OMB Number: OMB 0412-0577.

Form Number: AID 500-13.

Title: Partner Information Form.

Type of Submission: Extension of Information Collection.

Purpose: USAID intends to collect information from approximately 10,000 individuals and/or officers of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who apply for USAID contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, other funding from USAID, or who apply for registration with USAID as Private and Voluntary Organizations (PVO). Collection of personally identifiable information from these individuals is specifically used to conduct screening to ensure that neither USAID funds nor USAID-funded activities inadvertently provide support to entities or individuals associated with terrorism.

Respondents: 44,000.

Total Annual Responses: 44,000.

Total Annual Hours Requested: 11,000.

Background

On July 28, 2010, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished or unfinished, (“TRBs”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 44224 (July 28, 2010). On July 13, 2011, the Department published the preliminary results of the review. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2009-2010 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order and Intent To Rescind Administrative Review, in Part, 76 FR 41207 (July 13, 2011). On November 8, 2011, the Department partially extended the deadline for the final results by 30 days. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 69241 (November 8, 2011). The final results are currently due no later than December 12, 2011. The 2009-2010 administrative review covers the period June 1, 2009, through May 31, 2010.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”), the Department shall make a final determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. The Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend that 120-day period to 180 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time. On November 8, 2011, the Department extended the deadline of the final results by 30 days. Thus, the Department may extend the deadline of the final results by an additional 30 days.

The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the final results of the 2009-2010 administrative review of TRBs from the PRC within the current deadline due to issues requiring additional analysis, including consumption allocation factors and a successor-in-interest determination. Therefore, given the complex issues in this case, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is fully extending the time period for completion of the final results of this review to January 9, 2012.

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

Background

On November 1, 2010, the Department issued a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order for the period of review (POR) of November 1, 2009, through October 31, 2010. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 67079 (November 1, 2010).

On November 30, 2009, we received a timely request from Appleton Papers, Inc. (petitioner) for the Department to conduct an administrative review of Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Flensburg GmbH, Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld GmbH and Mitsubishi International Corporation (collectively, Mitsubishi), and Papierfabrik August Koehler AG (Koehler). We also received a request from Koehler for the Department to conduct an administrative review of Koehler.

On December 28, 2010, the Department published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period November 1, 2009, through October 31, 2010, naming Mitsubishi and Koehler as respondents. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 81565 (December 28, 2010) ( Initiation Notice ).

On January 3, 2011, the Department issued initial questionnaires covering sections A, B, C, and E to Mitsubishi and Koehler with a due date of February 9, 2011. On January 25, 2011, petitioner requested that the Department determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by Koehler and Mitsubishi. After granting extensions to Mitsubishi and Koehler, Koehler submitted its section A response to the initial questionnaire on February 23, 2011, and sections B and C on March 2, 2011. On March 11, 2011, Mitsubishi submitted its sections A through C response to the initial questionnaire.

On March 23, 2011, petitioner submitted deficiency comments concerning Koehler's initial questionnaire responses. On March 28, 2011, petitioner, the sole party that requested a review of Mitsubishi, timely withdrew its request for a review of Mitsubishi. Accordingly, the Department rescinded the admininstrative review with respect to Mitsubishi. See Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 20951 (April 14, 2011) ( Partial Rescission ).

On July 16, 2010, the Department published a notice extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of the administrative review from August 2, 2011, to November 30, 2011. See Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 40689 (July 11, 2011).

The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Koehler on May 9, 2011, July 22, 2011, October 17, 2011, and on October 28, 2011. Koehler submitted responses on June 6, 2011, August 18, 2011, October 25, 2011, and on November 14, 2011, respectively.

On July 7, 2011, petitioner submitted pre-preliminary comments stating that the Department should disregard Koehler's home market monthly rebates on sales of certain products. On August 30, 2010, petitioner submitted a rebuttal of factual information contained in Koehler's August 17, 2011, supplemental questionnaire response. On August 31, 2011, petitioner submitted comments on Koehler's August 18, 2011, supplemental questionnaire response. On November 15, 2011, petitioner submitted supplemental pre-preliminary comments stating that the Department should disregard Koehler's monthly rebates. On November 18, 2011, Koehler submitted pre-preliminary comments stating that the Department should accept Koehler's reported home market rebates, including its monthly rebates.

The POR is November 1, 2009, through October 31, 2010.

The scope of this order includes certain lightweight thermal paper, which is thermal paper with a basis weight of 70 grams per square meter (g/m 2 ) (with a tolerance of ± 4.0 g/m 2 ) or less; irrespective of dimensions;  1 with or without a base coat  2 on one or both sides; with thermal active coating(s)  3 on one or both sides that is a mixture of the dye and the developer that react and form an image when heat is applied; with or without a top coat;  4 and without an adhesive backing. Certain lightweight thermal paper is typically (but not exclusively) used in point-of-sale applications such as ATM receipts, credit card receipts, gas pump receipts, and retail store receipts. The merchandise subject to this order may be classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 3703.10.60, 4811.59.20, 4811.90.8040, 4811.90.9090, 4820.10.20, and 4823.40.00. 5 Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), all products produced by Koehler covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section above and sold in Germany during the POR are considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied on 12 criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like product: (1) Form, (2) thermal active coating, (3) top coating, (4) basis weight, (5) maximum optical density units, (6) static sensitivity, (7) dynamic sensitivity, (8) color coating, (9) printing, (10) width, (11) length, and (12) core material. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above.

To determine whether sales of LWTP from Germany were made in the United States at less than NV, we compared the export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the Export Price and Constructed Export Price and Normal Value sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transaction prices.

Koehler reports a number of customer-specific rebates, which could apply to all products or be product-specific depending on the customer. Rebates are granted and paid out on a periodic basis (monthly, quarterly, or annually). Koehler states that there were no written rebate agreements covering sales of the subject merchandise during the POR. As in the prior review, Koehler claims that there were initially written agreements with customers in 2002/2003, but the rebate practices became routine enough that the parties did not bother with formalized written rebate agreements since that time. Koehler states that the rebate percentage is simply specified on the relevant customer-specific price lists or in emails with the customer.

On March 23, 2011, petitioner alleged that the margin in the instant review, as in the first review, is affected by Koehler's granting of monthly rebates ( i.e., monatsbonus) in the home market. Petitioner also alleged that these monthly rebates are post-sale price adjustments used by Koehler as a mechanism by which to artificially eliminate its dumping margin. 6 Further, petitioner incorporated by reference, in the instant review, its case brief submitted in the prior administrative review. Id.

In the Final Results   7 of the prior review, the Department disallowed the monthly rebates because the data on the record showed that there were significant adjustments to the rebate percentages which were retroactively applied by Koehler without sufficient documentation to support a finding that the customer was aware of such changes prior to the sales. Furthermore, we found that in certain instances, neither an “approximate” nor a “precise” rebate percentage was known to Koehler's customer prior to the time that it made the home market sales in question. Thus, because the record did not indicate that Koehler's customers were aware of the monatsbonus (monthly) rebate terms and conditions prior to the sales, and because of the significant volatility associated with the percentage changes of the monatsbonus program, the Department concluded that the monatsbonus program was not a legitimate rebate that should be treated as a price adjustment. See LWTP Decision Memo, at Comment 3.

However, the Department allowed Koehler's quarterly and annual rebates. The Department stated that, the written rebate documentation for 2002/03 provided by Koehler was not relevant to the monatsbonus; instead, it pertained to rebates that were based on a longer periods of time ( e.g., quarterly and annual periods). The Department found that, although Koehler referenced relatively minor changes that occurred with respect to the quartalsbonus (quarterly rebate) over a quarterly period, the degree of such a change was relatively insignificant compared to those reported by Koehler for the monatbonus over a monthly period. Further, in contrast to the monatsbonus, the quartalsbonus percentage applied had been stable and there was no evidence that it was retroactively applied on a routine basis. Therefore, the Department determined that there was a clear distinction between the monatbonus and the quartalsbonus program. Moreover, the Department determined that a customer could reasonably rely on the fact that it would receive a specific quartalsbonus percentage rebate at the time that it made its respective purchases. See Id.

In the instant review, Koehler has created a flag field (REB1AFLAG) in its home market sales database for each KT 48 F20 (product code that appears on the invoice to the customer) transaction. Koehler asserts that based on email communications and credit notes, it can show whether the customer who received monthly rebates was aware of the rebate terms at the time of sale. Specifically, Koehler coded an “N” for sales where it claims it has no documentation to prove that the customer was aware of the rebate terms prior to sale and, thus, the customer may not have known of the precise rebate percentage prior to the sales. Koehler coded a “Y” for transactions where it claims there is documentation regarding knowledge of the rebate terms by the customer prior to sale, and thus, the customer must have known of the rebate percentage prior to the sale. See supplemental questionnaire response dated June 6, 2011, at 18. See also fourth supplemental questionnaire response dated November 11, 2011, at 5.

The Department preliminarily finds that it is inappropriate to examine this rebate program on a transaction-specific basis, given the fact pattern. Instead, as in the prior review, we evaluate the monatsbonus rebate program as a whole to determine whether customers under this program knew of the terms of the rebate and rebate percentage prior to the sale. See LWTP Decision Memo at Comment 3; see also Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 31961 (June 5, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 27 (analyzing rebates as a program). In this review, record evidence shows that the monatsbonus rebate program is unique because it is only offered to certain customers, it is applied retroactively to sales, and Koehler randomly changes the monthly rebate percentages.

Next, we preliminarily find that the documents that Koehler claims are the basis for its flagging methodology do not indicate that the customers were knowledgeable of the final rebate amount prior to the sale date. Koehler states that with respect to the change in rebate percentage for the monthly rebate for KT 48 F20 beginning in April 2010, it has been unable to locate any documentation or communication confirming the change of the rebate percentage with the customer, and therefore does not know whether the customer received written notification prior to commencement of the applicable rebate period. However, according to Koehler, it is able to identify the latest possible date on which the customer could have known of the changed rebate percentage, and thus, Koehler used this date in its flagging methodology. Id., at 18. Due to the proprietary nature of this issue, please refer to the preliminary results calculation memo. See Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results—Koehler for further discussion, dated November 30, 2011 (Preliminary Results Calculation Memo—Koehler).

We preliminarily find that Koehler's flagging methodology does not provide proof that, prior to the sale, the customer knew the rebate percentage or the amount of the rebate. As a hypothetical example, if Koehler approved a monthly rebate of 18 percent on August 31, 2010, and retroactively applied it to all KT 48F20 sales in August, a customer might assume or guess that the 18 percent rebate will also be applicable to purchases made after August 31, 2010. However, the customer cannot know with certainty that the 18 percent rebate will be applicable to its purchases in September 2010, because Koehler may change the rebate to 12 percent on September 30, 2010, and retroactively apply a 12 percent rebate to September sales. Thus, we preliminarily find that Koehler created its flag methodology with information that was subject to change, and not always contemporaneous with the sales. Further, the customer has no knowledge of the amount of the “monatsbonus” monthly rebate or the terms and conditions at the time of purchase. Therefore, because of the inconsistent and retroactive application of the monthly rebates, the Department preliminarily continues to find in the instant review, as in the prior review, that the monatsbonus program is not a legitimate rebate program that should be treated as a price adjustment.

Also, consistent with the Department's findings in the Final Results, we continue to find that the quarterly and annual rebates are allowable adjustments because there is a clear, long-standing consistent practice compared to those reported by Koehler for the monatbonus over a monthly period. Further, in contrast to the monatsbonus, the quartalsbonus percentage applied has been relatively stable and there is no evidence that it is retroactively applied on a routine basis. Therefore, we continue to find that a customer can reasonably rely on the fact that it will receive the specific quartalsbonus percentage rebate at the time that it makes its respective purchases.

For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or CEP, in accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) of the Act. Pursuant to section 772(a) of the Act, we used the EP methodology when the merchandise was first sold by the producer or exporter outside the United States directly to the unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and when CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated CEP for those sales where a person in the United States, affiliated with the foreign exporter or acting for the account of the exporter, made the first sale to the unaffiliated purchaser in the United States of the subject merchandise. See section 772(b) of the Act. We based EP and CEP on the packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States and the applicable terms of sale. When appropriate, we adjusted prices to reflect billing adjustments, rebates, and early payment discounts, and commissions.

In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including U.S. warehouse expense, inland freight, inland insurance, brokerage & handling, international freight, marine insurance, freight rebate revenue, and U.S. customs duties.

For CEP, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, when appropriate, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, including direct selling expenses (cost of credit, warranty, and other direct selling expenses). These expenses also include certain indirect selling expenses incurred by affiliated U.S. distributors. See Preliminary Results Calculations Memo—Koehler.

The Department's initial questionnaire dated January 3, 2011, directed Koehler to report the actual variable unit cost of manufacturing (VCOM) including materials, labor and overhead, and the total unit cost of manufacturing (TCOM), including materials, labor and variable and fixed overhead, if Koehler was not submitting the full cost of production in response to section D of the Department's questionnaire. The Department's initial questionnaire also states, for fields 55 (VCOMU) and 56 (TCOMU), “{i}f for each product you sold during the POR in the United States, you sold the identical product in the foreign market, it is not necessary to supply this information. However, if you elect not to supply this information and the Department later determines that a U.S. sale should be compared to a sale of a similar product in the foreign market, the Department may have to resort to the facts available. Refer to difference in merchandise adjustments in the Glossary of Terms at Appendix I.” See Section C of the Department's questionnaire at pages C-38 and C-39.

The petitioner did not submit a sales below the cost of production (COP) allegation with respect to Koehler and the Department did not issue Koehler a section D questionnaire to require the reporting of Koehler's COP. With respect to its sales, Koehler stated that because it “sold identical merchandise in the foreign product for each product sold during the POR in the United States, Koehler is not providing VCOM or TCOM information.” See section C questionnaire response dated March 2, 2011, at C-50 and C-51. Although Koehler was not required to provide COP data if all of its U.S. sales matched to sales of identical merchandise in the home market, COP data is necessary for the Department to calculate a CEP profit for CEP sales. Therefore, because the necessary COP information is not on the record of the current review, in accordance with sections 772(f)(1) and (2)(C)(iii) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit percentage using information from Koehler AG's 2010 audited financial statements. We deducted from CEP an amount for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act. See Preliminary Results Calculation Memo—Koehler.

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

Because Koehler reported that its sales of the foreign like product were made to unaffiliated customers, the arm's-length test is not applicable.

We based home market prices on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Germany. The Department excluded certain sales transactions reported as samples by Koehler. We adjusted the starting price for billing adjustments, early payment discounts, rebates, warehouse expenses, and inland freight where appropriate, pursuant to section 773(a)(6) of the Act. In addition, for comparisons made to EP sales, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expense, warranty directly linked to sales transactions, royalties, and other direct selling expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, commissions, warranty directly linked to sales transactions, and other direct selling expenses), where appropriate. See 19 CFR 351.410.

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

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

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.412, to determine whether comparison market sales were at a different LOT than EP or CEP transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we will grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. 8

Koehler reported its sales in the home market and the U.S. market at the same single LOT. In the home market, Koehler reported that its sales were made through two channels of distribution: (1) Direct sales and (2) consignment sales. In the U.S. market, Koehler reported that its sales were made through three channels of distribution: (1) Market direct-shipment sales through its U.S. affiliated distributor, Koehler America, Inc. ( i.e., CEP sales), (2) warehouse sales made through Koehler America, Inc. ( i.e., CEP sales), (3) and direct sales from Koehler AG to the customer ( i.e., EP sales).

Based on our analysis, we find that Koehler's sales to the U.S. and home market were made at the same LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment is warranted. Furthermore, our analysis shows that Koehler's home market sales were not made at a more advanced LOT than Koehler's U.S. sales. Accordingly, we have not made a CEP offset to NV. See 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of company-specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, see our analysis contained in the Preliminary Results Calculation Memo—Koehler.

On January 25, 2011, petitioner requested that the Department determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by Koehler and Mitsubishi. Koehler has reported that it served as the importer of record for all of its U.S. sales during the POR. See second supplemental questionnaire response dated August 17, 2011, at 3. Because the subject merchandise was not sold through an importer who is affiliated with the foreign producer/exporter, we are not examining duty absorption. See section 751(a)(4) of the Act and Agro Dutch Industries, Ltd. v. United States, 508 F.3d 1024 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

On April 14, 2011, the Department rescinded the review of Mitsubishi. See Partial Rescission. Due to the partial rescission of the review of Mitsubishi, we are not examining duty absorption with respect to Mitsubishi.

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

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average percentage margin exists for the period November 1, 2009, through October 31, 2010.

The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties to this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs are limited to issues raised in the case briefs and may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties submitting arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2). Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).

An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, ordinarily will be held two days after the due date of the rebuttal briefs in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, or at a hearing, if requested, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, unless extended. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

Upon completion of the final results of this administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department will calculate importer-specific assessment rates for each respondent based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Where the respondent did not report the entered value for U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem rates based on the estimated entered value. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the respondent subject to this review for which the reviewed company did not know that the merchandise which it sold to an intermediary ( e.g. a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see id.

To calculate the cash deposit rate for Koehler, we divided its total dumping margin by the total net value of its sales during the review period. The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of lightweight thermal paper from Germany entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for companies subject to this review will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis, no cash deposit will be required; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent final results for a review in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, the cash deposit rate will be 6.50 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Antidumping Duty Orders: Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany and the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 70959 (November 24, 2008). These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

On November 10, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on PET Film from the UAE. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Brazil, the People's Republic of China and the United Arab Emirates: Antidumping Duty Orders and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value for the United Arab Emirates, 73 FR 66595 (November 10, 2008) ( Order ). On November 1, 2010, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 67079 (November 1, 2010). In response, on November 29, 2010, JBF requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales of PET Film in the U.S. market.

On December 28, 2010, the Department initiated an administrative review of JBF. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 81565, 81570 (December 28, 2010). On January 27, 2011, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to JBF. On April 6, 2011, JBF requested a 10 day extension to submit reconciliation information required by Sections B, C, and D of the initial questionnaire, which the Department approved by letter on the same date. JBF timely submitted its response to Section A of the questionnaire on March 10, 2011, its response to Sections B, C, and D on April 11, 2011, and the reconciliation information on April 21, 2011. On May 20, 2011, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to JBF, to which JBF timely responded on June 3, 2011.

On June 20, 2011, JBF submitted information requested by the Department regarding its submissions to United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP). On July 22, 2011, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire. JBF submitted its timely response to the second supplemental questionnaire on August 22, 2011. On July 29, 2011, the Department extended the time period for issuing the preliminary results of this administrative review. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From the United Arab Emirates: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 45508 (July 29, 2011). On September 23, 2011, the Department issued a third supplemental questionnaire, to which JBF submitted its timely response on October 11, 2011.

The products covered by the order are all gauges of raw, pre-treated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, whether extruded or co-extruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer more than 0.00001 inches thick. Also excluded is roller transport cleaning film which has at least one of its surfaces modified by application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR latex. Tracing and drafting film is also excluded. PET Film is classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2009, through October 31, 2010.

To determine whether sales of PET Film were made at less than NV, we compared JBF's sales, which were all export price (EP) sales, made to unaffiliated customers in the United States to NV, as described below in the “Normal Value” section of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EP of individual transactions to monthly weighted-average NVs.

Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act, we determined products sold by JBF, as described in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, and sold in the UAE during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied on five criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison-market sales: Grade, specification, thickness, thickness category, and surface treatment. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above.

In its first questionnaire response, JBF recommended two changes to our model matching criteria based on surface treatment. First, JBF proposed that the ranking values for surface treatment should be weighted to ensure that certain surface treatments are matched. We have not adopted this suggestion in the preliminary results. As a result of surface treatment being the least important characteristic in the ranking, the proposed change makes no difference in the matching, given that the preceding four factors (grade, specification, thickness, and thickness category) determine all matches. The Department, therefore, will not adopt this change, which would contradict the matching methodology used in the investigation, the previous review, and other PET Film cases. If JBF can demonstrate, subsequent to these preliminary results, that this change is justified based on the physical properties of surface treatments and that it would also affect matching, we will reexamine the suggested change to model matching criteria in the final results. We note in this regard that even if JBF's proposed change affected our calculations, the current basis for its proposal is not detailed and relies only on a few brief assertions. Second, JBF recommended changing the ranking of values for surface treatment to account for a new surface treatment which was not listed in the original questionnaire. JBF suggested this surface treatment be ranked between two existing categories with which it is most physically similar. Based on our analysis of the similarity of surface treatments, we have adopted JBF's suggestion to change the ranking of surface treatment values so that this new type of surface treatment will be matched to products with the most similar surface treatment, if identical matches are not available. See Memorandum to Mark Hoadley, “Preliminary Analysis for JBF RAK LLC,” dated November 30, 2011, ( JBF Analysis Memo ) and attached SAS programs.

In this proceeding, JBF did not report sales to affiliates in the home market; therefore the arms length test was not necessary.

To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade (LOT) than U.S. sales, we examine selling functions along the chain of distribution between the respondent and the unaffiliated customer for EP sales and between the respondent and the affiliated U.S. importer for CEP sales. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

In implementing these principles, we examined information provided by JBF regarding the selling functions involved in its home market and U.S. sales, including a description of these selling functions, listed in Exhibit A-5 of JBF's March 10, 2011 submission. Our analysis revealed that there were not any significant differences in selling functions between different channels of distribution or customer types in either the home or U.S. markets. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that JBF made all home-market sales at one level of trade. Moreover, we preliminarily determine that all home-market sales by JBF were made at the same level of trade as its U.S. sales. Accordingly, a LOT adjustment is not warranted.

The Department will normally use invoice date, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale, but may use a date other than the invoice date if it better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale are established. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). For JBF, we preliminarily determine that no departure from our standard practice is warranted. JBF reported invoice date as date of sale, and the record does not indicate that material terms of sale are established at a later date or earlier date in the sales process.

The Department based the price of all U.S. sales of subject merchandise by JBF on EP as defined in section 772(a) of the Act because the merchandise was sold by JBF to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States before importation. We calculated EP based on the packed price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. See section 772(c) of the Act. We made adjustments to price for billing adjustments, where applicable, and deducted all movement expenses reported by JBF.

To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of PET Film in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the volume of respondent's home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.404(b), because JBF's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we find that the home market was viable for comparison purposes.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of JBF's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative expenses, interest expenses, and home market packing costs. Details regarding calculation of COP, as well as other calculation detail can be found in the JBF Analysis Memo, and attached SAS programs.

On a product-specific basis, we compared the revised COP figures to home market prices, net of applicable billing adjustments, discounts and rebates, movement charges, selling expenses, and packing, to determine whether home market sales had been made at prices below COP. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and whether such sales were made at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade.

In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a given product was sold at prices less than COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product, because the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” However, we disregarded the below-cost sales that: (1) Have been made within an extended period of time (within six months to one year) in substantial quantities (20 percent or more), as defined by section 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act; and (2) were not made at prices which permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, as prescribed by section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Accordingly, we determined to disregard certain of JBF's sales in the determination of NV because (1) 20 percent or more of a given product was sold at prices less than COP and (2) based on our comparison of prices to weighted-average COP figured for the POR, they were made at prices that would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We used the remaining home market sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

After disregarding certain sales as below cost, as described above, home market sales of contemporaneous identical and similar products existed that allowed for price-to-price comparisons for all margin calculations. Therefore, the Department did not need to rely on constructed value for any calculations for these preliminary results.

We calculated NV based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers in the home market. We used JBF's adjustments and deductions as reported. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. In so doing, we made COS adjustments for the cost of providing samples to customers. Finally, we added U.S. packing costs and deducted home market packing costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, respectively.

Pursuant to section 773(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, we made currency conversions for JBF's sales based on the daily exchange rates in effect on the dates of the relevant U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period November 1, 2009, through October 31, 2010.

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. For assessment purposes, where JBF reported the entered value for its sales, we calculated importer-specific (or customer-specific) ad valorem assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. See 19 CFR 351.212(b). However, where JBF did not report the entered value for its sales, we will calculate importer-specific (or customer-specific) per unit duty assessment rates. 1 We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis.

The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of PET Film from the UAE entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the company under review will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be the all others rate for this proceeding, 4.05 percent. 2 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. 3 If a hearing is requested, the Department will notify interested parties of the hearing schedule.

Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review. Unless extended by the Department, interested parties must submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed not later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d) (additional discussion on case briefs and rebuttal briefs, respectively). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this review are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.

We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the Federal Register, unless otherwise extended. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

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

These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Background

On July 1, 2011, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel grating from the PRC. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 76 FR 38609, 38610 (July 1, 2011). In response, on August 1, 2011, Fisher & Ludlow and Alabama Metal Industries Corporation (hereafter referred to as “Petitioners”) timely requested an administrative review of entries of the subject merchandise during the POR from Ningbo Haitian, Shanghai Minmetals, Yantai Xinke, Sinosteel Yantai, Ningbo Jiulong, Accurate Screen, Wuxi Juhua, and Well Forge. On August 26, 2011, the Department initiated a review of these companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 53404 (August 26, 2011).

In a letter dated September 21, 2011, Petitioners withdrew their request for review of the aforementioned companies, and requested that the Department rescind the review with respect to these companies. No other parties requested a review.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Accordingly, given that Petitioners' withdrawal requests were timely, and because no other party requested a review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department is rescinding the entire administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel grating from the PRC for the period January 6, 2010, through June 30, 2011.

The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

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

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

Background

On November 2, 1992, the Department published an antidumping duty order on CWP from Korea. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Brazil, the Republic of Korea (Korea), Mexico, and Venezuela, and Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea, 57 FR 49453 (November 2, 1992) (“ CWP Order ”).

On November 30, 2010, both Hyundai HYSCO (“HYSCO”) and SeAH Steel Corporation (“SeAH”) timely requested an administrative review of this order for the period November 1, 2009, through October 31, 2010. Also, on November 30, 2010, United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”), a manufacturer of the domestic like product, requested a review of the following producers/exporters of subject merchandise: SeAH; HYSCO; Husteel Co., Ltd. (“Husteel”); Nexteel Co., Ltd. (“Nexteel”); Kumkang Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Kumkang”); and A-JU Besteel Co., Ltd. (“Besteel”). Likewise, on November 30, 2010, Wheatland Tube Company, a domestic producer of circular welded pipe, requested a review of the subject merchandise sales made by SeAH, HYSCO, Husteel, Nexteel, Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (“Dongbu”), and Kumkang. On December 28, 2010, we initiated an administrative review. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 81565 (December 28, 2010) (“ Initiation Notice ”).

In our initiation notice, we indicated that we would select mandatory respondents for review based upon CBP data, and that we would limit the respondents selected for individual review in accordance with section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 81565. On January 10, 2011, we received comments on the issue of respondent selection from HYSCO.

On February 4, 2011, after considering the resources available to the Department, we determined that it was not practicable to examine all producers/exporters of subject merchandise for which a review was requested. As a result, we selected the two largest producers/exporters of CWP from Korea during the POR for individual review in this segment of this proceeding, pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. These mandatory respondents were HYSCO and SeAH. See Memorandum from Mary Kolberg and Jennifer Meek, International Trade Analysts, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, to Susan H. Kuhbach, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, “Respondent Selection: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea,” dated February 4, 2011.

On January 25, 2011, Wheatland submitted a request for a duty absorption determination for a number of producers or exporters subject to this review, including SeAH, HYSCO, Husteel, Nexteel, Dongbu, Kumkang, and Besteel. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the Department lacks authority to conduct two-and four-year duty absorption inquiries for transitional orders (orders in effect before January 1, 1995). See FAG Italia S.p.A. v. United States, 291 F.3d 806, 819 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Since the order for this case is from 1992, we have not conducted a duty absorption inquiry in this proceeding.

On February 9, 2011, we issued the antidumping questionnaire to HYSCO and SeAH.

On July 11, 2011, we published in the Federal Register an extension of the time limit for the completion of the preliminary results of this review until no later than November 30, 2011, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). See Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 40689 (July 11, 2011).

On July 13, 2011, Wheatland withdrew its request for review of Husteel, Nexteel, Kumkang, and Dongbu. U.S. Steel also withdrew its request for review of Husteel, Nexteel, Kumkang, and Besteel on July 13, 2011. On August 16, 2011, we rescinded the administrative review for Husteel, Nexteel, Kumkang, Dongbu, and Besteel for November 1, 2009, through October 31, 2010. See Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea:

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 52636 (August 23, 2011).

The merchandise subject to this review is circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4mm (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes are generally known as standard pipes and tubes and are intended for the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air-conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing applications, such as for fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing used for framing and as support members for reconstruction or load-bearing purposes in the construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm equipment, and other related industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is also included in this review.

All carbon-steel pipes and tubes within the physical description outlined above are included within the scope of this review except line pipe, oil-country tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished conduit. 1

Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

The Department normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the producer's or exporter's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale, but may use a date other than the invoice date if the Department is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale are established. See 19 CFR 351.401(i).

For its home market sales, SeAH has reported the date the billing document is created in its accounting system as the date of sale. This is the date when the final price and quantity are set and is, in most cases, the same as the date of the shipping invoice.

For its U.S. sales, SeAH reported the earlier of the date of shipment from Korea or the date of Pusan Pipe America Inc.'s (“PPA”) (SeAH's U.S. affiliate) invoice to the unaffiliated U.S. customer as the date of sale. SeAH explained that all U.S. sales are produced to order and, while the price is set with the customer's order, the quantity is subject to change between order and shipment. We are relying on the sale dates reported by SeAH for both home market and U.S. sales.

For its home market sales, HYSCO reported the date of sale as the earlier of the date of shipment from HYSCO's factory or the date on which HYSCO issued its tax and commercial invoice. HYSCO noted that quantity can change up until shipment from HYSCO's factory, and price can change up until HYSCO's issuance of its tax and commercial invoice.

For its U.S. sales, HYSCO reported the date of shipment from Korea as the date of sale because the quantity and price for its U.S. sales can change up until the date of shipment from its factory in Korea. (Invoicing to the unaffiliated customer always occurs after shipment from Korea.) In support of its claimed date of sale for the U.S. market, HYSCO provided sales documentation regarding changes to the material terms of sale after order date and its quantity allowances. We intend to seek further information regarding HYSCO's U.S. date of sale for the final results, but are relying on the sale dates reported by HYSCO for these preliminary results.

To determine whether SeAH's and HYSCO's sales of CWP from Korea to the United States were made at less than normal value (“NV”), we compared constructed export price (“CEP”) to NV, as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice below.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by SeAH and HYSCO that are covered by the description contained in the “Scope of the Order” section above and were sold in the home market during the POR to be the foreign like product for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales.

We have relied on five criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like product: (1) Grade; (2) nominal pipe size; (3) wall thickness; (4) surface finish; and (5) end-finish. For SeAH, we used actual pipe size in millimeters instead of nominal pipe size because SeAH works with actual outside diameter measurements in the ordinary course of business. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the EP or CEP transaction. The LOT in the comparison market is the LOT of the starting-price sales or, when NV is based on CV, the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses and profit. For CEP, the LOT is that of the constructed sale from the exporter to the affiliated importer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(ii). See also Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

Where it is not possible to make comparisons at the same LOT, the statute permits the Department to account for the different levels. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Specifically, if the comparison market sales are made at multiple LOTs, and the difference in LOTs affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, the Department makes an upward or downward LOT adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Mexico, 73 FR 5515, 5522 (January 30, 2008) (“ LWR Pipe from Mexico” ). Alternatively, for CEP sales, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP, but the data available do not provide an appropriate basis to determine a LOT adjustment, we reduce NV by the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the foreign comparison market on sales of the foreign like product, but by no more than the amount of the indirect selling expenses incurred for CEP sales. See section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision) and LWR Pipe from Mexico, 73 FR at 5522.

To determine whether sales are made at different LOTs, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Thailand, 73 FR 24565 (May 5, 2008); and LWR Pipe from Mexico, unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico, 73 FR 35649 (June 24, 2008). In particular, we analyze whether different selling activities are performed, and whether any price differences (other than those for which other allowances are made under the Act) are shown to be wholly or partly due to a difference in LOT between the CEP and NV. In analyzing differences in selling functions, we determine whether the LOTs identified by the respondent are meaningful. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27371 (May 19, 1997). If the claimed LOTs are the same, we expect that the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.

SeAH reported two channels of distribution in the comparison market, Korea: (1) Direct sales to unaffiliated end-users and distributors; and (2) sales to affiliated companies. In the U.S. market, SeAH reported one channel of distribution corresponding to the CEP sales made through its affiliated company in the United States, PPA. SeAH stated that its U.S. sales were made at a different, less advanced LOT than its comparison market sales. Because it had no comparison market sales that were at the same LOT as the U.S. CEP sales, SeAH is not seeking a LOT adjustment. Instead, it claims that a CEP offset is warranted.

In evaluating SeAH's claim, we examined its activities in each channel of distribution relating to four different types of selling functions: sales process and marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory maintenance and warehousing, and warranty and technical services. Based on our analysis, we preliminarily determine that SeAH's selling activities in the comparison market did not vary significantly by channel of distribution. Therefore, we preliminary determine that SeAH sold at one LOT in the comparison market. We further determine preliminarily that SeAH sold at one LOT in the U.S. market since there is only one channel of distribution in this market, and the marketing process and selling functions are the same for all of SeAH's cutomers in the United States.

We then compared the selling functions performed by SeAH for its U.S. sales to the selling functions performed for the single LOT in the comparison market. Record evidence indicates that SeAH undertakes significant activities in the comparison market related to the sales process and marketing support, as well as warehousing and warranty services that it does not undertake for its U.S. CEP sales. See Memorandum from Jennifer Meek to the File, Re: Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum, dated November 30, 2011 (“SeAH Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo”). These differences in selling functions performed for comparison and U.S. market transactions indicate that SeAH's comparison market sales are made at a more advanced stage of distribution than its U.S. sales. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that SeAH's comparison and U.S. market sales are at different LOTs.

HYSCO reported one channel of distribution in the comparison market, Korea: sales directly to customers, which were unaffiliated distributors and both affiliated and unaffiliated end users. In the U.S. market, HYSCO reported two channels of distribution: (1) Sales to affiliate Hyundai HYSCO USA, Inc. (“HHU”), which, in turn sold the merchandise to unaffiliated customers in the United States; and (2) sales through another party to unaffiliated U.S. customers. HYSCO reported that the home market LOT was more advanced than the LOT for its U.S. sales. HYSCO is not seeking a LOT adjustment. Instead, it claims that a CEP offset is warranted. See HYSCO's Section A Questionnaire Response at A-19.

In evaluating HYSCO's claim, we examined its activities in each channel of distribution relating to 24 different types of selling functions. Based on our analysis, we preliminarily determine that HYSCO's selling activities in the U.S. market did not vary significantly by channel of distribution. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that HYSCO sold at one LOT in the U.S. market. We further determine preliminarily that HYSCO sold at one LOT in the comparison market since there is only one channel of distribution in this market, and the marketing process and selling functions are the same for all of HYSCO's customers in the home market.

We then compared the selling functions performed by HYSCO for its U.S. sales to the selling functions performed for the single LOT in the comparison market. Record evidence indicates that HYSCO undertakes significant activities in the comparison market in 10 of the 24 selling functions, including sales forecasting, strategic/economic planning, packing, sales/marketing support, etc. See Memorandum from Mary Kolberg to the File, Re: Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum, dated November 30, 2011 (“HYSCO Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo”). These differences in selling functions performed for the comparison and U.S. markets indicate that HYSCO's comparison market sales are made at a more advanced stage of distribution than its U.S. sales. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that HYSCO's comparison market and U.S. sales are at different LOTs.

As discussed above, the Department will make a LOT adjustment in these circumstances when the information exists to do so. We have found different LOTs between the comparison and U.S. markets for SeAH and HYSCO. However, since there is only one LOT in the comparison market for each company, there is no basis upon which to determine whether there is a pattern of consistent price differences between LOTs in the comparison market. Further, we do not have information that would allow us to examine the price patterns of SeAH's and HYSCO's sales of other similar products, and there is no other record evidence upon which a LOT adjustment could be based. Therefore, we have not made a LOT adjustment for either company.

Instead, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, we preliminarily determine that a CEP offset is appropriate for SeAH and HYSCO to reflect that their comparison market sales are at a more advanced stage than the LOT of their respective U.S. sales. We based the amount of the CEP offset on comparison market indirect selling expenses and limited the deduction to the amount of the indirect selling expenses deducted from CEP under section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act. For a detailed discussion, see SeAH Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo and HYSCO Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo.

In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter.

For purposes of this review, SeAH classified all of its sales of CWP to the United States as CEP sales. During the POR, SeAH made sales in the United States through its U.S. affiliate, PPA, which then resold the merchandise to unaffiliated customers in the United States. We calculated CEP based on the packed, delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, net of billing adjustment and discounts. We adjusted these prices for movement expenses, including foreign inland freight, international freight, marine insurance, foreign and U.S. brokerage and handling, bill of lading charges, and U.S. customs duties, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, including imputed credit expenses, warranty expenses, and indirect selling expenses. We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. See SeAH's Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo.

For purposes of this review, HYSCO classified all of its export sales of CWP to the United States as CEP sales. During the POR, HYSCO made sales in the United States through two channels, including through affiliate HHU and another party, which then resold the merchandise to unaffiliated customers in the United States. We calculated CEP based on the packed, delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We adjusted these prices for movement expenses, including foreign inland freight, international freight, marine insurance, foreign and U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. customs duties, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, including warranty expenses, imputed credit expenses, and indirect selling expenses. We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. See HYSCO Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo.

To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in Korea to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared SeAH's and HYSCO's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to their respective U.S. sales volumes of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because the aggregate home market sales volumes of the foreign like product were greater than five percent of their aggregate U.S. sales volumes of the subject merchandise, we determine that the home market was viable for comparison purposes for both SeAH and HYSCO.

SeAH and HYSCO reported sales of the foreign like product to affiliated and unaffiliated customers in the comparison market. The Department calculates NV based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to parties not affiliated with the producer or exporter, i.e., sales at “arm's length.” See 19 CFR 351.403(c). To test whether the sales to affiliates were made at arm's length prices, we compared on a model-specific basis, the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. In accordance with the Department's current practice, if the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise identical or most similar to that sold to the affiliated party, we considered the sales to be at arm's length and included such sales in the calculation of NV. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). Conversely, where sales to the affiliated party did not pass the arm's length test, all sales to that affiliated party were excluded from the NV calculation. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69194 (November 15, 2002).

The Department disregarded sales below the COP in the last completed reviews in which SeAH and HYSCO participated. See Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic Korea: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 34980 (June 21, 2010) and Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 32492 (June 10, 2004), respectively. Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that SeAH and HYSCO made sales of the subject merchandise in their comparison market at prices below the COP in the current review period. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation of sales by SeAH and HYSCO.

We calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act.

Except as noted below, we relied on the COP data submitted by HYSCO and SeAH in their questionnaire responses for the COP calculation.

During the POR, HYSCO purchased hot-rolled coil from its affiliates. We analyzed HYSCO's affiliated transactions in accordance with section 773(f)(3) of the Act, and adjusted HYSCO's cost of manufacturing to reflect the higher of market or transfer price, or the affiliate's COP. See Memorandum from Ji Young Oh to Neal M. Halper, Director of Office of Accounting, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results—Hyundai HYSCO,” dated November 30, 2011.

Based on our review of the record evidence, neither HYSCO nor SeAH appeared to experience significant changes in the cost of manufacturing during the POR. Therefore, we followed our normal methodology of calculating an annual weighted-average cost.

As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the POR weighted-average COP to the per-unit price of the comparison market sales of the foreign like product to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We determined the net comparison market prices for the below cost test by subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses (also subtracted from the COP), and packing expenses.

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

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

In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of SeAH's and HYSCO's respective material and fabrication costs, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the COP component of CV as described above in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondents in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country.

We found the method that HYSCO used to calculate the rate of its home market short-term borrowing during the period of review did not properly reflect the actual rates it received in borrowing. In a supplemental response, HYSCO submitted an alternative calculation for its home market short-term borrowing rate. We have used the rate calculated by this alternative method to recalculate HYSCO's reported home market credit expenses and home market inventory carrying costs.

For those comparison products for which there were sales at prices above the COP for HYSCO and SeAH, we based NV on home market prices. We calculated NV based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers in Korea, or prices to affiliated customers which were determined to be at arm's length ( see discussion above on the arm's length test). We adjusted the starting price for billing adjustments and interest revenue (both HYSCO only) and by deducting for foreign inland freight, including warehousing (HYSCO only) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We made adjustments for differences in packing, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act, and in circumstances of sale (for imputed credit and warranty expenses (HYSCO only)) under section 773(a)(6)(c)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410.

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

Where we were unable to find a home market match of such or similar merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV on CV. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415 and section 773A of the Act, we made currency conversions based on the exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. See Import Administration Web site at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.

We preliminarily determine that a weighted-average dumping margin exists for the respondents for the period November 1, 2009, through October 31, 2010.

The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties to this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. See 19 CFR 351.310. If a hearing is requested, the Department will notify interested parties of the hearing schedule. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the case briefs.

Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review. The Department will consider case briefs filed by interested parties within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Interested parties may file rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). The Department will consider rebuttal briefs filed not later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties submitting arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2). Further, parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department with an additional electronic copy of the public version of any such comments on a computer diskette. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).

The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, unless extended. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to this review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.

For HYSCO and SeAH, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the sales, as reported by HYSCO and SeAH. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.50 percent).

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (“ Assessment Policy Notice ”). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary ( e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification.

The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of CWP from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the companies listed above will be the rates established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 4.80 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. See CWP Order. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On January 28, 2011, the Department initiated a review of the 20 companies for which an administrative review was requested. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 5137 (January 28, 2011) ( Initiation Notice ). 1

On September 7, 2011, the Department extended the time limit for the preliminary results until December 1, 2011, and rescinded the administrative review with respect to ten companies: (1) Alimentos Naturales-Natural Foods Lavalle, (2) Alma Pura, (3) Apidouro Comercial Exportadora E Importadora Ltda., (4) Bomare S.A., (5) HoneyMax, (6) Interrupcion S.A., (7) Miel Ceta SRL, (8) Nexco, (9) Productos Afer S.A., and (10) Seabird Argentina S.A. See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 55349 (September 7, 2011). This review covers the following companies: TransHoney S.A. (TransHoney), Compañía Inversora Platense S.A. (CIPSA), AGLH S.A., Algodonera Avellaneda S.A.,.Compania Apicola Argentina S.A., El Mana S.A., Industrial Haedo S.A., Mielar S.A., Patagonik S.A., and Villamora S.A. We selected TransHoney and CIPSA for individual examination. See Memorandum to Richard O. Weible, “Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from Argentina: Respondent Selection Memorandum,” dated May 9, 2011.

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to complete the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary results to a maximum of 365 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested.

The Department has determined it is not practicable to complete this review within the statutory time limit due to the selection of two new mandatory respondents for this review after the requests for review for the original respondents were withdrawn. The Department requires additional time to analyze sufficiently information submitted by the current respondents in this administrative review. Accordingly, the Department is further extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results of this administrative review by 14 days ( i.e., to December 15, 2011).

This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 351.213(d)(4) of the Department's regulations and sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On November 16, 1994, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC. 1 On November 1, 2010, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC for the period November 1, 2009 through October 31, 2010. 2 On December 28, 2010, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review with respect to 112 companies. 3 On October 20, 2011, the Department published partial preliminary results, rescission of, and intent to rescind, in part, the administrative review. 4

In February 2011, each of the following five companies timely submitted a separate rate status certification: (1) Hebei Golden Bird Trading Co., Ltd. (Golden Bird); (2) Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. (Xinboda); (3) Henan Weite Industrial Co., Ltd. (Henan Weite); (4) Jinan Farmlady Trading Co., Ltd. (Farmlady); (5) Qingdao Xintianfeng Foods Co., Ltd. (QXF). On March 4, 2011, Chengwu County Yuanxiang Industry & Commerce Co., Ltd. (Yuanxiang) submitted a separate rate status certification and explained that its submission was delayed due to a medical issue with one of its attorneys. The Department found this explanation to be reasonable and therefore accepted the certificate. On August 17, 2011, the Department moved documents related to Yantai Jinyan Trading Inc.'s (Jinyan) separate rate status, submitted by Jinyan during the most recently complete new shipper review, to the record of this administrative review. 5

On March 4, 2011, the Department selected the five largest exporters by volume as mandatory respondents: (1) Shandong Longtai Fruits and Vegetables Co., Ltd. (Longtai); (2) Weifang Hongqiao International Logistic Co., Ltd. (Hongqiao); (3) Golden Bird; (4) Xinboda; (5) Harmoni. 6 On March 14, 2011, the Department issued a Non-Market Economy Antidumping Duty Questionnaire (Initial Questionnaire) to each of the five mandatory respondents. Golden Bird and Xinboda submitted their responses on April 25 and May 18, 2011, respectively. 7 Petitioners  8 commented on these responses on July 6, 2011; and Golden Bird responded to Petitioners' comments on July 20, 2011. On July 29, 2011, the Department issued its first supplemental questionnaires to Golden Bird and Xinboda, and received responses from both on August 19, 2011. On August 29, 2011, Petitioners made their initial comments on the supplemental questionnaire responses and renewed their request to conduct verification. On September 19, 2011, Petitioners commented on Xinboda's supplemental questionnaire response. On October 5, 2011, Petitioners commented on Golden Bird's supplemental questionnaire response, and Golden Bird rebutted these comments on October 17, 2011. On October 20, 2011, consistent with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department rescinded the review with respect to Harmoni because both Petitioners and Harmoni had withdrawn their respective requests for a review of Harmoni within the 90 day period provided by the regulations. 9 Also on October 20, 2011, the Department determined that Hongqiao and Longtai are subject to the PRC-wide entity rate. 10 On October 28, 2011, the Department issued second supplemental questionnaires to Golden Bird and Xinboda. Golden Bird submitted its supplemental response on November 14, 2011, and Xinboda submitted its supplemental response on November 16, 2011. The Department notes that these questionnaire responses were received too late to be considered for this preliminary determination. The Department will therefore consider these submissions in its analysis for the final results.

On March 31, 2011, the Department issued a letter to interested parties soliciting comments on selecting surrogate country and surrogate values (SV). On July 12, 2011, Petitioners submitted SV information. On July 29, 2011, Petitioners provided additional SV information which was rebutted by Golden Bird in a submission dated August 8, 2011 and commented on by Yuanxiang in a submission dated August 11, 2011. Also on July 29, 2011, Golden Bird provided SV information which was rebutted by Petitioners in a submission dated August 5, 2011, and that submission was rebutted by Golden Bird on August 15, 2011 (sur-rebuttal); Petitioners commented on the sur-rebuttal on September 15, 2011, and those sur-rebuttal comments were commented on by Golden Bird on October 11, 2011. On October 5, 2011, Xinboda asked the Department to clarify and revise the surrogate country list in the Department's letter issued on March 31, 2011; Petitioners responded to Xinboda's request on October 13, 2011. On October 26, 2011, Petitioners provided comments in advance of the preliminary results.

The products covered by the order are all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay. The scope of the order does not include the following: (a) Garlic that has been mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; or (b) garlic that has been specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed. The subject merchandise is used principally as a food product and for seasoning. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. In order to be excluded from the order, garlic entered under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is (1) Mechanically harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use or (2) specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by declarations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection to that effect.

The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) country in all past antidumping duty investigations and administrative reviews. 11 A designation as an NME country remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). No interested party to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Hence, the Department calculated NV using factors of production (FOPs) methodology in accordance with section 773(C) of the Act.

On July 29, 2011 and August 15, 2011, Golden Bird informed the Department that it should consider granting the PRC garlic industry market economy (ME) treatment. The Department has interpreted this as a request that the Department conduct a market oriented industry (MOI) examination for the PRC garlic industry. On August 5, 2011, Petitioners submitted a letter to the Department stating that the Department should reject this MOI request as being without merit.

As a threshold matter, the Department requires that any MOI claim be submitted such that it provides sufficient time to consider the claim. 12 As the Department made clear in the Coated Paper Preliminary Results, respondents that request MOI treatment should submit a complete MOI claim no later than two months after the initiation of a segment of a proceeding. This ensures that there is sufficient time to analyze the request and in the event the Department makes an affirmative MOI determination, there would be sufficient time in a proceeding to obtain home market prices and/or cost data. 13

In order to consider a timely submitted MOI claim, the Department requires information on each of the three prongs of the MOI test regarding the situation and experience of the PRC garlic industry as a whole. Specifically, the Department requires information in support of the party's claims that: (1) There is virtually no government involvement in production or prices for the industry; (2) the industry is marked by private or collective ownership that behaves in a manner consistent with market considerations; and (3) producers pay market-determined prices for all major inputs and for all but an insignificant proportion of minor inputs. Even in those cases where the Department limits the number of firms it investigates, an MOI claim must cover all (or virtually all) of the producers in the industry in question. 14

The Department finds that Golden Bird's request that the Department consider granting the PRC garlic industry ME treatment is an untimely and deficient MOI request. As an initial matter, Golden Bird's request was not received by the Department until July 29, 2011, seven months after the initiation of this review, well beyond any reasonable time in which to properly consider and act on a claim, and well beyond the two month-period following initiation to make a claim that the Department specified in Coated Paper Preliminary Results.

In addition to being untimely, Golden Bird's request is deficient as an MOI claim because Golden Bird failed to demonstrate that it represents “all or virtually all of the producers” in the garlic industry. 15 Meeting this initial threshold is necessary to ensure that the Department's MOI analysis is based on evidence that reflects the experience of the garlic industry. 16 Moreover, Golden Bird's request does not meaningfully attempt to address any of prongs of the MOI test regarding ownership and market-determined inputs. 17 For all of the reasons noted above, the Department determines that the MOI claim does not warrant further consideration in this review.

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a surrogate 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. Moreover, it is the Department's practice to select an appropriate surrogate country based on the availability and reliability of data from the countries. 18

The Department determined that India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine and Peru are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. 19 Once the Department has identified the countries that are economically comparable to the PRC, the Department selects an appropriate surrogate country by determining whether an economically comparable country is a significant producer of comparable merchandise and whether the data for valuing FOPs are both available and reliable.

For the preliminary results, Golden Bird, Yuanxiang, and Petitioners submitted data for valuing FOPs, and these data are sourced from India. On October 5, 2011, Xinboda argued for the first time that India is not the appropriate surrogate country for this review because its economic comparability was determined based on the data which is not contemporaneous with the POR. Responding to Xinboda's argument, on October 13, 2011, Petitioners argued that India is the only appropriate surrogate for comparable merchandise.

The Department issued its list of potential surrogate countries on March 31, 2011, providing parties four months, until July 29, 2011, 20 in which to comment on the selection. On October 5, 2011, more than two months after the deadline, Xinboda argued against the selection of India and provided no explanation for the delay or data in support of an alternative surrogate country. In light of the untimeliness of Xinboda's argument and the lack of any alternative SV data to consider, the Department declines to reject India as the surrogate country for the preliminary results.

Accordingly, the Department has determined that India is the appropriate surrogate country for use in this review, based on the following facts: (1) India is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC; (2) India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; and (3) India provides the best opportunity to use quality, publicly available data to value the FOPs. 21 Therefore, the Department has selected India as the surrogate country and, accordingly, has calculated NV using Indian prices to value the respondent's FOPs, when available and appropriate. The Department has obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever possible.

We compared NV to individual EP transactions in accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, as appropriate. Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using an FOPs methodology if: (1) The merchandise is exported from an NME country; and (2) the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. When determining NV in an NME context, the Department will base NV on FOPs because the presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under our normal methodologies. 22 However, there are circumstances in which the Department will modify its standard FOP methodology, choosing to apply SVs to an intermediate input instead of the individual FOPs used to produce that intermediate input. In some cases, a respondent may report factors used to produce an intermediate input that accounts for an insignificant share of total output. When the potential increase in accuracy to the overall calculation that results from valuing each of the FOPs is outweighed by the resources, time, and burden such an analysis would place on all parties to the proceeding, the Department has valued the intermediate input directly using SVs. 23

For the final results of several prior administrative reviews and new shipper reviews under the garlic order, 24 the Department found that garlic industry producers in the PRC do not generally track actual labor hours incurred for growing, tending, and harvesting activities and, thus, do not maintain appropriate records which would allow most, if not all, respondents to quantify, report, and substantiate this information. In the preliminary results of Garlic 11, Garlic 12, Garlic 13, and Garlic 15, the Department also stated that “should a respondent be able to provide sufficient factual evidence that it maintains the necessary information in its internal books and records that would allow us to establish the completeness and accuracy of the reported FOPs, we will revisit this issue and consider whether to use its reported FOPs in the calculation of NV. 25 ”

For the preliminary results, the Department is applying an “intermediate-input product valuation methodology” to calculate NV for Golden Bird and Xinboda. 26

In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department calculated NV based on the FOPs data reported by Golden Bird and Xinboda for the POR. We relied on the factor-specific data submitted by Golden Bird and Xinboda for the production inputs in their questionnaire responses, where applicable, for purposes of selecting SVs. To calculate NV, the Department multiplied the reported per-unit factor consumption rates by publicly available India SVs.

In selecting the SVs, consistent with our past practice, the Department considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. 27 As appropriate, the Department adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, the Department added to the SVs, as appropriate, a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic suppliers to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where necessary, we adjusted the SVs for inflation/deflation using the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) as published in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics, available at http://ifs.apdi.net/imf. For more information regarding the Department's valuation for the various FOPs, see SV Memorandum.

The Department's practice when selecting the “best available information” for valuing FOPs, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, 28 is to select, to the extent practicable, SVs which are publicly available, product-specific, representative of a broad market average, tax-exclusive and contemporaneous with the POR. 29

As discussed above, the Department is applying an intermediate input methodology for Golden Bird and Xinboda. Therefore, the Department sought to identify the best available SV for the garlic bulb input into production. For the preliminary results, the Department finds that data from the Azadpur APMC's “Market Information Bulletin” are the most appropriate information available to value the garlic bulb input. Consistent with the findings in the Garlic 12, Garlic 13, and Garlic 15, the Department continues to find that garlic bulb sizes that range from 55 mm and above are Grade Super-A, and garlic bulb sizes that range between 40 mm and 55 mm are Grade A and Grade Super-A. The Department has used Grade A and Grade Super A for garlic bulb valuation. Because the Grade Super-A prices reported by the APMC which are on the record of this review are from 2007-2008, the Department applied a garlic-specific Wholesale Price Index to the non-contemporaneous data to make them contemporaneous to the POR.

The Department has obtained import statistics from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) for valuing various FOPs. The data reported in the GTA published by the Global Trade Information Services, such as those from India, are in original currency and correspond to the original currency value reported by each country. Additionally, these data are reported to the nearest digit which has the same level of accuracy as the original data released.

Furthermore, with regard to the GTA Indian import-based SVs, in accordance with the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 legislative history, the Department continues to apply its long-standing practice of disregarding SVs if it has a reason to believe or suspect the source data may be subsidized. 30 In this regard, the Department has previously found that it is appropriate to disregard such prices from Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand, because the Department has determined that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry specific export subsidies. 31 Based on the existence of these subsidy programs that were generally available to all exporters and producers in Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand at the time of the POR, the Department finds that it is reasonable to infer that all exporters from these countries may have benefitted from these subsidies. The Department also disregarded prices from NME countries  32 and those imports that were labeled as originating from an “unspecified” country from the average Indian import values, because we could not be certain that they were not from either an NME or a country with general export subsidies.

The Department valued the packing material inputs using 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 GTA.

The Department valued truck freight cost using a per-unit average rate calculated from monthly data published on http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm   33 for the POR.

The Department valued electricity using March 2009 electricity price rates from Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India, published by the Central Electricity Authority of the Government of India.

The Department valued brokerage and handling expenses using a price list of export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in India. The price list is compiled based on a survey case study of the procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by ocean transport in India that is published in Doing Business 2010: India, published by the World Bank.

Previously, the Department used regression-based wages that captured the worldwide relationship between per capita GNI and hourly manufacturing wages, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), to value the respondents' cost of labor in NME cases. However, on May 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ( Dorbest ), invalidated 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). As a consequence of the CAFC's ruling in Dorbest, the Department no longer relies on the regression-based wage rate methodology described in its regulations.

On June 21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for valuing the labor input in NME antidumping proceedings. 34 In Labor Methodologies, the Department determined that the best methodology to value the labor input is to use industry-specific labor rates from the primary surrogate country. Additionally, the Department determined that the best data source for industry-specific labor rates is Chapter 6A: Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from the International Labor Organization (ILO) Yearbook of Labor Statistics (Yearbook).

In these preliminary results, the Department calculated the labor input using the wage method described in Labor Methodologies. To value Golden Bird and Xinboda's labor input, the Department relied on data reported by India to the ILO in Chapter 6A of the Yearbook. The Department further finds the two-digit description under ISIC-Revision 3 (15-Manufacture of Food Products and Beverages) to be the best available information on the record because it is specific to the industry being examined, and is therefore derived from industries that produce comparable merchandise. Accordingly, relying on Chapter 6A of the Yearbook, the Department calculated the labor input using labor data reported by India to the ILO under Sub-Classification 15 of the ISIC-Revision 3 standard, in accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act. For these preliminary results, the calculated industry-specific wage rate is 33.028 Rs per hour.

The Department is using Tata Tea Ltd.'s (Tata Tea) unconsolidated 2010/2011 financial statements as the basis for the surrogate financial ratios. Since the 2002-2003 administrative review, the Department has considered tea processing to be sufficiently similar to garlic processing in that neither product is highly processed or preserved prior to sale. 35 Accordingly, the Department finds that non-integrated tea processors to be a comparable industry to fresh garlic. Tata Tea's unconsolidated financial statement indicates that it has not received subsidies under programs the Department has found countervailable in Indian countervailing duty proceedings  36 and Tata' Tea's unconsolidated 2010/2011 financial statements cover seven months of the instant POR. The Department has not used Golden Bird's suggested financial data from Limtex Tea Limited, Garlico, REI Agro Limited and LT Foods Limited because, in Garlic 15, the Department found that the 09/10 financial statements of Limtex Tea Limited, REI Agro Limited and LT Foods Limited indicated that each company received subsidies under programs the Department found to be countervailable. Moreover, Garlico's 09/10 financial statements indicate that it operates as a trading company (rather than a processor) for nearly one quarter of its sales. Although parties have argued that Tata Tea has received subsidies the Department has found countervailable, in our analysis of Tata Tea's 09/10 financial statement, we did not find evidence of these subsidies.

For these reasons, the Department finds that Tata Tea's unconsolidated financial statement is the best information on the record and provides complete and usable financial data for a non-integrated producer and seller of tea.

In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we calculated export prices (EP) for Golden Bird's and Xinboda's sales to the United States because they were made to unaffiliated parties before the date of importation. We calculated Golden Bird's and Xinboda's EP based on their price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, where appropriate, we deducted movement expenses ( e.g. foreign inland freight, international freight, brokerage and handling, marine insurance, warehousing, and U.S. customs duties) from the starting price to unaffiliated purchasers. For the expenses that were either provided by an NME vendor or paid for with an NME currency, we used SVs as appropriate.

In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. 37 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 governmental control over export activities. The Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) ( Sparklers ), as further developed in the 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 an ME, then a separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government control.

In the Initiation Notice, the Department explained the process by which exporters and producers not being individually reviewed may obtain separate rate status in NME reviews. The process requires exporters and producers to submit a separate rate status application or separate rate status certification. However, the standard for eligibility for a separate rate (which is whether a firm can demonstrate an absence of both de jure and de facto government control over its export activities) has not changed.

Golden Bird, Xinboda, Henan Weite, Farmlady, QXF, and Yuanxiang each certified its eligibility for separate rate status with a Separate Rate Certification. The Department moved Jinyan's Initial Questionnaire response and supplemental questionnaire responses from a new shipper review to this review. 38 Jinyan's new shipper review sale was found to be outside of the POR of the new shipper review, so the Department rescinded that review. 39 However, as Jinyan's sale was within the POR of this administrative review, the Department transferred the documents from Jinyan's questionnaire responses from the new shipper review that related to its eligibility for a separate rate to the instant review for consideration here. These documents serve as the basis for the Department to consider Jinyan's for eligibility for separate rate status. Each company reported that it is a wholly Chinese-owned company. Therefore, the Department must analyze whether each company can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities.

The Department considers the following de jure criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 40

Golden Bird, Henan Weite, Xinboda, Farmlady, QFX, Yuanxiang and Jinyan each certified that, consistent with the most recently complete segment of this proceeding in which it participated and was granted a separate rate, there is an absence of de jure government control of its exports. 41 Each of these companies certified to its separate rate status, and stated, where applicable, that the company had no relationship with any level of the PRC government with respect to ownership, internal management, and business operations. In this segment, we have no new information on the record that would cause us to reconsider the previous de jure control determinations with regard to these companies. Thus, the Department finds that evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of an absence of de jure government control with regard to the export activities of these companies.

As stated in previous cases, there is evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. 42 Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether the respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.

The absence of de facto government control over exports is based on whether a company: (1) Sets its own export prices independent of the government and other exporters; (2) retains the proceeds from its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. 43

Each company certified that there is an absence of de facto government control of its exports in the most recently complete segment of proceeding in which it was granted a separate rate. Their separate rate certifications, stated, where applicable, that they had no relationship with any level of the PRC government with respect to ownership, internal management, and business operations. In this segment, we have no new information on the record that would cause us to reconsider the previous period's de facto control determinations with regard to these companies. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that these companies have established, prima facie, that they qualify for separate rates under the criteria established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.

As discussed above, the Department has preliminarily determined that Golden Bird, Xinboda, Henan Weite, Farmlady, QXF, Yuanxiang, and Jinyan have demonstrated their eligibility for separate rate status. The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to individual companies not selected for examination where the Department limited its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, we have looked to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents we did not examine in an administrative review. For the exporters subject to a review that were determined to be eligible for separate rate status, but were not selected as mandatory respondents, the Department generally weight-averages the rates calculated for the mandatory respondents, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available. 44 However, the Department has calculated a positive margin for the two fully participating mandatory respondents, Golden Bird and Xinboda. Accordingly, for the preliminary results, consistent with our practice, the Department has preliminarily determined that the margin to be assigned to the separate rate recipients should be a simple average of these two margins. 45

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.

As a result of the review, the Department preliminarily determines that the following margins exist for the period November 1, 2009 through October 31, 2010:

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit ( i.e., per kilogram) amount on each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions for such companies directly to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in these final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a zero cash deposit rate will be required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of $4.71 per kilogram; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

The Department will disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. 46 Rebuttals to written comments may be filed no later than five days after the written comments are filed. 47

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. 48 Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. 49

The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

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

We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(h) and 351.221(b)(4).

Under the ESA, a list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plant species must be maintained. The list is published at 50 CFR 17.11 (for animals) and 17.12 (for plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA requires that NMFS conduct a review of listed species under its jurisdiction at least once every 5 years (“5-year reviews”). In conducting 5-year reviews, we consider the best scientific and commercial data, including new information that has become available since the last listing determination or most recent status review of a species.

On March 18, 2010, NMFS announced the initiation of 5-year reviews for listed Pacific salmon ESUs and steelhead DPSs in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho (75 FR 13082). Both ESUs and DPSs are treated as “species” under the ESA and we use the term “species” to refer to both in the remainder of this notice. In the March 18, 2010 announcement, we requested new information regarding the biological status of these ESUs and DPSs and the factors that affect them from the public, concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, environmental entities, and other interested parties.

This notice of availability addresses our completed 5-year reviews for: (1) Northern California steelhead; (2) Central California Coast steelhead; (3) South-Central California Coast steelhead; and (4) Southern California steelhead. We used a two-step process to complete the reviews. First, we asked scientists from our Southwest Fisheries Science Center to collect and analyze new information about each species' viability. To evaluate each species' viability, our scientists applied the agency's Viable Salmonid Population framework, which relies on evaluating four key population parameters (abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity). Using this framework, they compiled and evaluated all new relevant information on these four parameters and then updated the overall viability status of each species. They also considered new genetic and biogeographic information related to each species' freshwater and estuarine geographic boundaries. At the end of this process, the Center prepared a report detailing the results and conclusions from their analyses. To complete the review, fishery biologists from the Southwest Region and its field offices evaluated all information that has become available on the species since 2005, the date of its last biological status review.

The 5-year review reports prepared by the Southwest Region, the Southwest Science Center's updated status assessment, and additional information concerning these species are available on the Southwest Region's Web site: http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/. NMFS concludes that the 5-year review meets the requirements of the ESA.

Need for Correction

On December 2, 2011 (76 FR 75524) notice of receipt of an application to amend Permit No. 14241-02 was inadvertently published without specifying the date on which comments are due. Applications are available for comment for 30 days from publication of the notice of receipt. The comment deadline is specified in the DATES section of this correction notice.

The HMSMT will discuss work assignments to be delivered at the March 2012 Council meeting in Sacramento, CA. The first assignment is the development of recommendations for a management framework for North Pacific albacore tuna fisheries. This will help inform the Council in relation to the development of such a framework planned by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission Northern Committee. The second assignment is to provide information to the Council about future management of the U.S. west coast swordfish fishery. The HMSMT will also begin work on the next SAFE (Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation) document, which is prepared annually, summarizing information from the previous year. Informational topics may also be discussed, time permitting.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

The meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The National Medal of Technology and Innovation is the highest honor for technological achievement bestowed by the President of the United States on America's leading innovators. Established by an Act of Congress in 1980, the Medal of Technology was first awarded in 1985. The Medal is awarded annually to individuals, teams (up to four individuals), companies or divisions of companies for their outstanding contributions to the Nation's economic, environmental and social well-being through the development and commercialization of technology products, processes and concepts, technological innovation, and development of the Nation's technological manpower.

The purpose of the National Medal of Technology and Innovation is to recognize those who have made lasting contributions to America's competitiveness, standard of living, and quality of life through technological innovation, and to recognize those who have made substantial contributions to strengthening the Nation's technological workforce. By highlighting the national importance of technological innovation, the Medal also seeks to inspire future generations of Americans to prepare for and pursue technical careers to keep America at the forefront of global technology and economic leadership.

The National Medal of Technology and Innovation Nomination Evaluation Committee, a distinguished independent committee appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, reviews and evaluates the merit of all candidates nominated through an open, competitive solicitation process. The committee makes its recommendations for Medal candidates to the Secretary of Commerce who, in turn, makes recommendations to the President for final selection. The National Medal of Technology and Innovation Laureates are announced by the White House and the Department of Commerce once the Medalists are notified of their selection.

The public uses the National Medal of Technology and Innovation Nomination Application to recognize through nomination an individual's, team's or company's extraordinary leadership and innovation in technological achievement. The application must be accompanied by six letters of recommendation or support from individuals who have first-hand knowledge of the cited achievement(s).

The nomination application and instructions can be downloaded from the USPTO Web site. Nomination files should be submitted by electronic mail to NMTI@USPTO.gov. Alternatively, letters of recommendation may be sent by electronic mail, fax, or overnight delivery.

OMB Number: 0651-0060.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Primarily business or other for-profit organizations; not-for-profit institutions; individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 40 responses per year.

Estimated Time per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take approximately 40 hours to gather the necessary information, prepare the nomination form, write the recommendations, and submit the request for the nomination to the USPTO.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 1,600 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden: $60,000. The USPTO expects that private sector individuals of various occupations and professions will complete this information. The hourly rate for these individuals is estimated to be $37.50.

Estimated Total Annual (Non-Hour) Respondent Cost Burden: $0.

Although it is possible for the public to submit the nominations through regular or express mail, to date no submissions have been received in this manner. The majority of recent submissions have been through electronic mail. The USPTO, therefore, is not calculating an estimate of postage costs associated with this information collection.

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, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

On October 17, 2011, the USPTO published a Request for Comments on Intellectual Property Enforcement in China. See 76 FR 64075, Oct. 17, 2011. More specifically, the USPTO invited members of the public to comment on their patent enforcement experiences in China. Of concern were the two primary avenues of patent enforcement in China: the judiciary; and the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO). In regard to the former, concerns over China's judiciary (such as lack of adequate discovery powers, evidentiary burdens, and low damages rewards) have been cited as reasons why U.S. and foreign companies do not file more patent suits in Chinese courts. In regard to the latter, limited investigative powers of the agency and ineffectual penalties for infringement have been cited as reasons for the weakness of this enforcement route.

The notice invited the public to submit written comments on China's patent enforcement system, including, but not limited to, the following five topics: (1) Acquisition and enforcement of utility model and design patents; (2) evidence collection and preservation in Chinese courts; (3) obtaining damages and injunctions; (4) enforceability of court orders; and (5) administrative patent enforcement. The USPTO is now extending the period for submission of public comments until December 21, 2011.

The proposed action evaluated in the Draft EIS is the construction and operation, including maintenance, of three infrastructure projects entirely within MCBCP and funded by Military Construction (MILCON) program appropriation. These projects include an advanced water treatment plant and associated facilities in the northern part of the Base (MILCON Project Number P-1044); connection of the Base's northern and southern water systems (P-1045); and replacement of the Stuart Mesa Bridge over the Santa Margarita River and associated roadway/flood control improvements (P-1039). Each project is a separate, distinct, and independently complete and usable action. Full environmental analyses for four action alternatives, and a No Action Alternative are presented in the Draft EIS.

The proposed action is needed to modernize and expand the capacity and capability of MCBCP's aging (1960s era) potable water system and roadway infrastructure.

The current potable water piping and treatment system is outdated and undersized. Higher quality drinking water through advanced water treatment is needed in the northern portion of the Base because the current water treatment processes do not meet the secondary drinking water standards for total dissolved solids and may not meet the pending Federal Safe Drinking Water Act Stage 2 Disinfectant Byproducts Rule. In addition, the two Base water systems, the northern system and the southern system, are not connected. The independent systems have resulted in service interruptions to portions of the Base during maintenance and natural disasters.

In the case of the roadway system, the Stuart Mesa Bridge, together with nearby roadway segments and the adjacent intersection of Stuart Mesa Road and Vandegrift Boulevard, represents a critical roadway connection on the main internal north-south connector in the southern and western portions of MCBCP. The roadway link has been severed in the past by flooding, underscoring the need for an all-weather solution.

The purpose of the proposed action is to enhance the ability of MCBCP to efficiently meet its mission by developing new or upgraded, reliable, and compliant infrastructure systems necessary to sustain military training and operations and quality of life services on MCBCP. The purpose is to provide: (1) Improved water treatment capabilities, capacity, and drinking water system redundancy to deliver higher quality water in the north; (2) water security and a connected, more comprehensive system for the delivery of Basewide water services during periods of scheduled, unscheduled, and emergency system interruption; and (3) improved traffic flow and efficient all-weather traffic accessibility to key training and non-training areas in the southern portion of MCBCP that are now severed during periodic flooding in the vicinity of the Stuart Mesa Bridge.

The EIS evaluates three MILCON projects (P-1044, P-1045, and P-1039) and four alternatives for each MILCON for a total of 12 action alternatives. As the environmental and engineering assessment developed for the proposed action, a combination of alternatives were identified as the preferred alternative based on operational, environmental, economic, and military sustainability reasons. The preferred alternatives are P-1044 Alternative 1; P-1045 Alternative 3; and P-1039 Alternative 4. Each is identified and discussed below.

Advanced Water Treatment (AWT) North and Associated Facilities (MILCON P-1044). Four alternatives involving a combination of two AWT plant sites and two pipeline routes were evaluated. All alternatives include construction of an 8.6 million gallon per day AWT facility, new and replacement water lines, pump stations with emergency generators, connection to existing reservoirs and distribution system, a brine disposal system, and plant access improvements. Raw water, treated water, and brine would be conveyed via new proposed lines. Raw water lines would extend from the existing wells to the AWT facility. Treated water lines would extend from the AWT facility to the west to serve the San Onofre Housing Areas and the 51 Area (San Onofre), 62 Area (San Mateo), 63 Area (Cristianitos), 64 Area (Talega), 52 Area (School of Infantry), and 53 Area (Horno). Trenchless construction to extend lines beneath San Onofre Creek and San Mateo Creek or suspension of the pipelines over the creeks would be incorporated to minimize impacts. Following water treatment at the AWT, brine would be disposed via ocean outfall and injection wells. The ocean outfall disposal would use the existing decommissioned San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) 12-foot-diameter, 3,200-foot-long cooling water intake structure located on the Pacific Ocean floor. Two deep injection well fields (approximately 750 feet deep) would also be used. One would be located at the existing San Onofre percolation ponds and the other would be located northwest of the San Onofre Surf Beach area of San Onofre State Beach. The proposed AWT facility would include micro-filtration and liquid granulated activated carbon/reverse osmosis.

Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Under this alternative the AWT facility would be constructed at a location south of San Onofre Creek. A portion of the conveyance lines would be located within Basilone Road. The brine disposal line would extend from the AWT facility to the south to connect to the proposed injection wells and to the existing SONGS ocean intake pipeline. The line to SONGS would extend beneath Interstate-5 (I-5) via trenchless construction.

Alternative 2. Under this alternative, raw water, treated water, and brine would be conveyed via three proposed new pipelines located primarily in El Camino Real instead of Basilone Road as proposed under Alternative 1.

Alternative 3. Under this alternative, the AWT facility would be located south of Basilone Road. Water conveyance pipelines would be the same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 4. Under this alternative, the AWT facility would be located south of Basilone Road. Water conveyance pipelines would be the same as Alternative 2.

Connection of North and South Water Systems (MILCON P-1045). Four alternatives involving different pipeline routes were evaluated.

Alternative 1. Under this alternative, approximately 188,000 linear feet (LF) of potable water lines sized up to 36 inches in diameter would connect the northern and southern water systems of MCBCP. The water line would start at the new AWT North facility (P-1044) and extend south on an alignment using El Camino Real to Stuart Mesa Road. Dividing at the junction of Stuart Mesa Road and Las Pulgas Road, one branch would run north along Las Pulgas Road to an existing reservoir in the 43 Area (Las Pulgas). This lateral pipeline would be approximately 10 to 14 inches in diameter. The other branch would continue along Stuart Mesa Road before splitting again into two more branches. One of these branches would extend northeast on the west side of the Santa Margarita River along North River Road, passing east of the 32 Area (Marine Air Control Squadron-1) and 33 Area (Margarita) and west of the 23 Area (Marine Corps Air Station Camp Pendleton) to Basilone Road and on to connect to the AWT South facility at Haybarn Canyon as well as several reservoirs along a ridge above the AWT South. The second branch would continue south along Stuart Mesa Road, crossing under or suspending over the Santa Margarita River and then north along Vandegrift Boulevard to an existing pump station and several existing reservoirs in the Wire Mountain area. The construction and operation of a new 4-million-gallon water reservoir in the Wire Mountain area is proposed along with associated water line connections to serve the new Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton (currently under construction) and the 21 Area (Del Mar). The pipelines would use trenchless construction under or suspended over San Onofre Creek, Las Flores Creek, Aliso Canyon drainage, French Creek, and two locations on the Santa Margarita River to avoid impacts to these areas. The project would also include the construction and operation of three pump stations along the alignment. Maintenance access/recreation corridors could also be included.

Alternative 2. The proposed north-south pipeline would start at the new AWT North facility (P-1044) and extend south in El Camino Real to Las Pulgas Road and run north in Las Pulgas Road to Basilone Road. The water line would extend along Basilone Road to Vandegrift Boulevard and run east to connect to the AWT South at Haybarn Canyon as well as several reservoirs along a ridge above the AWT South. This alternative would require an additional pump station and would be approximately 165,000 LF.

Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative). This alternative would be similar to Alternative 1 except it would not include the segment on the west side of the Santa Margarita River along North River Road. The new 4-million-gallon water reservoir and connections to the new Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton and the 21 Area (Del Mar) would be included. This alternative would be approximately 137,000 LF.

Alternative 4. This alternative would be similar in alignment to Alternative 3, with an additional pipe segment extending further on Vandegrift Boulevard east of the 22 Area (Chappo) before connecting to the AWT South at Haybarn Canyon as well as several reservoirs along a ridge above the AWT South. This alternative would be approximately 179,000 LF.

Stuart Mesa Bridge Replacement and Flood Control Improvements (P-0139). Four alternatives including a combination of two flood control methods and the use of a temporary bridge during construction were evaluated. All alternatives include demolition of the existing Stuart Mesa Bridge and construction of a new four lane bridge and flood protection measures.

Alternative 1. Construction would consist of a new cast-in-place prestressed concrete bridge (approximately 1,200 feet long by 56 feet wide) with pile foundations, new approach road and bridge abutments, earthwork and grading, rock protection and revetment, bridge deck, guard rails, night lighting, asphalt pavement, and pavement marking and signs. The project includes “100-year storm” flood protection control measures to protect Stuart Mesa Road and Vandegrift Boulevard. Flood control facilities consist of levees, levee scour protection, and a storm water drain system. Under this alternative, no temporary replacement bridge would be constructed over the Santa Margarita River and traffic would need to utilize alternate existing routes during construction.

Alternative 2. Under this alternative, a temporary use bridge would be constructed to allow vehicular traffic along Stuart Mesa Road to continue to cross the Santa Margarita River. Bridge construction would be the same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 3. Under this alternative, flood walls would be constructed rather than levees. The flood walls, while having a smaller construction footprint, would provide the same flood control protection. No temporary replacement bridge would be constructed over the Santa Margarita River. Bridge construction would be the same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 4 (Preferred Alternative). This alternative would be similar to Alternative 3, with the exception of a construction phase temporary use bridge, which would allow traffic along Stuart Mesa Road to continue to cross the Santa Margarita River during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the new bridge.

The Draft EIS evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with each of the alternatives. Issues addressed include: Geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, biological resources, cultural resources, land use, visual resources, socioeconomics and environmental justice, traffic, air quality, noise, public health and safety, services and utilities, and coastal zone resources, and marine resources. Relevant and reasonable measures that could alleviate environmental effects have been considered.

A 45-day public comment period will start upon publication of the EPA Notice of Availability in the Federal Register . Comments on the Draft EIS must be received by January 17, 2012. The DoN will consider and respond to all comments received on the Draft EIS when preparing the Final EIS. The DoN expects to issue the Final EIS in June 2012, at which time a Notice of Availability (NOA) will be published in the Federal Register and local print media. A Record of Decision is expected in August 2012.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that Federal agencies provide interested parties an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Revision.

Title of Collection: Integrated Evaluation of ARRA Funding, Implementation and Outcomes.

OMB Control Number: 1850-0877.

Agency Form Number(s): N/A.

Frequency of Responses: Annually; Once.

Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 5,551.

Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 5,039.

Abstract: On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) into law (Pub. L. 111-50). ARRA supports investments in innovative strategies that are intended to lead to improved results for students, long-term gains in school and local education agency (LEA) capacity for success, and increased productivity and effectiveness.

This evaluation will focus on answering three sets of policy/research questions:

• To what extent did ARRA funds go to the intended recipients?

• Is ARRA associated with the implementation of the key reform strategies it promoted?

• What implementation supports and challenges are associated with ARRA?

The integrated evaluation will draw on existing data, including ED data collections, ED ARRA program files, ARRA required reporting, and databases of achievement and other outcomes. The evaluation will also collect new information through surveys of (1) The 50 states and the District of Columbia, (2) a nationally representative sample of school districts, and (3) a nationally representative sample of schools within the sampled school districts. Surveys were conducted in spring 2011 and are planned for spring 2012.

A report will be prepared to describe the distribution of funding. A report and state tabulations will be prepared after each annual survey. The first report, based on the 2011 surveys, will focus on early ARRA implementation and strategies. The second report, based on the 2012 surveys, will expand upon strategies implemented under ARRA.

Copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 4754. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to (202) 401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection and OMB Control Number when making your request.

Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-(800) 877-8339.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that Federal agencies provide interested parties an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Pending.

Title of Collection: 21st Century Community Learning Centers: Lessons Learned Guides.

OMB Control Number: 1875—NEW.

Agency Form Number(s): N/A.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,020.

Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 690.

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to produce guides for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) program that will assist the U.S. Department of Education staff in providing technical assistance to grantees on the following four topics: (1) Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM); (2) English Learners; (3) Career and Technical Education, and (4) structures to increase learning time. The Department will identify 21st CCLC sites that are implementing activities in a manner that builds on scientific evidence, strong management and organizational practice, and data use; conduct site visits to those programs to investigate and document the practices; and write a “lessons from the field” guide for practitioners that includes site descriptions and cross-site analyses of good and innovative practice that can help other 21st CCLC grantees implement similar programs.

Copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 4763. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to (202) 401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection and OMB Control Number when making your request.

Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-(800) 877-8339.

I. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

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

1. 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.

2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.

3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

4. 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. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.

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

8. 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 subject to PRA approval unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing in the preamble of the final rule, are further displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instruments or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in a list at 40 CFR 9.1.

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

EPA is planning to submit a number of currently approved ICRs to OMB for review and approval under PRA. In addition to specifically identifying the ICRs by title and corresponding ICR, OMB and docket ID numbers, this unit provides a brief summary of the information collection activity and the Agency's estimated burden. The Supporting Statement for each ICR, a copy of which is available in the corresponding docket, provides a more detailed explanation.

Title: Submission of Protocols and Study Reports for Environmental Research Involving Human Subjects.

ICR number: EPA ICR No. 2195.04.

OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-0169.

ICR status: The approval for this ICR is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2012.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR include anyone who submits protocols and study reports for environmental research involving human subjects under FIFRA and/or FFDCA. Although EPA has only received such third-party research ( i.e., research that is not conducted or supported by EPA) in conjunction with FIFRA from pesticide registrants, it is conceivable that other entities could submit such information in the future. Principal respondents to this ICR are employers of physical, engineering, and life scientists in the fields of research and development.

Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is responsible for the regulation of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). In January 2006, EPA issued a final rule to amend the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (also known as the Common Rule) at 40 CFR part 26. The information collection activity imposed by this final rule consists of activity-driven reporting and recordkeeping requirements for those who intend to conduct research for submission to EPA under the pesticide laws.

In addition to other protections, if such research involves intentional dosing of human subjects, these individuals (respondents) are required to submit study protocols to EPA and a cognizant local Human Subjects IRB before such research is initiated so that the scientific design and ethical standards that will be employed during the proposed study may be reviewed and approved. Also, respondents are required to submit information about the ethical conduct of completed research that involved human subjects when such research is submitted to EPA.

Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 598 hours per response for research involving intentional exposure of human subjects, and 12 hours per response for all other submitted research with human subjects. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The information requirements identified in the final rule do not duplicate other federal agency information collections.

The ICR, a copy of which is available in the docket, provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 54.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 20,572 hours.

Estimated total annual costs: $1,712,833. This includes an estimated burden cost of $1,712,833 and no additional cost for non-burden hour paperwork costs, e.g., investment or maintenance and operational costs.

Changes in the estimates from the last approval: The renewal of this ICR will not result in a change in the number of hours in the total estimated respondent burden identified in the currently approved ICR.

Title: Consumer Research through Focus Groups to Develop Improved Labeling for Pesticide Products.

ICR number: EPA ICR No. 2367.02.

OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-0175.

ICR status: The approval for this ICR is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2012.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR are members of the general public who volunteer to participate in a focus group.

Abstract: EPA intends to renew a voluntary information collection for consumer research involving the use of focus groups to test various versions of pesticide product labels and other informational materials intended for the general public. The purpose of this research is to identify the consumer's understanding of the information on a pesticide product label to assure that the consumer can effectively use this information to select the pesticide product most likely to meet their needs and can readily understand label instructions regarding the safe use, handling, and disposal of the product. The collected information will be used to inform the Agency on the need for and nature of potential revisions to EPA guidance and regulations regarding pesticide product labels and to create other user-friendly consumer information materials.

Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per response. The ICR, a copy of which is available in the docket, provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 300.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 200 hours.

Estimated total annual costs: $6,014. There are no capital expenditures or operational and maintenance costs associated with this collection activity.

Changes in the estimates from the last approval: The renewal of this ICR will result in an overall decrease of 181.34 hours in the total estimated respondent burden identified in the currently approved ICR. This decrease reflects EPA's actual costs of conducting a series of 10 focus groups in 2010. This change is an adjustment.

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

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26900), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to both EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0216, which is available for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is (202) 566-1752.

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

Title: NESHAP for Cellulose Products Manufacturing (Renewal).

ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1974.06, OMB Control Number 2060-0488.

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2011. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), for Cellulose Products Manufacturing were proposed on August 28, 2000 (65 FR 52166) and promulgated on June 11, 2002 (67 FR 40043). These standards apply to any existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources. These standards apply to each operation that is a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), which includes both the miscellaneous viscose processes source category and the cellulose ethers productions source category. The viscose process includes the cellulose food casing, rayon, cellulosic sponge, and cellophane operations, and the cellulose ethers includes all of the cellulose ether operations. Respondents of affected sources are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, the General Provisions, unless the regulation specifies otherwise.

Owners or operators must submit notification that the facility is subject to the rule; notification of performance test; notification of compliance status (including results of performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations) and the semiannual compliance report. Owners or operators of cellulose products manufacturing facilities subject to the rule must maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records.

All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, as authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined to be private.

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 the EPA regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 141 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Cellulose products manufacturing.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 13.

Frequency of Response: Weekly, semiannually, and occasionally.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 12,088.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $1,258,056, which includes $1,257,042 in labor costs, no capital/startup costs, and $1,014 in operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the labor hours in this ICR as compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two considerations: (1) The regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three years; and (2) the growth rate according to the industry sources is very low, negative, or non-existent, so there is no significant change in the overall burden. There are no new facilities expected to be constructed over the next three years of this ICR.

However, there is an increase in the estimated burden cost as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved Burdens. The increase is not due to any program changes. The change in burden is due to the use of the most updated labor rates.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On August 3, 2011 (76 FR 46794), EPA sought comments on this renewal pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments during the comment period. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-1011, which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person inspection at the OPPT Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8 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 Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket is (202) 566-0280. Use http://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in http://www.regulations.gov. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in http://www.regulations.gov. For further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

Title: Pre-Manufacture Review Reporting and Exemption Requirements for New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Reporting Requirements for Chemical Substances.

ICR Status: This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. This ICR is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2011. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.

Abstract: Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires manufacturers and importers of new chemical substances to submit to EPA notice of intent to manufacture or import a new chemical substance 90 days before manufacture or import begins. EPA reviews the information contained in the notice to evaluate the health and environmental effects of the new chemical substance. On the basis of the review, EPA may take further regulatory action under TSCA, if warranted. If EPA takes no action within 90 days, the submitter is free to manufacture or import the new chemical substance without restriction.

TSCA section 5 also authorizes EPA to issue Significant New Use Rules (SNURs). EPA uses this authority to take follow-up action on new or existing chemicals that may present an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment if used in a manner that may result in different and/or higher exposures of a chemical to humans or the environment. Once a use is determined to be a significant new use, persons must submit a notice to EPA 90 days before beginning manufacture, processing or importation of a chemical substance for that use. Such a notice allows EPA to receive and review information on such a use and, if necessary, regulate the use before it occurs.

Finally, TSCA section 5 also permits applications for exemption from section 5 review under certain circumstances. An applicant must provide information sufficient for EPA to make a determination that the circumstances in question qualify for an exemption. In granting an exemption, EPA may impose appropriate restrictions. This information collection addresses the reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with TSCA section 5.

Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40 CFR parts 700, 720, 721, 723 and 725). Respondents may claim all or part of a notice as CBI. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a CBI claim only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in 40 CFR part 2.

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, are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to range between 0.725 hours and 508 hours per response, depending upon the type of response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are manufacturers, processors or importers of chemical substances.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Estimated Average Number of Responses for Each Respondent: 4.8.

Estimated No. of Respondents: 443.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 117,162 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Costs: $34,417,821.

Changes in Burden Estimates: This request reflects a decrease of 350 hours (from 117,512 hours to 117,162 hours) in the total estimated respondent burden from that currently in the OMB inventory. This decrease represents a re-estimate in the number of annual submissions to reflect EPA's experiences since the most recent ICR. The decrease in the number of annual submissions is largely associated with the finalization of the e-PMN rule in 2010. The change is an adjustment.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On July 5, 2011 (76 FR 39092), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments during the comment period. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0439 Notice 2, which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426.

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

Title: Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical and Radionuclides (Renewal).

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1896.09, OMB Control No. 2040-0204.

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2011. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. 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 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: The Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical and Radionuclides ICR examines Public Water System, primacy agency and EPA burden and costs for recordkeeping and reporting requirements in support of the chemical drinking water regulations. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are mandatory for compliance with 40 CFR parts 141 and 142. The following chemical regulations are included: Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR), Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR), Chemical Phase Rules (Phases II/IIB/V), 1976 Radionuclides Rule and 2000 Radionuclides Rule, Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM) Rule, Disinfectant Residual Monitoring and Associated Activities under the Surface Water Treatment Rule, Arsenic Rule, Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) and revisions. Future chemical-related rulemakings will be added to this consolidated ICR after the regulations are finalized and the initial, rule-specific, ICRs are due to expire.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .45 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners/operators of Public Water Systems who must report to their primacy agency. Primacy agencies, which include States. Tribes (if they have been authorized to act as primacy agencies), and EPA Regions that act as primacy agencies in Indian lands and States that do not have primacy.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 153,036.

Frequency of Response: Varies by requirement ( i.e., on occasion, monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, annually, biennially, and every 3, 6, and 9 years).

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 5,734,335.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $435,706,000 includes $230,059,000 annualized capital or O&M costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 384,924 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is a result of updating relevant baseline information for each rule with the most current and accurate information available ( e.g., Public Water System inventories) and updating burden to incorporate the results of consultation with stakeholders. Where appropriate and available, estimated violation, waiver, and other associated rates have also been updated to reflect current information on rule compliance.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 30, 2011 (76 FR 38384), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0465, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426.

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

Title: Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal).

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0988.11, OMB Control No. 2040-0049.

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2011. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: Water quality standards are provisions of State, Tribal, and Federal law that consist of designated uses for waters of the United States, water quality criteria to protect the designated uses, and an antidegradation policy. Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act requires States and authorized Tribes to establish water quality standards, and to review and, if appropriate, revise their water quality standards once every three years. The Act also requires EPA to review and either approve or disapprove the new or revised standards, and to promulgate replacement Federal standards if necessary. Section 118(c)(2) of the Act specifies additional water quality standards requirements for waters of the Great Lakes system.

The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR part 131 and portions of part 132) governs national implementation of the water quality standards program. The Regulation describes requirements and procedures for States and authorized Tribes to develop, review, and revise their water quality standards, and EPA procedures for reviewing and approving the water quality standards.

The Regulation establishes specific additional requirements for water quality standards and their implementation in the waters of the Great Lakes system, contained in the Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System (40 CFR part 132).

Burden Statement: The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1,099 hours per response annually. 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.

Respondents/Affected Entities: States, Territories and certain authorized Indian tribes that adopt water quality standards under the Clean Water Act; and water dischargers subject to certain requirements related to water quality standards in the Great Lakes system.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,415 (56 States and Territories, 36 Tribes; 2,323 Great Lakes dischargers).

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 276,981 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $12,614,040 with no annualized capital or O&M cost.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 16,233 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is due to adjustments in EPA's estimates of burden hours to reflect a change in the number of tribes with EPA-approved water quality standards, a change in the estimated number of tribes applying annually to administer standards programs, a revised estimate of the number of Great Lakes dischargers, and updated burden estimates for certain activities required by the Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26900), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to both EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0217, which is available for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov, in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is (202) 566-1752.

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

Title: NSPS for Sulfuric Acid Plants (Renewal).

ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1057.12, OMB Control Number 2060-0041.

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2011. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Sulfuric Acid Plants were proposed on August 17, 1971, and promulgated on December 23, 1971. These standards apply to any sulfuric acid facility commencing construction, modification, or reconstruction after the date of proposal. The control of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and acid mist requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the proper operation and maintenance of that equipment. Sulfur dioxide and acid mist emissions from sulfuric acid plants result from the burning of sulfur or sulfur-bearing feed-stock to form SO 2, catalytic oxidation of SO 2 to sulfur trioxide, and absorption of SO 2 in a strong acid stream. These standards rely on the capture of SO 2 and acid mist by venting to a control device.

Owners or operators of sulfuric acid plants are required to make the following one-time-only reports, notification of the date of construction or reconstruction, notification of actual startup dates, notification of any physical or operational change to an existing facility, and notification of demonstration of the continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS). The owners and operators should notify the Administrator of the date of the initial performance test and the results of the test. After the initial recordkeeping and reporting requirements, semiannual reports are required if there has been an exceedance of control device operating parameters. Respondents are also required to maintain records of occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative.

Notifications are to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the standard. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to ensure that the pollution control devices are properly installed and operating and that the standards are being met. Performance test reports are required as these are the Agency's records of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standards and to serve as a record of the operating conditions under which compliance are to be achieved. The information generated by monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements described in this ICR are used by the Agency to ensure that facilities that are affected by the standard continue to operate the control equipment and achieve continuous compliance with the regulation.

All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart H, as authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined to be private.

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 the EPA regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 81 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Sulfuric acid plants.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 53.

Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 8,594.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $1,061,150, which includes $822,650 in labor costs, no capital/startup costs, and $238,500 in operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.

Changes in the Estimates: The adjustment decrease in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to a more accurate estimate of existing and anticipated new sources. After consulting with the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and a number of trade associations, our data indicates that there are approximately 53 sources subject to the rule, as compared with the active ICR that shows 103 sources. There are no new facilities expected to be constructed over the next three years of this ICR. The decline in the number of sources is partially due to: (1) Plant closures, as the cost to retrofit aging facilities increased due to the down turn in the economy; (2) corporate mergers; and (3) foreign competition. Therefore, there is a net decrease in the burden to industry.

Because there are no new sources with reporting requirements, no capital/startup costs are incurred. The only cost that is incurred is for the O&M of the monitoring equipment.