On March 27, 2008, we published in the Federal Register (73 FR 16245-16246) a notice  1 in which we announced the availability for review and comment of assessments of the animal health status of Denmark and France relative to high pathogenicity avian influenza (HPAI) subtype H5N1. In the assessments, titled “APHIS Analysis of the Status of High Pathogenicity Avian Influenza H5N1 in Denmark” (December 2007) and “APHIS Analysis of the Status of High Pathogenicity Avian Influenza H5N1 in France” (December 2007), we presented the results of our evaluation of the prevalence of HPAI H5N1 in domestic poultry in the two countries in light of the actions taken by Danish and French animal health authorities during and since the outbreaks of HPAI H5N1 that occurred in those two regions in 2006.

Our assessments concluded that both Denmark and France had adequate detection and control measures in place at the time of the outbreak, that they have been able to effectively control and eradicate HPAI H5N1 in their domestic poultry populations since that time, and that both Danish and French animal health authorities have control measures in place to rapidly identify, control, and eradicate the disease should it be reintroduced into Denmark or France in either wild birds or domestic poultry.

We solicited comments on the notice for 30 days ending on April 28, 2008. We received one comment on our assessments, from the chief veterinary officer of Denmark. The commenter agreed with our findings, but suggested several nonsubstantive changes to our assessment of Denmark. We concur with the points raised by the commenter, and have updated the assessment accordingly. The updated assessment may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site. 2

In our March 2008 notice we stated that, if we could identify no additional risk factors that would indicate that domestic poultry in either Denmark or France continue to be affected with HPAI H5N1 by the end of the comment period, we would conclude that the importation of live birds, poultry carcasses, parts or products of poultry carcasses, and eggs (other than hatching eggs) of poultry, game birds, or other birds from either Denmark or France presents a low risk of introducing HPAI H5N1 into the United States. Based on the absence of adverse comments received during the comment period, we have decided that no additional risk factors exist.

Therefore we are removing our prohibition on the importation of these products from Denmark and France into the United States. Specifically:

• We are no longer requiring that processed poultry products from Denmark and France be accompanied by a VS import permit and government certification confirming that the products have been treated according to APHIS requirements;

• We are allowing unprocessed poultry products from Denmark and France to enter the United States in passenger luggage; and

• We are removing restrictions regarding the regions in Denmark and France from which processed poultry products may originate in order to be allowed entry into the United States in passenger luggage.

However, live birds from Denmark and France are still subject to the inspections at ports of entry and post-importation quarantines set forth in 9 CFR part 93, unless granted an exemption by the Administrator or destined for diagnostic purposes and accompanied by a limited permit.

The Sirex woodwasp ( Sirex noctilio Fabricius [Hymenoptera: Siricidae]) is a member of the horntail wasp family native to Europe, Asia, and northern Africa, where it is generally considered to be a secondary pest. In its native range, it attacks pines, such as Austrian ( Pinus nigra ), maritime ( P. pinaster ), and Scotch ( P. sylvestris ) pines, almost exclusively. While stressed trees are most at risk, Sirex woodwasp can also attack and kill healthy trees. Adult wasps are strong fliers and can naturally disperse up to 25 miles, especially when aided by strong winds. Sirex woodwasp can survive transportation in infested materials, such as logs, that are moved long distances and then be capable of infesting new areas. Because Sirex woodwasp inhabits the sapwood and larvae tunnel deep into host trees, this pest is difficult to detect with inspection.

Pines are the main hosts of Sirex woodwasp, which can complete its lifecycle on many species of pines. Thus far, in North America, jack pine ( P. banksiana ), red pine ( P. resinosa ), Scotch pine ( P. sylvestris ), and white pine ( P. strobus ) have served as hosts for Sirex woodwasp. In addition, Sirex woodwasp has been recorded on other conifers such as Douglas fir ( Pseudotsuga spp.), fir ( Abies spp.), larch ( Larix spp.), and spruce ( Picea spp.).

The first detection of a breeding population of the Sirex woodwasp in the United States was in 2004 in Oswego County, NY. As a result of surveys conducted in 2005, 2006, and 2007 by State and Federal officials, the Sirex woodwasp has been detected in additional counties in Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.

In an environmental assessment prepared in March 2007, APHIS considered a program to control Sirex woodwasp in New York and Pennsylvania, the only States where Sirex woodwasp had been detected at that time. The environmental assessment evaluated four alternatives: No action, a quarantine program, a biological control program, and a combination of quarantine and biological control (preferred action) in New York and Pennsylvania. A finding of no significant impact was signed on June 21, 2007, in which APHIS determined that the proposed program (including quarantine and biological control) identified as the preferred action would not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment in those States. Since that time, Sirex woodwasp has been detected in additional States, and APHIS would like to implement a biological control program in those States. In addition, if Sirex woodwasp were detected in other States, APHIS would want to implement a biological control program in those States, as well. Therefore, this environmental assessment considers the potential effects on the quality of the human environment from implementing a program for control of Sirex woodwasp in all of the currently infested States and in surrounding States where Sirex woodwasp would most likely be detected if it were to spread.

APHIS' review and analysis of the potential environmental impacts associated with this proposed biological control program are documented in detail in an environmental assessment entitled “Proposed Program for the Control of the Woodwasp Sirex noctilio F. (Hymenoptera: Siricidae) in the Northeastern United States” (May 2008). We are making this environmental assessment available to the public for review and comment. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before the date listed under the heading DATES at the beginning of this notice.

The environmental assessment may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room (see ADDRESSES above for a link to Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room). You may request paper copies of the environmental assessment by calling or writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Please refer to the title of the environmental assessment when requesting copies.

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).

Title: Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program.

OMB Number: 0575-0179.

Type of Request: Reinstatement of a Previously Approved Information Collection.

Abstract: Under this program, loan guarantees are provided to participating lenders who make loans to income eligible borrowers in rural areas. The purpose of this program is to promote affordable housing for low- and moderate-income borrowers in rural America.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 27 minutes per response.

Respondents: Private sector lenders participating in the Rural Development Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,800.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 130.

Estimated Number of Responses: 234,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 105,131.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, at (202) 692-0043.

Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of USDA, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of USDA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Renita Bolden, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Stop 0742-1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0742. 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.

On June 24, 2008, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) received a Petition concerning imports of certain non-motorized tow behind lawn groomers and certain parts thereof (“lawn groomers”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) filed in proper form by Agri-Fab Inc. (“Agri-Fab”, hereafter referred to as “Petitioner”). See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties: Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, dated June 24, 2008 (“Petition”). On June 27, July 3, July 7, and July 8, 2008, the Department issued requests for additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petition. Based on the Department's requests, Petitioner filed supplemental information on the following topics: general issues ( i.e. , scope, injury, and industry support) and U.S. price and normal value (“NV”) calculations on July 1, 2008; U.S. price and NV calculations on July 8, 2008; and scope and certain revisions to NV calculations on July 9, 2008. In addition, Petitioner provided additional information regarding an adjustment to NV on July 9, 2008, and additional clarification of the scope of the Petition on July 10, 2008. See Memorandum from Mark Manning, Program Manager, to the File, “Phone Conversation With Agri-Fab Concerning Line-Item in Normal Value Calculation,” dated July 9, 2008; and Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, to the File, “Request to Agri-Fab, Inc. via Telephone Conversation, July 10, 2008.” Petitioner also provided additional information on industry support on July 10, 2008. See Memorandum from Meredith A.W. Rutherford to the File, Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties—Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Phone Call with Petitioner Regarding Industry Support, dated July 9, 2008. Lastly, Petitioner provided an additional clarification to the scope on July 11, 2008. See Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, to the File, “Scope Clarification,” dated July 11, 2008.

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), Petitioner alleges that imports of lawn groomers from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States.

The Department finds that Petitioner filed this Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping duty investigation. See “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” section, infra.

The period of investigation (“POI”) is October 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

The merchandise covered by this investigation is certain lawn groomers and certain parts thereof. See Appendix I to this notice for a complete description of the merchandise covered by this investigation.

During our review of the Petition, we discussed the scope with Petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments by August 4, 2008, which is 21 calendar days from the date of signature of this notice. 1 Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination.

The Department is requesting comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of lawn groomers to be reported in response to the Department's antidumping questionnaire. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise to allow respondents to accurately report the relevant factors of production, as well as develop appropriate product reporting criteria, in accordance with the Department's non-market economy (“NME”) methodology, as described in the “Normal Value” section, infra.

Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they believe are relevant to the development of an accurate listing of physical characteristics. Specifically, interested parties may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics; and (2) product reporting criteria. The Department notes that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product reporting criteria. While there may be some physical product characteristics that manufacturers use to describe lawn groomers, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics of lawn groomers.

In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the antidumping duty questionnaire, the Department must receive public comments at the above-referenced address by August 4, 2008, and receive rebuttal comments by August 11, 2008.

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method.

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989).

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this subtitle.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” ( i.e. , the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition).

With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that certain tow behind lawn groomers and certain lawn groomer parts constitute a single domestic like product; and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see “Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China (“Initiation Checklist”), Analysis of Industry Support for the Petition at Attachment II, on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Room 1217 of the main Department of Commerce building.

With regard to section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, in determining whether Petitioner has standing ( i.e. , the domestic workers and producer supporting the Petition account for (1) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and (2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition), we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of Investigation” section, above. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its sales volume of the domestic like product for calendar year 2007, and compared that to total sales volume of the domestic like product for the industry. Petitioner stated that it “used sales volumes * * * as a surrogate for production, because it does not have access to the actual production data of other domestic {lawn groomer} producers.” See Petition, Volume 1, at 2. We have relied upon the data Petitioner provided for purposes of measuring industry support. For further discussion, see Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Analysis of Industry Support for the Petition).

The Department's review of the data provided in the Petition, supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioner has established industry support. First, the Petition establishes support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support ( e.g. , polling). See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act and PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Analysis of Industry Support for the Petition). Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Analysis of Industry Support for the Petition). Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition. Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Analysis of Industry Support for the Petition).

The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping investigation that it is requesting the Department initiate. See PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Analysis of Industry Support for the Petition).

Petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than NV. Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price depressing and suppressing effects, lost sales and revenue, reduced production and capacity utilization, reduced shipments, reduced employment, and an overall decline in financial performance. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. See Initiation Checklist at Attachment III (Analysis of Injury Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation).

The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate this investigation of imports of lawn groomers from the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to the U.S. price, and the factors of production are also discussed in the initiation checklist. See Initiation Checklist. Should the need arise to use any of this information as facts available under section 776 of the Act in our preliminary or final determination, we will reexamine the information and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate.

Petitioner relied on one U.S. price quote for lawn groomers manufactured in the PRC and offered for sale in the United States. The price quoted was for one type of lawn groomer, i.e. , lawn sweeper, falling within the scope of the Petition. See Petition, Volume II, at 8 and Exhibit II-1. Petitioner deducted foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling from this price. See Petition, Volume II, at 7-8 and Exhibit II-2.

Petitioner notes that the PRC is a non-market economy country (“NME”) and that no determination to the contrary has yet been made by the Department. See Petition, Volume II, at 2. The Department has previously examined the PRC's market status and determined that NME status should continue for the PRC. See Memorandum from the Office of Policy to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding The People's Republic of China Status as a Non-Market Economy, dated May 15, 2006 (available online at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nme-status/prc-nme-status-memo.pdf ). In addition, in recent investigations, the Department has continued to determine that the PRC is an NME country. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of China , 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China , 72 FR 9508 (March 2, 2007).

In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product is appropriately based on factors of production valued in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of this investigation, all parties will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual exporters.

Petitioner argues that India is the appropriate surrogate country for the PRC because it is at a comparable level of economic development and it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, specifically hand trucks. See Petition, Volume II, at 3. Petitioner asserts that no potential surrogate countries manufacture lawn groomers. See Petition, Volume II, at 2. Based on the information provided by Petitioner, the Department believes that the use of India as a surrogate country is appropriate for purposes of initiation. However, after initiation of the investigation, interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value factors of production within 40 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination.

Petitioner calculated NV and a dumping margin for the U.S. price, discussed above, using the Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 351.408. Petitioner calculated NV based on its own consumption rates for producing 42-inch lawn sweepers in 2007. See Petition, Volume II, at 5, and Initiation Checklist. Petitioner states that its production experience is representative of the production process used in the PRC because all of the material inputs and processing are unlikely to be materially different for a Chinese producer of lawn groomers. See Petition, Volume II, at 3-5.

Petitioner valued the factors of production based on reasonably available, public surrogate country data, including official Indian government import statistics and sources recently used in other PRC proceedings conducted by the Department. Since Petitioner was unable to find input prices contemporaneous with the POI for electricity and gas, it adjusted for inflation using the wholesale price index for India, as published by the International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics. See July 8, 2008, supplemental to the Petition, at Exhibit 3. In addition, Petitioner made currency conversions, where necessary, based on the POI-average rupee/U.S. dollar exchange rate, as reported on the Department's Web site. See Petition, Volume II, at Exhibit II-4. Petitioner calculated a labor cost for the PRC based upon its own experience. See Petition, Volume II, at 6. To value labor, Petitioner used a labor rate of $1.04 per hour, as published on the Department's Web site, in accordance with the Department's regulations. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) and the Initiation Checklist. For purposes of initiation, the Department determines that the surrogate values used by Petitioner are reasonably available and, thus, acceptable for purposes of initiation.

Petitioner based factory overhead expenses, selling, general and administrative expenses, and profit, based on the experience of Rexello Castors Private Ltd. (“Rexello”), an Indian manufacturer of comparable merchandise, namely hand trucks. See Petition, Volume II, at 7. For purposes of initiation, the Department finds Petitioner's use of Rexello's most recently available financial statement to calculate the surrogate financial ratios appropriate.

Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of lawn groomers from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV, calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the revised estimated dumping margin for lawn groomers from the PRC is 154.72 percent. See Initiation Checklist at II-9.

Based upon the examination of the Petition on lawn groomers from the PRC, the Department finds that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an antidumping duty investigation to determine whether imports of lawn groomers from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

In this investigation, the Department will request quantity and value information from all known exporters and producers identified in the Petition. The quantity and value data received from NME exporters/producers will be used as the basis to select the mandatory respondents.The Department requires that the respondents submit a response to both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rate application by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. See Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008); and Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005). Appendix II of this notice contains the quantity and value questionnaire that must be submitted by all NME exporters/producers no later than August 4, 2008. In addition, the Department will post the quantity and value questionnaire along with filing instructions on the Import Administration Web site, at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html. The Department will send the quantity and value questionnaire to those PRC companies identified in the July 8, 2008, supplement to the Petition, at Exhibit 2.

In order to obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate status application. See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (Separate Rates/Combination Rates Bulletin), available on the Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. The specific requirements for submitting the separate-rate application in this investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, available on the Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html on the date of publication of this initiation notice in the Federal Register . The separate-rate application will be due 60 days from the date of publication of this initiation notice in the Federal Register . As noted in the “Respondent Selection” section above, the Department requires that respondents submit a response to both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rate application by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status.

The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. The Separate Rates/Combination Rates Bulletin states:

See Separate Rates/Combination Rates Bulletin, at 6.

In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petition have been provided to the representatives of the Government of the PRC. We will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to the foreign producers/exporters, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than August 8, 2008, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of lawn groomers from the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination with respect to this investigation will result in the investigation being terminated; otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.

On January 16, 2008, we published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the aligned 2005/2006 administrative and new shipper reviews. See Preliminary Results . The POR is December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006.

On April 18, 2008, the Department invited parties to comment in their case briefs on the Department’s proposed methodology to calculate: 1) a rate for Zhejiang Native and Dongtai Peak, the separate rate entities in the instant review that were not selected for individual examination; and 2) a per-kilogram cash deposit rate for the separate rate entities and the PRC-wide entity. See Changes Since the Preliminary Results section below.

On April 25, 2008, the Department received case briefs from QHD Sanhai, Zhejiang Native, and the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (collectively, “petitioners”). On May 6, 2008, the Department received rebuttal briefs from QHD Sanhai and petitioners. On May 20, 2008, the petitioners submitted new factual information on the record of the review regarding QHD Sanhai’s U.S. customer. On June 13, 2008, the Department accepted petitioners’ submission of new factual information and invited comments from parties regarding the new information. On June 23, 2008, the Department received comments from QHD Sanhai regarding the new factual information.

The products covered by this order are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form.

The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department’s written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive.

All issues raised in the briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results in the 2005-2006 Administrative Review and New Shipper Review of Honey from the People’s Republic of China from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary, dated July 14, 2008, (“I&D Memo”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. 2 A list of the issues raised, all of which are in the I&D Memo, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in the briefs and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), room 1117 of the Department of Commerce. In addition, a complete version of the I&D Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and electronic version of the I&D Memo are identical in content.

In the Preliminary Results, the Department issued a notice of intent to rescind this administrative review with respect to certain companies, as Mgl Yun Sheng Honey Co., Ltd. (“Mgl Yun Sheng”); Inner Mongolia Youth Trade Development Co., Ltd. (“Inner Mongolia Youth”); and Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Bloom”), certified that they did not export honey from China to the United States during the POR. See Preliminary Results , 73 FR 2890. The Department received no comments on this issue and there is no record evidence to challenge this finding. Therefore, the Department is rescinding this administrative review with respect to Inner Mongolia Youth, Mgl Yung Sheng, and Shanghai Bloom.

Finally, in light of comments from petitioners requesting a revision of the Department’s bona fides analysis, with respect to its analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Production (“CBP”) data, the Department has subsequently reevaluated the circumstances surrounding QHD Sanhai’s POR transaction and finds that the sale in question is not a bona fide transaction. Initially, in its bona fides analysis for the Preliminary Results , the Department analyzed the HTSUS subcategory 0409.00.0020: “NATURAL HONEY PACKAGED FOR RETAIL SALE.” For the final results, the Department finds that the HTSUS subcategory 0409.00.0025: “COMB HONEY AND HONEY PACKAGED FOR RETAIL SALE” is more appropriate because it is more specific to the subject merchandise sold by QHD Sanhai, and thus, the Department has reevaluated CBP data accordingly. As a result of our reevaluation and the change in HTS category examined, we have concluded that the single sale made by QHD Sanhai during the POR is not a bona fide commercial transaction based specifically on: 1) the high price and low quantity of QHD Sanhai’s single POR sale; and 2) other indicia of a non- bona fide transaction. In sum, the totality of circumstances leads the Department to find that QHD Sanhai’s single POR sale is a non- bona fide commercial transaction. Therefore, this sale does not provide a reasonable or reliable basis for calculating a dumping margin. As QHD Sanhai had no other sales of subject merchandise during the instant POR, the Department is rescinding the new shipper review with respect to QHD Sanhai. For further discussion of this issue, see Comment 1 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum; see also Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding the Final Bona Fides Analysis of QHD Sanhai Co., Ltd. in the Aligned Fifth Administrative and Tenth New Shipper Review of Honey From the People’s Republic of China, dated July 14, 2008.

QMD, IMA, Zhejiang Native, and Dongtai Peak requested separate, company-specific antidumping duty rates. In the Preliminary Results , we found that Dongtai Peak and Zhejiang Native met the criteria for the application of a separate antidumping duty rate. Preliminary Results , 73 FR at 2893. Therefore, the Department has applied a rate to Dongtai Peak and Zhejiang Native separate from the rate established for the PRC-wide entity. Also in the Preliminary Results , the Department found that IMA and QMD ultimately ceased to participate in the administrative review, and hence do not qualify for separate rate status, but rather are appropriately considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity which is assigned an AFA rate of 221.02 percent. Id . The Department did not receive comments on this issue prior to these final results.

In the Preliminary Results , the Department found that QMD and IMA ceased participating in the administrative review, and both Wuhu Qinshi and Jiangsu Light did not respond to the Department’s multiple requests for information. As noted above, the Department found that these two entities did not establish their eligibility for separate rate status, and thus such entities are deemed part of the PRC-wide entity. As the Department found that the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in responding to the Department’s requests for information, the Department assigned the PRC-wide entity a rate based on AFA. The Department did not receive comments prior to these final results regarding the Department’s preliminary application of AFA to the PRC-wide entity. See Preliminary Results , 73 FR 2890.

Therefore, for these final results, the Department has not altered its decision to apply total AFA to the PRC-wide entity in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) and section 776(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).

For the Preliminary Results , with respect to Zhejiang Native and Dongtai Peak, the two respondents in the administrative review eligible for a separate rate but not selected for individual examination, the Department preliminarily assigned the separate rate margin from the most recent segment of this proceeding in which such rate was issued, which in this case is the less than fair value investigation. We note, however, that in the second administrative review of honey from the PRC, the Department determined that per-kilogram antidumping duty cash deposit and assessment rates were appropriate. See Honey from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 70 FR 38873 (July 6, 2005) (“AR2 Final Results ”), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7. The Department further stated that the quantity-based collection and assessment method would begin upon completion of those final results, and would be employed thereafter for all future reviews of this order. Given that the AR2 Final Results did not address per-kilogram rates for non-selected separate rate respondents or the PRC-wide entity, for the final results of the instant review, the Department proposed a new methodology to calculate: 1) a per-kilogram cash deposit rate for non-selected separate entities; and 2) a per-kilogram cash deposit rate for the PRC-wide entity. See April 18, 2008, Letter.

For these final results, for Zhejiang Native and Dongtai Peak, the Department has assigned a cash deposit and assessment rate of $0.98 per-kilogram. In deriving this per-kilogram rate, the Department first determined the appropriate ad valorem rate to be applied to these entities which are eligible for separate rate status but not selected for individual examination. Although in its Preliminary Results, the Department applied an ad valorem rate to Zhejiang Native and Dongtai Peak based on the rate established for entities separate from the PRC-wide entity in the LFTV phase of this proceeding, in reexamining the record, the Department finds that the more recent calculated rates determined by the Department in the December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005, review period are more contemporaneous and thus more appropriate for purposes of establishing a rate for non-selected separate entities in this POR. The Department calculated a simple average of the calculated rates for all respondents (inclusive of new shippers and administrative review companies) in the December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005, POR (with the exception of rates based on total AFA and rates of de minimis ). See April 18, 2008, Letter at Attachment I. The resulting ad valorem rate is 104.88 percent.

Next, to convert this ad valorem rate into a per-kilogram rate, the Department obtained from CBP, all “type 3” entries of subject merchandise under the relevant subheadings classifiable under HTSUS 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99, as defined by the scope of the order, which entered the United States during the POR. The Department used the total quantity and total value of the entries to derive a weighted average unit price (“AUV”). We then multiplied the AUV by the ad valorem rate of 104.88%, calculated as described above. Finally, we took the resulting USD figure, which represents total antidumping duties owed and divided such by the quantity referenced above to arrive at a per-kilogram assessment and cash deposit rate of $0.98, to be applied to Zhejiang Native and Dongtai Peak.

To arrive at a per-kilogram rate for the PRC-wide rate entity, we began with the ad valorem AFA rate assigned to such entity for purposes of these final results. That rate is 221.02 percent. The Department then followed the same methodology outlined above, i.e., multiplying the ad valorem rate of 221.02 percent by the AUV for all imports of subject merchandise into the United States during the, and then divided the resulting figure representing total antidumping duties owed by the relevant quantity. For the PRC-wide entity, this calculation results in a per-kilogram assessment rate of $2.06.

In Honey from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 72 FR 37715, (July 11, 2007), the Department found that the current PRC-wide entity rate did not need to be corroborated, as the rate was based on, and calculated from, information submitted by a respondent in the course of the administrative review; i.e. , it is not secondary information. Similarly, for these final results, the Department finds that corroboration of the PRC-wide per-kilogram cash deposit assessment rate is not required because the per-kilogram cash deposit assessment rate is based on ad valorem rates which were calculated using information submitted by respondents in the course of the most recently completed review period (December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005). See 19 CFR 351.308(c) and (d) and section 776(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

We determine that the following antidumping duty margins exist:

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for honey from the PRC on a per-unit basis. See Changes Since the Preliminary Results above. We will direct CBP to levy importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit ( i.e. , per-kilogram) rates by the weight in kilograms of each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR.

The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for subject merchandise exported by Dongtai Peak and Zhejiang Native, the cash deposit rate will be $0.98 per kilogram; (2) the cash deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding; (3) for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate (including Wuhu Qinshi, Jiangsu Light, QMD, and IMA), the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of $2.06 per-kilogram; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter.

These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

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

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On June 24, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received a petition filed in proper form by Agri-Fab, Inc. (petitioner), domestic producers of certain tow-behind lawn groomers and certain parts thereof (lawn groomers) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). On June 27, 2008, the Department issued requests for additional information and clarification of certain areas of the petition involving general issues and the countervailable subsidy allegations. Based on the Department's request, petitioner timely filed additional information concerning the petition on July 2, 2008. On June 27 and July 7, 2008, the Department issued requests for additional information and clarification of certain areas of the petition. Based on the Department's requests, petitioner filed supplemental information on the following topics: general issues ( i.e. , scope, injury, and industry support) and scope on July 9, 2008. In addition, petitioner provided an additional clarification of the scope of the Petition on July 10, 2009. See Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, to the File, “Request to Agri-Fab, Inc. via Telephone Conversation, July 10, 2008.” Petitioner also provided additional information on industry support on July 10, 2008. See Memorandum from Meredith A.W. Rutherford to the File, Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties - Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Phone Call with Petitioner Regarding Industry Support, dated July 9, 2008. Lastly, petitioner provided an additional clarification to the scope on July 11, 2008. See Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, to the File, “Scope Clarification,” July 11, 2008.

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), petitioner alleges that manufacturers, producers, or exporters of lawn groomers in the PRC received countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 701 of the Act, and that imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States.

The Department finds that petitioner filed this petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and petitioner has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the countervailing duty investigation that it is requesting the Department to initiate ( see infra , “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition”).

The anticipated period of investigation (POI) is calendar year 2007. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).

The merchandise covered by this investigation is certain lawn groomers and certain parts thereof. See Attachment I to this notice for a complete description of the merchandise covered by this investigation.

During our review of the petition, we discussed the scope with petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the merchandise for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the regulations ( see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule , 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments by August 4, 2008, which is 21 calendar days from the date of signature of this notice. 1 Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination.

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department invited representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China (the GOC) for consultations with respect to the countervailing duty petition. The Department held these consultations on July 9, 2008. See Memorandum to the File, Petition on Certain Tow Behind Lawn Grooming Products and Certain Parts Therof from the People's Republic of China: Consultations with the Government of the People's Republic of China , July 11, 2008 and on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117 of the main Commerce Building.

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method.

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. United States , 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United States , 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989).

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation,” ( i.e. , the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition).

With regard to the domestic like product, petitioner does not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that certain tow behind lawn groomers and certain lawn groomer parts constitute a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China ( Initiation Checklist ), Industry Support at Attachment II, on file in the CRU.

In determining whether petitioner has standing ( i.e. , those domestic workers and producers supporting the petition account for (1) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and (2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition), we considered the industry support data contained in the petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of Investigation” section above. To establish industry support, petitioner provided its sales volume of the domestic like product for calendar year 2007, and compared that to total sales volume of the domestic like product for the industry. Petitioner stated that it “used sales volumes . . . as a surrogate for production, because it does not have access to the actual production data of other domestic {lawn groomer} producers.” See Petition, Volume 1, at 2. We have relied upon data petitioner provided for purposes of measuring industry support. For further discussion, see Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Analysis of Industry Support for the Petition).

The Department's review of the data provided in the Petition, supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that petitioner has established industry support. First, the Petition establishes support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support ( e.g. , polling). See Section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act. Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(I) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition. Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Analysis of Industry Support for the Petition).

The Department finds that petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the countervailing duty investigation that it is requesting the Department initiate. See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Analysis of Industry Support for the Petition).

Because the PRC is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Petitioner alleges that imports of lawn groomers from the PRC are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing or threaten to cause, material injury to the domestic industry producing lawn groomers. In addition, petitioner alleges that subsidized imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.

Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price depressing and suppressing effects, lost sales and revenue, reduced production and capacity utilization, reduced shipments, reduced employment, and an overall decline in financial performance. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. See Initiation Checklist at Attachment III (Analysis of Injury Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation).

Section 702(b) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a countervailing duty proceeding whenever an interested party files a petition on behalf of an industry that: (1) alleges the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to petitioner supporting the allegations. The Department has examined the countervailing duty petition on certain lawn groomers and parts thereof from the PRC and found that it complies with the requirements of section 702(b) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b) of the Act, we are initiating a countervailing duty investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of certain lawn groomers and parts thereof from the PRC receive countervailable subsidies. For a discussion of evidence supporting our initiation determination, see Initiation Checklist .

We are including in our investigation the following programs alleged in the petition to have provided countervailable subsidies to producers and exporters of the subject merchandise:

1. Preferential Tax Policies for Enterprises with Foreign Investment (Two Free, Three Half Program)

2. Income Tax Reductions for Export-Oriented Enterprises

3. Refund of Enterprise Income Taxes on FIE Profits Reinvested in an Export-Oriented Enterprise

1. Income Tax Credits for FIEs Purchasing Domestically Produced Equipment

2. Income Tax Credits on Purchases of Domestically-Produced Equipment by Domestically Owned Companies

3. VAT refunds for FIEs Purchasing Domestically Produced Equipment

4. Import Tariff and VAT Exemptions for Encouraged Industries Importing Equipment for Domestic Operations

5. Export Incentive Payments Characterized as “VAT Rebates”

1. Reduced Income Taxes Based on Geographic Location (Zhejiang and Shandong Provinces)

2. Income Tax Preferential Programs for FIEs in Zhejiang Province

3. VAT Refunds for Encouraged FIEs Purchasing Domestic Equipment in Zhejiang Province

4. VAT and Import Tariff Rebates for Encouraged FIEs Purchasing Imported Equipment in Zhejiang Province

5. Export-Based “Reward” Subsidies for Enterprises in Zhejiang Province

6. Refunds of Legal Fees Paid in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations in Zhejiang Province and Jiashan County

7. Income Tax Programs in Huimin Industrial Park in Zhejiang Province

8. Export-Based “Reward” Subsidies for Enterprises in Huimin Industrial Park in Zhejiang Province

9. VAT and Import Tariff Rebates for Encouraged FIEs Purchasing Imported Equipment in Huimin Industrial Park in Zhejiang Province

10. Income Tax Programs in the Hangzhou Export Processing Zone in Zhejiang Province

11. Export Incentive Payments in the Form of VAT Rebates for Companies Located in the Hangzhou Export Processing Zone in Zhejiang Province

1. Provision of Land for Less Than Adequate Remuneration for Export-Oriented FIEs for Enterprises Located in Shandong Province

1. Income Tax Programs for FIEs Located in Qingdao Municipality

2. Income Tax Offsets and/or Refunds for FIEs Purchasing Domestic Equipment in Qingdao Municipality

3. VAT and Import Tariff Rebates for Encouraged FIEs Purchasing Imported Equipment in Qingdao Municipality

4. Provision of Land for Less Than Adequate Remuneration for Export-Oriented FIEs Located in Qingdao Municipality

1. Income Tax Programs in the Lingang Processing Industrial Zone

2. VAT and Import Tariff Rebates for Encouraged FIEs Purchasing Imported Equipment in the Lingang Processing Industrial Zone

For further information explaining why the Department is investigating these programs, see Initiation Checklist.

The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) country in all past antidumping duty investigations and administrative reviews. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. See , e.g. , Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, (TRBs) From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review , 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003), unchanged in TRBs from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review , 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 2003). In the final affirmative countervailing duty determination on coated free sheet paper from the PRC, the Department determined that the current nature of the PRC economy does not create obstacles to applying the necessary criteria in the CVD law. See Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination , 72 FR 60645 (October 25, 2007), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; see also Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances , 73 FR 31966 (June 5, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Therefore, because petitioner has provided sufficient information to support its allegations to meet the statutory criteria for initiating a countervailing duty investigation of certain tow behind lawn groomers and parts thereof from the PRC, initiation of a countervailing duty investigation is warranted in this case.

To determine the total and relative volume and value of import data for each potential respondent, the Department normally relies on Customs and Border Protection import data for the POI. However, in the instant proceeding, the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) categories that include subject merchandise are very broad, and include products other than products subject to this investigation. Further, imports of subject merchandise, as estimated by petitioner, account for only 3.8 percent by value of imports under the relevant HTSUS categories. Therefore, because of the unique circumstances of this case, the Department will issue “Quantity and Value Questionnaires” to potential respondents for the purposes of respondent selection.

The Department requires that the respondents submit a response to the quantity and value questionnaire. See , e.g. , Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation , 73 FR 10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008). This response must be submitted by all exporters/producers no later than July 28, 2008. The Department will post the quantity and value questionnaire along with the filing instructions on the Import Administration's website, at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html. The Department will send the quantity and value questionnaire to those PRC companies identified in the July 8, 2008, Supplement to the Petition, at Exhibit 2.

In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of the public version of the petition has been provided to the GOC. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the petition to each exporter named in the petition, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.

The ITC will preliminarily determine, by no later than August 8, 2008, whether there is reasonable indication that imports of subsidized certain tow behind lawn groomers and parts thereof from the PRC are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry.

See Section 703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated; otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.

The scope of this investigation covers certain non-motorized tow behind lawn groomers (“lawn groomers”), manufactured from any material, and certain parts thereof. Lawn groomers are defined as lawn sweepers, aerators, dethatchers, and spreaders. Unless specifically excluded, lawn groomers that are designed to perform at least one of the functions listed above are included in the scope of this investigation, even if the lawn groomer is designed to perform additional non-subject functions ( e.g. , mowing).

All lawn groomers are designed to incorporate a hitch, of any configuration, which allows the product to be towed behind a vehicle. Lawn groomers that are designed to incorporate both a hitch and a push handle, of any type, are also covered by the scope of this investigation. The hitch and handle may be permanently attached or removable, and they may be attached on opposite sides or on the same side of the lawn groomer. Lawn groomers designed to incorporate a hitch, but where the hitch is not attached to the lawn groomer, are also included in the scope of the investigation.

Lawn sweepers consist of a frame, as well as a series of brushes attached to an axle or shaft which allows the brushing component to rotate. Lawn sweepers also include a container (which is a receptacle into which debris swept from the lawn or turf is deposited) supported by the frame. Aerators consist of a frame, as well as an aerating component that is attached to an axle or shaft which allows the aerating component to rotate. The aerating component is made up of a set of knives fixed to a plate (known as a “plug aerator”), a series of discs with protruding spikes (a “spike aerator”), or any other configuration, that are designed to create holes or cavities in a lawn or turf surface. Dethatchers consist of a frame, as well as a series of tines designed to remove material ( e.g. , dead grass or leaves) or other debris from the lawn or turf. The dethatcher tines are attached to and suspended from the frame. Lawn spreaders consist of a frame, as well as a hopper ( i.e. , a container of any size, shape, or material) that holds a media to be spread on the lawn or turf. The media can be distributed by means of a rotating spreader plate that broadcasts the media (“broadcast spreader”), a rotating agitator that allows the media to be released at a consistent rate (“drop spreader”), or any other configuration.

Lawn dethatchers with a net fully-assembled weight ( i.e. , without packing, additional weights, or accessories) of 100 pounds or less are covered by the scope of the investigation. Other lawn groomers-sweepers, aerators, and spreaders-with a net fully-assembled weight ( i.e. , without packing, additional weights, or accessories) of 200 pounds or less are covered by the scope of the investigation.

Also included in the scope of the investigation are modular units, consisting of a chassis that is designed to incorporate a hitch, where the hitch may or may not be included, which allows modules that perform sweeping, aerating, dethatching, or spreading operations to be interchanged. Modular units-when imported with one or more lawn grooming modules-with a fully assembled net weight ( i.e. , without packing, additional weights, or accessories) of 200 pounds or less when including a single module, are included in the scope of the investigation. Modular unit chasses, imported without a lawn grooming module and with a fully assembled net weight ( i.e. , without packing, additional weights, or accessories) of 125 pounds or less, are also covered by the scope of the order. When imported separately, modules that are designed to perform subject lawn grooming functions ( i.e. , sweeping, aerating, dethatching, or spreading), with a fully assembled net weight ( i.e. , without packing, additional weights, or accessories) of 75 pounds or less, and that are imported with or without a hitch, are also covered by the scope.

Lawn groomers, assembled or unassembled, are covered by this investigation. For purposes of this investigation, “unassembled lawn groomers” consist of either 1) all parts necessary to make a fully assembled lawn groomer, or 2) any combination of parts, constituting a less than complete, unassembled lawn groomer, with a minimum of two of the following “major components-:

1) an assembled or unassembled brush housing designed to be used in a lawn sweeper, where a brush housing is defined as a component housing the brush assembly, and consisting of a wrapper which covers the brush assembly and two end plates attached to the wrapper;

2) a sweeper brush;

3) an aerator or dethatcher weight tray, or similar component designed to allow weights of any sort to be added to the unit;

4) a spreader hopper;

5) a rotating spreader plate or agitator, or other component designed for distributing media in a lawn spreader;

6) dethatcher tines;

7) aerator spikes, plugs, or other aerating component; or

8) a hitch.

The major components or parts of lawn groomers that are individually covered by this investigation under the term “certain parts thereof” are: (1) brush housings, where the wrapper and end plates incorporating the brush assembly may be individual pieces or a single piece; and (2) weight trays, or similar components designed to allow weights of any sort to be added to a dethatcher or an aerator unit.

The products for which relief is sought specifically exclude the following: 1) agricultural implements designed to work ( e.g. , churn, burrow, till, etc.) soil, such as cultivators, harrows, and plows; 2) lawn or farm carts and wagons that do not groom lawns; 3) grooming products incorporating a motor or an engine for the purpose of operating and/or propelling the lawn groomer; 4) lawn groomers that are designed to be hand held or are designed to be attached directly to the frame of a vehicle, rather than towed; 5) “push” lawn grooming products that incorporate a push handle rather than a hitch, and which are designed solely to be manually operated; 6) dethatchers with a net assembled weight ( i.e. , without packing, additional weights, or accessories) of more than 100 pounds, or lawn groomers-sweepers, aerators, and spreaders-with a net fully-assembled weight ( i.e. , without packing, additional weights, or accessories) of more than 200 pounds; and 7) lawn rollers designed to flatten grass and turf, including lawn rollers which incorporate an aerator component ( e.g. , “drum-style” spike aerators).

The lawn groomers that are the subject of this investigation are currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) statistical reporting numbers 8432.40.0000, 8432.80.0000, 8432.90.0030, 8432.90.0080, 8479.89.9897, 8479.90.9496, and 9603.50.0000. These HTSUS provisions are given for reference and customs purposes only, and the description of merchandise is dispositive for determining the scope of the product included in this petition.

Sustainable manufacturing practices in the United States have become increasingly popular in recent years as companies look for new ways to make more efficient use of resources, ensure compliance with domestic and international regulations related to environment and health, enhance the marketability of their products and services, and last but not least, increase profitability. As the trend towards sustainable manufacturing practices grows, so do its implications for U.S. global competitiveness and firm profitability.

At the Department of Commerce, one of our main goals is to foster domestic and international conditions for doing business that allow U.S. firms to successfully compete as globalization evolves. Evidence has shown that firms incorporating both environmentally and economically sustainable manufacturing processes can gain competitive advantages by achieving inherent cost savings (i.e., improving their energy efficiency, minimizing raw materials usage, etc.) while at the same time reaping societal benefits for being good stewards of the environment. Many U.S. firms have demonstrated that being environmentally sustainable can also mean being more profitable.

In order to provide effective and continued support to U.S. companies in their sustainable manufacturing efforts, Commerce's Manufacturing and Services (MAS) unit has launched a Sustainable Manufacturing Initiative and public-private dialogue that aims to (a) identify U.S. industry's most pressing sustainable manufacturing challenges and (b) facilitate public and private sector efforts to address these challenges.

To help maintain and enhance forward momentum on this initiative, MAS is introducing its SMART project, which implements one of the four “next steps” identified by the Initiative's participants at MAS's September 2007 conference and enumerated in the April 2008 Federal Register notice (Vol. 73, No. 76/Friday, April 18, 2008): leading regional showcase tours to promote sustainable manufacturing.

Numerous U.S. companies have voiced concerns over the lack of visibility that sustainable manufacturing receives nationwide and the lack of information U.S. manufacturers possess in this field. In order to continue spreading awareness of sustainable manufacturing's benefits, both to U.S. global competitiveness and the environment, MAS will hold the first round of SMART cities and regions: St. Louis, MO (July 28, 2008), Grand Rapids, MI (September 3, 2008), and Rochester, NY (September 23, 2008).

SMART city events will most likely include tours of local manufacturing facilities that showcase those firms that are incorporating sustainable manufacturing techniques into their production processes or have facilities that are otherwise sustainable. The goal of these tours is to demonstrate to other similarly situated firms in the area that incorporating sustainable manufacturing techniques into the production cycle is not cost-prohibitive and, in fact, can help the long-term economic viability of American manufacturers.

Manufacturing and Services seeks public input on possible cities and/or regions that would benefit from hosting a SMART event or firms that would be willing to demonstrate and showcase their sustainable manufacturing capabilities and practices as part of a possible SMART event in their region (SMART participants will not be paid and funding is considered on a case-by-case basis).

The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on July 14, 2008, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

The Defense Commissary Agency notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The specific changes to the record system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendment is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

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.

Tentative Agenda: The planning retreat, which will be held from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., will focus on establishing the work of the Board for Fiscal Year 2009. Election of officers for Fiscal Year 2009 will be the order of business during the regular monthly meeting, which will begin at 4 p.m.

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 the agenda item should contact Pat Halsey at the address or telephone number 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 Pat Halsey at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab/minutes.htm.

Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and guidance on a continuing basis with respect to the high energy physics research program.

Tentative Agenda: Agenda will include discussions of the following: Thursday, November 13, 2008, and Friday, November 14, 2008

• Discussion of Department of Energy High Energy Physics Program

• Discussion of National Science Foundation Elementary Particle Physics Program

• Reports on and Discussions of Topics of General Interest in High Energy Physics

• Public Comment (10-minute rule)

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. If you would like to file a written statement with the Panel, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of these items on the agenda, you should contact John Kogut, 301-903-1298 or John.Kogut@science.doe.gov (e-mail). You must make your request for an oral statement at least 5 business days before the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Panel will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule.

Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public review and copying within 90 days on the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel Web site. Minutes will also be available by writing or calling John Kogut at the address and phone number listed above.

Purpose of the Board: To make recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy regarding goals and objectives, programmatic and administrative policies, and to otherwise carry out the Board's responsibilities as designated in the State Energy Efficiency Programs Improvement Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-440).

Tentative Agenda: Discuss renewable energy programs at the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), discuss how STEAB can continue to support EERE's commercialization efforts, and update members on routine business matters. A copy of the agenda may be obtained by contacting Gary Burch, the DFO.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Gary Burch at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests to make oral comments must be received five days prior to the meeting; reasonable provision will be made to include requested topic(s) on the agenda. The Chair of the Board is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. The Public Comment Period will occur at 3 p.m. MDT on Wednesday, August 13, 2008.

Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public review and copying within 60 days on the STEAB Web site, http://www.steab.org.

Under section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator identifies and lists certain pollutants which “cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The EPA then issues air quality criteria for listed pollutants, which are commonly referred to as “criteria pollutants.” The air quality criteria are to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air, in varying quantities.” Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA establishes NAAQS for each listed pollutant, with the NAAQS based on the air quality criteria. Section 109(d) of the CAA requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. The revised air quality criteria reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare. The EPA is also required to periodically review and revise the NAAQS, if appropriate, based on the revised criteria.

Air quality criteria have been established for the sulfur oxides (SO x ) and NAAQS have been established for sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), an indicator for SO x . Presently, EPA is reviewing the air quality criteria for SO x and the NAAQS for SO 2 . As part of its review of the NAAQS, EPA is preparing an assessment of exposures and characterization of health risks associated with ambient SO 2 . A draft plan describing the proposed approaches to assessing exposures and characterizing risks is described in the draft document, Sulfur Dioxide Health Assessment Plan: Scope and Methods for Exposure and Risk Assessment. This document was released for public review and comment in November 2007 and was the subject of a consultation with the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) on December 5 and 6, 2007. Comments received from that consultation have been considered in developing the draft risk and exposure assessment document being released at this time.

The draft document being released at this time conveys the approach taken to assess exposures to ambient SO 2 and to characterize associated health risks, as well as to present the results of those assessments. This draft document will be available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/so2/s_so2_cr_rea.html .

The EPA is soliciting advice and recommendations from the CASAC by means of a review on the draft document at an upcoming public meeting of the CASAC scheduled for July 30-31, 2008 in Research Triangle Park, NC. Following the CASAC meeting, EPA will consider comments received from the CASAC and the public in preparing a second draft risk and exposure assessment report. The release of the second draft report will be followed by another CASAC meeting which will be announced in a future Federal Register notice and ultimately EPA will release a final risk and exposure assessment document taking into consideration comments from the CASAC and public.

The proposed agenda includes the following topics: Citizens Advisory Committee Overview, which includes the purposes, member responsibilities, bylaws, and a committee priority setting topic; GMP Program Update; CAC Participation in the Governors' Alliance and input on Action Plan II; Succession Planning to vote on a new slate of officers and to select alternates; discussions of meeting frequency, date of next meeting and future meeting topics, participation in Workshop Plenary Sessions and Priority Issue Team Meetings.

The meeting is open to the public.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0999.

OMB Approval Date: 7/2/08.

Expiration Date: 7/31/11.

Title: Section 20.19, Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets (Hearing Aid Compatibility Act).

Form No.: N/A.

Estimated Annual Burden: 925 respondents; 950 responses; 13.2 hours average burden per response; 12,600 annual burden hours.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits; Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 303, 308, 309(j), and 310.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Information requested in the reports may include confidential information. However, covered entities would be allowed to request that such materials submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection. See 47 CFR 0.459.

Needs and Uses: The Commission is revising this IC because it has adopted final rules in a Report and Order, FCC 08-68, adopted on February 26, 2008, and released on February 28, 2008, which updates several of the performance benchmarks for the offering of hearing aid-compatible handset models by manufacturers and service providers of digital handsets used with public mobile services, institutes new requirements for manufacturers to refresh their product lines and for service providers to offer hearing aid-compatible handset models with differing levels of functionality, adopts a new version of the technical standard for measuring hearing aid compatibility, and addresses the application of the rules to phones that operate in multiple frequency bands or air interfaces.

To assist the Commission in monitoring the implementation of the new requirements and to provide information to the public, the Report and Order also requires manufacturers and service providers to continue to file annual reports on the status of their compliance with these requirements, and requires manufacturers and service providers that maintain public Web sites to publish up-to-date information on those Web sites regarding their hearing aid-compatible handset models. The annual reports required in this Order contain different and additional information than in previous versions of this information collection. Those requirements, along with the requirement to post certain information on Web sites, are intended to give consumers the information they need to navigate a technically complex and rapidly changing world of hearing aid-compatible wireless phones, and to allow the Commission to monitor compliance with its new regulations. Finally, in order to avoid potential consumer confusion over technical capabilities, the Order modified the product labeling requirements slightly.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0526.

Title: Section 69.123, Density Pricing Zone Plans, Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company Facilities.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for profit.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 17 respondents; 17 responses.

Estimated Time Per Response: 48 hours.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. See 47 CFR Section 69.123.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 816 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: $13,175.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impacts.

Nature of Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission is not requesting respondents to submit confidential information to the Commission. If the Commission requests respondents to submit information which respondents believe is confidential, respondents may request confidential treatment of such information pursuant to section 0.459 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Section 0.459.

Needs and Uses: The Commission requires Tier 1 local exchange carriers (LECs) to provide expanded opportunities for third-party interconnection with their interstate special access facilities. The LECs are permitted to establish a number of rate zones within study areas in which expanded interconnection is operational. In the Fifth Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-262, the Commission allows price cap LECs to define the scope and number of zones within a study area. These LECs must file and obtain approval of their pricing plans which will be used by FCC staff to ensure that the rates are just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0987.

Title: 911 Callback Capability; Non-initialized Handsets (47 CFR Sections 20.18(l)(1)(i-iii), 20.18(l)(2)(i-iii)).

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,398 respondents; 226,398 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.014457 hour (range of 30 seconds for labeling each handset to one hour for each respondent's public education effort).

Frequency of Response: Third-party disclosure.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. See 47 CFR Sections 20.18(l)(1)(i-iii), 20.18(l)(2)(i-iii).

Total Annual Burden: 3,273 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact.

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

Needs and Uses: In 2003, the Commission modified 47 CFR Section 20.18(l) to further improve the ability of public safety answering points (PSAPs) to respond quickly and efficiently to calls for emergency assistance made from non-service initialized wireless mobile handsets. Non-service-initialized wireless mobile handsets (non-initialized handsets) are not registered for service with any Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) licensee. A non-initialized handset lacks a dialable number, but is programmed to make outgoing 911 calls. The Commission addressed issues arising from the inability of a PSAP operator to call back a 911 caller who becomes disconnected when using a non-service-initialized wireless handset. These requirements also apply to manufacturers of 911-only handsets that are manufactured after May 3, 2004.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing paperwork clearance for the information collection requirements pertaining to the Commission’s administrative activities (OMB Control Number 3084-0047).

The FTC invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or before September 19, 2008.

The Commission’s Administrative Activities clearance consists of: (a) applications to the Commission, including applications and notices contained in the Commission's Rules of Practice (primarily Parts I, II, and IV); (b) the FTC’s consumer complaint systems; (c) FTC program evaluation activities; and (d) the FTC’s Applicant Background Form.

(a) Applications to the Commission, including applications and notices contained in the Commission's Rules of Practice: 100 hours

Most applications to the Commission generally fall within the “law enforcement” exception to the PRA 2 and are mostly found in Part III (Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice. See 16 CFR 3.1-3.83. Nonetheless, there are various applications and notices to the Commission contained in other rules (generally in Parts I, II, and IV of the Commission's Rule of Practice). For example, staff estimates that the FTC annually receives approximately 15 requests for clearance submitted by former FTC employees in order to participate in certain matters and 5 screening affidavits submitted by partners or legal or business associates of former employees pursuant to Rule 4.1, 16 CFR 4.1. 3 There are also procedures set out in Rule 4.11(e) for agency review of outside requests for Commission employee testimony, through compulsory process or otherwise, in cases or matters to which the agency is not a party. Rule 4.11(e) requires that a person who seeks such testimony submit a statement in support of the request. Staff estimates that agency personnel receive approximately 1 request per month or 12 per year. Other types of applications and notices are either infrequent or difficult to quantify. Nonetheless, in order to cover any potential “collection of information” for which separate clearance has not been sought, staff conservatively projects the FTC will receive 50 applications or notices per year. Staff estimates each respondent will incur, on average, approximately 2 hours of burden to submit an application or notice, resulting in a cumulative annual total of 100 burden hours (50 applications or notices x 2 burden hours).

Using the burden hours estimated above, staff estimates that the total annual labor cost, based on a conservative estimated average of $425/hour for executives’ and attorneys’ wages, would be approximately $42,500 (100 hours x $425). There are no capital, start-up, operation, maintenance, or other similar costs to respondents.

(b) Complaint Systems: 379,728 hours

Consumers can submit complaints about fraud and other practices to the FTC’s Consumer Response Center by telephone or through the FTC’s website. Telephone complaints and inquiries to the FTC are answered both by FTC staff and contractors. These telephone counselors ask for the same information that consumers would enter on the applicable forms available on the FTC’s website. For telephone inquiries and complaints, the FTC staff retains its previous estimates that it takes 4.5 minutes per call to gather information, somewhat less time than the 5 minutes estimated for consumers to enter a complaint online. The burden estimate conservatively assumes that all of the phone call is devoted to collecting information from consumers, although frequently telephone counselors devote a small portion of the call to providing requested information to consumers.

To receive complaints from consumers of possible violations of the rules governing the National Do Not Call Registry, 16 CFR 310.4(b), the FTC maintains both an online form and a toll free hotline with automated voice response system. Consumer complainants must provide either the name or telephone number of the company about which they are complaining, the phone number that was called, and the date of the call. They may also provide their name and address so they can be contacted for additional information, as well as for a brief comment regarding their complaint. In addition, online complainants have the option of answering three yes-or-no questions to help law enforcement investigating complaints; this option will also soon be made available to phone complainants. The FTC staff estimates that the time required of consumer complainants is 3.5 minutes for phone complaints and 2.5 minutes for online complaints. 4

To handle complaints about identity theft, the FTC must obtain more detailed information than is required of other complainants. Identity theft complaints generally require more information (such as a description of actions complainants have taken with credit bureaus, companies, and law enforcement, and the identification of multiple suspects) than general consumer complaints and fraud complaints. In addition, the FTC has expanded the information required on its online complaint form (such as collecting additional information about the fraudulent activity at affected companies and creating an attachment summarizing all of the fraudulent account activity as well as all fraudulent information on the consumer’s credit report). Consumers can print out a copy of the revised form and use it to assist them in completing a police report, if appropriate, and, as also may be necessary, an identity theft report. See 16 CFR 603.3 (defining the term “identity theft report”). FTC staff continues to estimate that the revised online form takes consumers up to 13 minutes to complete.

The FTC also made some revisions in the information it collects from consumers who call the Consumer Response Center (“CRC”) with identity theft complaints. Moreover, in order to better serve consumers who are unable to file complaints online, staff will send those who call the CRC with identify theft complaints a blank complaint form (identical to the online printed form) to assist them with completing a police or identify theft report as appropriate. Staff estimates that it will take 14 minutes per call to obtain identity theft-related information. 5 A substantial portion of identity theft-related calls typically consists of counseling consumers on other steps they should consider taking to obtain relief (which may include directing consumers to a revised online complaint form). The time needed for counseling is excluded from the estimate.

Consumer customer satisfaction surveys give the agency information about the overall effectiveness and timeliness of the CRC. The CRC surveys roughly 1 percent of complainants who file identity theft or general consumer complaints. Subsets of consumers contacted throughout the year are questioned about specific aspects of CRC customer service. Each consumer surveyed is asked several questions chosen from a list prepared by staff. The questions are designed to elicit information from consumers about the overall effectiveness of the call center. Half of the questions ask consumers to rate CRC performance on a scale or require a yes-or-no response. The second half of the survey asks more open-ended questions seeking a short written or verbal answer. In addition, the CRC may survey a sample of consumers immediately after they file their complaints regarding the services they received. Staff retains its previous estimate that each respondent will require 4 minutes to answer the questions (approximately 20-30 seconds per question).

Finally, Consumer Sentinel user surveys give the agency information about the overall effectiveness of its Consumer Sentinel Network. Consumer Sentinel allows federal, state and local law enforcement organizations common access to a secure database containing over six million complaints from victims of consumer fraud and identity theft, as well as other complaints the FTC collects. To date, Consumer Sentinel has over 1,700 members, including law enforcement agencies from Canada and Australia. FTC staff plan to survey a sizeable number of Consumer Sentinel users each year about such things as overall satisfaction, performance, and possible improvements. Staff retains its previous estimate that the surveys should generally take approximately 10 minutes per respondent.

What follows are staff’s estimates of burden for these various collections of information, including the surveys. The figures for the online forms and consumer hotlines are an average of annualized volume for the respective programs including both current and projected volumes over the 3-year clearance period sought and the number of respondents for each activity has been rounded to the nearest thousand.

The cost per respondent should be negligible. Participation is voluntary and will not require any labor expenditures by respondents. There are no capital, start-up, operation, maintenance, or other similar costs to the respondents.

(c) Program Evaluations: 175 hours

The Commission issues, on average, approximately 10-15 orders in merger cases per year that require divestitures. As a result of a 1999 study authorized by the OMB and conducted by the staffs of the Bureau of Competition (“BC”) and the Bureau of Economics, 6 BC monitors these required divestitures by interviewing representatives of the Commission-approved buyers of the divested assets within the first year after the divestiture is completed.

BC staff interviews representatives of the buyers to ask whether all assets required to be divested were, in fact, divested; 7 whether the buyer has used the divested assets to enter the market of concern to the Commission and, if so, the extent to which the buyer is participating in the market; whether the divestiture met the buyer’s expectations; and whether the buyer believes the divestiture has been successful. In some cases, BC staff may also interview other participants, including customers or trustee monitors, as appropriate. In all these interviews, staff seeks to learn about pricing and other basic facts regarding competition in the markets of concern to the FTC.

Participation by the buyers is voluntary. Each responding company designates the company representative most likely to have the necessary information; typically, a company executive and a lawyer represents the company. Each interview takes approximately one hour to complete. BC staff further estimates that it takes each participant no more than one hour to prepare for the interview. In some instances, staff may do additional interviews with customers of the responding company or the monitor. Staff conservatively estimates that for each interview, two individuals (a company executive and a lawyer) will devote two hours (one hour preparing and one hour participating) each to responding to questions for a total of four hours. In addition, for approximately half of the divestitures, staff will seek to question two additional respondents, adding four participants (a company executive and a lawyer for each of the two additional respondents) devoting two hours each, for a total of eight additional hours. Assuming that staff evaluates up to 20 divestitures per year during the three-year clearance period, the total hours burden for the responding companies will be approximately 160 hours per year ((20 divestiture reviews x 4 hours for preparing and participating) + (10 divestiture reviews x 8 hours for preparing and participating)).

Using the burden hours estimated above, staff estimates that the total annual labor cost, based on a conservative estimated average of $425/hour for executives’ and attorneys’ wages, would be approximately $68,000 (160 hours x $425). There are no capital, start-up, operation, maintenance, or other similar costs to respondents.

The FTC’s competition advocacy program draws on the Commission’s expertise in competition and consumer protection matters to encourage federal and state legislators, courts and other state and federal agencies to consider the competitive effects of their proposed actions. The FTC Office of Policy Planning (“OPP”) sends approximately 20 letters or written comments to different state and federal government officials annually, which provide guidance on the likely competitive effects of various laws or regulations.

In the past, OPP has evaluated the effectiveness of these advocacy comments by surveying comment recipients and other relevant decision makers. OPP intends to continue this evaluation by sending a written questionnaire to relevant parties between six and nine months after an advocacy comment is sent. Most of the questions ask the respondent to agree or disagree with a statement concerning the advocacy comment that they received. Specifically, these questions inquire as to the applicability, value, persuasive influence, public effect, and informative value of the FTC’s comments. The questionnaire also provides respondents with an opportunity to provide additional remarks related either to the written comments received or the FTC’s advocacy program in general. Participation is voluntary.

OPP staff estimates that on average, respondents will take 30 minutes or less to complete the questionnaire and 15 minutes of administrative time to prepare the response for mailing. Accordingly, staff estimates that each respondent will incur 45 minutes of burden resulting in a cumulative total of 15 burden hours per year (45 minutes of burden per respondent x 20 respondents per year). OPP staff does not intend to conduct any follow-up activities that would involve the respondents’ participation.

OPP staff estimates a conservative hourly labor cost of $100 for the time of the survey participants (primarily state representatives and senators) and an hourly labor cost of $16 for administrative support time. Thus, staff estimates a total labor cost of $54 for each response (30 minutes of burden at $100 per hour plus 15 minutes of burden at $16 per hour). Assuming 20 respondents will complete the questionnaire on an annual basis, staff estimates the total annual labor costs will be approximately $1,080 ($54 per response x 20 respondents). There are no capital, start-up, operation, maintenance, or other similar costs to respondents.

(d) Applicant Tracking Form: 292 hours

The FTC’s Human Resources Management Office surveys job applicants on their ethnicity, race, and disability status in order to determine if recruitment is effectively reaching all aspects of the relevant labor pool, in compliance with management directives from the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. Response by applicants is optional. The information obtained is used for evaluating recruitment only and plays no part in the selection of who is hired. The information is not provided to selecting officials. Instead, the information is used in summary form to determine trends over many selections within a given occupational or organizational area. The information is treated in a confidential manner. No information from the form is entered into the official personnel file of the individual selected and all forms are destroyed after the conclusion of the selection process. The format of the questions on ethnicity and race are compliant with OMB requirements and comparable to those used by other agencies.

Based upon past activity, the FTC staff estimates that up to 7,000 applicants will submit the form as part of the new online application process and that the form will require approximately 2.5 minutes to complete, for an annual burden total of approximately 292 hours (7000 applicants x 2.5 minutes to complete the form).

The cost per respondent should be negligible. Participation is voluntary and will not require any labor expenditures by respondents. There are no capital, start-up, operation, maintenance, or other similar costs to the respondents.

Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for July 10, 2008), on the World Wide Web, at ( http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/07/index.htm ). A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.

Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or before the date specified in the DATES section.

The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Order (“Consent Agreement”) from Flow International Corporation (“Flow”). The proposed Consent Agreement is designed to remedy the likely anticompetitive effects arising from Flow’s proposed acquisition of OMAX Corporation (“OMAX”). Under the terms of the Consent Agreement, Flow will grant a royalty-free license to two Omax patents relating to waterjet controllers to any firm that seeks a license.

Flow and OMAX are the leading manufacturers of waterjet cutting systems in the United States. Waterjet cutting systems use high pressure water and garnet to cut a wide variety of materials from steel to stone. The two companies have developed PC-based controllers that automatically compensate for the unique characteristics of how the waterjet cuts, such as taper (the waterjet expands after leaving the nozzle, forming a cone shape) and lag (the faster the cutting head moves, the more the waterjet will trail behind the cut). The controllers and related technology differentiate these two firms from other competitors in the marketplace. However, the controllers and related technology are also the subject of ongoing litigation between the two companies. In 2004, OMAX filed suit alleging that Flow’s products infringed its patents pertaining to controllers. Flow counterclaimed alleging that OMAX infringed its patents pertaining to controllers.

Flow, a publicly traded company headquartered in Kent, Washington, is the leading manufacturer of waterjet cutting systems in the United States market. OMAX is a privately-held company headquartered in Kent, Washington. OMAX owns two very broad U.S. patents covering its controller. OMAX’s controller is a significant factor behind its position as the second leading supplier of waterjet cutting systems in the United States.

On December 5, 2007, Flow signed an exclusive option agreement to negotiate the acquisition of OMAX. Under the agreement, Flow and OMAX will work to negotiate a definitive agreement for Flow to acquire OMAX. Upon closing, Flow would pay approximately $109 million in cash and stock with the potential for a contingent earn-out in two years of up to $26 million . The closing will also settle the long-running and expensive patent litigation between Flow and OMAX.

The draft complaint alleges that the transaction may substantially lessen competition in the market for the development, manufacture, marketing, and sale of waterjet cutting systems. A waterjet cutting system contains four main parts: (1) Pump, (2) cutting head, (3) cutting table, and (4) controller.

Waterjet cutting systems are used by a wide variety of industrial machine tool customers. These customers range from job shops, which produce a wide variety of short-run parts, and use waterjet cutting systems to complement their traditional milling machines, lasers and flame cutters, to aerospace shops that use waterjet cutting systems because they cut without damaging materials that are affected by heat, such as titanium and aluminum. Industrial machine tool customers, as well as others, can increase cutting speed and minimize set-up time by using a waterjet cutting system instead of an alternative cutting technology. Cutting speed is affected by pump pressure, the number of cutting heads used on the system, and the sophistication of the controller. Controllers are often the least expensive means of improving cutting speed and have the further virtue of reducing set-up time if they are easily programmable. To compensate for the unique characteristics of how the waterjet cuts, controllers can improve the quality of the cut by, among other things, automatically adjusting the speed of the cut.

Both Flow and OMAX produce waterjet cutting systems that feature relatively inexpensive yet sophisticated PC-based controllers that compensate for the unique characteristics of how the waterjet cuts. These controllers make Flow and OMAX each other’s closest competitors because only they manufacture waterjet cutting systems with the most advanced and efficient controllers.

The relevant geographic market within which to analyze the likely effects of the proposed transaction is the United States. The draft complaint further alleges that new entry would not prevent or counteract the anticompetitive effects of this acquisition. New entrants and existing competitors are deterred by the risk of violating the OMAX patents from developing and producing competitive waterjet cutting systems. Developing an efficient controller that clearly works-around the potential reach of OMAX’s patents would likely be an expensive and time-consuming process, with no guarantee of success.

The draft complaint also alleges that Flow’s acquisition of OMAX, if consummated, may substantially lessen competition in the market for the development, manufacture, marketing, and sale of waterjet cutting systems in the United States in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 45, by eliminating direct competition between Flow and OMAX and increasing the likelihood that Flow will unilaterally exercise market power.

The proposed Consent Agreement will remedy the Commission’s competitive concerns about the proposed acquisition. Under the terms of the proposed consent order, Flow must grant a royalty-free license to each competitor who seeks to license the two broad OMAX patents relating to controllers that Flow will acquire with its acquisition of OMAX.

Currently Flow and OMAX are each other’s closest competitor because they each offer an efficient PC-based controller that compensates for the unique characteristics of how a waterjet cuts. OMAX’s two patents make the development of such a controller substantially more expensive and risky. Requiring Flow to grant a royalty-free license to these patents will ensure that other firms are able to replace the competition that would otherwise have been eliminated by the proposed acquisition.

While Flow has two patents relating to controllers, its patents are significantly narrower in scope than the OMAX patents and, as a result, do not prevent current or future competitors from offering a viable waterjet cutting system. Current and future competitors will not need licenses to these narrow patents in order to compete effectively in this market. Other aspects of Flow’s and OMAX’s business, such as customer lists, brand names, key employees, or the other parts of waterjet cutting systems, are easily duplicated by current competitors or future entrants. Consequently, to restore the competition lost by Flow’s acquisition of OMAX, the proposed consent order eliminates the entry barrier faced by current waterjet cutting system competitors and future entrants by giving them a royalty-free license to the OMAX patents.

The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for 30 days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the proposed consent order and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make the proposed consent order final.

By accepting the proposed consent order subject to final approval, the Commission anticipates that the competitive problems alleged in the complaint will be resolved. The purpose of this analysis is to invite public comment on the proposed consent order, in order to aid the Commission in its determination of whether to make the proposed consent order final. This analysis is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed consent order nor is it intended to modify the terms of the proposed consent order in any way.

By direction of the Commission.

Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following Web site as soon as possible after they have been received: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions on that Web site to view public comments.

Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.

Section 1153(h)(2) of the Act requires the Secretary to publish in the Federal Register the general criteria and standards that will be used to evaluate the efficient and effective performance of contract obligations by QIOs and to provide the opportunity for public comment with respect to such criteria and standards. This notice describes the general criteria that will be used to evaluate QIO performance under the 9th SOW contract beginning in August 2008.

Under the 9th SOW, QIOs are responsible for completing the requirements for the following themes: Beneficiary Protection, Patient Safety, Prevention and Care Transitions. (Detailed information for each theme may be found in Sections C.6. and C.7. Theme Requirements of the 9th SOW posted at the www.fedbizopps.gov Web site. On the home page of the Web site, type “QIO” into “Quick Search” and click on “GO” to view the RFP under solicitation numbers “9thSOWInStateQIOs-NAHC” and “CMS-2007-QIO9thSOW-NAHC”).

Beneficiary Protection activities will emphasize statutory and regulatory mandated review activity and quality improvement. Primary case review categories include utilization review, quality of care review, review of beneficiary appeals of certain provider notices, and reviews of potential anti-dumping cases. Quality of care review includes the review of beneficiary complaints. In conducting reviews of beneficiary complaints, the QIO shall utilize a number of tools intended to address the beneficiary's concerns, including implementation of quality improvement activities (QIAs), surveying of beneficiary satisfaction with the complaint process, and, if appropriate, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. The Tasks under this theme will focus on conducting activities to meet, in an efficient and effective manner, regulatory and statutory requirements, to enhance QIO collaboration with the Beneficiary Complaint Survey Contractor, Fiscal Intermediaries (FIs), Carriers, Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs), State Survey Agencies (SSAs), the Office of Inspector General (OIG), and the Medicare Office of Hearings and Appeals and to clearly establish the link between case review and quality improvement through data analysis and improvement assistance.

QIO activities under the Patient Safety Theme will focus on six components: Improving inpatient surgical safety and heart failure (SCIP/HF), reducing rates of pressure ulcers (PrU-Nursing Homes and Hospitals), reducing rates of and use of physical restraints (PR), improving drug safety, reducing rates of healthcare associated Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections and activities aimed at nursing homes in need (NHIN). The requirements of the Patient Safety Theme are designed to address areas of patient harm for which there is evidence of how to improve safety by improving health care processes and systems.

The Prevention Theme contains two cancer screening tasks (breast cancer and colorectal cancer (CRC)), two immunization tasks (influenza and pneumococcal) and Tasks on disparities related to diabetes self-management and chronic kidney disease (CKD) prevention.

Under this Theme, the QIO will work with practice sites and other organizations in its state/jurisdiction to improve diabetes measures within underserved populations. QIO Disparities work includes tasks related to Diabetes Self-Management Education. Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) is an approach that has been demonstrated to be effective in improving diabetes clinical outcomes and other related health dimensions. DSME is an intervention in itself for diabetes behavior and outcomes improvement. The QIO will facilitate training of appropriate personnel at organizational sites using evidence-based CMS-approved DSME programs within the underserved population of the qualified physician practices. The QIO will establish a partnership with the primary care physician, certified diabetes educators and community health workers to facilitate the accessibility of DSME services to patients. This task is directed and will be limited to a sub-set of States with sufficient underserved Medicare diabetes populations, as determined by CMS. See section C.7.1 of the 9th SOW for the list of the 33 states eligible for this task.

The QIO work under the Care Transitions Theme aims to measurably improve the quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries who transition among care settings through a comprehensive community effort. These efforts aim to reduce readmissions following hospitalizations and to yield sustainable and replicable strategies to achieve high-value health care for sick and disabled Medicare beneficiaries.

The goal of this Task is to detect the incidence and decrease the progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and improve care among Medicare beneficiaries through provider adoption of timely and effective quality of care interventions; participation in quality incentive initiatives; beneficiary education; and key linkages and collaborations for system change at the state and local level.

In addition to improving the quality of care for the elderly and frail-elderly, this Task aims to reduce the rate of Medicare entitlement by disability through the delay and prevention of ESRD.

The focus areas for quality improvement in CKD include: Timely testing to detect the rate of kidney failure due to diabetes; slowing the progression of disease in individuals with diabetes through the use of ACE (angiotensin converting enzyme) inhibitors and/or an angiotensin receptor blocking (ARB) agent; and arteriovenous fistula (AV fistula) placement and maturation (as a first choice for arteriovenous access where medically appropriate) for individuals who elect, as a part of timely renal replacement therapy counseling, hemodialysis as their treatment option for kidney failure.

Overall Contract Evaluation (See Section C.5 of the 9th SOW posted at www.fedbizops.gov for more detailed overall contract evaluation criteria. On the www.fedbizopps.gov home page, type “QIO” into “Quick Search” and click on “GO” to view the RFP under solicitation numbers “9thSOWInStateQIOs-NAHC” and “CMS-2007-QIO9thSOW-NAHC”).

Under the 9th SOW, the QIO's performance in undertaking activities to carry out the requirements of each of the Themes (Beneficiary Protection, Care Transitions, Patient Safety and Prevention) and components within those Themes will be used to determine the QIO's success or failure in meeting the overall evaluation criteria as specified below. The QIO shall be evaluated on the Themes and components under the Themes required under the contract. If a QIO is not tasked to work on a Theme or a specific component under the Theme, the QIO will not be evaluated under that particular Theme or component. Any Special Project (SP) that the QIO may carry out will be evaluated separately and will not be considered in the overall evaluation criteria.

There will be two periods of evaluation under the 9th SOW. The first evaluation will focus on the QIO's work in three Theme areas (Care Transitions, Patient Safety, and Prevention) and will occur at the end of 18 months using the most recent data available to CMS. The second evaluation will examine the QIO's performance on Tasks within all Theme areas (Beneficiary Protection, Care Transitions, Patient Safety, and Prevention). The second evaluation will take place at the end of the 28th month of the contract term and will be based on the most recent data available to CMS. The performance results of the evaluation at both time periods (that is, at 18 months and at 28 months) will be used to determine the performance on the overall contract.

The first contract evaluation will determine if the QIO has met the performance criteria in the Theme areas of Care Transitions, Patient Safety, and Prevention and in the components within those Themes. The Themes or components within the Theme as appropriate will be evaluated on an individual basis with the determination relative to only that area.

The second contract evaluation will determine if the QIO has met the performance criteria in all Theme areas of Beneficiary Protection, Care Transitions, Patient Safety and Prevention, and in the components within those Themes. The performance on the Beneficiary Protection Theme will cover the 28-month contract period.

The results of the first and second evaluations at the end of the 18 and 28 month periods will be used to determine how the contractor performed on the overall contract in total.

• Pass = Criteria met and CMS may elect the option to continue the work (and funding) of the Theme or component of the Theme where appropriate.

• Fail = Criteria not met and we may, among other remedies, elect NOT to continue the work (or funding) for the Theme or component of the Theme where appropriate for the contract duration.

• Pass = Criteria met for Theme or component of the Theme where appropriate.

• Fail = Criteria not met for Theme or component of the Theme where appropriate.

• Pass = Pass on all Themes and components within the Theme at both evaluation periods.

• Fail = Fail any Theme or component within the Theme in either evaluation period.

If CMS chooses, we may notify the QIO of the intention not to renew the QIO contract, and inform the QIO of the QIO's rights under the then current statute.

The specific evaluation criteria are described below for each Theme or component within a Theme as appropriate. In general, for areas of work that have been performed under the 8th SOW or other recent QIO SOW where historical data is available for analysis, the acceptable performance expectation is a specific target or tighter target range than for areas of work that have not been in previous SOWs and where the experience under a previous SOW demonstrated that there was a range for acceptable performance. For the purpose of determining scores for all Themes, components within a Theme, or measures within a Theme, all percentages will be rounded to two places (with the value at or above five in the thousands position (for example, .005, .015, etc. rounded up).

• Pass = 90% of Target

• Fail = <90%

• Pass = 70-100% of Target

• Fail = <70%

• Pass = 70-100% of Target

• Fail = <70%

• Pass = 70-100% of Target

• Fail = <70%

• Pass = 100% of Target

• Fail = <100%

• Pass = 80% of Target

• Fail = <80%

• Pass = 100%-80% of Target

• Fail = <80%

• Pass = 100%-80% of Target

• Fail = <80%

The list of measures and performance criteria for each QIO will be recorded on the CMS Dashboard, which will be available on QIOnet ( http://qionet.sdps.org ), the standard information system that supports the QIO Program. We will also post these measures on our publicly accessible Web site ( http://www.cms.gov ).

We will monitor the QIO's performance on Themes, components within the Themes and measures within Themes against established criteria on a quarterly basis, and may take appropriate contract action (for example, providing warning for the need for adjustment, instituting a formal correction plan, terminating an activity, or recommending early termination of a contract because of failure to meet contract timelines).

CMS reserves the right at any point prior to the notification of our intention not to continue the option for a Theme and/or to renew the contract to adjust the expected minimum thresholds for satisfactory performance or remove criteria from a Theme or Theme component evaluation protocol for any reason, including, but not limited to, data gathered based on experience with the amount of improvement achieved during the contract cycle or in pilot projects currently in progress, information gathered through evaluation of the QIO Program overall, or any unforeseen circumstances. Further, in accordance with standard contract procedures, we reserve the right at any time to discontinue a Theme or a component of a Theme regardless of QIO performance on the Theme or component of the Theme.

CMS will evaluate, on a quarterly basis, achievement of minimum performance thresholds on timeliness of review activities, beneficiary satisfaction with the complaint process, beneficiary satisfaction generally and quality improvement activities. Additionally, CMS will evaluate system-wide change improvement activities and PPS inpatient hospital data reporting.

CMS will evaluate achievement of minimum performance thresholds on specific clinical measures at the 18th and 28th month evaluation periods. CMS will evaluate improvements in the SCIP (surgical care improvement program) measures, MRSA (methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus) hospital measures, PrU (pressure ulcers) in hospitals and nursing homes and PR (physical restraints) in nursing homes, and prescription drug safety measures.

CMS will also evaluate work and improvement with a small number of poorly performing nursing homes. CMS will evaluate the nursing homes' perception of the effectiveness of QIO technical assistance and on improvement in the quality measures.

CMS will evaluate achievement of minimum performance thresholds on specific clinical measures at the 18th and 28th month evaluation periods. CMS will evaluate the work with a selected group of participating practices (PPs) in its state/jurisdiction with already implemented electronic health records (EHRs) to assess improvements in breast cancer and CRC screening rates and to improvements in immunization rates for influenza and pneumococcal pneumonia among Medicare beneficiaries.

CMS will evaluate achievement of minimum performance thresholds on specific measures on a quarterly basis and at the 18th and 28th month evaluation periods. CMS will evaluate recruitment of targeted providers and enrollment of targeted patients. CMS will also evaluate improvements in the rates for hemoglobin A1c testing, eye exams, lipid testing and blood pressure control for diabetic patients.

CMS will evaluate achievement of minimum performance thresholds on specific clinical measures at the 18th and 28th month evaluation periods. CMS will evaluate patient care transitions that are: attributable to participating providers; related to implementation of interventions that address hospital/community system-wide processes; the potential subject of an implemented intervention that addresses acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and pneumonia; the potential subject of an implemented intervention that addresses specific reasons for readmission. CMS will also evaluate the percentage of implemented interventions that are measured and the percentage of patient care transitions to which implemented and measured interventions apply and show improvement. CMS will also evaluate patient satisfaction and patient readmission rates.

CMS will evaluate achievement of minimum performance thresholds on all clinical outcome measures at the 18th and 28th month evaluation periods. CMS will evaluate timely testing to reduce the rate of kidney failure due to diabetes, improvement in the use of ACE inhibitor and/or ARB agent, and improvement in the rate of AV fistula placement.

Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on Federal Register documents, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble, and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that document.

On July 24, 2003, the FDA's General and Plastic Surgery Devices Advisory Panel discussed issues pertaining to the use of thermal ablation devices to percutaneously or non-invasively treat breast cancer by causing coagulation necrosis of the tumor. The panel discussed clinical trial issues pertaining to the local treatment of breast cancer using thermal ablation versus operative resection.

The panel addressed the following issues: (1) The level of evidence that would be required, in initial studies of treatment of primary breast cancer by minimally invasive ablation followed by immediate lumpectomy for pathologic examination of margins (i.e., feasibility ablate and resect studies), to permit initiation of studies that use minimally invasive ablation to definitively treat the cancer without followup resection (i.e., ablate and follow studies); (2) the type of pivotal study that could demonstrate the efficacy of a thermal ablation device to provide local breast cancer treatment in lieu of lumpectomy; (3) how to mitigate concerns regarding the effect of thermal ablation on surrounding breast tissue and radio/chemosensitivity; and (4) the limitations of breast imaging and its effect on patient selection and treatment followup. This panel's discussion of these issues has significantly contributed to FDA's evaluation of these technologies.

Investigators studying the feasibility of thermal ablation devices for the treatment of breast cancers have refined their techniques. In fact, there have been small studies demonstrating nearly 100 percent ablation accuracy. Unfortunately, the lack of uniformity among different feasibility study protocols has resulted in various study results that cannot be easily compared. Uniformity with respect to standardized evaluation of tissue biopsy pathology, selection of tumors amenable to ablation, image guidance for ablation, timing of ablation (with respect to lymph node biopsy, radiation therapy and chemotherapy), post-ablation imaging and assessment, and tissue pathology of ablated specimens would facilitate the assembly of results across both studies and ablation modalities and better allow the formulation of science-based hypotheses regarding best practices for breast cancer ablation therapy. The purpose of this critical path effort is to motivate the breast cancer ablation industry to standardize its feasibility study protocols so that data emerging are comparable in all respects except for the specific ablation modality. Such data could be used to create a validated imaging tool that correlates pathological results with imaging findings of an ablated breast cancer and hypothesize best practices that could potentially serve as the basis for longitudinal prospective clinical trials.

We believe that there may be a variety of opinions and experiences regarding the information required to obtain uniformity with respect to standardized evaluation of tissue biopsy pathology, selection of tumors amenable to ablation, image guidance for ablation, timing of ablation (with respect to lymph node biopsy, radiation therapy and chemotherapy), post-ablation imaging and assessment, and tissue pathology of ablated specimens to facilitate the assembly of results across both studies and ablation modalities and better allow the formulation of science-based hypotheses regarding best practices for breast cancer ablation therapy. We therefore published a notice in the Federal Register of May 28, 2008 (73 FR 30619) ( http://www.access.gpo.gov ) requesting comments by November 24, 2008, to help the agency understand how a potential registry of breast cancer treatment using thermal ablation devices may motivate this effort.

The purpose of the public workshop is to discuss the development and implementation of a rational, standardized approach for conducting feasibility trials (i.e., ablate and resect trials) examining thermal ablation of breast cancer as part of the treatment care path for patients with breast cancer. Representatives from various areas involved with the development, testing, and use of thermal ablation devices for breast cancer have been invited. There will be focused sessions, addressing the key issues of breast cancer thermal ablation treatment related to imaging, pathology, operative resection and axillary staging, chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

Participation in the workshop is open to both invited participants and audience members. The invited participants include medical experts from various specialties involved in the care of patients with breast cancer and use of thermal ablation devices. Invited participants will have completed a work assignment in advance of the public workshop in order to optimize the time spent during the public workshop. Audience participation is open to all who are interested in clinical trials for local treatment of breast cancer by thermal ablation and will be scheduled throughout the sessions.

The agenda for this public workshop is available on the Internet at http://www.blsmeetings.net/2008ThermalAblationWorkshop.

Those interested in attending may register online at http://www.blsmeetings.net/2008ThermalAblationWorkshop . There is no registration fee to attend the public workshop, however all participants must submit a registration form. Space is limited, so please submit your registration early to reserve a space. Registrations will be accepted through August 30, 2008; however, onsite registration will be permitted on a space-available basis.

Persons without Internet access may call Paula Gumb at 301-577-0244, ext. 25 by September 12, 2008, to register for onsite workshop attendance.

Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available, it will be accessible at either http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/acmenu.htm or http://www.blsmeetings.net/2008ThermalAblationWorkshop . It may be viewed at the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD. A transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM, after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests are to be sent to the Division of Freedom of Information (HFI-35), Office of Management Programs, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 6-30, Rockville, MD 20857.

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated June 28, 2008, the President declared an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael J. Hall, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.

The following areas of the State of California have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:

The notice of an emergency declaration for the State of California is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of June 28, 2008.

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated July 9, 2008, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Thomas A. Hall, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

The following areas of the State of Kansas have been designated as adversely affected by this declared major disaster:

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated July 9, 2008, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Justin A. Dombrowski, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

The following areas of the State of Oklahoma have been designated as adversely affected by this declared major disaster:

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated July 9, 2008, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Tony Russell, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

The following areas of the State of South Dakota have been designated as adversely affected by this declared major disaster:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 8, 2008.

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective June 27, 2008.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 8, 2008.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Missouri is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 25, 2008.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of West Virginia is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 19, 2008.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Wisconsin is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 14, 2008.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), which amended the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose in developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation.

Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges are located in the Sacramento Valley of California approximately ninety miles north of the city of Sacramento. The Refuges manage and protect wintering habitat for migratory birds and endangered and threatened species. The Refuges contain approximately 24,000 acres of critically important habitats for a great diversity of wildlife, particularly migratory birds. Over forty percent of the Pacific Flyway waterfowl winters in the Sacramento Valley. The vast majority of wetlands in the Sacramento Valley have been converted to agricultural, industrial, and urban development. Remaining wetlands are intensively managed to optimize wildlife benefits.

The Draft EA/CCP evaluates the environmental effects of four alternatives for managing the Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges for the next 15 years. We propose to implement Alternative C, as described in the EA. Alternative C best achieves the Refuges' purposes, vision, and goals; contributes to the Refuge System mission; addresses the significant issues and relevant mandates; and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. This alternative is described in more detail in the CCP.

There are many features of proposed Refuge management that are common to all three alternatives. Features common to all alternatives include ongoing coordination with mosquito control, invasive species management, vernal pool management, habitat management and restoration, implementation of a hunt program, and providing wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation opportunities. There are also many features of each alternative that are distinct.

Alternative A, the no action alternative, assumes no change from current management programs and is considered the baseline to compare other alternatives against. Under Alternative A, the primary management focus of the Refuges would continue to be providing habitat for migrating, wintering, and nesting migratory and resident birds with an emphasis on waterbirds and endangered species by restoring and maintaining wetland, vernal pool, alkali meadow, riparian, and grassland habitats. We would continue to offer wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities on the Refuges including wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, interpretative programs, and hunting, with emphasis on youth and disabled hunters.

Under Alternative B, we would emphasize management for biological resources on the Refuges. Biological opportunities would be maximized to allow optimum wildlife and habitat management throughout the majority of the Refuges. We would continue the current focus of the Refuges to provide wintering habitat for migratory birds and management to benefit endangered species. Habitat and invasive species management programs would be expanded. We would reduce environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and hunting programs.

Under Alternative C, we would seek to achieve an optimal balance of biological resource objectives and visitor services opportunities on the Refuges. Habitat management and associated biological resource monitoring would be improved. Visitor service opportunities would focus on quality wildlife-dependant recreation distributed throughout the Refuges. In addition, we would expand environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, photography, and hunting programs beyond Alternative A.

Under Alternative D, we would emphasize management for visitor services on the Refuges. Wildlife-dependant recreational opportunities would be expanded. Opportunities for the six priority public uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation, would be expanded beyond Alternatives A, B, and C.

Copies of the Draft CCP/EA may be obtained by writing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Attn: Jackie Ferrier, Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 752 County Road 99W, Willows, CA 95988. Copies of the Draft CCP/EA may also be viewed at this address. The Draft CCP/EA will also be available for viewing and downloading online at http://sacramentovalleyrefuges.fws.gov. Printed documents will also be available for review at the following libraries: Bayliss Library, 7830 County Road 39, Glenn, CA 95943; Butte County Library, 1108 Sherman Avenue, Chico, CA, 95926; Butte County Public Library, 1820 Mitchell Avenue, Oroville, CA, 95966, Colusa County Library, 738 Market Street, Colusa, CA, 95932; Colusa County Library, 232 Prince Street, Princeton, CA, 95970; Corning Library, 740 3rd Street, Corning, CA, 96021; Orland City Library, 333 Mill Street, Orland, CA 95963; Sutter County Library, 750 Forbes Avenue, Yuba City, CA, 95991; and Willows Public Library, 201 North Lassen Street, Willows, CA, 95988.

Comments on the Draft CCP/EA should be addressed to: Jackie Ferrier, Refuge Planner, Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 752 County Road 99W, Willows, CA 95988. Comments may also be faxed to (530) 934-7814 or submitted via electronic mail to jackie_ferrier@fws.gov .

After the review and comment period ends for this Draft CCP/EA, comments will be analyzed by the Service and addressed in the Final CCP. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.