Title: SuperTracker Information Collection for Registration, Login and Food Intake and Physical Activity Assessment.

OMB Control Number: 0584-0535.

Expiration Date: July 31, 2012.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: SuperTracker is an Internet based diet and physical activity self-assessment tool which allows users to monitor their daily food intakes and physical activity information. Based on 2010 Dietary Guidelines, the SuperTracker delivers nutrition education by allowing users to monitor their intake and explore ways to improve their food and physical activity choices. Motivational education messages are generated and tailored to the user's personal assessment results.

Individuals can use the SuperTracker without registration. However, all users may voluntarily enter and save information by registering with a username and password. The historical and trend data entered allows users to identify areas for improvement and reference short- and long- term changes to diet and physical activity behaviors. SuperTracker includes optional functions that consumers may use at their discretion, including a journaling feature to capture information for a selected category. Consumers may also post system-generated congratulatory and tip messages to Facebook or Twitter using their personal social media account. Through leveraging the user's existing social network, the user is more likely to experience positive feedback and encouragement in achieving their dietary and/or physical activity goals. Social media functionality is provided as a consumer benefit but does not impact consumer results or reports. The previous online tools provided limited functionality and more complex reporting features. The revised SuperTracker offers streamlined navigation features allowing consumers to quickly and easily enter data for one or multiple days. SuperTracker integrates all features and functions found in previous CNPP online diet and physical activity tools into one application within the ChooseMyPlate.gov Web site. Hence, all access to the SuperTracker is obtained through the ChooseMyPlate.gov.

Affected Public: Individual/Households.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

The following total annual burden estimates are based on the data obtained from current web trend tool, Google Analytics from June 2011—January 2012. Revised estimates are based on an increased number of visits to the Web site, the average time per visit and the increased efficiency of the tool that combines all functions from previous online assessment tools into one.

• The number of annual visitors to the Web site is expected to be about 11.2 million and they will spend approximately 5 minutes one time only.

• Approximately 30% of annual visitors will complete a one-time registration, log-in and assessment for the revised online assessment tool. This information is based on data from the previous most frequently used online tool (rounded up = 3.3 million).

• The average number of weekly visitors is approximately 200,000.

• 30% of the weekly visitors return each week to complete tracking activities (approximately 60,000).

Estimated Time per Response: For the SuperTracker, it will take individuals approximately 1 minute (.0167) to initially register for a system logon ID and password. It typically takes users 30 seconds (.0083) to routinely login to the system and approximately 15 minutes (.25) to complete food and physical activity data entry log for 1 day. Based on Google Analytics, repeat users will enter data on average 3 times per week. The amount of time spent completing entry and using expanded functionality is estimated at 45 minutes per week.

On May 13, 2011, FSA published a notice in the Federal Register (76 FR 27986) announcing that FSA was no longer accepting direct or guaranteed loan applications for the CL Program because of a lack of funding.

On November 18, 2011, FSA received an appropriation to fund guaranteed CLs under the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 (Pub. L. 112-55). Therefore, FSA has resumed accepting guaranteed loan applications for the CL Program.

FSA is not accepting direct CL applications as no new funding has been appropriated at this time. Conservation projects may still be funded through FSA's direct Farm Ownership and Farm Loan Operating programs for eligible applicants who do not qualify for the Guaranteed CL Program.

Potential guaranteed loan applicants should contact a lender. Potential direct loan applicants should contact their FSA state or county office; office locations can be found at http://www.fsa.usda.gov.

The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. This notice identifies an information collection that RUS is submitting to OMB for extension.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Michele L. Brooks, Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 1522, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-1522. Fax: (202) 720-8435.

Title: Advance of Loan Funds and Budgetary Control and Other Related Burdens.

OMB Control Number: 0572-0015.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: This collection is necessary to comply with the applicable provisions of the RUS loan contract. Borrowers submit requisitions to RUS for funds for project costs incurred. Insured loan funds will be advanced only for projects which are included in the RUS approved borrower's construction workplan or approved amendment and in an approved loan, as amended. The process of loan advances establishes the beginning of the audit trail of the use of loan funds which is required for subsequent RUS compliance audits.

The RUS Form 595 is used as a requisition for advances of funds. The form helps to assure that loan funds are advanced only for the budget purposes and amount approved by RUS. According to the applicable provisions of the RUS loan contract, borrowers must certify with each request for funds to be approved for advance, which such funds are for projects previously approved.

When a prospective borrower requests and is granted an RUS loan, a loan contract is established between the Federal government, acting through the RUS Administrator, and the borrower. At the time this contract is entered into, the borrower must provide RUS with a list of projects for which loan funds will be spent, along with an itemized list of the estimated costs of these projects. Thus, the borrower receives a loan based upon estimated cost figures.

RUS Form 219, Inventory of Work Orders, is one of the documents the borrower submits to RUS to support actual expenditures and an advance of loan funds. The form also serves as a connecting link and provides an audit trail that originates with the advance of funds and terminates with evidence supporting the propriety of expenditures for construction or retirement projects.

Estimate of Burden: The Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.57 hours per response.

Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions; Business or other for profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 650.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 15.42.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 15,745.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from MaryPat Daskal, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 720-7853. Fax: (202) 720-8435. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

I. Abstract

The Census Bureau must conduct a series of research projects and tests throughout this decade to fulfill its commitment to provide the public with an option to complete their 2020 Decennial Census questionnaire on the Internet. One of the first tests to support this planning effort is the 2012 National Census Test. It has two primary objectives.

The main objective is to test new, dynamic approaches for collecting the number of people in a household, which are not feasible on a paper questionnaire. The standard paper questionnaire used in the census typically begins with a set of instructions or residence rules to guide the respondent on whom to include as members of the household as of a set reference date. Furthermore, the questionnaire later poses questions to the respondent that ask about people who the respondent may have missed (undercounted) or included by mistake (overcounted). An Internet data collection mode, on the other hand, allows the Census Bureau to guide the respondent through the residence rules using a series of questions and conditional probes, to better understand who was living in the household on the reference day.

For the 2012 National Census Test, the Census Bureau aims to optimize the presentation of its residence rules on an Internet data collection instrument and to identify validated methods for determining the appropriate number of people in a household in accordance with its residence rules. To fully assess the validity of the new approaches, a real-time, targeted, probing, coverage reinterview will be conducted by telephone with a sample of households that respond by Internet. The purpose of this reinterview is to evaluate the accuracy of within-household coverage by comparing the final household population roster collected via each Internet coverage approach to the final roster collected via telephone. The goal is to obtain a “truth” measure for who was living in the household on the reference day. This is the main goal of the test and other objectives will be secondary. These secondary objectives will not drive the sample size of the 2012 National Census Test.

A secondary objective of the 2012 National Census Test is to obtain response rate indicators. The Census Bureau will study the relative response rates associated with various contact strategies under a Push Internet methodology. Under a Push Internet methodology, households do not receive a questionnaire in the initial mailing. Questionnaires will be sent to households who have failed to respond on the Internet by a pre-determined date. Planned contact strategies build off previous Census and American Community Survey research and include alternate reminder and/or replacement questionnaire approaches as well as varying the timing of the replacement questionnaire. The key analytical measures expected from this data collection include response rates, return rates, percent of Internet returns, and speed of returns. More discussion on contact strategies under consideration appears in the following section, Method of Collection .

Without impact to sample size, the 2012 National Census Test offers the opportunity to gain knowledge about how to optimize the presentation of the race and Hispanic origin questions, as well as age and date of birth for the Internet mode.

Based on preliminary results from the 2010 Alternative Questionnaire Experiment, the combined race and Hispanic origin question approach appears to be a promising strategy for collecting these data items. The Census Bureau plans to further this research by implementing two versions of a combined race and Hispanic origin question as part of the 2012 National Census Test. In addition, this data collection will incorporate the use of predictive text (that is, the open-ended text boxes in the race and Hispanic origin questions will produce a dynamic drop-down list of suggested options based on the initial text string entered in the box). The use of predictive text will automate and streamline the race and Hispanic origin coding process. This component allows for near-real-time data processing by increasing the speed of automated coding, thus reducing and/or eliminating back-end processing.

Results from recent Census Bureau Internet studies suggest that vast improvements can be made in the presentation of age and date of birth questions in the self-response Internet mode. The Census Bureau plans to test one or two new approaches for optimizing age and date of birth presentation on the Internet. Plans include reducing the lengthy edits associated with the questions and/or using drop down menus for month, day, and year.

The results from the 2012 National Census Test will inform internal planning decisions that will guide the design of additional 2020 Decennial Census Internet testing later this decade. The results from this test will inform planning for both the next decennial census as well as the American Community Survey.

The Census Bureau will conduct the 2012 National Census Test with a national sample of 80,000 households. The Census Bureau estimates a 45% response rate overall and a 25% Internet response rate. About one-half of Internet respondents will fall into the reinterview sample.

All contact strategy approaches tested in this data collection will be implemented using a Push Internet methodology. That is, households will receive a paper questionnaire only if they fail to respond by a predetermined date. To optimize the implementation of a Push Internet methodology, the Census Bureau will test alternatives to the standard full implementation contact strategy typically used in the decennial census (advance letter, initial mailing, reminder postcard, replacement mailing). Census Bureau analysts will study response rates across these varying strategies with the goal of identifying the best options for use with a Push Internet methodology, which will undergo additional validation in future mid-decade census tests. Census Bureau planners have not yet finalized the contact strategy approaches for this test. The proposed plan, however, is to contact sampled households using one of six contact strategies. In addition to a control panel that uses the standard full implementation contact strategy, the experimental treatments currently under consideration are, in brief:

• Eliminating the advance letter mailing

• Adding another reminder before mailing a paper questionnaire

• Mailing the questionnaire on an accelerated schedule

• A reminder to be sent after the questionnaire mailing

• Modified wording for all mailing pieces

The Census Bureau plans to conduct the 2012 National Census Test data collection in late summer or early fall 2012. The specific data collection start and end dates along with the duration of the data collection period are still under consideration. The Census Bureau, however, expects that the duration of the data collection period will be between one and two months. This includes both the collection of self-response interviews via the Internet and paper questionnaires (returned by mail) and the real-time telephone reinterview following the Internet data collection.

OMB Control Number: None.

Form Number: TBD.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 92,000 (80,000 initial response + 12,000 reinterview).

Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 15,334.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: There is no cost to the respondent other than his or her time.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. 141 and 193.

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

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

Pursuant to the Act, the Departments of the Interior and Commerce (“the Departments”) share responsibility for the allocation of duty exemptions among program producers in the United States insular possessions and the Northern Mariana Islands.

In accordance with Section 303.3(a) of the regulations (15 CFR 303.3(a)), the total quantity of duty-free insular watches and watch movements for calendar year 2012 is 1,866,000 units for the USVI. This amount was established in Changes in Watch, Watch Movement and Jewelry Program for the U.S. Insular Possessions, 65 FR 8048 (February 17, 2000). There are currently no program producers in Guam, American Samoa or the Northern Mariana Islands.

The criteria for the calculation of the calendar year 2012 duty-exemption allocations among program producers within a particular territory are set forth in Section 303.14 of the regulations (15 CFR 303.14). The Departments have verified and, where appropriate, adjusted the data submitted in application form ITA-334P by USVI program producers and have inspected these producers' operations in accordance with Section 303.5 of the regulations (15 CFR 303.5).

In calendar year 2011, USVI program producers shipped 53,744 watches and watch movements into the customs territory of the United States under the Act. The dollar amount of corporate income taxes paid by USVI program producers during calendar year 2011, and the creditable wages and benefits paid by these producers during calendar year 2011 to residents of the territory was a combined total of $1,036,055.

The calendar year 2012 USVI annual duty exemption allocations, based on the data verified by the Departments, are as follows:

The balance of the units allocated to the USVI is available for new entrants into the program or existing program producers who request a supplement to their allocation.

On June 10, 1991, the Department published the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from the PRC. 1 On June 1, 2011, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the order for the June 1, 2010, through May 31, 2011 POR. 2 On June 30, 2011, the Department received a timely request from Globe Metallurgical Inc. (“Petitioner”) for an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from the PRC for Shanghai Jinneng. 3 On July 28, 2011, the Department initiated the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from the PRC for the 2010-2011 POR. 4

On August 2, 2011, the Department issued the antidumping questionnaire to Shanghai Jinneng. Between September 2011 and January 2012, Shanghai Jinneng responded to the Department's questionnaire and supplemental questionnaires and Petitioner commented on Shanghai Jinneng's responses.

In response to the Department's September 15, 2011, letter providing parties with an opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country and surrogate value selection, 5 Shanghai Jinneng and Petitioner filed surrogate country and surrogate value comments on November 4, 2011 and rebuttal comments on November 14, 2011.

On November 7, 2011, the Department received a request from Petitioner to verify the information submitted by Shanghai Jinneng pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1)(v) and for good cause. 6 On February 15, 2012, Petitioner submitted comments for the Department's consideration in the preliminary results and on February 21, 2012, Shanghai Jinneng submitted rebuttal comments. 7

Imports covered by the order are shipments of silicon metal containing at least 96.00 but less than 99.99 percent of silicon by weight. Also covered by the order is silicon metal from the PRC containing between 89.00 and 96.00 percent silicon by weight but which contain a higher aluminum content than the silicon metal containing at least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight. Silicon metal is currently provided for under subheadings 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) as a chemical product, but is commonly referred to as a metal. Semiconductor-grade silicon (silicon metal containing by weight not less than 99.99 percent of silicon and provided for in subheading 2804.61.00 of the HTSUS) is not subject to the order. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (“NME”) country. 8 In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.

In proceedings involving NME countries, there is a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the PRC are subject to government control and, thus, should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. 9

In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the application process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate rate status in NME proceedings. 10 It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to a proceeding involving an NME country a single rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law ( de jure ) and in fact ( de facto ), with respect to exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country under the test established in Sparklers, 11 as amplified by Silicon Carbide. 12 However, if the Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy (“ME”), then a separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government control. 13

Shanghai Jinneng stated that it is a wholly Chinese-owned company. 14 Therefore, the Department must analyze whether this respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over its export activities.

The Department considers the following de jure criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 15

The evidence provided by Shanghai Jinneng supports a preliminary finding of a de jure absence of governmental control based on the following: (1) There is an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the company's business and export licenses; (2) there are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of PRC companies; and (3) there are formal measures by the government decentralizing control of PRC companies. 16

The Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. 17 The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.

We determine that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of a de facto absence of governmental control with respect to Shanghai Jinneng based on record statements and supporting documentation showing that the company: (1) Sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management; and (4) retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. 18

The evidence placed on the record of this administrative review by Shanghai Jinneng demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government control with respect to the company's exports of the merchandise under review, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. Therefore, we have preliminarily granted Shanghai Jinneng separate rate status.

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV, in most cases, on the NME producer's factors of production (“FOP”) valued in a surrogate ME country or countries considered appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department will value FOP using “to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market-economy countries that are—(A) at a level of economic development comparable to that of the nonmarket economy country, and (B) significant producers of comparable merchandise.” Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2), the Department will normally value FOP in a single country.

In the instant review, the Department identified Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand and Ukraine as a non-exhaustive list of countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC and for which good quality data is most likely available. 19 On January 13, 2010, Petitioner and Shanghai Jinneng proposed selecting Thailand as the surrogate country because it is at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC and is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. 20 Petitioner provided export data from Global Trade Atlas (“GTA”) demonstrating that during the POR, Thailand exported 14,022 metric tons of silicon metal worldwide. 21 With respect to data considerations, in selecting a surrogate country, it is the Department's practice that, “* * * if more than one country has survived the selection process to this point, the country with the best factors data is selected as the primary surrogate country.” 22 Currently, the record contains surrogate value information, including a surrogate financial statement, only from Thailand. The Department is preliminarily selecting Thailand as the surrogate country on the basis that: (1) It is at a comparable level of economic development to the PRC, pursuant to section 773(c)(4)(A) of the Act; (2) it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, pursuant to section 733(c)(4)(B) of the Act; and (3) we have reliable data from Thailand that we can use to value the FOP. Therefore, we have calculated NV using Thai prices, when available and appropriate, to value Shanghai Jinneng's FOP. 23 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may submit publicly available information to value FOP until 20 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results. 24

In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, to determine whether Shanghai Jinneng sold silicon metal to the United States at less than fair value, we compared the export price (“EP”) of the silicon metal to the NV of the silicon metal, as described in the “Export Price,” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice.

In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for all sales reported by Shanghai Jinneng. We calculated EP based on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for any movement expenses ( e.g., foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, domestic brokerage, international freight to the port of importation) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Where foreign inland freight or foreign brokerage and handling fees were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based those charges on surrogate values. 25

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME country and the available 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 uses an FOP methodology because the presence of government controls on various aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under its normal methodologies. 26 Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOP include, but are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. The Department based NV on FOP reported by Shanghai Jinneng for materials, energy, labor and packing.

In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV by adding together the values of the FOPs, general expenses, profit, and packing costs. We calculated FOP values by multiplying the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available surrogate values (except as discussed below). In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. 27 As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Thai import surrogate values a Thai surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's (“CAFC”) decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all surrogate values used for Shanghai Jinneng can be found in the Surrogate Value Memorandum.

In selecting the best available information for valuing FOP in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are non-export average values, contemporaneous or closest in time with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. 28 The record shows that import data from Thailand's Customs Department, as published by the GTA, as well as data from other Thai sources used, are typically contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific or for similar products, and tax-exclusive. 29 Thus, for these preliminary results, in accordance with its practice, the Department used data from the Thailand Customs Department and other publicly available sources from Thailand in order to calculate surrogate values for Shanghai Jinneng's FOP (direct materials and packing materials) and certain movement expenses. 30 In those instances where we could not obtain publicly available surrogate values contemporaneous with the POR with which to value FOPs, we adjusted the surrogate values using, where appropriate, the International Monetary Fund's Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) for Thailand. 31

Furthermore, with regard to Thailand's import-based surrogate values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these countries may be subsidized. 32

Further, guided by the legislative history, it is the Department's practice not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. 33 Rather, the Department bases its decision on information that is available to it at the time it makes its determination. 34 Therefore, we have not used prices from India, Indonesia, or South Korea in calculating Thailand's import-based surrogate values. Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME countries. Furthermore, imports that were labeled as originating from an “unspecified” country were excluded from the average value, because the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an NME country or a country with general export subsidies. 35 Lastly, the Department has also excluded imports from Thailand into Thailand because there is no evidence on the record regarding what these data represent ( e.g., re-importations, another category of unspecified imports, or the result of an error in reporting). Thus, these data do not represent the best available information upon which to rely for valuation purposes. 36

Previously to value the respondent's cost of labor, the Department used regression-based wages that captured the worldwide relationship between per capita Gross National Income (“GNI”) and hourly manufacturing wages, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). However, on May 14, 2010, the 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 February 18, 2011, the Department published in the Federal Register a request for public comment on the interim methodology, and the data sources. 37

On June 21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for valuing the labor input in NME antidumping proceedings. 38 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 data on industry specific labor cost from the primary surrogate country ( i.e., Thailand), as described in Labor Methodologies. The Department relied on Chapter 6A labor cost data for Thailand from the ILO's Yearbook. The Department used ILO Chapter 6A labor cost data for the year 2000 because this is the most recent Chapter 6A data available for Thailand. The Department further determined that the two-digit description under ISIC-Revision 3-D (“Manufacture of Basic Metals”) is the best available information because it is specific to the industry being examined and, therefore, is derived from industries that produce comparable merchandise. Accordingly, relying on Chapter 6A of the Yearbook, the Department calculated the labor input using labor cost data reported by Thailand to the ILO under Sub-Classification 27 of the ISIC-Revision 3-D, in accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act. For these preliminary results, the calculated industry-specific wage rate is 81.96 baht per hour. The Department inflated this value to the POR using Thai CPI data. For further information on the calculation of the wage rate, see Surrogate Value Memorandum at 5.

The ILO data from Chapter 6A of the Yearbook, which was used to value labor, reflects all costs related to labor, including wages, benefits, housing, training, etc. The financial statement used to calculate the surrogate financial ratios does not include itemized details regarding the indirect labor costs incurred. Therefore, the Department has not made adjustments to the surrogate financial ratios.

We valued all packing and direct materials, except quartz, using Thai import data from the GTA that are contemporaneous with the POR. We valued quartz using the price of unground quartz in 2010 from Mineral Statistics of Thailand 2006-2010 report issued by the Thai Department of Primary Industries and Mines. 39

We valued electricity using data from the Thai Provincial Electricity Authority and Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand as reported by the Thailand Board of Investment in its 2011 publication Costs of Doing Business in Thailand for large general services at a voltage of 22-33 kilovolts. These electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates in Thailand. As the rates were in effect during the POR, we are not adjusting the average value for inflation. 40

We valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate from the Express Transportation Organization of Thailand as reported in Thailand Board of Investment's 2011 publication, Costs of Doing Business in Thailand. 41 Because the rate is from August 2005, we inflated this rate to a POR rate using Thai CPI data.

We valued railway freight using price data from State Railway of Thailand as reported in Thailand Board of Investment's 2011 publication, Costs of Doing Business in Thailand. 42 Because the rate is from August 2011, we deflated it to the POR using Thai CPI data.

We valued ocean freight using price data from Profreight International Co., Ltd., as reported in Thailand Board of Investment's 2011 publication, Costs of Doing Business in Thailand. 43

We valued brokerage and handling using a price list of export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in Thailand for a 20 foot container published in the World Bank publication, Doing Business 2012: Thailand. 44

Lastly, we valued selling, general and administrative expenses, factory overhead costs, and profit using the contemporaneous 2010 financial statement of GS Energy Co., Ltd., a Thai producer of silicon metal, which is identical to subject merchandise. 45

Where necessary, 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. 46

We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin exists for the period June 1, 2010 through May 31, 2011.

The Department intends to disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within 10 days of the date of the public announcement of the results of this review 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. 47 Rebuttal comments must be limited to the issues raised in the written comments and may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs. 48 Interested parties, who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”). An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 49 Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, we will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. 50 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing. The Department will issue the final results of the administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, unless the time limit is extended.

Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we are calculating customer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise subject to this review. Because we do not have entered values for all U.S. sales to a particular importer/customer, we calculate a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the antidumping duties due for all U.S. sales to that importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or customer). 51 To determine whether the duty assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated customer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. Where a customer-specific ad valorem rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. 52

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 exporter listed above, the cash deposit rate 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, 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 that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 139.49  53 percent; 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(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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.

The Department is issuing and publishing these preliminary results of administrative review in accordance with sections751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

On May 27, 2011, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frontseating service valves from the People's Republic of China for the period April 1, 2010, through March 31, 2011. 1 On December 13, 2011, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results by 90 days, to March 30, 2012. 2

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department shall make a preliminary determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend that 245-day period to 365 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period.

We determine that completion of the preliminary results of this review by March 30, 2012, is not practicable because the Department requires additional time to analyze information pertaining to the respondents' sales practices, factors of production, as well as issue and review responses to supplemental questionnaires. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we are extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results of this administrative review by 30 additional days, until April 29, 2012. However, because April 29, 2012, falls on a weekend, the preliminary results are now due no later than April 30, 2012. 3

This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On June 27, 2002, the Department published the antidumping duty order on folding metal tables and chairs from the PRC. 1 On June 1, 2010, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order for the period June 1, 2009, through May 31, 2010. 2 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), interested parties made the following requests for an administrative review: (1) On June 28, 2011, Meco Corporation (“Meco”), a domestic producer of the like product, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Feili and of New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. (New-Tec), a producer and exporter of subject merchandise to the United States; (2) on June 29, 2011, Feili requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales; (3) on June 30, 2011, Cosco Home & Office Products (“Cosco”), a U.S. importer of subject merchandise, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Feili and New-Tec; and (4) on June 30, 2011, New-Tec requested that the Department revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to exports of subject merchandise manufactured and exported by New-Tec and defer the initiation of its review for the current POR. On July 28, 2011, the Department initiated the 2010-2011 review for Feili and deferred the review of New-Tec. 3 On October 25, 2011, the Department revoked the order with respect to New-Tec and subsequently corrected language in the original revocation. 4

The Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to Feili on August 26, 2011. On September 16, 2011, Feili submitted a section A questionnaire response (“AQR”), and on October 17, 2011, submitted section C and D questionnaire responses (“CQR” and “DQR,” respectively). On December 2, 2011, and January 9, 2012, Feili submitted supplemental questionnaire responses (“SQR” and “SSQR,” respectively).

On September 30, 2011, the Department requested that Import Administration's Office of Policy to provide a list of surrogate countries for the administrative review. 5 On October 12, 2011, the Office of Policy issued its list of surrogate countries for the administrative review. 6

On October 25, 2011, the Department requested interested parties to submit surrogate value (“SV”) information and to provide surrogate country selection comments for the administrative review. On November 8, 2011, Feili commented on surrogate country selection. On November 15, 2011, Cosco and Feili provided financial statements from India and Thailand to be used for the calculation of surrogate financial ratios. On December 28, 2011, the Department provided additional time to submit publicly available information to value the factors of production (“FOP”). On January 17, 2012, Cosco provided additional comments on FOPs.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in an antidumping administrative review or new shipper review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.

The POR is June 1, 2010, through May 31, 2011.

The products covered by the order consist of assembled and unassembled folding tables and folding chairs made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal, as described below:

(1) Assembled and unassembled folding tables made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal tables). Folding metal tables include square, round, rectangular, and any other shapes with legs affixed with rivets, welds, or any other type of fastener, and which are made most commonly, but not exclusively, with a hardboard top covered with vinyl or fabric. Folding metal tables have legs that mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set. The subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the order regarding folding metal tables are the following:

Lawn furniture; Trays commonly referred to as “TV trays;” Side tables; Child-sized tables; Portable counter sets consisting of rectangular tables 36” high and matching stools; and, Banquet tables. A banquet table is a rectangular table with a plastic or laminated wood table top approximately 28″ to 36″ wide by 48″ to 96″ long and with a set of folding legs at each end of the table. One set of legs is composed of two individual legs that are affixed together by one or more cross-braces using welds or fastening hardware. In contrast, folding metal tables have legs that mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set.

(2) Assembled and unassembled folding chairs made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal chairs). Folding metal chairs include chairs with one or more cross-braces, regardless of shape or size, affixed to the front and/or rear legs with rivets, welds or any other type of fastener. Folding metal chairs include: those that are made solely of steel or other metal; those that have a back pad, a seat pad, or both a back pad and a seat pad; and those that have seats or backs made of plastic or other materials. The subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the order regarding folding metal chairs are the following:

Folding metal chairs with a wooden back or seat, or both; Lawn furniture; Stools; Chairs with arms; and Child-sized chairs.

The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 9401.71.0010, 9401.71.011, 9401.71.0030, 9401.71.0031, 9401.79.0045, 9401.79.0046, 9401.79.0050, 9403.20.0018, 9403.20.0015, 9403.20.0030, 9403.60.8040, 9403.70.8015, 9403.70.8020, and 9403.70.8031 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

No party contested the Department's treatment of the PRC as a non-market economy (“NME”) country, and the Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all past antidumping duty investigations and administrative reviews. 7 Designation as an NME country remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act. As such, we continue to treat the PRC as a NME in this proceeding.

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a surrogate market economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall use, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of the FOPs in one or more market economy countries that are: (1) At a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the “Normal Value” section below as well as in the Surrogate Value Memorandum. 8

On November 1, 2011, the Department published the Preliminary Results of the fifth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Mexico. See Preliminary Results. We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On December 1, 2011, the Department received case briefs from AMLT and petitioners, Nucor Corporation (Nucor) and Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc. (Cascade Mills). On December 6, 2011, the Department received rebuttal briefs from Nucor and Cascade Mills, and ArcelorMittal USA Inc., (ArcelorMittal USA), Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc., (Gerdau), and Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel (Evraz Steel). No party requested a hearing.

The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter.

Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free machining steel products ( i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium).

Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium.

This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).

For purposes of the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis—that is, the direction of rolling—of the rod) over thickness (measured on the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 24, 2003.

The designation of the products as “tire cord quality” or “tire bead quality” indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should the petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise.

All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope.

The products subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3000, 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.3091, 7213.91.3092, 7213.91.3093, 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6000, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0030, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0000, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6050, 7227.90.6051 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, 7227.90.6059, 7227.90.6080, and 7227.90.6085 of the HTSUS.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Fifth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, (Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this notice and which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised, and to which we have responded in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available in the Central Records Unit, main Commerce Building, Room 7046. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The signed Decision Memorandum and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on our analysis of comments received for AMLT, we have recalculated AMLT's inland freight expenses incurred in the home market. We have applied an inland freight expense of zero for those home market transactions in which AMLT reported that no inland freight costs were incurred. For all other home market sales, we have continued to apply the partial adverse facts available (AFA) methodology utilized in the Preliminary Results. AMLT's adjustments are discussed in detail in the accompanying Decision Memorandum. See February 29, 2012, Final Calculation Memorandum for AMLT.

As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010:

Pursuant to these final results, the Department has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions for AMLT to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific (or customer-specific) ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific (or customer-specific) assessment rates calculated in the final results of this review are above de minimis.

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 of Antidumping Duties ). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by AMLT for which AMLT did not know the merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no company-specific rate for an intermediary involved in the transaction. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 FR 65945, 65947 (October 29, 2002) ( Wire Rod Orders ) (establishing an all-others rate of 20.11 percent). See Assessment of Antidumping Duties for a full discussion of this clarification.

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of wire rod from Mexico entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act): (1) The cash deposit rate for AMLT will be the rate established in the final results of review; (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (3) 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 20.11 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Wire Rod Orders at 65947. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.402(f)(3).

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/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

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

On February 1, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam. 1 On February 1, 2011, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order for the period February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011. 2

From February 25, 2011, through February 28, 2011, we received requests to conduct administrative reviews from the American Shrimp Processors Association (“ASPA”), the Domestic Producers, 3 and certain Vietnamese companies. On March 31, 2011, the Department published in the Federal Register the notice of initiation of this administrative review. 4

On October 20, 2011, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results by 90 days. 5 On January 20, 2012, the Department published in the Federal Register an additional notice extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results by 30 days. 6

On May 15, 2011, the Department received a letter from Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trading Import and Export Co., Ltd. (“Quoc Viet”) indicating that it made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. On May 31, 2011, the Department received similar letters from Nam Hai Foodstuff and Export Company Ltd. (“Nam Hai”) and Vinh Loi Import Export Company (“Vinh Loi”). Of the 68 companies/groups upon which we initiated an administrative review, 24 companies submitted separate-rate certifications, 10 companies submitted separate-rate applications, and three companies stated that they did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins for each known exporter or producer of the subject merchandise. 7 However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department the discretion to limit its examination to a reasonable number of exporters or producers if it is not practicable to examine all exporters or producers involved in an administrative review.

On April 19, 2011, the Department released CBP data for entries of subject merchandise during the POR under administrative protective order (“APO”) to all interested parties having an APO as of the date of this release, and invited comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection. On April 29, 2011, the Department received comments from the ASPA, the Domestic Producers, and certain Vietnamese respondents regarding respondent selection for this review. No other interested parties submitted comments for respondent selection and no interested parties rebutted these respondent selection comments.

On June 17, 2011, the Department issued the respondent selection memorandum, in which it explained that, because of the large numbers of exporters or producers involved in the review, it would not be practicable to individually examine all companies. Rather, the Department determined that it could only reasonably examine two exporters in this review. Pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department selected Minh Phu Seafood Corporation (and its affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd., and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.) (collectively “the Minh Phu Group”), and Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (“Nha Trang Seafoods”). 8 The Department issued the non-market economy (“NME”) antidumping questionnaire to the Minh Phu Group and Nha Trang Seafoods on June 20, 2011. Responses from both companies were received in July and August, 2011. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires in November, 2011 and responses were received in December, 2011.

The POR is February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011.

The scope of the order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, 9 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form.

The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope of the order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size.

The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp ( Penaeus vannemei ), banana prawn ( Penaeus merguiensis ), fleshy prawn ( Penaeus chinensis ), giant river prawn ( Macrobrachium rosenbergii ), giant tiger prawn ( Penaeus monodon ), redspotted shrimp ( Penaeus brasiliensis ), southern brown shrimp ( Penaeus subtilis ), southern pink shrimp ( Penaeus notialis ), southern rough shrimp ( Trachypenaeus curvirostris ), southern white shrimp ( Penaeus schmitti ), blue shrimp ( Penaeus stylirostris ), western white shrimp ( Penaeus occidentalis ), and Indian white prawn ( Penaeus indicus ).

Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope of the order. In addition, food preparations, which are not “prepared meals,” that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope of the order.

Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTS subheading 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled (HTS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTS subheading 1605.20.05.10); (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTS subheading 1605.20.10.40); (7) certain dusted shrimp;  10 and (8) certain battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a “dusting” layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to IQF freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based product that, when dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, is coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried.

The products covered by the order are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 1605.20.10.10 and 1605.20.10.30. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Between May 15 and May 31, 2011, Quoc Viet, Nam Hai and Vinh Loi filed no shipment certifications indicating that they did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. In order to examine these claims, we sent an inquiry to CBP requesting that any CBP office that had any information contrary to the no shipments claims, to alert the Department. We have received no such response from CBP.

Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we preliminarily determine that the above-referenced companies made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, and we are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to them. 11

Additionally, we note that Thong Thuan Company Limited (“Thong Thuan”) is currently under review in the 2010-2011 new shipper review of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam. 12 All entries made by Thong Thuan during the POR are under review in that segment. 13 Therefore, the Department is preliminarily rescinding this administrative review with respect to Thong Thuan, as it has no additional entries to be reviewed in this segment.

On May 20, 2011, the Domestic Producers withdrew their request for review of Bim Seafood Joint Stock Company (“Bim Seafood”). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Therefore, as the withdrawal of the request for review of Bim Seafood was timely, we are preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to Bim Seafood.

As indicated above, the Department selected the Minh Phu Group as one of the mandatory respondents in this review. In responding to the Department's antidumping questionnaire, the Minh Phu Group requested that the Department collapse an affiliated producer, Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Co., Ltd. (“Hau Giang”), with the Minh Phu Group. The Minh Phu Group based its request to collapse Hau Giang with itself primarily on the fact that the Minh Phu Group is a significant shareholder in Hau Giang and Hau Giang is controlled by the Minh Phu Group through shared management.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), the Department will collapse producers and treat them as a single entity where: (1) Those producers are affiliated, (2) the producers have production facilities for producing similar or identical products that would not require substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure manufacturing priorities, and (3) there is a significant potential for manipulation of price or production.

To the extent that this provision does not conflict with the Department's application of separate rates and enforcement of the non-market economy (“NME”) provision, section 773(c) of the Act, the Department will collapse two or more affiliated entities in a case involving an NME country if the facts of the case warrant such treatment. Furthermore, we note the factors listed in 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2) are not exhaustive, and in the context of an NME investigation or administrative review, other factors unique to the relationship of business entities within the NME country may lead the Department to determine that collapsing is either warranted or unwarranted, depending on the facts of the case. 14

In summary, if there is evidence of significant potential for manipulation between or among affiliates which produce and/or export similar or identical merchandise, whether or not all such merchandise is exported to the United States, the Department may find such evidence sufficient to apply the collapsing criteria in an NME context in order to determine whether all or some of those affiliates should be treated as one entity. 15

The decision of whether to collapse two or more affiliated companies is specific to the facts presented in the proceeding and is based on several considerations, including the structure of the collapsed entity, the level of control between and among affiliates, and the level of participation by each affiliate in the proceeding. Given the unique relationships which arise in NMEs between individual companies and the government, the same separate rate will be assigned to each individual company that is part of the collapsed entity only if the facts, taken as a whole, support such a finding. 16

Based on the reasons explained in the Collapsing Memo, and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), we have preliminarily collapsed Hau Giang and the Minh Phu Group. 17 All subsequent references in this notice to the Minh Phu Group will be to the collapsed entity that includes the Minh Phu Group and Hau Giang.

On July 20, 2011, the Department sent interested parties a letter inviting comments on surrogate country selection and information regarding valuing factors of production (“FOPs”). On September 12, 2011, the ASPA, the Domestic Producers, and certain Vietnamese respondents filed comments on surrogate country selection, stating India, the Philippines, and Bangladesh may be appropriate surrogates if their data are publicly available, reliable and contemporaneous. On December 12, 2011, the Department received information to value FOPs from the ASPA, the Domestic Producers, and certain Vietnamese respondents. The ASPA provided certain surrogate values from sources in India, the Domestic Producers provided surrogate values from sources in the Philippines, and the Vietnamese respondents provided surrogate values from sources in Bangladesh and Indonesia.

When the Department investigates imports from an NME country and available information does not permit the Department to determine NV pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act, then, pursuant to sections 773(c)(1) and 773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department bases NV on an NME producer's FOPs, to the extent possible, in one or more market-economy countries that (1) are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are significant producers of comparable merchandise. Regarding the “level of economic development,” the Department relied on per capita gross national income (“GNI”) data to measure economic comparability. 18 Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2), the Department will normally value FOPs in a single country. The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the “Normal Value” section below and in the Memorandum to the File through Scot Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9 from Toni Dach, Senior International Trade Analyst, Office 9: Sixth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results, dated February 28, 2012 (“Surrogate Value Memorandum”).

Pursuant to its practice, the Department received a list of potential surrogate countries from Import Administration's Office of Policy (“OP”). 19 The OP determined that Bangladesh, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Nicaragua, and the Philippines were at a comparable level of economic development to Vietnam. 20 The Department considers the six countries identified by the OP in its Surrogate Country List as “equally comparable in terms of economic development.”  21 Thus, we find Bangladesh, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Nicaragua, and the Philippines are all at an economic level of development equally comparable to that of Vietnam. We note that the Surrogate Country List is a non-exhaustive list of economically comparable countries. We also note that the record does not contain publicly available SV factor information for Ghana, Nicaragua, or Indonesia. Parties submitted information demonstrating that Bangladesh, India, and the Philippines are significant producers of subject merchandise. 22 Thus, we find that Bangladesh, India, and the Philippines are economically comparable to Vietnam and significant producers of the subject merchandise.

Once we have identified the countries that are economically comparable to Vietnam and are significant producers of the subject merchandise, we select an appropriate surrogate country by determining whether the data for valuing FOPs are both available and reliable.

Regarding the Bangladeshi data, the record contains publicly available surrogate factor value information for most FOPs. With respect to the main raw material input, shrimp, the Vietnamese respondents provided data for Bangladesh from a study conducted by the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (“NACA”), an intergovernmental organization affiliated with the United Nation's (“UN”) Food and Agricultural Organization (“FAO”).

With respect to India, the record contains publicly available surrogate value information for some FOPs. Although the ASPA noted in its December 12, 2011, surrogate value submission that it would place publicly available information from India to value shrimp on the record, no information from India to value shrimp has been placed on the record.

With regard to the Philippines, the record contains publicly available surrogate factor value information for all FOPs. Domestic Producers provided shrimp data for the Philippines published by the Philippines Fisheries Development Authority (“PFDA”) at Navotas City Fish Port.

The Department's practice when selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, is to select, to the extent practicable, SVs which are product-specific, representative of a broad-market average, publicly available, contemporaneous with the POR and exclusive of taxes and duties. 23 As a general matter, the Department prefers to use publicly available data representing a broad-market average to value SVs. 24 The Department notes that the value of the main input, head-on, shell-on shrimp, is a critical FOP in the dumping calculation as it accounts for a significant percentage of NV. Moreover, the ability to value shrimp on a count-size basis is a significant consideration with respect to the data available on the record, as the subject merchandise and the raw shrimp input are both sold on a count-size specific basis. For these reasons, in prior administrative reviews, the Department rejected shrimp SVs with limited count sizes. 25

The Bangladeshi shrimp values within the NACA study are compiled by the UN's FAO from actual pricing records kept by Bangladeshi farmers, traders, depots, agents, and processors. 26 The Bangladeshi shrimp values within the NACA study are publicly available, represent a broad-market average, are product-specific, count-size-specific, contemporaneous and represent actual transaction prices. Unlike the Bangladeshi data within the NACA study, the Philippine shrimp data is limited and does not satisfy as many factors of the Department's data selection criteria. Specifically, we note that the PFDA data contains limited count-size specific data, omitting substantial portions of the range of sizes of shrimp sold by the respondents. Therefore, with respect to the data considerations, we find that the record contains shrimp values for Bangladesh that better meet our selection criteria than the Philippine source. Moreover, there is no shrimp value information from India on the record of this review. Accordingly, as shrimp is the main factor of production in this case, we have selected Bangladesh as the primary surrogate country as the shrimp surrogate value for Bangladesh is the most specific to the input consumed.

In this regard, given the above-cited facts, we find that the information on the record shows that Bangladesh is an appropriate surrogate country because Bangladesh is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and has reliable, publicly available data for surrogate valuation purposes, particularly for the main factor of production, i.e., shrimp.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in an antidumping administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), between January 16 and January 20, 2012, the Department conducted a verification of Nha Trang Seafoods' sales and FOPs. 27

In every case conducted by the Department involving Vietnam, Vietnam has been treated as an NME country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. 28 None of the parties to this proceeding have contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated the NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.

In NME countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. 29 However, a company in the NME applying for separate rate status may rebut that presumption by demonstrating an absence of both de jure and de facto government control over its export activities. 30

The Department analyzes each entity's export independence under a test first articulated in Sparklers and as further developed in Silicon Carbide. 31 Importantly, if the Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy (“ME”) country, then the Department need not conduct a separate rate analysis to determine whether the company is independent from government control. 32

In addition to the two mandatory respondents, the Minh Phu Group and Nha Trang Seafoods, the Department received separate rate applications or certifications from the following thirty-one companies (“Separate-Rate Applicants”):

Thirty companies did not submit either a separate-rate application or certification. 33 Therefore, because these companies did not demonstrate their eligibility for separate rate status, they remain preliminarily included as part of the Vietnam-wide entity.

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) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 34 The evidence provided by the Minh Phu Group, Nha Trang Seafoods, and the Separate-Rate Applicants supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of government control based on the following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) there are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and (3) there are formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See, e.g., the Minh Phu Group's AQR at Exhibit 1, Nha Trang Seafoods Group's AQR at Exhibit A-1.

Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are subject to the approval of a government agency; (2) whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. 35 The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. The evidence provided by the Minh Phu Group, Nha Trang Seafoods, and the Separate-Rate Applicants supports a preliminary finding of de facto absence of government control based on the following: (1) The companies set their own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) the companies have authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) the companies have autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) there is no restriction on any of the companies' use of export revenue. See, e.g., the Minh Phu Group's AQR at 3-26 and Exhibit A-1, Nha Trang Seafoods Group's AQR at 3-16 and Exhibit A-1. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that the Minh Phu Group, Nha Trang Seafoods, and the Separate-Rate Applicants have established that they qualify for a separate rate under the criteria established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.

In the “Respondent Selection” section above, we stated that the Department employed a limited examination methodology, as it did not have the resources to examine all companies for which a review request was made, and selected two exporters as mandatory respondents in this review. The Minh Phu Group and Nha Trang Seafoods participated in the review as mandatory respondents. Thirty-three additional companies (listed in the “Separate Rates” section above) submitted timely information as requested by the Department and remained subject to review as separate rate respondents.

We note that the statute and the Department's regulations do not directly 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. The Department's practice in cases involving limited selection based on exporters accounting for the largest volumes of trade has been to look for guidance in section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation. Consequently, the Department generally weight-averages the rates calculated for the mandatory respondents, excluding zero and de minimis rates and rates based entirely on facts available (“FA”), and applies that resulting weighted-average margin to non-selected cooperative separate-rate respondents. 36

However, the Department has, for these preliminary results, calculated a zero or de minimis dumping margin for the two mandatory respondents, the Minh Phu Group and Nha Trang Seafoods. In this circumstance, we again look to section 735(c)(5) of the Act for guidance. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act instructs that we are not to calculate an all-others rate using any zero or de minimis margins or any margins based entirely on FA. Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act also provides that, where all margins are zero rates, de minimis rates, or rates based entirely on FA, we may use “any reasonable method” for assigning the rate to non-selected respondents. Therefore, because all rates in this proceeding are de minimis, we must look to other reasonable means to assign separate rate margins to non-reviewed companies eligible for a separate rate in this review. Given that the Department has calculated positive rates for mandatory respondents in the immediately preceding two administrative reviews, 37 distinguishing this review from the second and third reviews, 38 we find that a reasonable method is to assign to non-reviewed companies in this review the most recent calculated rate from a prior completed segment of the proceeding that is not zero or de minimis, and not based entirely on facts available (or average of such rates), or, if any non-selected company has its own calculated (non-adverse facts available) rate that is contemporaneous with or more recent than this rate, then the company will receive that rate. Pursuant to this method, we are assigning the rate of 1.03 percent, the most recent positive rate (from the amended final results of the fifth administrative review) calculated for cooperative separate rate respondents, to those separate rate respondents in the instant review. 39 However, for Camimex, who received a calculated rate in the fifth administrative review, we are assigning that calculated rate as the company's separate rate in this review. Therefore, for Camimex, we are assigning its most recently calculated rate (0.80 percent) as its separate rate in the instant review because this rate is contemporaneous with the separate rate calculated in the fifth administrative review and is based on the company's own data. We invite parties to provide comments on this methodology in their case briefs.

Upon initiation of the administrative review, we provided the opportunity for all companies upon which the review was initiated to complete either the separate-rates application or certification. The separate-rate certification and separate-rate applications were available at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html.

We have preliminarily determined that 30 companies did not demonstrate their eligibility for a separate rate and are properly considered part of the Vietnam-wide entity. In NME proceedings, “`rates' may consist of a single dumping margin applicable to all exporters and producers.”  40 As explained above in the “Separate Rates” section, all companies within Vietnam are considered to be subject to government control unless they are able to demonstrate an absence of government control with respect to their export activities. Such companies are thus assigned a single antidumping duty rate distinct from the separate rate(s) determined for companies that are found to be independent of government control with respect to their export activities. We consider the influence that the government has been found to have over the economy to warrant determining a rate for the entity that is distinct from the rates found for companies that have provided sufficient evidence to establish that they operate freely with respect to their export activities. 41 In this regard, we note that no party has submitted evidence of the proceeding to demonstrate that such government influence is no longer present or that our treatment of the NME entity is otherwise incorrect. Therefore, we are assigning the entity a rate of 25.76%, the only rate ever determined for the Vietnam-wide entity in this proceeding.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i) and the Department's long-standing practice of determining the date of sale, 42 the Department preliminarily determines that the invoice date is the most appropriate date to use as the Minh Phu Group and Nha Trang Seafoods date of sale. The Minh Phu Group and Nha Trang Seafoods reported the invoice date as the date of sale because they claim that, for their U.S. sales of subject merchandise made during the POR, the material terms of sale were established based on the invoice date.

To determine whether sales of shrimp to the United States by the Minh Phu Group and Nha Trang Seafoods were made at less than NV, the Department compared either export price (“EP”) or constructed export price (“CEP”) to NV, as described in the “U.S. Price” and “Normal Value” sections below.

In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department calculated EP for sales to the United States for Nha Trang Seafoods and a portion of sales to the United States for the Minh Phu Group because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made before the date of importation and the use of CEP was not otherwise warranted. The Department calculated EP based on the sales price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, as appropriate, the Department deducted from the sales price certain foreign inland freight, brokerage and handling (“B&H”), and international movement costs. Because the inland freight and B&H services were either provided by a NME vendor or paid for using a NME currency, the Department based the deduction of these charges on surrogate values. 43 For international freight provided by a ME provider and paid in U.S. dollars, the Department used the actual cost per kilogram (“kg”) of the freight.

For some of the Minh Phu Group's sales, the Department based U.S. price on CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, because sales were made on behalf of the Vietnam-based company by a U.S. affiliate to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. For these sales, the Department based CEP on prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, the Department made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for foreign movement expenses, international movement expenses, U.S. movement expenses, and appropriate selling adjustments, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department also deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States. The Department deducted, where appropriate, commissions, inventory carrying costs, interest revenue, credit expenses, warranty expenses, and indirect selling expenses. Where foreign movement expenses, international movement expenses, or U.S. movement expenses were provided by NME service providers or paid for in an NME currency, the Department valued these services using SVs ( see “Factor Valuations” section below for further discussion). For those expenses that were provided by an ME provider and paid for in an ME currency, the Department used the reported expense. Due to the proprietary nature of certain adjustments to U.S. price, for a detailed description of all adjustments made to U.S. price for each company, see the company-specific analysis memoranda, dated concurrently with these preliminary results.

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. Further, pursuant to section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the valuation of an NME respondent's FOPs shall be based on the best available information regarding the value of such factors in an ME country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. The Department bases NV on the FOPs because the presence of government controls on various aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.

The Department used import statistics into Bangladesh to value the raw material and packing material inputs that the Minh Phu Group and Nha Trang Seafoods used to produce the subject merchandise during the POR, except where listed below.

With respect to the SVs based on Bangladeshi import statistics, in according with the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (“OTCA”) and long-standing agency practice, the Department has disregarded prices that the Department has reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. 44 The Department has previously found that it is appropriate to disregard such prices from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand because we have determined that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry specific, export subsidies. 45 Based on the existence of these subsidy programs that were generally available to all exporters and producers in these countries at the time of the POR, the Department finds that it has reason to believe or suspect that all exporters from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have benefitted from these subsidies and that we should therefore disregard any data from these countries contained in the Bangladeshi import statistics used to calculate SVs. The Department similarly disregarded prices from NME countries. Imports that were labeled as originating from an “unspecified” country were excluded from the average value, since the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an NME country or a country with generally available export subsidies. 46 Finally, the Department has excluded some imports identified as originating from Bangladesh. 47 For further discussion regarding all SV calculations using Bangladeshi Import Statistics, see Surrogate Value Memorandum.

In accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, for subject merchandise produced by the Minh Phu Group and Nha Trang Seafoods, the Department calculated NV based on the FOPs reported by the Minh Phu Group and Nha Trang Seafoods for the POR. The Department used data from the Bangladesh import statistics and other publicly available Bangladeshi sources in order to calculate SVs for the Minh Phu Group and Nha Trang Seafoods' FOPs (direct materials, energy, and packing materials) and certain movement expenses. To calculate NV, the Department multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by publicly available Bangladeshi SVs (except as noted below). Because the statute is silent concerning what constitutes the “best available information” for a particular SV, the courts have recognized that on this topic the Department enjoys “broad discretion to determine the best available information for an antidumping review.”  48 The Department's practice when selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs is to select, to the extent practicable, SVs which are product-specific, representative of a broad market average, publicly available, contemporaneous with the POR, and exclusive of taxes and duties. 49

Domestic Producers provided shrimp data for the Philippines published by the PFDA, which, although publicly available, does not encompass the full range of count sizes sold by respondents. Conversely, the shrimp values within the NACA study, which were submitted by certain Vietnamese respondents, are compiled from actual pricing records kept by Bangladeshi farmers, traders, depots, agents, and processors, are count-specific, and publicly available. Therefore, to value the main input, head-on, shell-on shrimp, the Department used data contained in the NACA study. 50

The Department used United Nations ComTrade Statistics, provided by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs' Statistics Division, as its primary source of Bangladeshi SV data. 51 The data represents cumulative values for the calendar year 2007, for inputs classified by the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System number. For each input value, we used the average value per unit for that input imported into Bangladesh from all countries that the Department has not previously determined to be NME countries. Import statistics from countries that the Department has determined to be countries which subsidized exports ( i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand, and India) and imports from unspecified countries also were excluded in the calculation of the average value. 52 Lastly, the Department has also excluded imports from Bangladesh into Bangladesh because there is no evidence on the record regarding what these data represent ( e.g., re-importations, another category of unspecified imports, or the result of an error in reporting). Thus, these data do not represent the best available information upon which to rely for valuation purposes. 53

In this case, the Department adjusted the SVs as necessary to ensure a fair calculation of the production costs. 54 First, the Department made adjustments to the SVs for exchange rates and taxes, and converted all applicable items to measurement on a per kg basis. Second, the Department adjusted input prices by including freight costs to render them delivered prices. Specifically, to accord with the decision of the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the Department added to the Bangladeshi import SVs a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance between (1) the domestic supplier and the factory or (2) the nearest seaport and the factory. Where we did not use Bangladeshi Import Statistics, we calculated freight based on the reported distance from the supplier to the factory. For a detailed description of all SVs used for the Minh Phu Group and Nha Trang Seafoods, see Surrogate Value Memorandum.

It is the Department's practice to calculate price index adjustors to inflate or deflate, as appropriate, SVs that are not contemporaneous with the POR using the wholesale price index (“WPI”) for the subject country. 55 However, in this case, a WPI was not available for Bangladesh. Therefore, where publicly available information contemporaneous with the POR with which to value factors could not be obtained, SVs were adjusted using the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) rate for Bangladesh, or the WPI for India or Indonesia (for certain SVs where Bangladeshi data could not be obtained), as published in the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund. We made currency conversions, where necessary, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415, to U.S. dollars using the daily exchange rate corresponding to the reported date of each sale. We relied on the daily exchange rates posted on the Import Administration Web site ( http://www.trade.gov/ia/ ). 56

The Department used UN ComTrade to value the raw material and packing material inputs that the Minh Phu Group and Nha Trang Seafoods used to produce the merchandise under review during the POR, except where listed below. For a detailed description of all SVs for respondents, see Surrogate Value Memorandum.

We valued electricity using data from the Bangladesh Ministry of Power, Energy, & Mineral Resources. This information was published on their Power Division's Web site. 57

We valued water using 2007 data from the Asian Development Bank. We inflated the value using the POR average CPI rate. 58

We valued diesel using data published by the World Bank in “Bangladesh: Transport at a Glance,” published in June 2006. We inflated the value using the POR average CPI rate. 59

To value truck freight and river freight, we used data published in 2008 Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh published by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. We inflated the value using the POR average CPI rate. 60

To value marine insurance, the Department used rates from RJG Consultants. These rates are for sea freight from the Far East Region. 61

We valued warehouse/cold storage rates published in an article on tropical-seeds.com in July 1997. We inflated the value using the POR average CPI rate. 62

We valued containerization using information previously available on the Import Administration Web site. We inflated the value using the POR average WPI rate. 63

The Department valued terminal lift charges using data from the Web sites http://www.oocl.com/bangladesh/eng/localinformation/localsurcharges/?site=bangladesh&lang=eng and http://www.srinternational.com/standard_ containers.htm. We inflated the value using the POR average WPI rate. 64

We valued the by-product using shell scrap values from the Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, through Maureen Flannery, Program Manager, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, from Christian Hughes and Adina Teodorescu, Case Analysts, subject: Surrogate Valuation of Shell Scrap: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China (PRC), Administrative Review 9/1/00-8/31/01 and New Shipper Reviews 9/1/00-8/31/01 and 9/1/00-10/15/01. We inflated the value using the POR average WPI rate. 65

To value factory overhead, selling, general, & administrative expenses, and profit, we used the simple average of the 2009-2010 financial statement of Apex Foods Limited and the 2009-2010 financial statement of Gemini Seafood Limited, both of which are Bangladeshi producers of identical merchandise. 66

As previously stated, the Department values FOPs in NME cases using the best available information for such factors in a ME country or countries considered appropriate by the administering authority. In so doing, the Department utilizes, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in one or more ME countries that are (1) at a comparable level of economic development and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. 67

Previously, to value the respondent's cost of labor, the Department used regression-based wages that captured the worldwide relationship between per capita Gross National Income (“GNI”) and hourly manufacturing wages, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). However, on May 14, 2010, the Federal Circuit in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“ Dorbest ”), invalidated 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). As a consequence of the Federal Circuit's ruling in Dorbest, the Department no longer relies on the regression-based wage rate methodology described in its regulations.

In this review, the Department has selected Bangladesh as the surrogate country for the final results. The record contains a labor wage rate for shrimp processing in Bangladesh, published by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. When selecting possible surrogate values for use in an NME proceeding, the Department's preference is to use surrogate values that are publicly available, broad market averages, contemporaneous with the POR, specific to the input in question, and exclusive of taxes. 68 Pursuant to section 773(c)(1) of the Act, it is also the Department's practice to use the best available information to derive surrogate values. The Department considers several factors, including quality, specificity and contemporaneity, to determine the best available information in accordance with the Act. The Department finds this labor wage rate to be the best available information on the record. This data is publicly available, represents a broad market average, specific to the shrimp processing industry, contemporaneous to the POR, and collected from an official Bangladeshi government source in the surrogate country that the Department has selected. Therefore, we note that the BBS data is consistent with the Department's statement of policy regarding the calculation of surrogate value for labor. For further information on the calculation of the labor rate, see Surrogate Value Memorandum at 4.

To value brokerage and handling, the Department used a price list of export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in India. The price list is publicly available and compiled based on a survey case study of the procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by ocean transport in India as published in Doing Business 2011: India (published by the World Bank). 69

The Department 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.

The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results. 70 Interested parties may submit written comments (case briefs) within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs) within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. 71 Rebuttal briefs must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs. 72 Parties who submit arguments 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.

Interested parties, who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”). An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 73 Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, we will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. 74 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing.

Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.

The deadline for submission of publicly available information to value FOPs under 19 CFR 351.408(c) is 20 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. 75 If an interested party submits factual information less than ten days before, on, or after (if the Department has extended the deadline), the applicable deadline for submission of such factual information, an interested party may submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct the factual information no later than ten days after such factual information is served on the interested party. 76 However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. 77 Furthermore, the Department generally will not accept business proprietary information in either the surrogate value submissions or the rebuttals thereto, as the regulation regarding the submission of surrogate values allows only for the submission of publicly available information. Additionally, for each piece of factual information submitted with surrogate value rebuttal comments, the interested party must provide a written explanation of what information that is already on the record of the ongoing proceeding that the factual information is rebutting, clarifying, or correcting.

Upon issuing the final results of the review, 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. We will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. 78 We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis. However, the final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

The following cash deposit requirements, when imposed, will apply to all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Nha Trang Seaproduct Group and Minh Phu will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for any previously reviewed or investigated Vietnam or non-Vietnam exporter, not covered in this administrative review, with a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established in the most recent segment of this proceeding; (3) for all other Vietnam exporters, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the Vietnam-wide rate ( i.e., 25.76 percent); and (4) the cash-deposit rate for any non-Vietnam exporter of subject merchandise from Vietnam will be the rate applicable to the Vietnam exporter that supplied that exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

Background

On January 19, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated the countervailing duty investigation of large residential washers from the Republic of Korea. See Large Residential Washers From the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 77 FR 4279 (January 27, 2012). The current deadline for the completion of the preliminary determination is March 26, 2012. 1

Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a countervailing duty investigation within 65 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, the Department may postpone making the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which the administering authority initiated the investigation if, among other reasons, the petitioner makes a timely request for an extension pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act. In the instant investigation, the petitioner, Whirlpool Corporation, made a timely request on February 28, 2012, requesting a postponement of the preliminary countervailing duty determination to 130 days from the initiation date. See 19 CFR 351.205(e) and the petitioner's February 28, 2012, letter requesting postponement of the preliminary determination.

Therefore, pursuant to 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act and because the Department does not find any compelling reason to deny the request, we are extending the due date for the preliminary determination to no later than 130 days after the date on which this investigation was initiated, or May 28, 2012. Because May 28, 2012, falls on a federal holiday, the deadline for the completion of the preliminary determination is now May 29, 2012, the first business day after the 130th day from initiation. See Next Business Day Rule.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(l).

The National Weather Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is undertaking a review of NOAA's Policy on Partnerships in the Provision of Environmental Information. This Policy applies to the weather, water, climate and related environmental information services of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It sets forth basic principles to be applied in making decisions regarding these information services. The Policy is intended to strengthen the existing partnership between government, academia and the private sector, which is a partnership that provides the nation with high quality weather, water, climate and related environmental information.

The Policy calls for a periodic review of its effectiveness, and NOAA is seeking public comments to aid in this review.

On December 16, 2011, notice was published in the Federal Register (76 FR 78242) that a request for an amendment to Permit No. 14241-02 to conduct research on marine mammals had been submitted by the above-named applicant. The requested permit amendment has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

The permit has been amended to include (1) adding waters off Florida to the project for tagging to study risks of entanglement in mid-Atlantic states; (2) one new species, Atlantic spotted dolphin ( Stenella frontalis ), for field work in waters off Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia; (3) a new project to Dtag the following species in waters off the west coast of North America: Baird's beaked whale ( Berardius bairdii ), Cuvier's beaked whale ( Ziphius cavirostris ), Risso's dolphin ( Grampus griseus ), killer whale ( Orcinus orca ) and Mesoplodont beaked whales ( Mesoplodon spp); (4) a new procedure for marking cetaceans with zinc oxide; (5) satellite tagging to long-finned pilot whales in approaches to the Mediterranean; and (6) switching some of the playback takes initially located in the Mediterranean and eastern North Atlantic to the same stocks of long-finned ( Globicephala melas ) and short-finned ( G. macrorhynchus ) pilot whales off Cape Hatteras. The amendment is valid through the original expiration date of the permit, July 31, 2014.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), a final determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

Documents may be reviewed in the following locations:

Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376;

Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone (206) 526-6150; fax (206) 526-6426;

Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562) 980-4001; fax (562) 980-4018;

Northeast Region, NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930; phone (978) 281-9328; fax (978) 281-9394; and

Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, FL 33701; phone (727) 824-5312; fax (727) 824-5309.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). The Committee plans to submit a request to OMB to renew its approval of the collections of information concerning annual certification of nonprofit agencies serving people who are blind or who have other significant disabilities to participate in the AbilityOne Program. The Committee is requesting a 3-year term of approval for these information collection activities.

Federal agencies 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 these collections of information are 3037-0002 and 3037-0001.

The JWOD Act of 1971 (41 U.S.C. Chapter 85) is the authorizing legislation for the AbilityOne Program. The AbilityOne Program creates jobs and training opportunities for people who are blind or who have other severe disabilities. Its primary means of doing so is by requiring Government agencies to purchase selected products and services from nonprofit agencies employing such individuals. The AbilityOne Program is administered by the Committee. Two national, independent organizations, National Industries for the Blind (NIB) and NISH, help State and private nonprofit agencies participate in the AbilityOne Program.

The implementing regulations for the JWOD Act, which are located at 41 CFR Chapter 51, provide the requirements, procedures, and standards for the AbilityOne Program. Section 51-4.3 of the regulations sets forth the standards that a nonprofit agency must meet to maintain qualification for participation in the AbilityOne Program. Under this section of the regulations, a nonprofit agency that wants to continue to participate in the AbilityOne Program must submit a completed copy of the appropriate Annual Certification form (Committee Form 403 or 404). This documentation helps the Committee determine whether the applicant nonprofit agency is meeting the requirements of the AbilityOne Program.

This information collection renewal request seeks approval for the Committee to continue to collect the information required under 41 CFR 51-4.3 of the regulations so that the Committee can continue to verify the appropriateness of nonprofit agencies that would like to participate in the JWOD Program. Both forms have added three new questions concerning the number of veterans employed at the agencies doing direct labor and the wages paid to veterans working on AbilityOne projects and have revised the language at the bottom of the certification section.

Title: Annual Certification—Qualified Nonprofit Agency Serving People Who Are Blind, 41 CFR 51-4.3.

OMB Control Number: 3037-0001.

Form Number: Committee Form 403.

Description of Respondents: Nonprofit agencies serving people who are blind that participate in the JWOD Program.

Annual Number of Respondents: About 70 nonprofit agencies serving people who are blind will annually request to be verified for participation in the AbilityOne Program.

Total Annual Burden Hours: Burden is estimated to average 6 hours per respondent. Total annual burden is 420 hours. Note: this burden estimate is only for the reporting of information; a separate burden estimate exists for the recordkeeping requirement.

Title: Initial Certification—Qualified Nonprofit Agency Serving People Who Are Severely Disabled, 41 CFR 51-4.3.

OMB Control Number: 3037-0002.

Form Number: Committee Form 404.

Description of Respondents: Nonprofit agencies serving people who are severely disabled that participate in the JWOD Program.

Annual Number of Respondents: About 550 nonprofit agencies serving people who are severely disabled will annually request to be verified for participation in the JWOD Program.

Total Annual Burden Hours: Burden is estimated to average 6 hours per respondent. Total annual burden is 3,300 hours. Note: this burden estimate is only for the reporting of information; a separate burden estimate exists for the recordkeeping requirement.

We invite comments concerning this renewal on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

The invention uses a series of combined passive neutron and gamma ray sensors and sensor aggregators, systematically placed along a path of commercial traffic, for example an airport runway, combined with a pulsed source of monoenergetic gamma rays and low energy neutrons. The pulsed source produces a short interrogation pulse of monoenergetic gamma rays and low energy neutrons. These gamma rays induce a fission reaction in any fissile material in their path, such as in a moving vehicle, creating gamma rays and neutrons. The passive sensors located in the path of the moving vehicle detect the resultant gamma and neutron products of the reaction.

The FY 2012 grants to Military-Connected Local Educational Agencies for Academic and Support Programs (MCASP) aim to strengthen family-school-community relationships and enhance student achievement for military dependent students. Applicants may choose to design their projects with academic goals, family engagement goals, or a combination of both. Projects should focus on no more than two program areas. Academically-focused projects should strengthen teacher content knowledge and skills through sustained professional development and, in most cases, encourage integration of technology into the curriculum. Family engagement and support projects should address the social-emotional needs of military families and aim to improve school climate. However, grant funds must be used for programs that directly support the student, and cannot be used for programs that only support family members.

Awards will be made to local educational agencies (LEAs) on behalf of their eligible school(s). LEAs must have at least a five percent military dependent student enrollment at the district level. Eligible schools must have at least a 15 percent military dependent student enrollment. Although funding is related to military dependent student enrollment, it is expected that the proposed programs will serve all students at the target schools.

The following two caveats should be noted:

• The impact on the military dependent student subgroups should be demonstrable.

• Family/support programs must focus primarily on military dependent students.

The application package may be found at www.militaryk12partners.dodea.edu and www.grants.gov. The full application is due on April 13, 2012.

Definition of Military Dependent Student: The term, military dependent student, is defined as an elementary or secondary school student who is a dependent of a member of the Armed Forces or a civilian employee of the Department of Defense who is employed on Federal property.

Authorization:

• Section 574(d) of Public Law 109-364, as amended; Title 10 U.S.C. Section 2192(b) and Title 10 U.S.C. Section 2193a.

• CFDA 12.556: Competitive Grants: Promoting K-12 Student Achievement at Military-Connected Schools.

Research-based strategies: DoDEA supports research-based programs that aim to increase student achievement; strengthen family, school, and community engagement; and foster a positive school climate for military dependent children. Research-based strategies:

• Are not limited to a research-based curriculum, but may be teaching and learning strategies that often cut across all content areas and all grade levels.

• Include both valid and innovative programs.

Student achievement: Regarding academic programs, LEAs must employ strategies with demonstrated effectiveness in improving student achievement. Achievement should include but is not limited to measurements of performance on state norm- and/or criterion-referenced assessments. Within this context, projects may include research-based programs that promote college and career readiness or provide extended learning opportunities.

Support programs: Family engagement and support programs must employ strategies to create a positive school climate and address the social-emotional needs of military dependent students. This includes, but is not limited to, guidance counseling, peer support groups, and parental involvement programs.

For the FY12 grant program, there are three priorities, and each applicant must include at least one priority area in their project design. Overall, projects should focus on no more than two program areas. While applicants are permitted to choose more than two program areas, submitting an application that addresses additional areas may result in an unfocused program design. No additional points will be assigned to proposals that incorporate more than one of these priority areas. Proposals may include programs outside of these priorities. Program areas are any K-12 academic content support (English, Math, Science, Social Studies, ESL, or Special Education) and military student socio-emotional support.

Priority #1: Science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM): Projects include strategies to infuse STEM principles throughout the curriculum. For example, a project that focuses only on math would not be given priority points for this area. The intent is to encourage STEM-integration across several content areas.

Priority #2: Strategic foreign languages: Projects include establishment or expansion of foreign language learning, specifically less commonly taught languages such as Asian/Pacific languages and Middle Eastern languages. Programs under this priority may include virtual learning, intensive summer instruction for teachers and students, and immersion courses.

Priority #3: Parent, family, and community engagement: Projects include ongoing, systemic strategies for parent and family engagement. Strategies may include parent training and support, resources and materials, and community involvement activities. Grant funds must be used for programs that directly support the student, and cannot be used for programs that only support family members.

In addition, there are two competitive priorities:

High concentration of military dependent students: An applicant may receive five additional points if one or more of the eligible schools have a military dependent student enrollment of 50 percent or more.

New applicants: Applicants may receive five additional points if the LEA has never previously received a DoDEA grant award.

Applicants are limited to LEAs that have at least a 5 percent military dependent student enrollment at the district level. Eligible schools within the district must have at least a 15 percent military dependent student enrollment. Although funding is related to military dependent student enrollment, it is expected that the proposed programs will serve all students at the target schools. Funds may be used for programs at any grade level.

Current DoDEA grant recipients are eligible to apply for a FY 2012 MCASP grant if they have eligible schools that are not named (that is, not receiving services) from any of their existing DoDEA grant awards, unless the current grant is scheduled to end on August 31, 2012.

The funding formula is based on the number of military dependent students at eligible (target) school(s). For example, an LEA with 101-200 students may propose any amount between $135,000 and $270,000. The dollar figures below are for the entire 3-year grant period.

Project Period: June 1, 2012 to August 31, 2015.

Estimated Available Funds: $25,000,000.

Estimated Range of Awards: $100,000 to $2,500,000.

Estimated Average Award Size: $1,000,000.

Estimated Number of Awards: 30.

Minimum Award: $100,000 (100 or fewer military dependent students).

Maximum Award: $2,500,000 (1,700 or more military dependent students).

• Full Applications Available: On or about February 22, 2012.

• *Live Technical Assistance Webinar #1: March 8, 2012, 3 p.m. ET.

• *Live Technical Assistance Webinar #2: March 9, 2012, 11 a.m. ET.

• Deadline for Intent to Apply (optional): March 14, 2012.

• Deadline for Transmittal of Applications through www.grants.gov: April 13, 2012, 11:59 p.m. ET.

• Grants Awarded: On or about June 1, 2012.

*See application instructions on www.grants.gov for information on how to access the webinars.

The Project Narrative may not exceed 15 pages in length. The Project Narrative describes, in sufficient detail, how the project will be implemented and includes the Evaluation Criteria in Sections A-F below. The application will be reviewed and scored according to the quality of the responses to the requirements in Sections A-F. The Project Narrative, with all sections included, may be no longer than 15 pages.

• Provide relevant school district data or background information, including the connection to the military installation(s).

• State student achievement needs and/or lack of educational opportunities at target schools.

• Cite multiple sources, primarily quantitative data, to confirm the need.

• Explain why current or past efforts failed to resolve the need, if applicable.

• Include other relevant information, e.g., the consequences of not addressing the need.

• Include goals that (1) relate to the program's purpose, (2) lead to the desired results, and (3) are achievable through the project's interventions and strategies.

• Express goals broadly, such as: Increase K-5 student achievement in mathematics. Applications should have one goal related to each program area selected, with the recommendation that no more than two program areas are chosen.

• Include outcomes that are (1) measurable and reasonable and (2) related to baseline school, district, and state data as well as the relevant literature.

• Specify outcome timeframes, measurement tools, and target populations. Measurement tools should be an above school-level assessment(s), such as norm- or criterion-referenced standardized state or national test. The baseline should be referenced. The timeframe should be sufficient for strategies to achieve the expected results. Consider the following example of an outcome:

• Interim outcomes are tied to the goal and are presented as specific measurements that assess each year of the project. Typically, each goal will have multiple interim outcomes.

The Department of the Air Force systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . The Department of the Air Force proposes to delete one system of records notice from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public may submit written statements to the Board of Visitors of the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center in response to the agenda. All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer of the Board of Visitors of the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Written statements should be sent to: Attention: DFO at ATFL-APO, Monterey, CA 93944 or faxed to (831) 242-6495. Statements must be received by the Designated Federal officer at least five work days prior to the meeting. Written statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the Board of Visitors of the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center until its next meeting.

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

The Department of the Army proposes to delete fifteen systems of records notices from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed deletions are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

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

The Department of the Army proposes to delete thirteen systems of records notices from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed deletions are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

The Department of the Navy notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on March 1, 2012, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

This notice of proposed priority is in concert with NIDRR's currently approved Long-Range Plan (Plan). The Plan, which was published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2006 (71 FR 8165), can be accessed on the Internet at the following site: www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/nidrr/policy.html.

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

This notice proposes a priority that NIDRR intends to use for a DRRP competition in FY 2012 and possibly later years. However, nothing precludes NIDRR from publishing additional priorities, if needed. Furthermore, NIDRR is under no obligation to make an award for this priority. The decision to make an award will be based on the quality of applications received and available funding.

Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priority, we urge you to identify clearly the specific topic that each comment addresses.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice in Room 5140, 550 12th Street SW., PCP, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact .

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program is to plan and conduct research, demonstration projects, training, and related activities, including international activities; to develop methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technology that maximize the full inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent living, family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe disabilities; and to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act).

The purpose of NIDRR's DRRPs, which are funded through the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, is to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, by developing methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technologies that advance a wide range of independent living and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe disabilities. DRRPs carry out one or more of the following types of activities, as specified and defined in 34 CFR 350.13 through 350.19: Research, training, demonstration, development, dissemination, utilization, and technical assistance.

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(a).

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 350.

Proposed Priority: This notice contains one proposed priority.

Background:

It is estimated that there are more than 1 million burn injuries in the United States each year. Approximately 450,000 of these burn injuries are treated annually in emergency departments, hospital outpatient clinics, free-standing urgent care centers, or private physician offices, and 45,000 are severe enough to require hospitalization (Esselman et al., 2006; American Burn Association, 2011).

In recent years, burn survivability has increased dramatically. This improvement in survival rates has brought rehabilitation issues to the forefront of care for burn survivors and led to increased demands for research-based knowledge about the post-acute experiences and needs of burn survivors (Esselman et al., 2006).

NIDRR created the Burn Injury Rehabilitation Model Systems of Care (BMS) in 1994 to provide leadership in rehabilitation, a key component of exemplary burn care, and to advance the research base of rehabilitation services for burn survivors. NIDRR currently funds 4 BMS Centers throughout the United States. Each center provides a coordinated system of burn injury care to individuals who sustain a burn injury, including emergency care, acute care management, comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation, and long-term interdisciplinary community re-entry services. In addition, the BMS Centers conduct research to generate new knowledge about the natural course of burn injury and rehabilitation treatment and outcomes following burn injury.

The BMS Centers have developed a longitudinal database that contains information on approximately 4,700 people injured with burns since 1994 (BMS Database). Since 1994, BMS Centers have collected longitudinal data on database participants at six months, twelve months, and twenty-four months after injury. In the 2006-2011 funding cycle, the BMS Centers conducted a pilot test to determine the feasibility of also collecting longitudinal data at five years and ten years after injury. As a result of this pilot test, NIDRR has decided to extend longitudinal data collection for 2012-2017 to include all participants and to occur every fifth year after injury (five years, ten years, fifteen years, etc.).

The BMS Database is emerging as an important source of information about the characteristics and life course of individuals with burn injury and can be used to examine specific outcomes of burn injury. NIDRR seeks to build upon this database by continuing to fund a National Data and Statistical Center for the BMS (National BMS Data Center), which maintains the BMS Database, improves the quality of information that is entered into it, and facilitates the use of the data by BMS researchers and the public.

The BMS Database is a collaborative project in which all of the BMS Centers are required to participate. The data for the BMS Database are collected by the BMS Centers. The directors of the BMS Centers, including the National BMS Data Center, in consultation with NIDRR, determine the parameters of the BMS Database, including the number and type of variables to be examined, the criteria for including individuals with burn injuries in the BMS Database, and the frequency and timing of data collection.

The specifications of the BMS Database as it is currently implemented (including information about the number of database participants, the variables in the database, and the longitudinal intervals at which data are collected) can be obtained from the BMS Database Coordination Center at http://bms-dcc.ucdenver.edu/.

References:

Proposed Priority:

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services proposes a priority for the establishment of a National Data and Statistical Center for the Burn Model Systems (National BMS Data Center). The National BMS Data Center must advance medical rehabilitation by increasing the rigor and efficiency of scientific efforts to assess the experiences and outcomes of individuals with burn injury. To meet this priority, the National BMS Data Center's research and technical assistance must be designed to contribute to the following outcomes:

(a) Maintenance of a national longitudinal database (BMS Database) for data submitted by each of the Burn Model Systems Centers (BMS Centers). This database must provide confidentiality, quality control, and data-retrieval capabilities, using cost-effective technology and user-friendly interfaces.

(b) High-quality, reliable data in the BMS Database. The National BMS Data Center must contribute to this outcome by providing training and technical assistance to BMS Centers on subject retention and data collection procedures, data entry methods, and appropriate use of study instruments, and by monitoring the quality of the data submitted by the BMS Centers.

(c) High-quality data collected from database participants of all racial/ethnic backgrounds. The National BMS Data Center must contribute to this outcome by providing knowledge, training, and technical assistance to the BMS Centers on culturally appropriate methods of longitudinal data collection and participant retention.

(d) Rigorous research conducted by BMS Centers and investigators from outside of the BMS network who are analyzing data from the BMS Database. The National BMS Data Center must contribute to this outcome by making statistical and other methodological consultation available for research projects that use the BMS Database, as well as site-specific research projects being conducted by the BMS Centers.

(e) Improved efficiency of the BMS Database operations. The National BMS Data Center must pursue strategies to achieve this outcome, such as collaborating with the National Data and Statistical Center for Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems, the National Data and Statistical Center for Spinal Cord Injury Model Systems, and the Model Systems Knowledge Translation Center (MSKTC).

(f) Improved reports for the public from the BMS Database. The National BMS Data Center must produce a report based on the BMS Database at least once a year that provides basic demographic, epidemiological, and outcome information about burn survivors. The National BMS Data Center must collaborate with the MSKTC to distribute information about burn injury and burn rehabilitation to the public through a NIDRR-funded Web site and other media.

Types of Priorities:

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register . The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Final Priority:

We will announce the final priority in a notice in the Federal Register . We will determine the final priority after considering responses to this notice and other information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

We have also reviewed this regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are taking this regulatory action only on a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this proposed priority is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

The benefits of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Programs have been well established over the years in that similar projects have been completed successfully. This proposed priority would generate new knowledge through research and development. Another benefit of this proposed priority is that the establishment of new DRRPs would improve the lives of individuals with disabilities. The new DRRP would generate, disseminate, and promote the use of new information that would improve the options for individuals with disabilities to perform activities of their choice in the community.

Intergovernmental Review: This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone: (202) 245-7363. If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

This notice of proposed priority is in concert with NIDRR's currently approved Long-Range Plan (Plan). The Plan, which was published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2006 (71 FR 8165), can be accessed on the Internet at the following site: http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2006-1/021506d.pdf.

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

This notice proposes a priority that NIDRR intends to use for a DRRP competition in FY 2012 and possibly later years. However, nothing precludes NIDRR from publishing additional priorities, if needed. Furthermore, NIDRR is under no obligation to make an award for this priority. The decision to make an award will be based on the quality of applications received and available funding.

Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priority, we urge you to identify clearly the specific topic that each comment addresses.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice in Room 5133, 550 12th Street SW., PCP, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program is to plan and conduct research, demonstration projects, training, and related activities, including international activities, to develop methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technology, that maximize the full inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent living, family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe disabilities, and to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act).

The purpose of NIDRR's DRRPs, which are funded through the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, are to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, by developing methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technologies that advance a wide range of independent living and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe disabilities. DRRPs carry out one or more of the following types of activities, as specified and defined in 34 CFR 350.13 through 350.19: Research, training, demonstration, development, dissemination, utilization, and technical assistance.

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(a).

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 350.

PROPOSED PRIORITY:

This notice contains one proposed priority.

Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems (TBIMS) Centers.

Background:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report that each year in the United States at least 1.7 million people sustain a traumatic brain injury (TBI). Of these, approximately 52,000 die, 275,000 are hospitalized, and 1.3 million are treated and released from emergency departments (CDC, 2010; Faul, Xu, Wald, & Coronado, 2010). These estimates do not include those individuals who sustained a TBI and did not seek medical care, those seen only in private doctors' offices, or those treated in military or veteran health care facilities. The leading causes of TBI are falls (35.2 percent), motor vehicle/traffic collisions (17.3 percent), struck by/against events (16.5 percent), and assaults (10 percent) (Faul et al., 2010). Blasts are a leading cause of TBI among active duty military personnel serving in war zones (Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, 2011a). The number of TBIs experienced by members of the U.S. Armed Forces between the start of 2000 and the end of the second quarter of 2011 is reported to be 220,430 (Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, 2011b).

Common disabilities resulting from TBI include problems with cognition, sensory processing, communication, and behavioral or mental health; and some TBI survivors develop long-term medical complications (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 2011). Direct medical costs and indirect costs such as lost productivity associated with TBI totaled an estimated $76.5 billion in the United States in 2010 (CDC, 2011). Despite the prevalence of TBI and the disabilities that often follow, less than 20 percent of the management guidelines for TBI are supported by either Class I (prospective, randomized, controlled trials with masked outcome assessment, in a representative population) or Class II (prospective matched group cohort study in a representative population with masked outcome assessments) research evidence (Maas, Roozenbeek, & Manley, 2010).

The Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems Centers (TBIMS Centers) program was created by NIDRR in 1987 to demonstrate the benefits of a coordinated system of neurotrauma and rehabilitation care and to conduct innovative research on all aspects of care for those who sustain TBI. The mission of the TBIMS Centers is to improve the lives of persons who experience TBI, and of their families and communities, by creating and disseminating new knowledge about the natural course of TBI and rehabilitation treatment and outcomes following TBI. The influence of the program was expanded in the current grant cycle through numerous TBI interagency initiatives with the U.S. Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center.

NIDRR currently funds 16 TBIMS Centers, which are located throughout the United States. These centers provide comprehensive systems of brain injury care to individuals who sustain TBI and conduct TBI research, including clinical research and the analysis of standardized data in collaboration with other related projects. Since 1989, the TBIMS Centers have collected and contributed information on common data elements for a centralized TBIMS database, which is maintained through a NIDRR-funded grant for a National Data and Statistical Center for the TBIMS Centers. (Additional information on the TBIMS database can be found at http://tbindsc.org ). The TBI National Data and Statistical Center for the TBIMS Centers coordinates data collection, manages the TBIMS database, and provides statistical support to the model systems projects. As of December, 2011, TBIMS Centers have contributed 10,631 cases to the TBIMS database, with follow-up data available to date for 8,136 participants at 1 year post injury; 6,889 at 2 years post injury; 4,425 at 5 years post injury; 1,834 at 10 years post injury; and 484 at 20 years post injury.

Through this priority, we seek to fund new TBIMS Centers that will continue to provide a coordinated, multidisciplinary system of rehabilitation care specifically designed to meet the needs of individuals with TBI. These services would span the continuum of treatment from acute care through community re-entry. Under this priority, TBIMS Centers would engage in initiatives and new approaches and maintain close working relationships with other governmental and non-profit institutions and organizations to coordinate scientific efforts, encourage joint planning, and promote the interchange of data and reports among TBI researchers. As part of these cooperative efforts, TBIMS Centers would participate in collaborative research projects that range from pilot research to more extensive studies.

A committee consisting of the individual TBIMS project directors has, since its inception, guided the TBIMS Centers program. This group meets bi-annually in Washington, DC, and, in consultation with NIDRR, develops and oversees the policies of the TBIMS Centers. NIDRR intends to form such a committee with the project directors awarded grants under this proposed priority.

References:

Proposed Priority:

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services proposes a priority for the funding of Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems (TBIMS) Centers under the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRP) program. The TBIMS Centers must provide comprehensive, multidisciplinary services to individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and conduct research that contributes to the development of evidence-based rehabilitation interventions and clinical and practice guidelines.

For purposes of this priority, the term traumatic brain injury or TBI is defined as damage to brain tissue caused by an external mechanical force as evidenced by loss of consciousness or post-traumatic amnesia due to brain trauma or by objective neurological findings that can be reasonably attributed to TBI on physical examination or mental status examination. Both penetrating and non-penetrating wounds that fit this criteria are included, but, primary anoxic encephalopathy is not.

The TBIMS Centers must generate new knowledge that can be used to improve outcomes of individuals with TBI in one or more domains identified in NIDRR's currently approved Long Range Plan, published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2006 (71 FR 8165): Health and function, community living and participation, technology, and employment. Each TBIMS Center must contribute to this outcome by:

(a) Providing a multidisciplinary system of rehabilitation care specifically designed to meet the needs of individuals with TBI. The system must encompass a continuum of care, including emergency medical services, acute care services, acute medical rehabilitation services, and post-acute services;

(b) Continuing the assessment of long-term outcomes of individuals with TBI by enrolling at least 35 subjects per year into the TBIMS database, following established protocols for the collection of enrollment and follow-up data on subjects (found at http://www.tbindsc.org/ );

(c) Proposing and conducting at least one, but no more than two, site-specific research projects to test innovative approaches to treating TBI or to assess outcomes of individuals with TBI. Site-specific research projects must focus on outcomes in one or more domains identified in the Plan: Health and function, community living and participation, technology, and employment;

(d) Participating as research collaborators in at least one module project. Module projects are research collaborations with one or more TBIMS Centers on topics of mutual interest and expertise. Such module projects must be carried out as part of the TBIMS Centers' activities. They must not be part of a current TBIMS Multi-Site Collaborative Project, which the Department funded under a separate priority (see the notice inviting applications, published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2008 (73 FR 6162) and the associated notice of final priority, published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2008 (73 FR 6132).

(e) Demonstrating, in its application, its capacity to successfully engage in multi-site collaborative research on TBI. This capacity includes access to research participants, the ability to maintain data quality, and the ability to adhere to research protocols;

(f) Spending at least 15 percent of its annual budget on participating in a module project, as described in paragraph (d) of this priority;

(g) Spending $5,000 of its total budget towards the costs of a state-of-the-science conference to be planned and executed with input and participation by the TBIMS Centers;

(h) Coordinating with the NIDRR-funded Model Systems Knowledge Translation Center (MSKTC; http://www.msktc.org/ ) to provide scientific results and information for dissemination to clinical and consumer audiences;

(i) Addressing the needs of individuals with TBI, including individuals from one or more traditionally underserved populations; and

(j) Ensuring that the input of individuals with TBI is used to shape TBIMS research.

Types of Priorities:

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register . The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Final Priority:

We will announce the final priority in a notice in the Federal Register . We will determine the final priority after considering responses to this notice and other information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563:

Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

We have also reviewed this regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are taking this regulatory action only on a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this proposed priority is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

The benefits of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Programs have been well established over the years in that similar projects have been completed successfully. This proposed priority would generate new knowledge through research and development. Another benefit of this proposed priority is that the establishment of new DRRPs would improve the lives of individuals with disabilities. The new DRRP would generate, disseminate, and promote the use of new information that would improve the options for individuals with disabilities to perform activities of their choice in the community.

Intergovernmental Review: This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone: (202) 245-7363. If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

This notice of proposed priority is in concert with NIDRR's currently approved Long-Range Plan (Plan). The Plan, which was published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2006 (71 FR 8165), can be accessed on the Internet at the following site: http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2006-1/021506d.pdf.

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

This notice proposes a priority that NIDRR intends to use for a DRRP competition in FY 2012 and possibly later years. However, nothing precludes NIDRR from publishing additional priorities, if needed. Furthermore, NIDRR is under no obligation to make an award for this priority. The decision to make an award will be based on the quality of applications received and available funding.

Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priority, we urge you to identify clearly the specific topic that each comment addresses.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice in room 5140, 550 12th Street SW., PCP, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program is to plan and conduct research, demonstration projects, training, and related activities, including international activities, to develop methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technology, that maximize the full inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent living, family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe disabilities, and to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act).

The purpose of NIDRR's DRRPs, which are funded through the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, are to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, by developing methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technologies that advance a wide range of independent living and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe disabilities. DRRPs carry out one or more of the following types of activities, as specified and defined in 34 CFR 350.13 through 350.19: Research, training, demonstration, development, dissemination, utilization, and technical assistance.

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(a).

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 350.

Proposed Priority:

This notice contains one proposed priority.

Burn Model Systems (BMS) Centers.

Background:

The American Burn Association (ABA) reports that 450,000 persons in the United States receive medical treatment for burn injuries annually (ABA, 2011). Of these, 3,500 die and 45,000 are hospitalized. Of those hospitalized, 25,000 are treated in hospitals with burn centers. With advances in early medical response to burn injuries and advances in infection control, survival rates of those incurring large burns have significantly increased (ABA, 2011b; Soman, Greenhalgh, & Palmieri, 2010). For those who survive, there are often significant challenges that affect their functional outcomes. Physical challenges may include severe contractures, joint deformities, neurologic and musculosketal problems, scarring, pain, and fatigue (Dewey, Richard, & Parry, 2011; Gabriel, 2011; Schneider, Holavanahalli, Helm, Goldstein, & Kowalske, K., 2006; Schneider & Qu, 2011). Psychological challenges may include posttraumatic stress, depression, and anxiety (Fauerbach et al., 2007; Ullrich, Askay, & Patterson, 2009; Wiechman, 2011). Psychosocial and environmental factors make community integration, including return to school and work, difficult (Esselman, 2011; Schneider, Bassi, & Ryan, 2009). Improvements in survival rates have highlighted the need for comprehensive rehabilitation treatment teams that provide a continuum of coordinated services from admission to the burn unit to assistance with community reintegration, and a combined focus on physical and psychological rehabilitation (Esselman & Kowalske, 2011; Richard et al., 2008).

The Burn Injury Model Systems centers (BMS Centers) program was created by NIDRR in 1994 to provide leadership in rehabilitation as a key component of exemplary burn care and to advance the research base on effective rehabilitation services for burn survivors. The mission of the BMS Centers is to improve the lives of persons who experience burn injury and their families by creating and disseminating new knowledge about the natural course of burn injury and rehabilitation treatment and outcomes following burn injury. NIDRR currently funds 4 BMS Centers throughout the United States. Each BMS Center provides a coordinated system of burn injury care to individuals who sustain a burn injury and conducts burn research, including clinical research and the analysis of standardized data in collaboration with other BMS Centers. Since 1998, the BMS Centers have collected and contributed information on common data elements for a centralized BMS database, which is maintained through a NIDRR-funded grant for a National Data and Statistical Center for the BMS. (Additional information on the BMS database can be found at http://bms-dcc.ucdenver.edu/ ). The National Data and Statistical Center for the BMS coordinates data collection among the BMS Centers, manages the BMS database, and provides statistical support to the BMS Centers. As of December, 2011, BMS Centers have contributed 4,917 cases to the BMS database, with follow up data available for 3,419 participants at 6-months post injury; 2,998 at 1 year post injury; and 2,481 at 2 years post injury. During the 2007-2012 grant cycle, data collection was extended to include information from participants at 5 and 10 years post injury.

Through this priority, we seek to fund new BMS Centers that will continue to provide a multidisciplinary system of rehabilitation care specifically designed to meet the needs of individuals with burn injury. These services would span the continuum of treatment from acute care through community re-entry. Under this priority, BMS Centers would engage in initiatives and new approaches and maintain close working relationships with other governmental and non-profit institutions and organizations to coordinate scientific efforts, encourage joint planning, and promote the interchange of data and reports among burn injury researchers.

A committee consisting of the individual BMS project directors has, since its inception, guided the BMS Centers program. This group meets annually in Washington, DC and at the annual ABA meeting. They also meet by teleconference throughout the year. NIDRR intends to form such a committee with the project directors awarded grants under this proposed priority.

References:

Proposed Priority:

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services proposes a priority for the funding of Burn Model Systems centers (BMS Centers). The BMS Centers must provide comprehensive, multidisciplinary services to individuals with burn injury and conduct research that contributes to evidence-based rehabilitation interventions and clinical and practice guidelines. The BMS Centers must generate new knowledge that can be used to improve outcomes of individuals with burn injury in one or more domains identified in NIDRR's currently approved Long Range Plan, published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2006 (71 FR 8166): Health and function, participation and community living, technology, and employment. Each BMS Center must contribute to this outcome by—

(a) Providing a multidisciplinary system of rehabilitation care specifically designed to meet the needs of individuals with burn injury, including but not limited to physical, psychological, and community reintegration needs. The system must encompass a continuum of care, including emergency medical services, acute care services, acute medical rehabilitation services, and post-acute services;

(b) Continuing the assessment of long-term outcomes of individuals with burn injury by enrolling at least 30 subjects per year into the BMS database, and collecting follow-up data on all subjects enrolled in the database at 6 months, and at 1, 2, 5, and 10 years post injury (as is being done in the current grant cycle) and extending the assessment to every five years thereafter, following established protocols for the collection of enrollment and follow-up data on subjects;

(c) Proposing and conducting at least one, but no more than two, site-specific research projects to test innovative approaches to treating burn injury or to assess outcomes of individuals with burn injury. Site-specific research projects must focus on outcomes in one or more domains identified in the Plan: health and function, community living and participation, technology, and employment;

(d) Coordinating with the NIDRR-funded Model Systems Knowledge Translation Center (MSKTC; http://www.msktc.org/ ) to provide scientific results and information for dissemination to clinical and consumer audiences;

(e) Spending $5,000 of its total budget toward the costs of a state-of-the-science conference, which will be planned and executed with input and participation by the BMS Centers;

(f) Addressing the needs of individuals with burn injuries, including individuals from one or more traditionally underserved populations; and

(g) Ensuring that the input of individuals with burn injuries is used to shape BMS research activities.

Types of Priorities:

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the invitational priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Final Priority:

We will announce the final priority in a notice in the Federal Register. We will determine the final priority after considering responses to this notice and other information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563:

Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

We have also reviewed this regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are taking this regulatory action only on a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this proposed priority is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

The benefits of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Programs have been well established over the years in that similar projects have been completed successfully. This proposed priority would generate new knowledge through research and development. Another benefit of this proposed priority is that the establishment of new DRRPs would improve the lives of individuals with disabilities. The new DRRP would generate, disseminate, and promote the use of new information that would improve the options for individuals with disabilities to perform activities of their choice in the community.

Intergovernmental Review: This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone: (202) 245-7363. If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.