Title: Importation of Hass Avocados from Michoacan, Mexico.

OMB Number: 0579-0129.

Type of Request: Extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. ) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests, including avocado stem weevils, seed weevils, and seed moths, into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. Regulations authorized by the PPA concerning the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world are contained in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56 through 319.56-47).

Under these regulations, avocados from Michoacan, Mexico, are subject to certain conditions before entering the United States. These requirements include, among other things, trust fund agreements, work plans, phytosanitary certificates, stickers, truck and container seals, and box marking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.0015266 hours per response.

Respondents: Importers, shippers, distributors, and handlers of Hass avocados from Mexico; Mexican national plant protection organization officials.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 2,223.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 32,713.735.

Estimated annual number of responses: 72,722,635.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 111,024 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

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

Background

The imported fire ant ( Solenopsis invicta Buren, Solenopsis richteri Forel, and hybrids of these species) is an aggressive, stinging insect that, in large numbers, can seriously injure and even kill livestock, pets, and humans. The imported fire ant, which is not native to the United States, feeds on crops and builds large, hard mounds that damage farm and field machinery. The imported fire ant regulations (contained in 7 CFR 301.81 through 301.81-10 and referred to below as the regulations) are intended to prevent the imported fire ant from spreading throughout its ecological range within the country. The regulations quarantine infested States or infested areas within States and restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles to prevent the artificial spread of the imported fire ant.

In addition to the movement restrictions in the regulations, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and its State cooperators release phorid flies ( Pseudacteon species), a natural enemy of the imported fire ant, into quarantined areas. These flies parasitize the imported fire ant, killing those that are parasitized. Those ants that are not parasitized are affected behaviorally by the presence of the flies because their presence reduces fire ant foraging. A decrease in foraging activity facilitates competition from native fire ants that might otherwise be excluded from food sources in fire ant territory.

Currently, APHIS uses three species of phorid flies ( Pseudacteon curvatus, P. litoralis, and P. tricuspis ) as biological control agents. We are now proposing to release five more species ( P. cultellatus, P. nocens, P. nudicornis, P. obtusus, and P. sp. near obtusus ) into areas quarantined for imported fire ant within the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the following States: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.

To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of the potential environmental impacts associated with releasing these additional species of phorid flies into the environment, we have prepared a draft environmental assessment entitled “Field Release of Phorid Flies ( Pseudacteon species) for the Biological Control of Imported Fire Ants” (July 2007).

The environmental assessment has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

On April 27, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain orange juice from Brazil. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews , 72 FR 20986 (Apr. 27, 2007). The period of review is August 24, 2005, through February 28, 2007, and the preliminary results are currently due no later than December 3, 2007. The review covers three producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department shall make a preliminary determination in an administrative review of an antidumping order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend the 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 it is not practicable to complete this administrative review within the time limits mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act because of technical issues contained in supplemental questionnaire responses. Analysis of these issues requires additional time. Therefore, we have fully extended the deadline for completing the preliminary results until March 31, 2008, the next business day after 365 days from the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The deadline for the final results of the review continues to be 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results.

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

The following events have occurred since the publication of the Department of Commerce's (the Department) notice of initiation in the Federal Register . See Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China , 72 FR 36668 (July 5, 2007) ( Initiation Notice ).

On July 26, 2007, the Department selected the three largest Chinese producers/exporters of circular welded carbon quality steel pipe (CWP), Tianjin Shuangjie Steel Pipe Group Co., Ltd. (Shuangjie), Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (East Pipe), and Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd. (Kingland), as mandatory respondents. See Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Respondent Selection” (July 26, 2007). This memorandum is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit in Room B-099 of the main Department building (CRU). On July 27, 2007, we issued the countervailing duty (CVD) questionnaire to the Government of the People's Republic of China (GOC), East Pipe, Kingland, and Shuangjie.

On July 31, 2007, the International Trade Commission (ITC) issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of allegedly subsidized imports of CWP from the People's Republic of China (PRC). See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the PRC , Investigation Nos. 701-TA-447 and 731-TA-1116, 72 FR 43295 (Preliminary) (August 3, 2007).

On August 2, 2007, we published a postponement of the preliminary determination of this investigation until November 5, 2007. See Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation , 72 FR 42399 (August 2, 2007).

The Ad Hoc Coalition for Fair Pipe Imports from the PRC and the United States Steel Workers (collectively, petitioners) filed a new subsidy allegation on August 21, 2007. On September 7, 2007, the Department determined to investigate aspects of the newly alleged subsidy relating to currency retention. See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, “New Subsidy Allegation” (September 7, 2007). The GOC submitted comments responding to petitioners' new subsidy allegation on September 10, 2007. Questions regarding this newly alleged subsidy were sent to the GOC and the respondent companies on September 11, 2007.

The petitioners alleged that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of CWP from the PRC on September 17, 2007. See 19 CFR 351.206. Shuangjie submitted comments responding to petitioners' allegations of critical circumstances on September 24, 2007. Petitioners responded to Shuangjie's comments on September 27, 2007. The Department issued questionnaires to the respondent companies regarding the critical circumstances allegation on October 24, 2007. Responses to these questionnaires were received from Kingland and East Pipe on October 31, 2007, and November 1, 2007, respectively. As explained further below, Shuangjie did not respond. We address the allegation of critical circumstances below.

On September 24, 2007, petitioners requested that the Department extend the deadline for the submission of new subsidy allegations beyond September 26, the normal deadline established in the Department's regulations. See 19 CFR 351.301(d)(4)(i)(A). The Department granted an extension of the deadline to October 5, and on that date received additional new subsidy allegations from the petitioners. The Department intends to address those allegations in the near future.

We received responses to our CVD questionnaires from the GOC and the respondent companies on September 17, 2007, September 24, 2007, September 25, 2007, and October 19, 2007. The petitioners filed comments on these responses as follows: GOC - September 24, 2007, October 1, 2007 and October 11, 2007; East Pipe - September 25, 2007, September 27, 2007, and October 1, 2007; Kingland - September 25, 2007, and October 1, 2007; and, Shuangjie - September 25, 2007, and October 1, 2007.

We issued supplemental questionnaires to: East Pipe, Kingland and Shuangjie on October 4, 2007; the GOC on October 9, 2007 and October 10, 2007; and Shuangjie on October 25, 2007. We received responses to these supplemental questionnaires from the GOC on October 23, 2007; East Pipe on October 18 and 19, 2007; and Kingland and Shuangjie on October 18, 2007. Petitioners filed comments on these supplemental responses as follows: Shuangjie on October 23, 2007, and East Pipe, Kingland and Shuangjie on October 25, 2007.

On October 26, 2007, the petitioners submitted comments for consideration in the preliminary determination.

On October 31, 2007, Shuangjie withdrew from the investigation and requested that the Department return all of its proprietary fillings.

On August 20, 2007, Jiangsu Yulong Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (“Yulong”), requested that the Department reconsider its mandatory respondent selection in this investigation. In addition, Yulong requested that if the Department declined to revisit its mandatory respondent selection process, that Yulong be allowed to participate as a voluntary respondent. On August 23, 2007, the Department declined Yulong's request that the Department revisit its mandatory respondent selection process. However, the Department did state that it would consider accepting Yulong as a voluntary respondent at a later date. Yulong filed timely responses to the Department's CVD questionnaires on September 17, 2007, and September 24, 2007.

Even though Shuangjie has withdrawn from the investigation, we were unable to analyze Yulong's voluntary responses for consideration in this preliminary determination. Shuangjie's October 31, 2007 withdrawal came five days before the preliminary determination and, thus, the Department was unable to complete the necessary analyses of Yulong's submissions and issue the necessary supplemental questionnaires in sufficient time for the preliminary determination. Furthermore, the Department will not have sufficient time or resources to analyze Yulong's responses during the remainder of this investigation. Based on our experiences with the mandatory respondents in this investigation, it is likely that detailed supplemental questionnaires will be required in order to gather the information necessary to calculate an CVD rate for Yulong. At this point in the proceeding, analyzing Yulong's responses and issuing detailed supplemental questionnaires prior to the final determination would be extremely burdensome and would likely inhibit the timely completion of the investigation. Consequently, the Department is not accepting Yulong as a voluntary respondent and will not calculate an individual countervailing duty rate for Yulong.

On November 2, 2007, petitioners requested that the final determination of this countervailing duty investigation be aligned with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). We address this request below.

In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations, we set aside a period of time in our Initiation Notice for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage, and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of that notice. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties , 62 FR 27296, 27323, (May 19, 1997) and Initiation Notice , 72 FR at 36669.

On July 19, 2007, the petitioners submitted comments concerning the scope of the CWP antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. MAN FERROSTAAL INC., MACSTEEL SERVICE CENTERS USA, and SUNBELT GROUP L.P. (collectively, FERROSTAAL) also submitted comments concerning the scope of these investigations on July 19, 2007. The petitioners and FERROSTAAL both submitted rebuttal comments on July 26, 2007.

We have analyzed the comments of the interested parties regarding the scope of this investigation. See Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Re: Scope of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China, “Analysis of Comments and Recommendation for Scope of Investigations” (November 5, 2007). Our position on these comments is reflected below.

The scope of this investigation covers certain welded carbon quality steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, and with an outside diameter of 0.372 inches (9.45 mm) or more, but not more than 16 inches (406.4 mm), whether or not stenciled, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish ( e.g. , black, galvanized, or painted), end finish ( e.g. , plain end, beveled end, grooved, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or industry specification ( e.g. , ASTM, proprietary, or other), generally known as standard pipe and structural pipe (they may also be referred to as circular, structural, or mechanical tubing).

Specifically, the term “carbon quality” includes products in which (a) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (b) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated:

Standard pipe is made primarily to American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) specifications, but can be made to other specifications. Standard pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A-53, A-135, and A-795. Structural pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A-252 and A-500. Standard and structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications rather than to industry specifications. This is often the case, for example, with fence tubing. Pipe multiple-stenciled to a standard and/or structural specification and to any other specification, such as the American Petroleum Institute (“API”) API-5L or 5L X-42 specifications, is also covered by the scope of this investigation when it meets the physical description set forth above and also satisfies one or more of the following characteristics: is a single random length; less than 2.0 inches (50 mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted surface finish; or has a threaded and/or coupled end finish.

The scope of this investigation does not include: (a) pipe suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, condensers, refining furnaces and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn; (b) mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn; (c) finished electrical conduit; (d) finished scaffolding; (e) tube and pipe hollows for redrawing; (f) oil country tubular goods produced to API specifications; and (g) line pipe produced to only API specifications.

The pipe products that are the subject of this investigation are currently classifiable in HTSUS statistical reporting numbers 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, 7306.30.50.90, 7306.50.10.00, 7306.50.50.50, 7306.50.50.70, 7306.19.10.10, 7306.19.10.50, 7306.19.51.10, and 7306.19.51.50. However, the product description, and not the HTSUS classification, is dispositive of whether merchandise imported into the United States falls within the scope of the investigation.

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

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

In this case, Shuangjie did not provide information we requested that is necessary to determine a countervailing duty rate for this preliminary determination. Specifically, Shuangjie did not respond to the Department's October 24, 2007, request for shipment data relating to the allegation of critical circumstances, did not respond to the Department's October 25, 2007, supplemental questionnaire and, finally, on October 31, 2007, withdrew all of its proprietary information from the record. Thus, in reaching our preliminary determination, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A), and (C) of the Act, we have based Shuangjie's countervailing duty rate on facts otherwise available.

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

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

In selecting from among the facts available, the Department has determined that an adverse inference is warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act because, in addition to not responding to all of our requests for information, Shuangjie has withdrawn all of its proprietary information and has withdrawn from all participation in the investigation thereby precluding verification of the public information remaining on the record. Thus, Shuangjie failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability, and our preliminary determination is based on AFA.

In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any information placed on the record. It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the highest calculated rate in any segment of the proceeding. See, e.g., Certain In-shell Roasted Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review , 71 FR 66165 (November 13, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Analysis of Programs.”

The Department's practice when selecting an adverse margin from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan ; 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures “that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” See SAA at 870. In choosing the appropriate balance between providing a respondent with an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior margin “reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.” See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States , 899 F. 2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

Because Shuangjie failed to act to the best of its ability, as discussed above, for each program examined, we made the adverse inference that Shuangjie benefitted from the program unless the record evidence made it clear that Shuangjie could not have received benefits from the program because, for example, we have preliminarily found the program not countervailable. See, e.g., Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea; Final Affirmative CVD Determination , 67 FR 62102 (October 3, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Methodology and Background Information.” To calculate the program rates, we have generally relied upon the highest program rate calculated for any responding company in this investigation as adverse facts available. See Certain In-shell Roasted Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review , 71 FR 66165 (November 13, 2006) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Analysis of Programs.”

Thus, for programs based on the provision of goods at less than adequate remuneration, we have used the Kingland rate for the provision of hot-rolled steel for less than adequate remuneration. For value added tax (“VAT”) programs, we are unable to utilize company-specific rates from this proceeding because neither respondent received any countervailable subsidies from these subsidy programs. Therefore, for VAT programs we are applying the highest subsidy rate for any program otherwise listed, which in this instance is Kingland's rate for the provision of hot-rolled steel for less than adequate remuneration.

Similarly, for the grant programs, we are not relying on the highest calculated preliminary subsidy rate because it is de minimis . Instead, we are applying the highest calculated preliminary subsidy rate, which in this instance is Kingland's rate for the provision of hot-rolled steel for less than adequate remuneration.

Finally, for the seven alleged income tax programs pertaining to either the reduction of the income tax rates or the payment of no income tax, we have applied an adverse inference that Shuangjie paid no income tax during the period of investigation ( i.e. , calendar year 2006). The standard income tax rate for corporations in the PRC is 30 percent, plus a 3 percent provincial income tax rate. Therefore, the highest possible benefit for these seven income tax rate programs is 33 percent. We are applying the 33 percent AFA rate on a combined basis ( i.e. , the seven programs combined provided a 33 percent benefit). This 33 percent AFA rate does not apply to income tax deduction or credit programs. For income tax deduction or credit programs we are applying the highest subsidy rate for any program otherwise listed, which in this instance is Kingland's rate for provisions of hot-rolled-steel at less than adequate remuneration. See Memorandum to the File, entitled “Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate for Tianjin Shuangjie Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.” (November 5, 2007) (this memorandum is on file in the Department's CRU).

We do not need to corroborate the calculated subsidy rates we are using as AFA because they are not considered secondary information as they are based on information obtained in the course of this investigation. See section 776(c) of the Act; see also the SAA at 870.

We have also identified certain instances in which the GOC has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in providing requested information. First, in our questionnaire, we asked the GOC to provide information about the hot-rolled steel industry in the PRC (including a description of the industry, users of hot rolled steel in the PRC, and whether hot-rolled steel producers are state-owned enterprises). The GOC limited its response to the “hot-rolled steel narrow strip” industry, arguing that this narrow strip industry was separate from the hot-rolled steel industry. In our supplemental questionnaire, we asked the GOC to provide the requested information for the hot-rolled steel industry as a whole. While some limited information was provided in the GOC's supplemental questionnaire response (October 23, 2007), the GOC stated, “We hope to prove ( sic ) the Department a broader analysis of hot-rolled steel producers at a later date.” Similarly, in response to our supplemental questionnaire seeking additional information on rates charged for water in Tianjin (where Shuangjie is located), the GOC responded that it had contacted the local agencies and was awaiting their reply (this rate information had also been requested in our initial questionnaire).

The failure to provide this information within the established deadlines has impeded our investigation. Moreover, the GOC has not provided us with any plausible explanation as to why it cannot provide us with the information within the established deadlines. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the GOC has failed to act to the best of its ability and we are applying facts available with an adverse inference to address these omissions. With respect to hot-rolled steel, the Department is preliminarily rejecting prices in the PRC as possible benchmarks for determining whether hot-rolled steel is being provided for less than adequate remuneration. With respect to water, we are preliminarily finding that this input is being provided for less than adequate remuneration for Shuangjie, as AFA.

On September 17, 2007, petitioners requested that the Department make an expedited finding that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of CWP from the PRC. Section 703(e)(1) of the Act states that if the petitioner alleges critical circumstances, the Department will determine, on the basis of information available to it at the time, if there is a reason to believe or suspect the alleged countervailable subsidy is inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the SCM Agreement) and whether there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), because the petitioners submitted a critical circumstances allegation more than 20 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination, the Department must issue a preliminary critical circumstances determination not later than the date of the preliminary determination. See, e.g., Policy Bulletin 98/4 regarding Timing of Issuance of Critical Circumstances Determinations , 63 FR 55364 (October 15, 1998). Due to resource constraints, we were unable to accommodate petitioners' request that the Department make an expedited determination with respect to critical circumstances. Specifically, given the complex issues inherent to this investigation, i.e. , the second countervailing duty investigation of imports from the PRC, as well as the multiple other ongoing antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, the Department was unable to make a critical circumstances determination prior to the preliminary results of this investigation.

We preliminarily find that East Pipe received no countervailable subsidies inconsistent with the SCM Agreement. Therefore, in accordance with section 703(e)(1) of the Act, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of CWP from East Pipe.

As discussed in the Analysis of Programs section below, the Department has preliminarily determined that Kingland received countervailable export subsidies during the POI. These export subsidies are inconsistent with the SCM Agreement. Although the countervailable subsidy rate for these export subsidies is de minimis , use of an export subsidy program is sufficient to make an affirmative preliminary determination of critical circumstances under section 703(e)(1)(A) of the Act. See Notice of Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, Preliminary Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada , 66 FR 43186, 43189-90 (August 17, 2001); and Notice of Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada , 67 FR 36070 (May 22, 2002) (the unchanged final determination).

Regarding Shuangjie, we have made an adverse inference that Shuangjie benefitted from countervailable export and import substitution subsidy programs pursuant to our determination to apply AFA to this company.

For “all other” exporters, we are basing our finding on the experience of Kingland and, therefore, find that “all others” benefitted from export subsidies.

In determining whether there are “massive imports” over a “relatively short period,” pursuant to section 703(e)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department normally compares the import volume of the subject merchandise for three months immediately preceding the filing of the petition ( i.e. , the base period) with the three months following the filing of the petition ( i.e. , the comparison period). Section 351.206(h)(1) of our regulations provides that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been “massive,” the Department normally will examine: (i) the volume and value of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2) provides that an increase in imports of 15 percent during the “relatively short period” of time may be considered “massive.” Finally, 19 CFR 351.206(i) defines “relatively short period” as normally being the period beginning on the date the proceeding begins ( i.e. , the date the petition is filed) and ending at least three months later.

On October 31, 2007, Kingland filed its monthly shipment data for subject merchandise exported to the United States for calendar years 2005 and 2006, and for January through September 2007. Based upon these data, we preliminarily find that Kingland's CWP imports increased more than 15 percent during the “relatively short period.” See Memorandum to the File Re “Critical Circumstances Analysis for Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd. Import Shipment Analysis for Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd. and “All Others” (November 5, 2007) (Import Analysis Memorandum) (this memorandum is on file in the Department's CRU). Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the requirements of section 703(e)(1)(B) of the Act have been satisfied, and that critical circumstances exist for Kingland.

Regarding Shuangjie, as part of our adverse facts available determination we have made an adverse inference that there were massive imports from Shuangjie over a relatively short period. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Wax and Wax/Resin Thermal Transfer Ribbons from Japan , 68 FR 71072, 71076-77 (December 22, 2003); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Wax and Wax/Resin Thermal Transfer Ribbons from Japan , 69 FR 11834 (March 12, 2004) (the unchanged final determination). Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the requirements of section 703(e)(1)(B) of the Act have been satisfied, and that critical circumstances exist for Shuangjie.

For “all others,” we preliminarily determine that there were massive imports over a relatively short period based on import statistics from the ITC's Dataweb (adjusted to remove East Pipe's and Kingland's shipments). See Import Analysis Memorandum. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the requirements of section 703(e)(1)(B) of the Act have been satisfied, and that critical circumstances exist for “all others.”

On July 5, 2007, the Department initiated the countervailing duty and antidumping duty investigations on CWP from the PRC. See Initiation Notice and Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China , 72 FR 36663 (July 5, 2007). The countervailing duty investigation and the antidumping duty investigation have the same scope with regard to the merchandise covered.

On November 2, 2007, petitioners submitted a letter, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act, requesting alignment of the final countervailing duty determination with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation of CWP from the PRC. Therefore, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), we are aligning the final countervailing duty determination with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation of CWP from the PRC. The final countervailing duty determination will be issued on the same date as the final antidumping duty determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued on or about March 18, 2008. See Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China (signed, November 1, 2007) (this memorandum is on file in the Department's CRU).

On October 25, 2007, the Department published Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination , 72 FR 60645 (October 25, 2007) ( CFS from the PRC ). In that determination, the Department found, ”. . . given the substantial differences between the Soviet-style economies and the PRC's economy in recent years, the Department's previous decision not to apply the CVD law to these Soviet-style economies does not act as a bar to proceeding with a CVD investigation involving products from China.” CFS from the PRC , and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6; see also Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Countervailing Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China - Whether the Analytical Elements of the Georgetown Steel Opinion are Applicable to China's Present-day Economy at 2 (March 29, 2007) (Georgetown Steel Memo).

The GOC, in an October 11, 2007 submission in this proceeding, argues that the Department should not investigate certain newly alleged subsidies that occurred before 2005, the period of investigation in the CFS from the PRC proceeding. Citing the Georgetown Steel Memo, the GOC claims that the Department found that “it is possible to determine whether the PRC Government has bestowed a benefit upon a Chinese producer ( i.e. , the subsidy can be identified and measured) and whether any such benefit is specific,” as of 2005. See Georgetown Steel Memo at 2. The GOC additionally points to Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Sulfanilic Acid from Hungary , 67 FR 60223 and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 (September 25, 2003) ( Sulfanilic Acid from Hungary ), in which the Department declined to countervail capital infusions received by the respondent in the year prior to Hungary's transition to a market economy, when Hungary also became subject to the countervailing duty law. Finally, the GOC notes that in the preamble to the Department's countervailing duty regulations, the Department states that it intends to continue its practice of only countervailing subsidies bestowed after a country's status is changed to market economy. See Countervailing Duties; Final Rule , 63 FR 65348, 65360 (November 25, 1998) (CVD Preamble).

We have carefully reviewed CFS from the PRC , the Georgetown Steel Memo, and the CVD Preamble, and do not agree with the GOC that we are precluded from investigating subsidies bestowed prior to 2005. In particular, although 2005 served as the period of investigation in CFS from the PRC , we found loans given prior to 2005 under the Policy Lending Program to be countervailable. See CFS from the PRC and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 12. More importantly, although we found that we could apply the CVD law to imports from the PRC, we did not squarely address the issue of how far back in time we should find countervailable subsidies. Now that this issue has been clearly presented in this investigation, we preliminarily determine that it is appropriate and administratively desirable to identify a uniform date from which the Department will identify and measure subsidies in the PRC for purposes of the CVD law.

We preliminarily determine that date to be December 11, 2001, the date on which the PRC became a member of the WTO. Prior to this date, many changes were occurring in the PRC's economy. Many of the obligations undertaken by the PRC pursuant to its accession to the WTO were in line with the PRC's objective of economic reform. See Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China, WT/ACC/CHN/49 (October 1, 2001), for example, at paragraph 4. Taken together, these changes would permit the Department to determine whether the GOC has bestowed a countervailable subsidy on Chinese producers. See Georgetown Steel Memo; CFS from the PRC at Comments 1 and 6. Finally, the GOC acknowledged the changing nature of its economy in so far as its Accession Protocol contemplates the application of the CVD law to the PRC, even while it remains a non-market economy (NME). See Protocol of Accession of the People's Republic of China, WT/L/432 (November 23, 2001) at Section 15(b); see also, CFS at Comment 1. Therefore, for this preliminary determination, we have selected the date of December 11, 2001, as the date from which we will measure countervailable subsidies in the PRC.

The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or the period of investigation (POI), is calendar year 2006.

The average useful life (“AUL”) period in this proceeding as described in 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2) is 15 years according to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service's 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System for assets used to manufacture primary steel mill products. No party in this proceeding has disputed this allocation period.

The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(i) state that the Department will normally attribute a subsidy to the products produced by the corporation that received the subsidy. However, 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(ii) directs that the Department will attribute subsidies received by certain other companies to the combined sales of those companies if (1) cross-ownership exists between the companies, and (2) the cross-owned companies produce the subject merchandise, are a holding or parent company of the subject company, produce an input that is primarily dedicated to the production of the downstream product, or transfer a subsidy to a cross-owned company. The Court of International Trade (CIT) has upheld the Department's authority to attribute subsidies based on whether a company could use or direct the subsidy benefits of another company in essentially the same way it could use its own subsidy benefits. See Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi v. United States , 166 F. Supp. 2d. 593, 604 (CIT 2001).

According to 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi), cross-ownership exists between two or more corporations where one corporation can use or direct the individual assets of the other corporation(s) in essentially the same ways it can use its own assets. This regulation states that this standard will normally be met where there is a majority voting interest between two corporations or through common ownership of two (or more) corporations.

East Pipe : In its response, East Pipe reported that it is affiliated with East Pipe Transportation Facility Co., Ltd. (East Highway). East Pipe states that East Highway's primary business is to install highway guardrails in the PRC and that East Highway did not produce subject merchandise during the POI. East Pipe further contends that East Highway cannot be considered the holding company of East Pipe because its ownership interest in East Pipe is nominal (the details of the relationship between these two companies are proprietary).

Given the unusual nature of the ownership relation between these companies, we preliminarily agree that any subsidies to East Highway should not be attributed to East Pipe under 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iii). Moreover, because East Highway does not produce subject merchandise, we preliminarily determine that any subsidies it receives should not be attributed to East Pipe under 19 CFR 351.5252(b)(6)(ii). See Memorandum from Salim Bhabhrawala to Susan Kuhbach Re: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China; Calculations for the Preliminary Determination for Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (November 5, 2007).

East Pipe acknowledges a second company with which it is legally affiliated by virtue of a long-term investment, but which East Pipe views as commercially independent (the details of the relationship between these two companies are also proprietary). According to East Pipe, the company does not produce the subject merchandise and does not provide inputs to East Pipe. Because the company does not produce subject merchandise or otherwise fall within the situations described in 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iii)-(v), we do not need to reach the issue of whether this company and East Pipe are cross-owned within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi), and we are not attributing any subsidies received by this company to East Pipe. Consequently, we are limiting our investigation to subsidies received by East Pipe.

Kingland : Kingland has responded to the Department's original and supplemental questionnaires on behalf of itself; its parent company, Kingland Group Co., Ltd. (Kingland Group); Beijing Kingland Century Technologies Co. (Kingland Century); Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd. (Kingland Industry); and Shanxi Kingland Pipeline Co., Ltd. (Shanxi Kingland). According to Kingland, Kingland Group and Kingland Century do not produce the subject merchandise. However, because Kingland Group is the parent company of Kingland, we are preliminarily attributing subsidies received by Kingland Group to Kingland, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iii).

With respect to Kingland Century, this company is a domestic trading company and does not produce any merchandise. Instead, it purchased and provided inputs to Kingland during the POI. Because it is not an input producer, we are not treating Kingland Century as an input supplier as described in 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iv) (which refers to subsidies received by the input producer). Instead, for the preliminary determination, we are treating these inputs as being provided directly to Kingland. See Memorandum from Shane Subler to Susan Kuhbach Re: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China; Calculations for the Preliminary Determination for Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd.; Kingland Group Co., Ltd., and Beijing Kingland Century Technologies Co. (November 5, 2007) ( Kingland Calculation Memorandum ).

Kingland Industry and Shanxi Kingland produced and sold subject merchandise domestically during the POI. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(ii), we are preliminarily including Kingland Industry and Shanxi Kingland in the subsidy calculation.

Kingland also identified other affiliated companies whose names indicated that they might be involved in the production or sales of CWP. In response to our supplemental questionnaire, Kingland reported that these companies do not produce or sell the subject merchandise. See Kingland's supplemental questionnaire response (October 19, 2007) at pages 1-6. For one of these companies, CNOOC Kingland Pipeline Co., Ltd. (CNOOC Kingland), Kingland stated it produces certain casings tube and steel pipes that are outside the scope of the investigation. Furthermore, Kingland provided evidence on CNOOC Kingland's shareholder voting rights, board of directors, and management to demonstrate that cross-ownership did not exist between Kingland and CNOOC Kingland during the POI. After reviewing the current record, we preliminarily determine that cross-ownership did not exist between Kingland and CNOOC Kingland during the POI. Moreover, we have preliminarily accepted Kingland's claims that CNOOC Kingland Pipeline does not produce subject merchandise.

Finally, Kingland's organization chart shows several additional companies that appear to be service companies with no relationship to the subject merchandise or companies in which the responding companies held a very limited share of ownership during the POI. We have discussed these companies in a separate, proprietary memorandum, entitled “Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline Co., Ltd.: Cross-owned Companies” (November 5, 2007) (this memorandum is on file in the Department's CRU). We have preliminarily excluded these companies from the subsidy calculation.

Therefore, based on information currently on the record, we preliminarily determine that cross-ownership within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi) exists between Kingland, Kingland Group, Kingland Century, Kingland Industry, and Shanxi Kingland. Because we preliminarily determine that Kingland, Kingland Industry, and Shanxi Kingland are cross-owned producers of the subject merchandise, as addressed in 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(ii), we are attributing the subsidies received by the three companies to their combined sales. We also preliminarily determine that subsidies received by Kingland Group should be attributed to the consolidated sales of the parent company and its subsidiaries. See 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iii).

Petitioners alleged that Baosteel received countervailable loans and that it was uncreditworthy ( see, Initiation Notice , 72 FR at 36671). Because we did not select Baosteel as a mandatory respondent in this investigation, we are making no finding regarding that company's creditworthiness.

Based upon our analysis of the petition and the responses to our questionnaires, we determine the following:

The Department initiated an investigation into whether state-owned steel producers in the PRC provide hot-rolled steel to CWP producers for less than adequate remuneration. In response to the Department's questions on the PRC's hot-rolled steel industry in the original questionnaire, the GOC provided information on the hot-rolled steel narrow strip industry, as discussed in the Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate section, above. Citing information from market observer MYSTEEL and industry journal articles, the GOC claims that the hot-rolled steel narrow strip industry does not compete with other hot-rolled steel products because narrow strip has a lower market price, is used primarily to produce CWP and light section steel, and has a production process that is different from hot-rolled steel sheet. The GOC argues further that pipe producers incur additional cost in slitting hot-rolled steel sheet into a narrow strip product.

In their pre-preliminary comments, the petitioners reject the GOC's argument that hot-rolled steel narrow strip production is a separate industry. Referring to price information provided by the GOC, the petitioners contend that prices for hot-rolled steel narrow strip and hot-rolled wide coil move in tandem. Moreover, citing the respondents' reported purchase information, petitioners argue that the respondents use both products in their production of subject merchandise. Therefore, the petitioners argue that the Department should analyze the hot-rolled steel industry as a whole, not only the production of hot-rolled steel narrow strip.

We preliminarily agree with petitioners and do not find the producers of hot-rolled steel narrow strip to be an industry separate from the wider hot-rolled steel industry because there is no clear distinction between hot-rolled steel narrow strip and other hot-rolled steel. The GOC relies on price information provided by MYSTEEL to define hot-rolled steel narrow strip as having a width of less than 1000 millimeters and hot-rolled steel sheet as having a width of no less than 1250 millimeters. However, these definitions leave out a classification for products between 1000 millimeters and 1250 millimeters wide. Therefore, there is no specific width that distinguishes hot-rolled steel narrow strip from other hot-rolled steel sheet. Moreover, all of the products are hot-rolled steel, which is the input product on which the Department initiated an investigation. Therefore, we are basing our preliminary analysis on the hot-rolled steel industry as a whole.

Kingland reported that it purchased hot-rolled steel for its CWP from GOC-owned hot-rolled steel producers and suppliers. East Pipe reported that it purchased its steel input for CWP entirely from privately owned suppliers. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the GOC did not provide East Pipe with hot-rolled steel for CWP during the POI and our analysis is limited to Kingland.

In its response, the GOC listed the industries that use hot-rolled steel: “construction, automobile, electronic appliance, machineries, chemical industries, and long transmission pipelines, etc.” See GOC questionnaire response at 56 (September 17, 2007). We preliminarily find that these industries are “limited in number” and, hence, that the provision of hot-rolled steel is de facto specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. See also Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Flat Steel Products from the Republic of Korea , 67 FR 62102 (October 3, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 and Comment 2, where the Department found that Posco's provision of hot-rolled coil was countervailable.

We further determine preliminarily that the GOC's provision of hot-rolled steel through its state-owned producers is a financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(iii) and that it confers a benefit on CWP producers because the good is being sold for less than adequate remuneration as described in section 771(5)(E)(iv). In determining what constitutes adequate remuneration, the Department is not relying on prices in the PRC, as explained in the Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate section, above. Instead, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), we have used a world market price as a benchmark to compare to the respondents' reported purchase prices from state-owned steel suppliers. Specifically, we used the “World Export Price” from Steel Benchmarker , as provided in Exhibit 38 of the petitioners' pre-preliminary comments (October 26, 2007).

To calculate the benefit, we compared the monthly weighted-average price paid by Kingland for hot-rolled steel purchased from state-owned enterprises (SOEs) to the average monthly prices reported in Steel Benchmarker . Steel Benchmarker does not include prices for January - March 2006; therefore, we have used the April 2006 price as a surrogate. On this basis, we preliminarily determine that Kingland received a countervailable benefit of 16.57 percent ad valorem .

For certain of Kingland's suppliers, we did not have information about their ownership and did not have time to request it for this preliminary determination, therefore, it is unclear what portion of this steel is provided by SOEs. We intend to seek this supplier information for our final determination. For the preliminary determination, we have relied on neutral facts available and treated this pool of steel as having been provided by suppliers in the same proportion as reported for known SOE and non-SOE suppliers. See Kingland Calculation Memorandum.

Kingland, Kingland Group, and Kingland Industry reported that they received different city, district, and provincial grants related to export assistance, research and development, and other business activities in 2004, 2005, and 2006. Kingland only identified two of these programs, the “Electromechanical Products Technologies Renovation Project Fund” and “Superstar Enterprise” award, as public information. Kingland designated information about the other programs as business proprietary. Therefore, we have addressed these programs in more detail in the Kingland Calculation Memorandum . Current information on the record does not indicate that these grants are tied to any of the programs discussed in this notice.

We preliminarily determine that all the grants received in 2004 and 2005 should be expensed in those years, i.e. , prior to the POI because even if they were treated as non-recurring, the total amount received was less than 0.5 percent of the relevant sales in those years ( see 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2)). Hence, they would confer no benefit in the POI.

For the export assistance grants received in 2006, certain of them pertained to markets other than the United States. We have not included these in our analysis pursuant to 19 CFR 351.525(b)(4). For the remaining export assistance grant, we preliminarily determine the grant is a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. It is a financial contribution under section 771(5)(D)(i), and it provides a benefit in the amount of the grant ( see 19 CFR 351.504(a)). Finally, because it is contingent upon export performance, it is specific under section 771(5A)(B).

To calculate the benefit, we divided the amount received by Kingland's export sales in 2006. On this basis, we preliminarily determine that a countervailable subsidy of less than .005 percent ad valorem exists for Kingland. Where the countervailable subsidy rate for a program is less than .005 percent, the program is not included in the total countervailing duty rate. See, e.g., Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Low Enriched Uranium from France , 70 FR 39998 (July 12, 2005), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Purchases at Prices that Constitute 'More than Adequate Remuneration'” (citing Final Results of Administrative Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada , 69 FR 75917 (December 20, 2004)).

Kingland Group reported that it received a Super Star Enterprise award from Huzhou City. Kingland Group explained that Huzhou City granted this award based on the total value of a company's sales. The company met the relevant sales threshold for 2005 and received this award in 2006.

We preliminarily determine that Kingland received a countervailable subsidy under the Huzhou City Super Star Enterprises award program. We find that this grant is a direct transfer of funds within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, providing a benefit in the amount of the grant. See 19 CFR 351.504(a). We further preliminarily determine that the grant provided under this program is limited as a matter of law to certain enterprises, i.e. , enterprises that exceed certain sales values during a year. Hence, we preliminarily find that the subsidy is specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.

To calculate the countervailable subsidy, we used our standard methodology for non-recurring grants. See 19 CFR 351.524(b). Because the award was not tied to any specific product, we attributed the subsidy to the consolidated sales of the Kingland Group. Also, because the benefit was less than 0.5 percent, the entire amount was attributed to the POI. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy to be 0.02 percent ad valorem for Kingland.

For the remaining grants, we intend to seek further information for our final determination.

In CFS from the PRC , the Department found Government Policy Lending to provide a countervailable subsidy because record evidence indicated that: (i) the GOC had a policy in place to encourage and support the growth and development of the forestry and paper industry through preferential financing initiatives as illustrated in the GOC's five-year plans and industrial policies; and (ii) the GOC's policy toward the paper industry was carried out by the central and local governments through the provision of loans extended by GOC Policy Banks and state-owned commercial banks. See CFS from the PRC and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 8.

In this investigation, the evidence submitted to date does not support a finding that the CWP industry in the PRC received preferential financing pursuant to the GOC's Iron and Steel Policy. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that producers and exporters of CWP in the PRC did not receive government policy loans. We will, however, continue to investigate whether the GOC's Iron and Steel Policy or other plans apply to the CWP industry, and, if so, the purpose of those policies and whether preferential lending was provided to the CWP industry pursuant to those policies.

Electricity : According to the GOC, electricity in the PRC is produced by numerous power plants and it is transmitted for local distribution by two state-owned transmission companies, State Grid and China South Power Grid. Generally, prices for uploading electricity to the grid and transmitting it are regulated by the GOC, as are the final sales prices. See, e.g., Circular on Implementation Measures Regarding Reform of Electricity Prices , (FAGAIJIAGE {2005} No. 514, National Development and Reform Commission) at Appendix 3 of the Provisional Measures on Prices for Sales of Electricity at Article 29 (“Government departments in charge of pricing at various levels shall be responsible for the administration and supervision of electricity sales prices.”), provided within the GOC response at Exhibit 114 (September 17, 2007).

Electricity consumers are divided into broad categories such as residential, commercial, large-scale industry and agriculture. The rates charged vary across customer categories and within customer categories based on the amount of electricity consumed. Moreover, among industrial users, certain industries are specifically broken out and these industries receive special, discounted rates. Based on our review of the rate schedules submitted for two of the three provinces in which the respondents are located, discounted rates are established for producers of calcium carbide, electrolyte caustic alkali, synthetic ammonia, yellow phosphorus with electric furnace, and chemical fertilizer producers. For the third province, discounted rates are established for the production of chlor alkali, electrolyte aluminum, and chemical fertilizer. Thus, there is not a discounted rate for CWP producers and, according to the GOC, the number of customers in the large-scale enterprise category (which includes the CWP producers) ranges from over 400 to more than 2200, across these three localities.

Based on the record evidence, we preliminarily determine that the provision of electricity to large-scale enterprises in the PRC is neither de jure nor de facto specific. Although producers in a few particular industries are eligible for discounts under the law, all other large-scale enterprises within a locality pay the same rate for their electricity. Moreover, the absence of price discrimination among most users may also support a preliminary finding that electricity is not being provided to CWP producers for less than adequate remuneration. See Countervailing Duties; Final Rule , 63 FR 65348, 65378 (November 25, 1998) (discussing that, where the government is the sole provider of a good or service, especially in the case of electricity, land or water, the Department may assess whether the government price was set in accordance with market principles, which may include an analysis of whether there is price discrimination among the users of the good or service that is provided and that “{w}e would only rely on a price discrimination analysis if the government good or service is provided to more than a specific enterprise or industry, or group thereof.”).

On this basis, we preliminarily determine that the GOC's provision of electricity does not confer a countervailable subsidy.

Water : According to the GOC, water suppliers in the PRC are highly localized. Many suppliers are SOEs, particularly in cities, but there is also private ownership. Water prices generally are regulated by the local governments. See, e.g., the Regulation on Administration of City Water Supply (Decree 158 of the State Council, 1994), provided within the GOC response at Exhibit 118 (September 17, 2007).

East Pipe's water supplier, Weifang Treated Water Company, Ltd., is a majority privately owned company. Therefore, for East Pipe, we preliminarily determine that water is not provided by an “authority” and, hence, that no countervailable subsidy is bestowed. See section 771(5)(b) of the Act. We will continue to examine whether East Pipe's water supplier is a private entity during the course of this investigation. Regarding Shuangjie, the GOC did not provide water rate schedules.

For Kingland, the GOC has provided the Circular on Adjusting the Water Resource Charge Rate ZHEJAIFEI {2004} No. 209 and Circular of Huzhou City People's Government on Approving and Forwarding the Provisional Regulation on the Collection of River Network Water Supply Fee Issued by City Water Resource Bureau HUZHENGFA {2002} No. 39, provided within the GOC supplemental response as exhibits S - 5 and S - 6 (October 23, 2007). These two schedules show that uniform rates are charged, with no discounts for any industry groups.

Therefore, for the same reasons described above for electricity, we preliminarily determine that record evidence demonstrates that the provision of water in Zhejiang Province and Huzhou City (location of Kingland Pipe) is neither de jure nor de facto specific. Consequently, we preliminarily find that the government's provision of water does not confer a countervailable subsidy on Kingland.

Because the GOC has failed to provide the requested rate information for water purchased by Shuangjie, we are preliminarily treating this program as countervailable for this company. See Selection of Adverse Facts Available Rate section, above.

According to the GOC, the “exemption, deduction and refund” of VAT applies if a manufacturer exports its self-produced goods by itself or via a trading company. See Article 1 of the Circular on Further Promotion of Methodology of “Exemption, Deduction, and Refund” of Tax for Exported Goods (CAISHUI (2002) No. 7) provided within the GOC response at Exhibit 98. Under the “VAT refund system,” when a producer/exporter purchases inputs ( e.g ,, raw materials, components, fuel and power) it pays a VAT based on the purchase price of inputs. The GOC reported the VAT rates paid by CWP producers/exports for inputs are as follows: hot-rolled steel strips, zinc and electricity power at a rate of 17 percent; fuel at 13 percent; and water at 6 percent. Once the exporter/producer exports subject merchandise, a VAT payment and tax exemption form is prepared and filed with the relevant state tax authority. CWP exporters receive a VAT refund of 13 percent of the export price.

The Department's regulations state that in the case of an exemption upon export of indirect taxes, a benefit exists only to the extent that the Department determines that the amount exempted “exceeds the amount levied with respect to the production and distribution of like products when sold for domestic consumption.” 19 CFR 351.517(a); see also 19 CFR 351.102 (for a definition of “indirect tax”). Information in the company responses shows that East Pipe and Kingland paid the VAT on their inputs, and applied for and received a VAT refund on their export sales.

To determine whether a benefit was provided under this program, the Department analyzed whether the amount of VAT exempted during the POI exceeded the amount levied with respect to the production and distribution of like products when sold for domestic consumption. Because the VAT rate levied on CWP in the domestic market (17 percent) exceeded the amount of VAT exempted upon the export of CWP (13 percent), the Department preliminarily determines that, for the purposes of this investigation, the VAT refund received upon the export of CWP does not confer a countervailable benefit.

Hot-rolled Steel and Zinc : Petitioners alleged that the GOC restrains exports of hot-rolled steel and zinc by means of export taxes, which artificially suppress the price a producer in the PRC can charge for these inputs into CWP.

In its response, the GOC provided the Announcement on Adjustments of Provisional Import or Export Duty for Certain Merchandises (PRC Customs Announcement No. 22, 2007) See Exhibit 122 of the GOC questionnaire response (September 17, 2007). This document shows that on May 30, 2007, the GOC announced a provisional export duty rate for hot-rolled steel of five percent and an increase in the provisional export duty rate for zinc from five percent to ten percent. These changes were implemented retroactively to begin on July 1, 2006.

The POI for this investigation is January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006, and the export restraints allegedly giving rise to a subsidy were announced on May 30, 2007, i.e. , after the POI. Although the export duties were implemented retroactively, there is no basis to conclude that the export duties affected the prices paid by the respondents for hot-rolled steel and zinc prior to May 30, 2007, because those purchases had already been made. Therefore, any subsidy conferred by the export duties on hot-rolled steel and zinc would properly be addressed under our Program-wide Change regulation, 19 CFR 351.526(a). That regulation states that the Department may take a program-wide change into account in establishing the estimated countervailing duty cash deposit rate if: (1) the Department determines that subsequent to the period of investigation or review, but before a preliminary determination in an investigation, a program-wide change has occurred; and (2) the Department is able to measure the change in the amount of countervailable subsidies provided under the program in question.

In this investigation, East Pipe and Kingland submitted their monthly purchase prices for hot-rolled steel and zinc for periods prior to and following the May 30, 2007, announcement. The data show fluctuations in the prices of these inputs both before and after the announcement of the export duties. Moreover, the data available for the months after the announcement are limited. For these reasons, we cannot measure the subsidy, if any, arising from the imposition of the export duties, and we are not including these alleged subsidy programs in our cash-deposit rates.

The Department has determined that this program was terminated on January 1, 2002, with no residual benefits. See CFS from the PRC and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Programs Determined to be Terminated.”

We preliminarily determine that East Pipe and Kingland did not apply for or receive benefits during the POI under the programs listed below.

For purposes of this preliminary determination, we have relied on the GOC's and respondent companies' responses to preliminarily determine non-use of the programs listed above. During the course of verification, the Department will further investigate whether these programs were used by respondent companies during the POI.

Citing Article 29 of the Implementation Rules of the Law on Administration of Land , land-use rights can be obtained from the government in one of three ways: 1) purchase; 2) lease; and 3) as an equity investment ( see GOC response at Exhibit 121 (September 17, 2007)). The GOC further states that the price of land-use rights may be determined by means of public bidding, auction, independent appraisal, and negotiation.

East Pipe reported that it obtained its land-use rights through the management buy-out of Maite Steel in 2001 and East Pipe has provided appraisals which, it claims, demonstrate that adequate remuneration was paid for the land. Kingland Group purchased its land use rights in 2000 and transferred a portion of these to Kingland Pipeline in 2002. Kingland provided reference prices contemporaneous with its purchase of land-use rights for similar industrial land.

The GOC has indicated, and the company responses appear to confirm, that the administration of state-owned lands is highly decentralized with the authority to sell, lease, or invest land-use rights left to local authorities. At this time, we do not have sufficient information from the local governments to determine whether their provision of land-use rights to East Pipe and Kingland confers a countervailable subsidy. In particular, we do not know how prices for land-use rights are set or the methods for transferring land-use rights. We intend to seek further information on these questions and to issue an interim analysis describing our preliminary findings with respect to this program before the final determination so that parties will have the opportunity to comment on our findings before the final determination.

As explained in the Programs Preliminarily Determined to Be Countervailable section, above, Kingland received grants from various city, district, and provincial governments. We have preliminarily determined certain of these grants to be countervailable. However, for the other grants, we intend to seek further information regarding the programs under which they were given.

In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we will verify the information submitted by the respondents prior to making our final determination.

In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated an individual rate for each exporter/manufacturer of the subject merchandise. We preliminarily determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates to be:

Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act state that for companies not investigated, we will determine an “all others” rate by weighting the individual company subsidy rate of each of the companies investigated by each company's exports of the subject merchandise to the United States. However, the “all others” rate may not include zero and de minimis rates or any rates based solely on the facts available. In this investigation, because we have only one rate that can be used to calculate the “all others” rate, Kingland's rate, we have assigned that rate to “all others.”

In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we are directing CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of CWP from the PRC that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register , and to require a cash deposit or bond for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. Moreover, in accordance with section 703(e)(2)(A), for Kingland, Shuangjie, and for “all other” Chinese exports of CWP, we are directing CBP to apply the suspension of liquidation to any unliquidated entries entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the date 90 days prior to the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Neither the suspension of liquidation nor the requirement for a cash deposit or bond will apply to merchandise produced and exported by East Pipe because the Department has preliminarily determined that East Pipe did not receive any countervailable subsidies.

In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), we will disclose to the parties the calculations for this preliminary determination within five days of its announcement.

Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted no later than one week after the issuance of the last verification report. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) (for a further discussion of case briefs). Rebuttal briefs must be filed within five days after the deadline for submission of case briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities relied upon, a table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.

Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a public hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing is made in this investigation, the hearing will tentatively be held two days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d), at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.

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, Room 1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.

This determination is published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act.

Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) establishes a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent bi-national panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination.

Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico established Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews (“Rules”). These Rules were published in the Federal Register on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686).

A first Request for Panel Review was filed with the United States Section of the NAFTA Secretariat, pursuant to Article 1904 of the Agreement, on November 6, 2007, requesting panel review of the Notice of Final Antidumping Changed Circumstances Review described above.

The Rules provide that:

(a) A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is December 6, 2007);

(b) a Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is December 21, 2007); and

(c) the panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.

Established by NMFS, the Sustainable Fisheries Leadership Awards reflect the values and principles of NOAA and its mission to ensure sustainable management of U.S. fishery resources for the benefit of our Nation. NMFS has partnered with the Fish for the Future Foundation, an Internal Revenue Service-approved non-profit organization, to assist with the awards program. The Fish for the Future Foundation is dedicated to promoting education among the American public on the need for and importance of a vibrant, sustainable fishing industry.

The Sustainable Fisheries Leadership Awards Program is open to fishing industry sectors, organizations, individuals, and state, local and federal government agencies and their employees. Organizations, individuals and agencies cannot nominate themselves. A nominee cannot be nominated for more than one award category. International entities or employees of NMFS are not eligible to receive an award under any category. Presenting an award under each of the six categories will be entirely dependent on the pool nominations received and NMFS' determination of their qualifications. As such, there may be years in which an award is not presented under one or more of the categories.

Nominated through a public process, nominees will be considered for the following categories: Special Recognition Award, Stewardship & Sustainability Award, Conservation Partnership Award, Science, Research & Technology Award, Coastal Habitat Restoration Award, and Public Education, Community Service & Media Award.

Nominations must be submitted on the official nomination form available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/awards/ or www.fish4thefuturefoundation.org , and submitted electronically, mailed or faxed to Fish for the Future Foundation (see DATES and ADDRESSES ). Relevant supporting materials, not to exceed 10 pages in length, may be submitted along with the nomination form. At least one reference is required however no more than three references or endorsements will be accepted or considered by the review panel. Nominations will be reviewed by the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (a federal advisory group established to advise the Secretary of Commerce on living marine resource issues) as well as NMFS leadership, making recommendations to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries. Final selection of award recipients is made by the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries and the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.

The following award categories are open for nominations:

Special Recognition Award — This award honors an individual who has demonstrated a life time achievement in innovative management and outstanding leadership for the stewardship and sustainable use of living marine resources.

Stewardship & Sustainability Award — This award recognizes excellence in promoting responsible stewardship and innovative management for long-term social, economic and biological sustainability of living marine resources.

Conservation Partnership Award — This award recognizes outstanding achievement in cooperative and collaborative work among stakeholder groups to foster best practices in sustainable living marine resources management.

Science, Research & Technology Award — This award recognizes excellence in the field of applied fisheries research. Nominations will be considered for advancements in technology to improve fisheries monitoring, reduce bycatch, protect habitat, conserve protected species, and enhance fishing operations as well as other technological advances that reduce the impacts of human activity on the marine environment.

Coastal Habitat Restoration Award — This award recognizes significant achievements made in coastal habitat restoration, including the development of innovative approaches and community based support necessary to accomplish the ambitious goals inherent with these projects.

Public Education, Community Service & Media Award — This award recognizes efforts to inform the general public about marine fisheries and living marine resources in the United States, or efforts to support the nation's fishing communities through community service.

Evaluation of nominations will include but are not limited to the following criteria:

Leadership — the individual or the overall team effort that has been demonstrated over a sustained period of time in support of the stewardship and sustained use of living marine resources.

Impact on Stewardship — the degree of stewardship and conservation ethics and practices fostered within the larger community of living marine fisheries stakeholders and users.

Ecological Significance — the impact and benefit to the overall health and abundance provided to living marine resources.

Long-term Significance — the impact to the science, management and economic sustainability of living marine resources.

These awards are presented annually. This is the third year of the Sustainable Fisheries Leadership Awards. Information on last year's awards and award recipients can be found at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/awards .

This assessment for SCS was conducted, as close as possible, to the procedures of the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process to ensure the best available data and techniques were used. SEDAR is a cooperative Fishery Management Council process initiated in 2002 to improve the quality and reliability of fishery stock assessments in the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean. SEDAR emphasizes constituent and stakeholder participation in assessment development, transparency in the assessment process, and a rigorous and independent scientific review of completed stock assessments.

SEDAR is organized around three workshops. The first in the series for the SCS assessment, the Data Workshop, was held in Panama City, FL, February 5 through February 9, 2007, and reviewed and compiled fisheries, monitoring, and life history data. An Assessment Workshop, the second workshop in the series, was held in Panama City, FL, May 7 through May 11, 2007, and developed assessment models and estimated population parameters using the information provided from the Data Workshop. The Review Workshop was the final workshop, in which a panel of independent experts met in Panama City, FL, from August 6 through August 10, 2007, and reviewed the data and assessments and recommended the most appropriate values of critical population and management quantities. All workshops were open to the public. More information on the SEDAR process can be found at http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/ . Additionally, the final stock assessment report and all supporting documents can be found at that website under the heading “SEDAR 13 - Small Coastal Sharks.”

The assessment reviewed data and models for the SCS complex and for each individual within the SCS complex, as per recommendations in previous assessments. This allowed individual analyses, discussions, and stock status determinations for five separate assessments: 1) SCS complex, 2) Atlantic sharpnose shark, 3) bonnethead shark, 4) blacknose shark, and 5) finetooth sharks. These assessments are included in one report as many of the indices, data, and issues overlap among assessments. The Review Panel found that the data and methods used were appropriate and the best available. The Review Panel also endorsed recommendations for future research contained in the Data Assessment workshop reports, added additional recommendations, and provided comments on the SEDAR process to consider in the future.

The following listed species are covered in this notice:

Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ): threatened lower Columbia River (LCR), threatened upper Willamette River (UWR), endangered upper Columbia River (UCR), threatened Snake River (SR) spring/summer (spr/sum), threatened SR fall, threatened Puget Sound (PS).

Chum salmon ( O. keta ): threatened Columbia River (CR).

Steelhead ( O. mykiss ): threatened LCR, threatened UWR, threatened middle Columbia River (MCR), threatened SR, endangered UCR, threatened PS.

Coho salmon ( O. kisutch ): threatened LCR, threatened Southern Oregon Northern California Coasts (SONCC).

Sockeye salmon ( O. nerka ): endangered SR.

Sturgeon: Threatened green ( Acipenser medirostris ).

Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR 222-226). NMFS issues permits based on findings that such permits: (1) are applied for in good faith; (2) if granted and exercised, would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species that are the subject of the permit; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policy of section 2 of the ESA. The authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits.

Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES). Such hearings are held at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is seeking to renew research permit 1119 for another five years. The permit currently covers five studies that, among them, would annually take adult and juvenile endangered UCR spring chinook salmon (natural and artificially propagated) and UCR steelhead (natural and artificially propagated) at various points in the Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, Okanogan, and Yakima River watersheds and other points in eastern Washington State. The ongoing research projects are: Study 1 Peshastin Creek Salmonid Production and Life History Investigations; Study 2 Entiat Basin Spawning Ground Surveys; Study 3 Snorkel Surveys in the Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, Okanogan, and Yakima Watersheds and Other Waterways of Eastern Washington; Study 4 Fish Salvage Activities in the Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, Okanogan, and Yakima Watersheds and other Waterways of Eastern Washington. Study 5 would be changed from “Icicle Creek Salmonid Production and Life History Investigations” to “Capture of Bull Trout, Lamprey, and Other Species in the Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, Okanogan, and Yakima Watersheds.” Under the proposal, listed adult and juvenile salmon and steelhead would be variously (a) captured (using nets, traps, and electrofishing equipment) and anesthetized; (b) sampled for biological information and tissue samples; (c) tagged with PIT tags or other identifiers; (d) marked and recaptured to determine trap efficiency, and (e) released.

The research has many purposes and would benefit listed salmon and steelhead in different ways. In general, the purposes of the research are to (a) gain current information on the status and productivity of various fish populations (to be used in determining the effectiveness of restoration programs); (b) collect data on the how well artificial propagation programs are helping salmon recovery efforts (looking at hatchery and wild fish interactions); (c) support the aquatic species restoration goals found in several regional plans; and (d) fulfill ESA requirements for several fish hatcheries. The fish would benefit through improved recovery actions, better designs for hatchery supplementation programs, and by being rescued outright when they are stranded by low flows in Eastern Washington streams. The FWS does not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small percentage may die as an unintentional result of the research activities.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game is seeking to renew Permit 1124 for another five years. The receipt of this permit request was originally noticed in August of 2007 (72 FR 43628). Since then, the applicant has determined that they will seek approval for the majority of their research though another process under section 4(d) of the ESA. The remaining portions of the current permit would only affect juvenile and adult endangered sockeye salmon. The remaining research would cover two projects directed at monitoring natural and hatchery Chinook salmon (during which sockeye may rarely be captured), one project centered on sockeye salmon reintroduction in Idaho lakes, and a general provision for rescuing and salvaging sockeye salmon. The purposes of the research are to monitor listed salmonid health, help guide sockeye salmon recovery operations, and outrightly rescue sockeye salmon in need of help due to circumstances such as being trapped by low flows in Idaho Streams. The benefits to the salmon will come in the form of information to help guide resource managers in restoring the listed fish and, as stated, in rescuing them from peril. The fish would be captured by various methods screw trap, electrofishing, hook-and-line-angling, mid-water trawl and most would immediately be released. A few of the fish may die as a result of the research.

NMFS' Northwest Fisheries Science Center is seeking to renew its 5 year permit to annually take juvenile (and precocious male) threatened SR spring/ summer chinook salmon (naturally produced) and juvenile threatened SR steelhead at various places in the Salmon River drainage in Idaho, at Little Goose Dam on the lower Snake River, and at multiple subbbasins in Northeast Oregon, Southeast Washington, and Idaho including the Clearwater and Grande Ronde Rivers. The research is a continuation of long-term, ongoing studies that have been in place for more than 15 years. The current permit covers two studies: Monitoring the Migrations of wild Snake River Spring/ summer Chinook Salmon Smolts and Monitoring and Evaluating the Genetic Characteristics of Supplemented Salmon and Steelhead. The applicant is asking that only the first of these studies be renewed. Under this study, the listed fish would be variously captured (using seines, dipnets, and electrofishing), re-captured at a smolt bypass facility, anesthetized, tagged with PIT tags or otherwise marked, tissue sampled, weighed, measured, and released.

The research has many purposes and would benefit listed salmon and steelhead in different ways. In general, the purpose of the research is to continue monitoring juvenile outmigration behavior among steelhead and spring/summer chinook salmon populations in Idaho. The research will benefit the fish by continuing to supply managers with the information they need to budget water releases at hydropower facilities in ways that will help protect migrating juveniles. The applicant does not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but small percentage may die as an unintended result of the research.

The City of Bellingham Environmental Resources Division is requesting a 5-year research permit to take PS Chinook salmon and steelhead. The purpose of the research is to assess the effectiveness of habitat restoration measures implemented as part of the Whatcom Creek long-term Restoration Plan. In June of 1999, aquatic and wetland habitats in Whatcom Creek were severely affected by a fuel leak and subsequent explosion. The information gathered by this research would benefit listed salmonids by helping resource managers evaluate the effectiveness of the habitat restoration efforts. The applicant proposes to capture fish using a smolt trap. Listed fish would be captured, identified, measured, and released. The applicant does not intend to kill any listed fish species, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The U.S. Geological Survey is requesting a 5-year research permit to conduct studies of interactions between American shad ( Alosa sappidissima ) and salmonid restoration efforts in the lower Columbia River. The applicant proposes to capture a few adults and juveniles of all species listed at the beginning of this notice except for those found in the Puget Sound, Washington. The purpose of the study is to determine how shad are benefitted by or detract from salmonid restoration programs in the Columbia River basin. The listed fish will benefit from these efforts as managers learn how the non-native shad affect both the local salmonids and the programs designed to restore them. The applicant proposes to capture the fish using a variety of methods: gillnetting, electrofishing, angling, seines, cast nets, etc. All listed fish captured during the research would be immediately returned to the water at the point of capture. The applicant does not propose to kill any listed fish, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office is requesting a 1-year research permit to take PS Chinook salmon and steelhead. The purposes of the study are to (1) provide the City of Seattle, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Seattle District), and the Washington Department of Transportation with information on juvenile Chinook salmon movement patterns and habitat use in Lake Washington and the Lake Washington Ship Canal; and (2) collect habitat use information on two key predators of juvenile Chinook salmon: smallmouth bass and northern pikeminnow. The information gathered by this research would benefit listed salmonids by helping resource managers (1) determine the relationship between habitat use and shoreline development, (2) guide the city's efforts to improve habitat conditions, (3) predict the effects of habitat modifications, (4) help Lake Washington municipalities with their shoreline management programs, and (5) determine how fish pass through the Ballard Locks and identify ways to improve fish passage. For the habitat use study, the applicant proposes to obtain juvenile Chinook salmon from a screw trap operated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. An acoustic tag would be surgically implanted in the captured juvenile Chinook salmon and the fish would be released into Lake Washington. In the predator sampling study, the applicant would capture fish by using hook and line fishing, beach seines, and gill nets. Listed fish captured during the predator sampling study would be released immediately. The applicant does not intend to kill any listed fish, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the Federal Register .

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4214(c)(4), the following are the names and titles of DISA career executives appointed to serve as members of the DISA Performance Review Board. Appointees will serve one-year terms, effective upon publication of this notice.

Due to the recent wildfires in the San Diego area, the Department of the Navy has decided to extend the public scoping period for this proposed action. Accordingly, the public scoping period is hereby extended for 15 days. To receive full consideration, comments must be received on or before December 3, 2007.

This notice of meeting is provided per the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The executive session of the meeting will consist of discussions of personnel issues at the Naval Academy and internal Board of Visitors matters. The proposed closed session from 1110-1200 will include a discussion of new and pending courts-martial and state criminal proceedings involving the Midshipmen attending the Naval Academy to include an update on the pending/ongoing sexual assault cases, rape cases, etc. The proposed closed session from 1045-1200 will include a discussion of new and pending administrative/minor disciplinary infractions and nonjudicial punishments involving the Midshipmen attending the Naval Academy to include but not limited to individual honor/conduct violations within the Brigade. Discussion of such information cannot be adequately segregated from other topics, which precludes opening the executive session of this meeting to the public. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Navy has determined in writing that the meeting shall be partially closed to the public because it will be concerned with matters listed in section 552b(c)(5), (6), and (7) of title 5, United States Code.

The Panel was established by Executive Order 13398. The purpose of this Panel is to foster greater knowledge of and improved performance in mathematics among American students, in order to keep America competitive, support American talent and creativity, encourage innovation throughout the American economy, and help State, local, territorial, and tribal governments give the nation's children and youth the education they need to succeed.

The meeting will be held at the Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) Airport Marriott in Baltimore, MD, on Wednesday, November 28, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. From 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and again from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. the Panel will discuss the Final Report draft. Individuals interested in attending the meeting are advised to register in advance to ensure space availability. Please contact Jennifer Graban at Jennifer.Graban@ed.gov by Wednesday, November 21, 2007.

This meeting will not include a public comment session, as the Panel will be concluding its work on the Final Report. However, if you would like to provide comments to the Panel, please do so in written form, via e-mail at NationalMathPanel@ed.gov , by Wednesday, November 21, 2007. Written comments will also be accepted at the meeting site. Please note that comments submitted to the National Mathematics Advisory Panel in any format are considered to be part of the public record of the Panel's deliberations, and will be posted on the Web site.

The Panel has submitted its Preliminary Report to the President, through the U.S. Secretary of Education. The Preliminary Report is available at http://www.ed.gov/mathpanel. The Final Report will be submitted not later than February 28, 2008, and will, at a minimum, contain recommendations on improving mathematics education based on the best available scientific evidence.

The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Individuals who will need accommodations in order to attend the meeting, such as interpreting services, assistive listening devices, or materials in alternative format, should notify Jennifer Graban at Jennifer.Graban@ed.gov no later than Wednesday, November 21, 2007. We will attempt to meet requests for accommodations after this date, but cannot guarantee their availability.

Records are kept of all Panel proceedings and are available for public inspection at the staff office for the Panel, from the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.

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

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

This security boundary is designated pursuant to section 229 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. This revised boundary supersedes and/or re-describes the entries previously contained in the Federal Register notice published October 19, 1965, at 30 FR 13285; amended on January 11, 1973, at 38 FR 1301; and amended on March 6, 1974, at 39 FR 8652 for Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

If needed, time will be allotted after public comments for items added to the agenda and administrative details. A final agenda will be available at the meeting Monday, November 26, 2007.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Gerri Flemming's office at the address or telephone listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Gerri Flemming at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site http://www.srs.gov/general/outreach/srs-cab/srs-cab.html .

Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and guidance that promotes research and development leading to the production of biobased fuels and biobased products.

• Update on Biomass Program activities.

• Report on the Six Integrated Biorefinery Projects.

• Update on 2007 Farm Bill.

• Update on 2007 Joint Solicitation Projects.

• Presentation on the EPA Greenhouse Gas Rulemaking.

• Presentation: Bioenergy Research Centers—DOE Office of Science.

• Presentation: Biobased Products—Lou Honory, University of Iowa.

• Meeting with the Biomass R&D Board.

• Discussion: Approve 2008 Committee Work Plan.

Public Participation: In keeping with procedures, members of the public are welcome to observe the business of the Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee. To attend the meeting and/or to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Valri Lightner at 202-586-0937; E-mail: valri.lightner@ee.doe.gov or Carolyn Clark at (410) 997-7778 * 235; E-mail: cclark@bcs-hq.com. You must make your request for an oral statement at least 5 business days before the meeting. Members of the public will be heard in the order in which they sign up at the beginning of the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chair of the Committee will make every effort to hear the views of all interested parties. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. The Chair will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business.

Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room; Room 1E-190; Forrestal Building; 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On May 9, 2007 (72 FR 26357), EPA sought comments on the proposed new ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received 13 comments during the comment period, which are addressed in the ICR. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0274, which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov , or in person inspection at the OPPT Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket is 202-566-0280.

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

Title: Safer Detergent Stewardship Initiative (SDSI) Program.

ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 2261.01, OMB Control No. 2070-NEW.

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

Abstract: This information collection addresses paperwork activities that support the administration of the Safer Detergent Stewardship Initiative (SDSI). SDSI is a voluntary program administered by EPA to offer resources and recognition to businesses involved in the transition to safer surfactants. Surfactants are a major ingredient in cleaning products such as detergents, cleaners, airplane deicers and fire-fighting foams. Safer surfactants are those that break down quickly to non-polluting compounds. Businesses and other organizations that wish to be recognized by EPA should complete and submit an application form (EPA Form 6300-2).

Under SDSI, businesses that have fully transitioned to safer surfactants, or (for non-profits, academic institutions, etc.) can document outstanding efforts to encourage the use of safer surfactants, are granted Champion status. Businesses that commit to a full and timely transition to safer surfactants, or (for non-profits, academic institutions, etc.) can document outstanding efforts to encourage the use of safer surfactants, are granted Partner status. This category provides recognition of significant accomplishments towards the use of safer surfactants. Partners will be listed on the EPA SDSI website and may be granted recognition as a Champion in the future if appropriate. Responses to the collection of information are voluntary. Respondents may claim all or part of a notice as CBI. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a CBI claim only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in 40 CFR part 2.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are establishments or organizations engaged in formulating, producing, purchasing or distributing surfactants or products containing surfactants.

Estimated No. of Respondents: 375.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 3,750 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Labor Costs: $182,625.

Changes in Burden Estimates: This is a new information collection request. The burden associated with responses to this new information collection reflects an increase of 3,750 hours in the total estimated respondent burden from that currently in the OMB inventory. This increase represents a program change.

The meeting is open to the public. The Committee encourages the public's input and will take public comment starting at 5:30 p.m. on December 5, 2007, for this purpose. It is preferred that only one person present the statement on behalf of a group or organization. To ensure adequate time for public involvement, individuals interested in presenting an oral statement may notify Jini Mohanty, the Designated Federal Officer, by telephone at 202-564-5269, no later than December 3, 2007. Any person who wishes to file a written statement can do so before or after a Committee meeting. Written statements received by December 3, 2007, will be distributed to all members before any final discussion or vote is completed. Any statements received on December 4, 2007, or after the meeting will become part of the permanent meeting file and will be forwarded to the members for their information.

For information on access or accommodations for individuals with disabilities, please contact Jini Mohanty at 202-564-5269 or by e-mail at mohanty.jini@epa.gov . Please allow at least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time to process your request.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0798.

Title: FCC Application for Radio Service Authorization: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.

Form No.: FCC Form 601.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households; business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 253,120 respondents; 253,120 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1.25 hours (average).

Frequency of Response: On occasion and every 10 year reporting requirements, recordkeeping requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Total Annual Burden: 221,780 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $50,664,000.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Yes.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission to be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this information collection to the OMB as a revision during this comment period to obtain the full three-year clearance from them. There is a change in the number of respondents/responses, burden hours and annual costs due to instructional changes to Schedules B and D due to Auction 73 of the 700 MHz band licenses ( Second Report and Order in FCC 07-132, WT Docket No. 06-150) which is scheduled for January 16, 2008.

The FCC Form 601 is a consolidated, multi-part application form, or “long form,” that is used for general market-based licensing and site-by-site licensing for wireless telecommunications and public safety services filed through the Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS). FCC Form 601 is composed of a main form that contains the administrative information and a series of schedules used for filing technical and other information. Respondents are encouraged to submit FCC Form 601 electronically and are required to do so when submitting the FCC Form 601 to apply for an authorization for which the applicant was the winning bidder in a spectrum auction (700 MHz auction scheduled for January 16, 2008).

OMB Control Number: 3060-0799.

Title: FCC Ownership Disclosure Information for the Wireless Telecommunications Services.

Form No.: FCC Form 602.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 550 respondents; 5,216 responses.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1.50 hours (average).

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Total Annual Burden: 5,216 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $508,200.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission to be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this information collection to the OMB as a revision during this comment period to obtain the full three-year clearance from them. There is a change in the number of respondents/responses, burden hours and annual costs due to Auction 73 of the 700 MHz band licenses ( Second Report and Order in FCC 07-132, WT Docket No. 06-150) which is scheduled for January 16, 2008. There is no change to the FCC Form 602—just an increase in the number of new respondents that are affected by this collection—which changed the total annual burden hours and annual costs.

The purpose of the FCC Form 602 is to obtain the identity of the filer and to elicit information required by Section 1.2112 of the Commission's rules regarding: (1) Persons or entities holding a 10 percent or greater direct or indirect ownership interest or any general partners in a general partnership holding a direct or indirect ownership interest in the applicant (“Disclosable Interest Holders”); and (2) all FCC-regulated entities in which the filer or any of its Disclosable Interest Holders owns a 10 percent or greater interest. The data collected on the FCC Form 602 includes the FCC Registration Number (FRN), which serves as a “common link” for all filings an entity has with the FCC. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires that entities filing with the Commission to use a FRN. The FCC Form 602 was designed for, and must be filed electronically by all licensees that hold licenses in auctionable services.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0686.

Title: Streamlining the International Section 214 Authorization Process and Tariff Requirements.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 3,563 respondents; 3,563 responses.

Estimated Time Per Response: 561 hours (average).

Frequency of Response: On occasion, annual and quarterly reporting requirements, recordkeeping requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Total Annual Burden: 147,753 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $16,162,000.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.

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

Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this revision to the OMB after this 60-day comment period to obtain the full three-year clearance from them.

The Commission released a Report and Order on June 22, 2007 in IB Docket No. 04-47, FCC 07-118. Among other requirements, international carriers must notify the Commission at the same time that they notify affected customers of the discontinuance of international service. The Commission reduced the time period for such notification(s) from 60 to 30 days.

If the collections were not conducted or were conducted less frequently, applicants would not obtain the authorizations necessary to provide telecommunications services, and the Commission will be unable to carry out its mandate under the Communications Act of 1934 and the Cable Landing License Act. Furthermore, the Commission would not be able to ensure that applicants and current licensees comply with the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) statute. Additionally, without the information collections, the United States would jeopardize its ability to fulfill the U.S. obligations as negotiated under the World Trading Organization (WTO) Basic Telecom Agreement because these collections are imperative to detecting and deterring anticompetitive conduct. They are also necessary to preserve the Executive Branch agencies' and the Commission's ability to review foreign investments for national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade concerns.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0944.

Title: Review of Commission Consideration of Applications Under the Cable Landing License Act.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 211 respondents; 211 responses.

Estimated Time Per Response: 7 hours (average).

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Total Annual Burden: 1,056 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $407,600.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.

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

Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this revision to the OMB after this 60-day comment period to obtain the full three-year clearance from them. The Commission released a Report and Order on June 22, 2007 in IB Docket No. 04-47, FCC 07-118.

Among other requirements, cable landing applicants and current licensees must comply with an environmental statute, Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA). The statute authorizes states to develop coastal management programs, subject to Federal approval by the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Specifically, they must furnish a certification to the Commission and applicable state(s) that the proposed activity complies with the enforceable policies of the state's approved program and such activity will be conducted in a manner consistent with the program.

If the collection of information is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, applicants will not obtain the authorizations necessary to provide telecommunications services, and the Commission will be unable to carry out its mandate under the Cable Landing License Act and Executive Order 10530. Furthermore, the Commission would not be able to ensure that applicants and current licensees comply with the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) statute. In addition, without this collection of information, the United States would jeopardize its ability to fulfill the U.S. obligations as negotiated under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Basic Telecom Agreement because these information collection requirements are imperative to detecting and deterring anticompetitive conduct. They are also necessary to preserve the Executive Branch agencies and the Commission's ability to review foreign investments for national security, law enforcement, foreign policy and trade concerns.

CFSAC was established on September 5, 2002. The Committee was established to advise, consult with, and make recommendations to the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary for Health, on a broad range of topics including (1) The current state of knowledge and research about the epidemiology and risk factors relating to chronic fatigue syndrome, and identifying potential opportunities in these areas; (2) current and proposed diagnosis and treatment methods for chronic fatigue syndrome; and (3) development and implementation of programs to inform the public, health care professionals, and the biomedical, academic, and research communities about chronic fatigue syndrome advances.

The agenda for this meeting is being developed. The agenda will be posted on the CFSAC Web site, http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs, when it is finalized.

Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. Individuals must provide a photo ID for entry into the building where the meeting is scheduled to be held. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the designated contact person. Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments at the meeting. Individuals who wish to address the Committee during the public comment session must pre-register by November 26, 2007. Any individual who wishes to participate in the public comment session should call the telephone number listed in the contact information to register. Public comment will be limited to five minutes per speaker. Members of the public who wish to have printed material distributed to CFSAC members for discuss should submit, at a minimum, one copy of the material to the Executive Secretary, CFSAC prior to close of business on November 26, 2007. Contact information for the Executive Secretary, CFSAC is listed above.

Background

On April 16, 2007 (72 FR 18999 available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/9732 ), the NTP announced the RoC review process for the 12th RoC. An expert panel meeting is being convened on January 24-25, 2008, to review three candidate substances (botanical products containing aristolochic acid, aristolochic acid, and riddelliine) under consideration for possible listing in the 12th RoC. The available scientific and exposure information on botanical products containing aristolochic acid and aristolochic acid overlap is described in one background document (aristolochic acid related exposures); however, the expert panel will be asked to make separate recommendations for listing status for each candidate substance. The draft background documents for aristolochic acid related exposures and riddelliine will be available on the RoC Web site on November 13, 2007, or in printed text from the RoC Director (see ADDRESSES above). Persons can register free-of-charge with the NTP listserv to receive notification when draft RoC background documents for other candidate substances for the 12th RoC are made available on the RoC Web site ( http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/231 ).

Botanical products containing aristolochic acid are used in traditional folk medicines, particularly in Chinese herbal medicine and have been used inadvertently as part of a weight-loss regimen. Aristolochic acid is a generic name for a family of nitrophenanthrene carboxylic acids that occurs naturally in plants in the Aristolochiaceae family, primarily of the genera Aristolochia and Asarum . Riddelliine is a pyrrolizidine alkaloid that occurs in plants of the genus Senecio that are found in sandy desert areas of the western United States and other parts of the world. Humans may be exposed to riddelliine via direct contamination of foodstuffs by parts of Senecio plants or from indirect introduction of the alkaloid through products derived from animals that have fed on the plants. Pyrrolizidine alkaloid residues have been detected in honey.

The NTP invites written public comments on the draft background documents on aristolochic acid related exposures and riddelliine. All comments received will be posted on the RoC Web site prior to the meeting and distributed to the expert panel and RoC staff for their consideration in the peer review of the draft background documents and/or preparing for the expert panel meeting. Persons submitting written comments are asked to include their name and contact information (affiliation, mailing address, telephone and facsimile numbers, e-mail, and sponsoring organization, if any) and send them to Dr. Jameson (see ADDRESSES above) for receipt by January 11, 2008. Time is set-aside on January 24-25, 2008, for the presentation of oral public comments at the expert panel meeting. Seven minutes will be available for each speaker (one speaker per organization). Persons can register on-line to present oral comments or contact Dr. Jameson (see ADDRESSES above). When registering to comment orally, please provide your name, affiliation, mailing address, telephone and facsimile numbers, e-mail and sponsoring organization (if any). If possible, send a copy of the statement or talking points to Dr. Jameson by January 18, 2008. This statement will be provided to the expert panel to assist them in identifying issues for discussion and will be noted in the meeting record. Registration for presentation of oral comments will also be available at the meeting on January 24-25, 2008, from 7:30-8:30 a.m. Persons registering at the meeting are asked to bring 25 copies of their statement or talking points for distribution to the expert panel and for the record.

Preliminary agenda topics include:

• Oral public comments on aristolochic acid related exposures.

• Peer review of the background document on aristolochic acid related exposures.

• Recommendation for listing status in the 12th RoC for botanical products containing aristolochic acid and for aristolochic acid.

• Oral public comments on riddelliine.

• Peer review of the background document on riddelliine.

• Recommendation for listing status in the 12th RoC for riddelliine.

The meeting is scheduled for January 24-25, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to adjournment each day. The review of riddelliine will immediately follow the review of aristolochic acid related exposures. A copy of the preliminary agenda, expert panel roster, and any additional information, when available, will be posted on the RoC Web site or may be requested from the RoC Director (see ADDRESSES above). Individuals who plan to attend the meeting are encouraged to register on-line by January 18, 2008, to facilitate planning for the meeting.

The RoC is a congressionally mandated document that identifies and discusses agents, substances, mixtures, or exposure circumstances (collectively referred to as “substances”) that may pose a hazard to human health by virtue of their carcinogenicity. Substances are listed in the report as either known or reasonably anticipated human carcinogens. The NTP prepares the RoC on behalf of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Information about the RoC and the nomination process can be obtained from its homepage ( http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc ) or by contacting Dr. Jameson (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). The NTP follows a formal, multi-step process for review and evaluation of selected chemicals. The formal evaluation process is available on the RoC Web site ( http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/15208 ) or in printed copy from the RoC Director.

The IACS framework consists of two major components: An identity management service and a set of authentication or access management services. These two components will enable a single identity to be used throughout CMS and will ensure that users authenticate to applications using a level of assurance equal to the sensitivity of the application and/or data. As CMS moves into the web-enabled application arena for mission critical applications, the need to securely manage this environment is a major concern. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) requirements, e-Authentication guidance and the Personal Identity Verification initiative make the need for a security services framework even more important.

CMS has provided an application that will streamline our information technology environment so that existing and new applications can work more effectively by sharing information, and so that CMS can be more responsive to the demands of changing business needs and emerging technology. CMS plans to make our data more readily accessible to our beneficiaries, partners, and stakeholders in a secure, efficient, and carefully planned manner. In striving to meet these goals, CMS has established a target enterprise architecture and modernization strategy that is based upon several key design principles: (1) An established, secure Internet architecture for the CMS enterprise; (2) Defined products for the target enterprise architecture; (3) Defined security classifications and controls for CMS applications; (4) Defined security services that support the architecture and implement the controls; and (5) Prescriptive application development standards and guidelines for the target environment.

When an account/identity is created, a unique identifier will be generated to universally associate a user with CMS. The provisioning service uses a seven-character algorithm to generate user IDs that are unique across the CMS enterprise. The provisioning service will also provide a mechanism to assign roles that will be maintained in the central data store. An application integration point will be established to allow business application owners to use the user provisioning service to approve or deny requests for access to business applications.

Initial users of the IACS will be primarily CMS business partners such as health care plans and customer inquiry service personnel who answer queries to 1-800-MEDICARE. Three entities are key in providing this support: The Customer Support for Medicare Modernization Support, the CMS IT CITIC Service Desk and the Centers for Beneficiary Choices. Future users will consist of but are not limited to, individuals who apply from Plans and Providers, Provider Hospitals, Group Practitioners, Physicians and Beneficiaries.

Authority for maintenance of the system is given under Executive Order 9397, the Debt Collection Improvement Act, 31 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 7701(c)(1), and 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(1).

Information for this system is collected and maintained on individuals who voluntarily apply for access to the Web-based Application Systems and individuals with an approved need for access to the computer resources and information maintained by CMS. Information collected for this system will include, but is not limited to, name, social security number, date of birth, current Resource Access Control Facility Identification (RACF ID), e-mail address, telephone number, company name, and geographic location.

The Privacy Act permits us to disclose information without an individual's consent if the information is to be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information was collected. Any such disclosure of data is known as a “routine use.” The government will only release IACS information that can be associated with an individual as provided for under “Section III. Proposed Routine Use Disclosures of Data in the System.” Both identifiable and non-identifiable data may be disclosed under a routine use.

We will only collect the minimum personal data necessary to achieve the purpose of IACS. CMS has the following policies and procedures concerning disclosures of information that will be maintained in the system. Disclosure of information from the system will be approved only to the extent necessary to accomplish the purpose of the disclosure and only after CMS:

1. Determines that the use or disclosure is consistent with the reason that the data is being collected, e.g., to collect and maintain individually identifiable information to assign, control, track, and report authorized access to and use of CMS's computerized information and resources.

2. Determines that:

a. The purpose for which the disclosure is to be made can only be accomplished if the record is provided in individually identifiable form;

b. The purpose for which the disclosure is to be made is of sufficient importance to warrant the effect and/or risk on the privacy of the individual that additional exposure of the record might bring; and

c. There is a strong probability that the proposed use of the data would in fact accomplish the stated purpose(s).

3. Requires the information recipient to:

a. Establish administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized use of disclosure of the record;

b. Remove or destroy at the earliest time all patient-identifiable information; and

c. Agree to not use or disclose the information for any purpose other than the stated purpose under which the information was disclosed.

4. Determines that the data are valid and reliable.

A. The Privacy Act allows us to disclose information without an individual's consent if the information is to be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information was collected. Any such compatible use of data is known as a “routine use.” The proposed routine uses in this system meet the compatibility requirement of the Privacy Act. We are proposing to establish the following routine use disclosures of information maintained in the system:

1. To support Agency contractors, consultants, or CMS grantee who have been contracted by the Agency to assist in accomplishment of a CMS function relating to the purposes for this system and who need to have access to the records in order to assist CMS.

We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which CMS may enter into a contractual or similar agreement with a third party to assist in accomplishing CMS functions relating to purposes for this system.

CMS occasionally contracts out certain of its functions when this would contribute to effective and efficient operations. CMS must be able to give a contractor, consultants, or grantee whatever information is necessary for the contractor to fulfill its duties. In these situations, safeguards are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor, consultants, or grantee from using or disclosing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract and to return or destroy all information at the completion of the contract.

2. To assist the Department of Justice (DOJ), court or adjudicatory body when

a. The Agency or any component thereof; or

b. Any employee of the Agency in his or her official capacity; or

c. Any employee of the Agency in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ has agreed to represent the employee; or

d. The United States Government; is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, CMS determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation.

Whenever CMS is involved in litigation, or occasionally when another party is involved in litigation and CMS's policies or operations could be affected by the outcome of the litigation, CMS would be able to disclose information to the DOJ, court or adjudicatory body involved. A determination would be made in each instance that, under the circumstances involved, the purposes served by the use of the information in the particular litigation is compatible with a purpose for which CMS collects the information.

CMS has safeguards in place for authorized users and monitors such users to ensure against unauthorized use. Personnel having access to the system have been trained in the Privacy Act and information security requirements. Employees who maintain records in this system are instructed not to release data until the intended recipient agrees to implement appropriate management, operational and technical safeguards sufficient to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the information and information systems and to prevent unauthorized access.

This system will conform to all applicable Federal laws and regulations and Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards as they relate to information security and data privacy. These laws and regulations include but are not limited to: the Privacy Act of 1974; the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002; the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986; the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996; the E-Government Act of 2002, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996; the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, and the corresponding implementing regulations. OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Resources, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources also applies. Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards include but are not limited to: all pertinent National Institute of Standards and Technology publications; HHS Information Systems Program Handbook and the CMS Information Security Handbook.

CMS proposes to establish this system in accordance with the principles and requirements of the Privacy Act and will collect, use, and disseminate information only as prescribed therein. Data in this system will be subject to the authorized releases in accordance with the routine uses identified in this system of records.

CMS will take precautionary measures to minimize the risks of unauthorized access to the records and the potential harm to individual privacy or other personal or property rights of patients whose data are maintained in the system. CMS will collect only that information necessary to perform the system's functions. In addition, CMS will make disclosure from the modified system only with consent of the subject individual, or his/her legal representative, or in accordance with an applicable exception provision of the Privacy Act. CMS, therefore, does not anticipate an unfavorable effect on individual privacy as a result of the disclosure of information relating to individuals.

Authority for maintenance of this system is given under Sections 1102(a), 1154, 1861(m), 1861(o), 1861(z), 1863, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1871, 1891, and 1902 of the Social Security Act. These provisions of the Act authorize the Administrator of CMS to require HHAs participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to complete a standard, valid, patient assessment data set; i.e., the OASIS, as part of their comprehensive assessments and updates when evaluating adult, non-maternity patients as required by section 484.55 of the Conditions of Participation. Authority is also given under section 951 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-173).

The system collects and maintains information on all patients, except those in a category exempted by administrative policies and procedures, who receive services from an HHA certified for Medicare and Medicaid payments. The OASIS data set includes identifiers. It also includes information on: (1) Patient History, (2) Living Arrangements, (3) Supportive Assistance, (4) Sensory Status, (5) Integumentary Status, (6) Respiratory Status, (7) Elimination Status, (8) Neuro/Emotional/Behavioral Status, (9) Activities of Daily Living/Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (ADL/IADL), (10) Medications, (11) Equipment Management, (12) Emergent Care, and (13) Discharge. Identifiers are patient name, social security number, Medicare number and Medicaid number. A masked identifier is one in which an encrypted value is permanently substituted for an identifier to prevent recipients of the information from identifying the individual.

The OASIS information will be submitted by the HHA to the government for all patients, except pre-partum and postpartum patients, patients under 18 years of age, and patients receiving other than personal care or health care services; i.e., housekeeping services and chore services. Identifiers will be included for all patients receiving services paid for by Medicare traditional fee-for-service, Medicaid traditional fee-for-service, Medicare HMO/managed care or Medicaid HMO/managed care. For patients with only a non-Medicare or non-Medicaid payment source, the HHA will submit OASIS information with masked identifiers and will retain the identifier and masked identifier at the HHA. In other words, the patient identifier for non-Medicare and non-Medicaid patients will only be known and retained by the HHA and not by the government.

A. The Privacy Act permits us to disclose information without an individual's consent if the information is to be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information was collected. Any such disclosure of data is known as a “routine use.” The government will only release OASIS information that can be associated with an individual as provided for under “Section III. Proposed Routine Use Disclosures of Data in the System.” Both identifiable and non-identifiable data may be disclosed under a routine use.

We will only collect the minimum personal data necessary to achieve the purpose of OASIS. CMS has the following policies and procedures concerning disclosures of information that will be maintained in the system. Disclosure of information from this system will be approved only to the extent necessary to accomplish the purpose of the disclosure and only after CMS:

1. Determines that the use or disclosure is consistent with the reason that the data is being collected, e.g., to evaluate and monitor the quality of home health care and contribute to the accuracy of health insurance operations.

2. Determines:

a. That the purpose for which the disclosure is to be made can only be accomplished if the record is provided in individually identifiable form;

b. That the purpose for which the disclosure is to be made is of sufficient importance to warrant the potential effect and/or risk on the privacy of the individual that additional exposure of the record might bring; and

c. That there is a strong probability that the proposed use of the data would in fact accomplish the stated purpose(s).

3. Requires the information recipient to:

a. Establish administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized use of disclosure of the record; and

b. Remove or destroy at the earliest time all patient-identifiable information.

4. Determines that the data are valid and reliable.

A. The Privacy Act allows us to disclose information without an individual's consent if the information is to be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information was collected. Any such compatible use of data is known as a “routine use.” The proposed routine uses in this system meet the compatibility requirement of the Privacy Act. We are proposing to establish the following routine use disclosures of information maintained in the system:

1. To support agency contractors, consultants, or grantees, who have been engaged by the agency to assist in the performance of a service related to this collection and who need to have access to the records in order to perform the activity.

We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which CMS may enter into a contractual or similar agreement with a third party to assist in accomplishing CMS function relating to purposes for this system.

CMS occasionally contracts out certain of its functions when doing so would contribute to effective and efficient operations. CMS must be able to give a contractor, consultant or grantee whatever information is necessary for the contractor or consultant to fulfill its duties. In these situations, safeguards are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor, consultant or grantee from using or disclosing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract and requires the contractor, consultant or grantee to return or destroy all information at the completion of the contract.

2. To assist another Federal or state agency, agency of a state government, an agency established by state law, or its fiscal agent to:

a. Contribute to the accuracy of CMS's proper payment of Medicare benefits,

b. Enable such agency to administer a Federal health benefits program, or as necessary to enable such agency to fulfill a requirement of a Federal statute or regulation that implements a health benefits program funded in whole or in part with federal funds, and/or

c. Evaluate and monitor the quality of home health care and contribute to the accuracy of health insurance operations.

Other Federal or state agencies in their administration of a Federal health program may require OASIS information in order to support evaluations and monitoring of reimbursement for services provided.

3. To assist an individual or organization for research, evaluation or epidemiological projects related to the prevention of disease or disability, or the restoration or maintenance of health, and for payment-related projects.

The collected data will provide the research, evaluation and epidemiological projects a broader, longitudinal, national perspective of the data. CMS anticipates that many researchers will have legitimate requests to use these data in projects that could ultimately improve the care provided to Medicare patients and the policy that governs the care. CMS understands the concerns about the privacy and confidentiality of the release of data for a research use. Disclosure of data for research and evaluation purposes may involve aggregate data rather than individual-specific data.

4. To support Quality Improvement Organizations (QIO) in order to assist the QIO to perform Title XI and Title XVIII functions relating to assessing and improving HHA quality of care.

QIOs will work with HHAs to implement quality improvement programs, provide consultation to CMS, its contractors, and to state agencies. The QIOs will provide a supportive role to HHAs in their endeavors to comply with Medicare Conditions of Participation; will assist the state agencies in related monitoring and enforcement efforts; assist CMS and help regional home health intermediaries in home health program integrity assessment; and prepare summary information about the nation's home health care for release to beneficiaries.

5. To support national accrediting organizations with approval for deeming authority for Medicare requirements for home health services (i.e., the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, Accreditation Commission for Health Care, Inc., and the Community Health Accreditation Program). Information will be released to these organizations upon specific request, and only for those facilities that they accredit and that participate in the Medicare program and if they meet the following requirements:

a. Provide identifying information for HHAs that have an accreditation status with the requesting deemed organization,

b. submit a finder file identifying beneficiaries/patients receiving HHA services,

c. complete a signed data exchange agreement or a CMS data use agreement, and

d. safeguard the confidentiality of the data and prevent unauthorized access.

CMS anticipates providing these national accrediting organizations with OASIS information to enable them to target potential or identified problems during the organization's accreditation review process of that facility.

6. To support the Department of Justice (DOJ), court or adjudicatory body when:

a. The agency or any component thereof, or

b. any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity, or

c. any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ has agreed to represent the employee, or

d. the United States Government is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, CMS determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and that the use of such records by the DOJ, court or adjudicatory body is compatible with the purpose for which the agency collected the records.

Whenever CMS is involved in litigation, and occasionally when another party is involved in litigation and CMS' policies or operations could be affected by the outcome of the litigation, CMS would be able to disclose information to the DOJ, court or adjudicatory body involved.

7. To assist a CMS contractor (including, but not necessarily limited to fiscal intermediaries and carriers) that assists in the administration of a CMS-administered health benefits program, or to a grantee of a CMS-administered grant program, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud, waste, or abuse in such program.

We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which CMS may enter into a contractual relationship or grant with a third party to assist in accomplishing CMS functions relating to the purpose of combating fraud, waste, and abuse.

CMS occasionally contracts out certain of its functions and makes grants when doing so would contribute to effective and efficient operations. CMS must be able to give a contractor or grantee whatever information is necessary for the contractor or grantee to fulfill its duties. In these situations, safeguards are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor or grantee from using or disclosing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract and requiring the contractor or grantee to return or destroy all information.

8. To assist another Federal agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States (including any State or local governmental agency), that administers, or that has the authority to investigate potential fraud, waste, or abuse in, a health benefits program funded in whole or in part by Federal funds, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud, waste, or abuse in such programs.

Other agencies may require OASIS information for the purpose of combating fraud, waste, and abuse in such Federally-funded programs.

B. Additional Provisions Affecting Routine Use Disclosures. To the extent this system contains Protected Health Information (PHI) as defined by HHS regulation “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” (45 CFR Parts 160 and 164, Subparts A and E) 65 Fed. Reg. 82462 (12-28-00). Disclosures of such PHI that are otherwise authorized by these routine uses may only be made if, and as, permitted or required by the “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information.” (See 45 CFR 164-512(a)(1)).

In addition, our policy will be to prohibit release even of data not directly identifiable, except pursuant to one of the routine uses or if required by law, if we determine there is a possibility that an individual can be identified through implicit deduction based on small cell sizes (instances where the patient population is so small that individuals could, because of the small size, use this information to deduce the identity of the beneficiary).

CMS has safeguards in place for authorized users and monitors such users to ensure against unauthorized use. Personnel having access to the system have been trained in the Privacy Act and information security requirements. Employees who maintain records in this system are instructed not to release data until the intended recipient agrees to implement appropriate management, operational and technical safeguards sufficient to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the information and information systems and to prevent unauthorized access.

This system will conform to all applicable Federal laws and regulations and Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards as they relate to information security and data privacy. These laws and regulations may apply but are not limited to: The Privacy Act of 1974; the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002; the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986; the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996; the E-Government Act of 2002, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996; the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, and the corresponding implementing regulations. OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Resources, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources also applies. Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards include but are not limited to: All pertinent National Institute of Standards and Technology publications; the HHS Information Systems Program Handbook and the CMS Information Security Handbook.

CMS proposes to modify this system in accordance with the principles and requirements of the Privacy Act and will collect, use, and disseminate information only as prescribed therein. Data in this system will be subject to the authorized releases in accordance with the routine uses identified in this system of records.

CMS will take precautionary measures (see item IV above) to minimize the risks of unauthorized access to the records and the potential harm to individual privacy or other personal or property rights of patients whose data are maintained in the system. CMS will collect only that information necessary to perform the system's functions. In addition, CMS will make disclosure from the proposed system only with consent of the subject individual, or his/her legal representative, or in accordance with an applicable exception provision of the Privacy Act. CMS, therefore, does not anticipate an unfavorable effect on individual privacy as a result of information relating to individuals.