property, the value of which at any given time is the product of:

a. The Federal share of the project costs under the award; and

b. The current value of the property.

That interest remains until the government releases its interest in the property.

Comment 14: The team received 1 comment questioning whether “Tax Credits” are Federal or not.

Response: This is a legal question that individual agencies will need to determine.

Comment 15: The team received 1 comment questioning whether agencies will need to report on improvements to real property in which the Federal ownership is in question. For example: improvements to real property erected on Indian trust and allotted lands.

Response: This is a legal question that should be vetted by agency attorneys.

Comment 16: The team received 17 comments concerning the clarity of the instructions.

Response: Where necessary, the team revised the instruction language to clarify the type of data requested.

Comment 17: The team received 5 comments on the burden estimate for the report.

Response: The team reconsidered and revised the burden estimate.

Comment 18: The team received 5 general comments not requiring action or a response.

This report will be used by Federal agencies to collect information related to real property when required by a Federal financial assistance award. Since this report will be used primarily for reporting related to Federal financial assistance awards, we are providing a burden estimate for one respondent.

Respondents: Assistance recipients.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 4 (per submission).

Estimated Cost: There is no expected cost to the respondents or to OMB.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4041, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755, or by faxing your request to (202) 501-4067. Please cite the title, OMB Control No. 3090-XXXX, Real Property Status Report, in all correspondence.

This notice announces an administrative hearing to reconsider CMS' decision to disapprove Michigan SPA 07-21 which was submitted on December 28, 2007, and disapproved on September 2, 2008.

Under this SPA, the State indicated that it would provide for the implementation of an estate recovery program under sections 1902(a)(18) and 1917(b) of the Social Security Act (the Act). CMS issued a request for additional information on March 5, 2008, which included a request for information about the State's projected cost savings resulting from implementation of the estate recovery program. In discussions with CMS regarding submission of SPA 07-21, State officials stated that these projected cost savings estimates would require revision because the estate recovery program had in fact not yet become operational. The State did not provide additional information indicating when and to what extent it would come into compliance with sections 1902(a)(18) and 1917(b) of the Act. Thus, the State's overall submission did not provide sufficient detail or information for us to determine that the State has an estate recovery program that meets statutory requirements.

Based on the above, and after consultation with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services as required under Federal regulations at 42 CFR 430.15(c)(2), CMS disapproved Michigan Medicaid SPA 07-21.

The hearing will involve the following issues:

• Whether the State complied with the statutory requirements to implement an estate recovery program; and

• Whether the State has provided the information necessary for CMS to determine whether the plan can be approved to serve as a basis for Federal financial participation.

Section 1116 of the Act and Federal regulations at 42 CFR Part 430, establish Department procedures that provide an administrative hearing for reconsideration of a disapproval of a State plan or plan amendment. CMS is required to publish a copy of the notice to a State Medicaid agency that informs the agency of the time and place of the hearing, and the issues to be considered. If we subsequently notify the agency of additional issues that will be considered at the hearing, we will also publish that notice.

Any individual or group that wants to participate in the hearing as a party must petition the presiding officer within 15 days after publication of this notice, in accordance with the requirements contained at 42 CFR 430.76(b)(2). Any interested person or organization that wants to participate as amicus curiae must petition the presiding officer before the hearing begins in accordance with the requirements contained at 42 CFR 430.76(c). If the hearing is later rescheduled, the presiding officer will notify all participants.

The notice to Michigan announcing an administrative hearing to reconsider the disapproval of its SPA reads as follows:

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

This information collection approval request is for an FDA guidance on the procedures for formal meetings between FDA and sponsors or applicants regarding the development and review of PDUFA products. The guidance describes procedures for requesting, scheduling, conducting, and documenting such formal meetings. The guidance provides information on how the agency will interpret and apply section 119(a) of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (the Modernization Act), specific PDUFA goals for the management of meetings associated with the review of human drug applications for PDUFA products, and provisions of existing regulations describing certain meetings (§§ 312.47 and 312.82 (21 CFR 312.47 and 312.82)).

The guidance describes two collections of information: The submission of a meeting request containing certain information and the submission of an information package in advance of the formal meeting. Agency regulations at §§ 312.47(b)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(iv), and (b)(2) describe information that should be submitted in support of a request for an End-of-Phase 2 meeting and a Pre-New Drug Application meeting. The information collection provisions of § 312.47 have been approved by OMB (OMB Control No. 0910-0014). However, the guidance provides additional recommendations for submitting information to FDA in support of a meeting request. As a result, FDA is submitting additional estimates for OMB approval.

Under the guidance, a sponsor or applicant interested in meeting with the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) or the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) should submit a meeting request to the appropriate FDA component as an amendment to the underlying application. FDA regulations (§§ 312.23, 314.50, and 601.2 (21 CFR 312.23, 314.50, and 601.2)) state that information provided to the agency as part of an Investigational New Drug Application (IND), NDA, or Biological License Application (BLA) must be submitted with an appropriate cover form. Form FDA 1571 must accompany submissions under INDs and Form FDA 356h must accompany submissions under NDAs and BLAs. Both forms have valid OMB control numbers as follows: FDA Form 1571 (OMB Control No. 0910-0014) and FDA Form 356h (OMB Control No. 0910-0338).

In the guidance document, CDER and CBER ask that a request for a formal meeting be submitted as an amendment to the application for the underlying product under the requirements of §§ 312.23, 314.50, and 601.2; therefore, requests should be submitted to the agency with the appropriate form attached, either Form FDA 1571 or Form FDA 356h. The agency recommends that a request be submitted in this manner for two reasons: (1) To ensure that each request is kept in the administrative file with the entire underlying application and (2) to ensure that pertinent information about the request is entered into the appropriate tracking databases. Use of the information in the agency's tracking databases enables the agency to monitor progress on the activities attendant to scheduling and holding a formal meeting and to ensure that appropriate steps will be taken in a timely manner.

Under the guidance, the agency requests that sponsors and applicants include in meeting requests certain information about the proposed meeting as follows:

• Information identifying and describing the product,

• The type of meeting being requested,

• A brief statement of the purpose of the meeting,

• A list of objectives and expected outcomes from the meeting,

• A preliminary proposed agenda,

• A draft list of questions to be raised at the meeting,

• A list of individuals who will represent the sponsor or applicant at the meeting,

• A list of agency staff requested to be in attendance,

• The approximate date that the information package will be sent to the agency, and

• Suggested dates and times for the meeting.

This information will be used by the agency to determine the utility of the meeting, to identify agency staff necessary to discuss proposed agenda items, and to schedule the meeting.

A sponsor or applicant submitting an information package to the agency in advance of a formal meeting should provide summary information relevant to the product and supplementary information pertaining to any issue raised by the sponsor, applicant, or agency. The agency recommends that information packages generally include:

• Identifying information about the underlying product,

• A brief statement of the purpose of the meeting,

• A list of objectives and expected outcomes of the meeting,

• A proposed agenda for the meeting,

• A list of specific questions to be addressed at the meeting,

• A summary of clinical data that will be discussed (as appropriate),

• A summary of preclinical data that will be discussed (as appropriate), and

• Chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information that may be discussed (as appropriate).

The purpose of the information package is to provide agency staff the opportunity to adequately prepare for the meeting, including the review of relevant data concerning the product. Although FDA reviews similar information in the meeting request, the information package should provide updated data that reflect the most current and accurate information available to the sponsor or applicant. The agency finds that reviewing such information is critical to achieving a productive meeting.

The collection of information described in the guidance reflects the current and past practice of sponsors and applicants to submit meeting requests as amendments to INDs, NDAs, and BLAs and to submit background information prior to a scheduled meeting. Agency regulations currently permit such requests and recommend the submission of an information package before an End-of- Phase 2 meeting (§§ 312.47(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(1)(iv)) and a Pre-NDA meeting (§ 312.47(b)(2)).

Description of respondents : A sponsor or applicant for a drug or biological product who requests a formal meeting with the agency regarding the development and review of a PDUFA product.

Burden Estimate : An estimate of the annual reporting burden for the submission of meeting requests and information packages under the guidance is provided in table 1 of this document.

Based on data collected from the review divisions and offices within CDER and CBER, FDA estimates that approximately 907 sponsors and applicants (respondents) request approximately 2,210 formal meetings with CDER annually and approximately 144 respondents request approximately 287 formal meetings with CBER annually regarding the development and review of a PDUFA product. The hours per response, which is the estimated number of hours that a respondent would spend preparing the information to be submitted with a meeting request in accordance with the guidance, is estimated to be approximately 10 hours. Based on FDA's experience, the agency expects it will take respondents this amount of time to gather and copy brief statements about the product and a description of the purpose and details of the meeting.

Based on data collected from the review divisions and offices within CDER and CBER, FDA estimates that approximately 774 respondents submitted approximately 1,705 information packages to CDER annually and approximately 120 respondents submitted approximately 198 information packages to CBER annually before a formal meeting regarding the development and review of a PDUFA product. The hours per response, which is the estimated number of hours that a respondent would spend preparing the information package in accordance with the guidance, is estimated to be approximately 18 hours. Based on FDA's experience, the agency expects it will take respondents this amount of time to gather and copy brief statements about the product, a description of the details for the anticipated meeting, and data and information that generally would already have been compiled for submission to the agency.

As stated earlier, the guidance provides information on how the agency will interpret and apply section 119(a) of the Modernization Act, specific PDUFA goals for the management of meetings associated with the review of human drug applications for PDUFA products, and provisions of existing regulations describing certain meetings (§§ 312.47 and 312.82). The information collection provisions in § 312.47 concerning End-of-Phase 2 meetings and Pre-NDA meetings have been approved by OMB (OMB Control No. 0910-0014). However, the guidance provides additional recommendations for submitting information to FDA in support of a meeting request. As a result, FDA is submitting these additional estimates for OMB approval.

Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only through FDMS at http://www.regulations.gov .

The purpose of the interim safety/risk assessment is to identify the level of melamine and melamine-related compounds in food which would not raise public health concerns. On September 11, 2008, FDA learned that melamine may be contained in an infant formula manufactured by a firm in China. As of September 21, 2008, FDA learned that a total of 52,857 cases of nephrolithiasis (and, in some instances, renal failure) had been reported in China linked to consumption of this contaminated powdered formula. There have been approximately 13,000 hospitalizations, and at least 3 deaths have been confirmed to date. The results of an investigation conducted in China indicated that Chinese-produced powdered infant formula was linked to these illnesses; no cases were associated with liquid infant formula. Test results conducted in China on samples of the powdered infant formula showed that they contained a wide range of concentrations (0.1 parts per million (ppm) to greater than 2,500 ppm melamine). In addition, other countries have reported detection of melamine in other product categories, such as confections and beverages.

The interim safety/risk assessment concludes that, based on currently available data and information, there is too much uncertainty for FDA to establish a level of melamine and its analogues in infant formula that does not raise public health concerns. In foods other than infant formula, FDA concludes that levels of melamine and melamine-related compounds below 2.5 ppm do not raise public health concerns. This interim safety/risk assessment was developed rapidly due to the extremely time-sensitive need to understand the nature of the potential risk. We are seeking public comment on this interim safety/risk assessment. In addition, it will undergo expert peer review.

A human health safety/risk assessment is a scientifically-based methodology used to estimate risk to human health from exposure to specific compounds such as contaminant(s) in food. The interim safety/risk assessment of melamine and its analogues builds upon the 2007 Melamine Safety/Risk Assessment and considers the toxicological profile of melamine and its analogues, including the observed results from controlled animal studies conducted with melamine.

For infant formula, there are gaps in our scientific knowledge about the toxicity of melamine and its analogues in infants, including:

1. The consequences of the continuous use of infant formulas as the sole source of nutrition;

2. The uncertainties associated with the possible presence and co-ingestion of more than one melamine analogue; and

3. For premature infants with immature kidney function, the possibility that they may be fed these formulas as the sole source of nutrition and thus on a body weight basis experience greater levels of intake for a longer time than is experienced by term infants. For these reasons, there is too much uncertainty for FDA to establish a level of melamine and its analogues in infant formula that does not raise public health concerns. However, it is important to understand that this does not mean that any exposure to any detectable level of melamine and melamine-related compounds in formula will result in harm to infants.

In food products other than infant formula, to estimate the level of melamine that does not raise public health concerns, FDA used a worst case exposure scenario in which one-half of a person's total daily dietary intake (Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI), an estimate of the maximum amount of an agent to which an individual could be exposed on a daily basis over the course of a lifetime without appreciable health risk) is contaminated with melamine and its analogues. The TDI used, 0.63 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) body weight/day (bw/d), was developed in 2007 in collaboration with the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture and in consultation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security. 1 In the present interim safety/risk assessment, we estimated that if 50 percent of the diet were contaminated at a level of 2.5 ppm of melamine and its analogues, a person's daily intake would equal 0.063 mg/kg bw/d —a level 10-fold below the TDI. Therefore, FDA concludes that levels of melamine and melamine-related compounds below 2.5 ppm do not raise public health concerns in food other than infant formula.

Recognizing the time-sensitive need for the safety/risk assessment, FDA invites comments concerning:

1. The assessment approach used;

2. The assumptions made;

3. The data used; and

4. The transparency and clarity of the report.

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding this document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only through FDMS at http://www.regulations.gov .

The interim safety/risk assessment is available electronically at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/melamra3.html .

The agency requests nominations for nonvoting industry representatives to the following advisory committees.

The Committee reviews and evaluates available data relating to the safety, effectiveness, and appropriate use of human cells, human tissues, gene transfer therapies and xenotransplantation products which are intended for transplantation, implantation, infusion and transfer in the prevention and treatment of a broad spectrum of human diseases and in the reconstruction, repair or replacement of tissues for various conditions. The Committee also considers the quality and relevance of FDA's research program which provides scientific support for the regulation of these products, and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner).

The Committee reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety, effectiveness, and appropriate use of vaccines and related biological products which are intended for use in the prevention, treatment, or diagnosis of human diseases, and, as required, any other product for which FDA has regulatory responsibility. The Committee as considers the quality and relevance of FDA's research program which provides scientific support for the regulation of these products and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner.

The Committee reviews and evaluates available scientific data concerning the safety of products which may be at risk for transmission of spongiform encephalopathies having an impact on the public health as determined by the Commissioner. The Committee will make recommendations to the Commissioner regarding the regulation of such products.

Any industry organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry interests should send a letter stating that interest to the FDA contact (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) within 30 days of publication of this document (see DATES ). Within the subsequent 30 days, FDA will send a letter to each organization that has expressed an interest, attaching a complete list of all such organizations; and a list of all nominees along with their current resumes. The letter will also state that it is the responsibility of the interested organizations to confer with one another and to select a candidate, within 60 days after the receipt of the FDA letter, to serve as the nonvoting member to represent industry interests for a particular committee. The interested organizations are not bound by the list of nominees in selecting a candidate. However, if no individual is selected within 60 days, the Commissioner will select the nonvoting member to represent industry interests.

Individuals may self nominate and/or an organization may nominate one or more individuals to serve as a nonvoting industry representative. A current curriculum vitae and the name of the committee of interest should be sent to the FDA contact person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) within the 30 days (see DATES ). FDA will forward all nominations to the organizations expressing interest in participating in the selection process for the committee. (Persons who nominate themselves as nonvoting industry representatives will not participate in the selection process.)

FDA has a special interest in ensuring that women, minority groups, individuals with physical disabilities, and small businesses are adequately represented on its advisory committees, and therefore, encourages nominations for appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.

This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

With this notice, we finalize the CCP process for the Kanuti Refuge. We started this process through a notice of intent in the Federal Register (68 FR 66475, November 26, 2003) and a revised notice of intent in the Federal Register (71 FR 42117, July 25, 2006). We announced the availability of the draft CCP and EA, and requested comments in a notice of availability in the Federal Register (72 FR 27327, May 15, 2007). We announced an extension of the comment period, until September 15, 2007, with a notice in the Federal Register (72 FR 39438, July 18, 2007).

Kanuti Refuge is roadless and lies on the Arctic Circle about 150 miles northwest of Fairbanks, Alaska. It is situated in a broad basin formed by the Koyukuk and Kanuti rivers between the Brooks Range and the Ray Mountains. The Dalton Highway and Alyeska pipeline lie within eight miles of its eastern boundary. The refuge consists of nearly 1.3 million acres of Federal lands within an external boundary that encompasses approximately 1.6 million acres of Federal, State, and private lands. The landscape consists primarily of rolling hills, wetlands, ponds, and streams. Elevations range from 500 feet to over 3,000 feet. The major natural resources are wildlife, fisheries, and their associated habitats.

We announce our decision and the availability of the FONSI for the revised CCP for the Kanuti Refuge in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1506.6(b)) requirements. We completed a thorough analysis of impacts on the human environment in the EA that accompanied the draft revised CCP.

The CCP will guide us in managing and administering the Kanuti Refuge for the next 15 years. The revised CCP is a modification of Alternative C, the preferred alternative in the draft CCP, developed in response to public comments.

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (94 Stat. 2371; ANILCA) and the National Wildlife Refuge system Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) require us to develop a CCP for each Alaska refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with national policy and ANILCA. ANILCA requires us is to designate areas according to their respective resources and values and to specify programs and uses within the areas designated. To meet this requirement, the Alaska Region established management categories for refuges including Wilderness, Minimal, Moderate, Intensive, and Wild River management. For each management category we identified appropriate activities, public uses, commercial uses, and facilities. Only the Minimal and Moderate management categories are applied to Kanuti Refuge.

Our draft CCP and EA addressed two issues and evaluated three alternatives. The two significant issues raised during scoping were a desire for conservation of the natural character of the refuge and acceptance of and integration of new management policies and guidelines for refuges in Alaska. Alternative A (the no-action alternative—a NEPA requirement) described what would happen with a continuation of current management activities and served as a baseline for comparison of other alternatives. Under Alternative A, management of the refuge would continue to follow the current course of action. Refuge lands would remain in their present management categories, with 33 percent in Moderate management and 67 percent in Minimal management. Alternative B would convert all refuge lands now in Moderate management to Minimal management and incorporate new regional policies and guidelines for national wildlife refuges in Alaska. Our selected alternative, the slightly modified Alternative C, would reclassify some refuge lands and would incorporate new regional policies and guidelines for national wildlife refuges in Alaska. Eighty-six percent of the refuge would be in Minimal management and 14 percent in Moderate management.

We solicited comments on the draft CCP/EA for Kanuti Refuge from May 15, 2007, through September 15, 2007. During the public review and comment period the Service held public meetings in Alatna, Allakaket, Bettles, Evansville, and Fairbanks. The planning team reviewed, analyzed, and summarized all comments received at the public meetings and in writing. We received a number of comments which suggested changes in the management category boundaries we had proposed in the draft plan. Generally, local residents and community leaders preferred that refuge lands adjoining private lands near their communities be in the moderate management category. Conversely, others preferred to see more of the refuge in the Minimal management category. In response to the comments received, we modified Alternative C, and adopted it as our management direction.

Under the selected alternative, 13.6 percent of Federal lands within the refuge boundary are classified Moderate management. The original Alternative C classified 14.7 percent of refuge lands Moderate management. The main changes in the selected alternative were in location of Moderate management lands. In the northwestern portion of the refuge an area, which includes the upper reaches of Henshaw Creek, some Moderate management lands were reclassified Minimal management. The new northwestern boundary of the Moderate management area is offset 2 miles to the north of the Allakaket-Bettles trail. The lower boundary of this area remains the same as in the draft plan. An area of Minimal management south of Evansville and Bettles which is surrounded by private lands was reclassified Moderate management. Also, a smaller area of Minimal management south of Bettles which is surrounded by private lands, Moderate management, and the refuge boundary was reclassified Moderate management.

The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 16 2/3 percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate lease COC71373 effective July 1, 2008, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.

The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 16 2/3 percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate lease COC70104 effective July 1, 2008, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.

The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 16 2/3 percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate lease COC70105 effective July 1, 2008, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.

The following described land in Fairbanks, Alaska, was patented to the City of Fairbanks, pursuant to the Act of Congress of June 14, 1926 (44 Stat. 741, as amended; 43 U.S.C. 869) on November 2, 1964 for a public park. Certificate of Approval of Transfer and Change of Use was issued on July 25, 2007, to the Greater Fairbanks Community Hospital Foundation, Inc., for use for Hospital Support Purposes instead of a public park recreation site.

The east 33 feet of Lot 69, U.S. Survey 3148, situated within Sec. 15, T. 1 S, R. 1W, subsequently surveyed as west 33 feet of Lot 70-A-1 containing 4,519.35 square feet. The patent contains a reversionary interest to the United States. The Greater Fairbanks Community Hospital Foundation, Inc., requests the purchase of the reversionary interest at not less than the fair market value of $6,299.75 as determined by a BLM-approved appraisal for a portion of the patented land, on the following described land.

The Federal interest has been examined and found suitable for sale under the provisions of section 203 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-579, as amended; 43 CRF 2711.3-3).

Direct sale procedures to the Greater Fairbanks Community Hospital Foundation, Inc., are considered appropriate in this case, as the land was transferred to the Greater Fairbanks Community Hospital Foundation, Inc., and transfer of the Federal interest to any other entity would not protect existing equities in the land. The direct sale is consistent with current Bureau planning for this area and would be in the public interest. The land is not required for any Federal purpose. The patent will be subject to the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior and the land will continue to be subject to the following reservations to the United States:

1. Any vested and accrued water rights for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes, and rights to ditches and reservoirs used in connection with such water rights, as may be recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and decisions of courts.

2. A right-of-way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 391, 43 U.S.C. 945).

3. A right-of-way for the construction of railroads, telegraph and telephone lines, in accordance with the Act of March 12, 1914 (36 Stat. 305; 48 U.S.C. Sec 308).

4. All mineral deposits in the land, together with the right to prospect for, mine and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe.

Detailed information concerning this action, including the approved appraisal report, is available for review at the Central Yukon Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 1150 University Ave., Fairbanks, AK 99709.

Written comments must be received by the Central Yukon Field Manager, at the address stated above, on or before the date stated above. Facsimiles, telephone calls, and e-mails are unacceptable means of notification. Comments including names and street addresses of respondents will be available for public review at the BLM Central Yukon Field Office during regular business hours, except holidays. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the BLM Alaska State Director, who may sustain, vacate or modify this realty action. In the absence of any objections, or adverse comments, the proposed realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior.

Title: “30 CFR Parts 210 and 212, Royalty and Production Reporting.”

OMB Control Number: 1010-0139.

Bureau Form Number: Forms MMS-2014, MMS-4054, and MMS-4058.

Abstract: The Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior is responsible for mineral resource development on Federal and Indian lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The Secretary is required by various laws to manage mineral resource production from Federal and Indian leases, collect the royalties and other mineral revenues due, and distribute the funds in accordance with applicable laws. Public laws pertaining to mineral leases on Federal and Indian lands are posted on our Web site at http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/PublicLawsAMR.htm .

The Secretary also has a trust responsibility to manage Indian lands and seek advice and information from Indian beneficiaries. The MMS performs the minerals revenue management functions and assists the Secretary in carrying out the Department's trust responsibility for Indian lands.

The MMS financial accounting system is an integrated computer system that includes payment and sales volumes and values, as reported by payors. Production and royalty volumes are compared to verify that proper royalties are received for the minerals produced. Additionally, the data is shared electronically with the MMS Offshore and Energy and Minerals Management program, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and tribal and state governments so they can perform their lease management responsibilities.

The MMS uses the information collected in this ICR to ensure that royalty is appropriately paid, based on accurate production accounting on oil, gas, and geothermal resources produced from Federal and Indian leases. The requirement to report accurately and timely is mandatory.

The regulations require that lessees report and remit royalties on oil, gas, and geothermal resources produced from leases on Federal and Indian lands. The following form is used for royalty reporting:

Form MMS-2014, Report of Sales and Royalty Remittance, is submitted monthly to report royalties on oil, gas, and geothermal leases, certain rents, and other lease-related transactions (e.g., transportation and processing allowances, lease adjustments, and quality and location differentials).

The MMS financial accounting system includes production reports submitted by lease/agreement operators and is designed to track minerals produced from Federal and Indian lands from the point of production to the point of disposition, or royalty determination, and/or point of sale. The following forms are used for production accounting and reporting:

Form MMS-4054, Oil and Gas Operations Report (OGOR), is submitted monthly for all production reporting for Outer Continental Shelf, Federal, and Indian lands. Production information is compared with sales and royalty data submitted on Form MMS-2014 to ensure proper royalties are paid on the oil and gas production reported to MMS. The MMS uses the information from Parts A, B, and C of the OGOR to track all oil and gas from the point of production to the point of first sale or other disposition.

Form MMS-4058, Production Allocation Schedule Report (PASR), is submitted monthly by operators of the facilities and measurement points where production from an offshore lease or metering point is commingled with production from other sources before it is measured for royalty determination. The MMS uses the data to determine whether sales reported by the lessee are reasonable.

We will request OMB approval to continue to collect this information. Not collecting this information would limit the Secretary's ability to discharge his/her duties and may also result in loss of royalty payments. Proprietary information submitted to MMS under this collection is protected, and no items of a sensitive nature are included in this information collection. Responses are mandatory.

Frequency: Monthly.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: 4,570 oil, gas, and geothermal reporters.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: 236,421 hours. Our estimate of the number of respondents and the time required to complete the forms has not changed. However, the citations changed when the final rule, RIN 1010-AD20, Reporting Amendments, published on March 26, 2008. The final rule removed 30 CFR part 216 and replaced part 210 in its entirety and also removed the requirement at § 216.30, which changed the burden by 1 hour.

We have not included in our estimates certain requirements performed in the normal course of business and considered usual and customary. The following chart shows the estimated burden hours by CFR section and paragraph:

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour” Cost Burden:

Reporters require access to the Internet through a subscription to an Internet provider service. The annual subscription is estimated at $240 per reporter.

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Comments: Before submitting an ICR to OMB, PRA Section 3506(c)(2)(A) requires each agency to “* * * provide 60-day notice in the Federal Register * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *.” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

The PRA also requires agencies to estimate the total annual reporting “non-hour cost” burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. If you have costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. You should describe the methods you use to estimate major cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup costs include, among other items, computers and software you purchase to prepare for collecting information; monitoring, sampling, and testing equipment; and record storage facilities. Generally, your estimates should not include equipment or services purchased: (i) Before October 1, 1995; (ii) to comply with requirements not associated with the information collection; (iii) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Government; or (iv) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our ICR submission for OMB approval, including appropriate adjustments to the estimated burden. We will provide a copy of the ICR to you without charge upon request. The ICR also will be posted on our Web site at http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/FRNotices/FRInfColl.htm .

Public Comment Policy: We will post all comments in response to this notice at http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/FRNotices/FRInfColl.htm . We also will post all comments, including names and addresses of respondents, at http://www.regulations.gov. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public view your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz (202) 208-7744.

The purpose of the proposed spillway replacement action is to prevent a structural failure of the Minidoka Dam spillway and associated structures.

Minidoka Dam impounds Lake Walcott and is a feature of Reclamation's Minidoka Project. They are located on the main stem Snake River about 18 miles northeast from the city of Burley, ID within the Minidoka Wildlife Refuge. After over 103 years of continued use, the over 2000 feet long concrete spillway at the Minidoka Dam has reached the end of its functional lifespan. The concrete that forms the spillway crest and the piers of the pier-and-stoplog structure shows extensive visible deterioration at numerous locations. In addition, the potential for ice damage to the stoplog piers requires that reservoir water levels be dropped each winter. The headgate structures at the North Side Canal and South Side Canal also show serious concrete deterioration similar to that seen along the spillway. The current conditions of the Minidoka Dam spillway and headgate structures present increasingly difficult reliability and maintenance problems. If structural problems are not corrected there is potential of partial or complete failure of the spillway and headgates. If these failures occur, Reclamation may not be able to meet contractual obligations for water delivery, power generation and Reclamation's commitments to deliver flow augmentation water under the Nez Perce Settlement Agreement and the Endangered Species Act.

A related action which may be considered is a structural raise (to be determined) of Minidoka Dam to accommodate a 5-foot raise in the Reservoir Water Surface (RWS) elevation. The Idaho Water Resource Board (IWRB) is funding a special study that explores the feasibility and costs associated with this action. The purpose of the dam raise is to increase the storage capacity of Lake Walcott by approximately 50,000 acre-feet as one element of efforts to address water supply concerns in the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer area. The IWRB anticipates the additional supplies of stored water could be used to help address surface and groundwater demands by implementing improvement measures being considered by the State. If the IWRB decides to pursue this action, a supplemental EIS will be developed to evaluate impacts.

Reclamation will conduct public scoping meetings to solicit input on the alternatives developed to address replacement of the Minidoka Dam Spillway and associated structures and the impacts associated with those alternatives. Reclamation will summarize comments received during the scoping meetings and written comments received during the scoping period, identified under DATES , into a scoping summary document which will be made available to those who have provided comments. It will also be available to others upon request and will be posted on the Web site listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION .

If you wish to comment, you may provide your comments as indicated under the ADDRESSES section. Before including your name, address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment (including your personal identifying information) may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The data submitted annually on the ETA-204 report enables the Employment and Training Administration to project revenues for the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program on a state-by-state basis and to measure the variations in assigned contribution rates which result from different experience rating systems. Used in conjunction with other data, the ETA-204 assists in determining the effects of certain factors (e.g., seasonality, stabilization, expansion or contraction in employment, etc.) on the unemployment experience of various groups of employers. The data also provide an early signal for potential solvency problems and are useful in analyzing factors which give rise to these potential problems and permit an evaluation of the effectiveness of the various approaches available to correct the detected problems. Further, the data are key components to the “Significant Tax Measures Report” which provides the information necessary to evaluate and compare state UI tax systems.

Currently, the Employment and Training Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the ETA-204, Experience Rating Report which:

• 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;

• 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;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• 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 submissions of responses.

A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this notice.

Type of Review: Extension without change.

Agency: Employment and Training Administration (ETA).

Title: Experience Rating Report.

OMB Number: 1205-0164.

Agency Number: ETA 204.

Affected Public: State Governments.

Total Respondents: 53.

Frequency: Annual.

Total Responses: 53.

Average Time per Response: 15 minutes.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 13 Hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintaining): $0.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.

The proposed meetings are for the purpose of panel review, discussion, evaluation and recommendation on applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including discussion of information given in confidence to the agency by the grant applicants. Because the proposed meetings will consider information that is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential and/or information of a personal nature the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, pursuant to authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee meetings, dated July 19, 1993, I have determined that these meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to subsections (c) (4), and (6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.

1. Date: December 2, 2008.

Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 415.

Program: This meeting will review applications for U.S. History and Culture IV in Preservation and Access Humanities Collections and Resources, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access, at the July 31, 2008 deadline.

2. Date: December 2, 2008.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 402.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Digital Humanities Start-Up Grants, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities, at the October 8, 2008 deadline.

3. Date: December 4, 2008.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 402.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Digital Humanities Start-Up Grants, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities, at the October 8, 2008 deadline.

4. Date: December 4, 2008.

Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 415.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Visual Arts in Preservation and Access Humanities Collections and Resources, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access, at the July 31, 2008 deadline.

5. Date: December 5, 2008.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 402.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Digital Humanities Start-Up Grants, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities, at the October 8, 2008 deadline.

6. Date: December 9, 2008.

Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 415.

Program: This meeting will review applications for World Studies II in Preservation and Access Humanities Collections and Resources, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access, at the July 31, 2008 deadline.

7. Date: December 11, 2008.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 402.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Digital Humanities Start-Up Grants, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities, at the October 8, 2008 deadline.

8. Date: December 12, 2008.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 402

Program: This meeting will review applications for Digital Humanities Start-Up Grants, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities, at the October 8, 2008 deadline.

9. Date: December 15, 2008.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 315.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Fellowship Programs at Independent Research Institutions, submitted to the Division of Research Programs, at the August 18, 2008 deadline.

10. Date: December 15, 2008.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 995 N, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, Virginia 22230.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Documenting Endangered Languages, submitted to the Division of Research Programs, at the September 15, 2008 deadline.

11. Date: December 16, 2008

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 995 N, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, Virginia 22230.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Documenting Endangered Languages, submitted to the Division of Research Programs, at the September 15, 2008 deadline.

12. Date: December 17, 2008.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 995 N, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, Virginia 22230.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Documenting Endangered Languages, submitted to the Division of Research Programs, at the September 15, 2008 deadline.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Source Materials License No. STC-133. This license is held by Defense Logistics Agency (DLA or the Licensee) at multiple sites. The site at issue is its Defense National Stockpile Center located at U.S. Highway 469, in New Haven, Indiana (the Facility). Issuance of the amendment would authorize the licensee to use site-specific Derived Concentration Guideline Levels (DCGLs) in a survey of the Facility to determine if the Facility can be released for unrestricted use under the criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402. The Licensee requested this action in a letter dated February 27, 2008. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the Federal Register .

The proposed action would approve the Licensee's February 27, 2008, license amendment request to use site-specific DCGLs as part of a later request (not yet submitted) to release the Facility for unrestricted use under the criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402. License No. STC-133 was issued on July 23, 1983, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 40, and has been amended periodically since that time. This license authorized the Licensee to use unsealed source material for purposes of storage, sampling, repackaging, and transfer.

Based on the approved DCGLs, the Licensee will conduct surveys of the Facility and provide information to the NRC to demonstrate that the Facility meets the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release.

The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities at the Facility, and seeks the approval of site-specific DCGLs. The licensee needs these site specific DCGL values for determining if the Facility meets the criteria for unrestricted use. NRC is fulfilling its responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act to make a timely decision on a proposed license amendment that ensures protection of public health and safety and the environment.

The historical review of licensed activities conducted at the Facility shows that such activities involved use of the following radionuclides with half-lives greater than 120 days: natural uranium and thorium mixtures.

An amendment specifying the site specific DCGLs is required before the Licensee can use such DCGL values to later demonstrate compliance with unrestricted release criteria. The Licensee conducted site-specific dose modeling using input parameters specific to the Facility and a conservative assumption that all residual radioactivity is in equilibrium. The Licensee has selected a resident farmer to be a reasonable conservative scenario to bound the doses to future individuals. The Licensee utilized the RESRAD Version 6.3 computer code to calculate the resulting dose. The Licensee modified a number of parameters based on site-specific information and provided documentation of the hierarchy of informational sources used to derive data values consistent with the site-specific information from general literature values. The Licensee's report provides justification for the selection of each of its parameters. The NRC has reviewed the Licensee's methodology and proposed DCGLs and finds that the proposed DCGLs are acceptable for use at the Facility.

Based on its review, the staff has concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply denying the amendment request. Denying the amendment request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered.

The NRC staff has concluded that the site specific DCGLs identified by the Licensee are acceptable for use at its Facility. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative.

NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the State of Indiana's Department of Health for review on October 2, 2008. On October 16, 2008, the State of Indiana's Department of Health responded by electronic mail. The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and otherwise had no comments.

The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate.

Documents related to this action, including the application for license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers.

1. NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance;”

2. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, “Radiological Criteria for License Termination;”

3. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions;”

4. Defense Logistics Agency letter dated February 27, 2008 (ML080860268);

5. Site-Specific Derived Concentration Guideline Levels for Soils, Defense National Stockpile Center, New Haven Depot, New Haven, Indiana (ML082630683); and

6. Appendix A & B for Site-Specific Derived Concentration Guideline Levels for Soils, Defense National Stockpile Center, New Haven Depot, New Haven, Indiana (ML082390288).

If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.

USTR is providing notice that consultations have been requested pursuant to the WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”). If such consultations should fail to resolve the matter and a dispute settlement panel is established pursuant to the DSU, such panel, which would hold its meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, would be expected to issue a report on its findings and recommendations within nine months after it is established.

On September 19, 2008, China requested consultations regarding the Department of Commerce's final antidumping and countervailing duty determinations and orders regarding the following products from China: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe (Investigations A-570-910 and C-570-911); Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires (Investigations A-570-912 and C-570-913); Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube (Investigations A-570-914 and C-570-915); and Laminated Woven Sacks (Investigations A-570-916 and C-570-917). These final determinations and orders are available at the following Web pages of the Department of Commerce: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/0806frn/index.html#CHINA, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/0807frn/index.html#CHINA, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/-frn/0808frn/index.html#CHINA, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/0809frn/index.html#CHINA.

With respect to certain of the aforementioned determinations, China alleges that the Department of Commerce acted inconsistently with particular provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, WTO Agreement on Anti-Dumping (“Anti-Dumping Agreement”), and Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”) when it (i) erroneously concluded that certain State-owned enterprises are “public bodies,” (ii) failed to determine whether such enterprises had been “entrusted or directed” to provide a “financial contribution,” (iii) erroneously concluded that a “benefit” had been conferred, and (iv) failed to demonstrate “specificity.” China also alleges that the United States acted inconsistently with particular provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and SCM Agreement in connection with the Department of Commerce's use of a non-market economy (NME) methodology for the purpose of determining the existence and amount of alleged dumping under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the AD Agreement, simultaneously with the determination of subsidization and imposition of countervailing duties on the same subject merchandise. Finally, China alleges actions inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement in connection with the Department of Commerce's conduct of the underlying anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations, including its failure to inform interested parties of certain issues and the use of adverse inferences and facts available.

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning the issues raised in this dispute. Persons may submit their comments either (i) electronically to www.regulations.gov, docket number USTR-2008-0035, or (ii) by fax, to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-3640. For documents sent by fax, USTR requests that the submitter provide a confirmation copy to www.regulations.gov.

To submit comments via www.regulations.gov, enter docket number USTR-2008-0035 on the home page and click “go”. The site will provide a search-results page listing all documents associated with this docket. Find a reference to this notice by selecting “Notice” under “Document Type” on the left side of the search-results page, and click on the link entitled “Send a Comment or Submission.” (For further information on using the www.regulations.gov Web site, please consult the resources provided on the Web site by clicking on “How to Use This Site” on the left side of the home page.)

The www.regulations.gov site provides the option of providing comments by filling in a “General Comments” field, or by attaching a document. It is expected that most comments will be provided in an attached document. If a document is attached, it is sufficient to type “ See attached” in the “General Comments” field.

A person requesting that information contained in a comment submitted by that person be treated as confidential business information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such and the submission must be marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page. Any comment containing business confidential information must be accompanied by a non-confidential summary of the confidential information. The non-confidential summary will be placed in the docket and open to public inspection.

Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than business confidential information, may be determined by USTR to be confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information or advice may qualify as such, the submitter—

(1) Must clearly so designate the information or advice;

(2) Must clearly mark the material as “SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page; and

(3) Must provide a non-confidential summary of the information or advice.

The non-confidential summary will be placed in the docket and open to public inspection.

USTR will maintain a docket on this dispute settlement proceeding, accessible to the public. The public file will include non-confidential comments received by USTR from the public with respect to the dispute; if a dispute settlement panel is convened or in the event of an appeal from such a panel, the U.S. submissions, any non-confidential submissions, or non-confidential summaries of submissions, received from other participants in the dispute; the report of the panel; and, if applicable, the report of the Appellate Body.

Comments will be placed in the docket and open to public inspection pursuant to 15 CFR 2006.13, except confidential business information exempt from public inspection in accordance with 15 CFR 2006.15 or information determined by USTR to be confidential in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2). Comments may be viewed on the www.regulations.gov Web site by entering docket number USTR-2008-0035 in the search field on the home page.