Background

On February 19, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC. See Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 8308 (February 19, 1999) ( Order ). On February 26, 2009, we received a timely new shipper review request in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(c), from exporter and producer Kangfa. The Department determined that this request contained certain deficiencies, and requested that Kangfa correct the submission. See March 12, 2009, and March 20, 2009, letters from Robert James, Program Manager, to Kangfa. In accordance with the Department's requests, Kangfa corrected the deficiencies in its submission dated March 26, 2009. On April 7, 2009, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register initiating a new shipper review for Kangfa. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 15698 (April 7, 2009) ( Initiation Notice ).

We issued the standard antidumping duty questionnaire, along with the standard importer questionnaire for new shipper reviews, on April 3, 2009, and received responses in May and June 2009. We issued supplemental questionnaires covering sections A, C, and D of the original questionnaire on May 22, 2009, June 19, 2009, July 20, 2009, and August 10, 2009, and received timely responses to those questionnaires.

The POR covers February 1, 2008, through January 31, 2009.

The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms, whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The certain preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. “Certain Preserved Mushrooms” refers to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers including, but not limited to, cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including, but not limited to, water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Certain preserved mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope of this order are “brined” mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further processing. 1

Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) All other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched mushrooms” (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5) “marinated,” “acidified,” or “pickled” mushrooms, which are prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain oil or other additives.

The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and 0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

Consistent with the Department's practice, we investigated the bona fide nature of the sale made by Kangfa for this new shipper review. In evaluating whether a single sale in a new shipper review is commercially reasonable, and therefore bona fide, the Department considers, inter alia, such factors as: (1) The timing of the sale; (2) the price and quantity; (3) the expenses arising from the transaction; (4) whether the goods were resold at a profit; and (5) whether the transaction was made on an arm's-length basis. See Tianjin Tiancheng Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1250 (CIT 2005). Accordingly, the Department considers a number of factors in its bona fide analysis, “all of which may speak to the commercial realities surrounding an alleged sale of subject merchandise.” See Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. v. United States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1342 (CIT 2005) ( citing Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review and Rescission of New Shipper Review, 67 FR 11283 (March 13, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum).

We preliminarily find the U.S. sale made by Kangfa during the POR was made on a bona fide basis. Specifically, we find: (1) The timing of the sale does not indicate the sale might not be bona fide; (2) the quantity of the sale was within the range of the quantities of other entries of subject merchandise from the PRC into the United States during the POR, based upon the Department's review of data obtained from CBP; (3) Kangfa and its customer did not incur any extraordinary expenses arising from the transaction; (4) the sale was resold at a profit; and (5) the sale was made between unaffiliated parties at arm's-length. However, we also note that the price of this sale was not within the range of other entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Nevertheless, we have determined that Kangfa's selling price, alone, does not raise any concerns with respect to bona fides. For a complete review of our bona fides analysis, see Memorandum from Fred Baker, International Trade Compliance Analyst, to The File via Robert James, Program Manager, Office 7, “ Bona Fide Sales Analysis of Linyi City Kangfa Foodstuff Drinkable Co., Ltd. (Kangfa), and Linyi City Kangfa Foodstuff Drinkable Co., Ltd., Pingyi Branch (Pingyi Branch) (collectively ‘Kangfa’) in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with this notice.

Based on our review of the record evidence concerning the bona fide nature of this sale, as well as Kangfa's eligibility for a separate rate ( see “Separate Rates Determination” section, below) and the Department's determination that Kangfa was not affiliated with any exporter or producer that had previously shipped subject merchandise to the United States, we preliminarily determine that Kangfa has met the requirements to qualify as a new shipper during the POR. Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, we are treating the sale of subject merchandise to the United States as an appropriate transaction for this new shipper review.

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

A designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. Accordingly, there is a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the PRC are subject to government control, and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject to review in NME countries a single rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law ( de jure ) and in fact ( de facto ), with respect to exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country under the test established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), ( Sparklers ) as amplified by the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) ( Silicon Carbide ).

Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure absence of government control over export activities includes: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. In this new shipper review, Kangfa submitted a complete response to the separate rates section of the Department's questionnaire. The evidence submitted in the instant review by Kangfa includes government laws and regulations on corporate ownership and control ( i.e., the Company Law and the Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China), individual business licenses, and narrative information regarding the company's operations and selection of management. The evidence Kangfa provided supports a preliminary finding of a de jure absence of government control over its export activities because: (1) There are no controls on exports of subject merchandise, such as quotas applied to, or licenses required for, exports of the subject merchandise to the United States; and (2) the government of the PRC has passed legislation decentralizing control of companies. See Kangfa's March 24, 2009 submission at Appendix 2, and its April 22 submission at 4.

The absence of de facto government control over exports generally is based on whether the respondent: (1) Sets its own export prices independent of the government and other exporters; (2) retains the proceeds from its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589; and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995).

In its April 22, 2009, submission, Kangfa submitted evidence demonstrating an absence of de facto government control over its export activities. Specifically, this evidence indicates: (1) The company sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) the company retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) the company has a general manager and a sales manager with the authority to negotiate and bind the company in an agreement; (4) the general manager is selected by the board of directors, and the general manager appoints the manager of each department; and (5) there is no restriction on the company's use of export revenues.

Therefore, in the absence of either de jure or de facto government control over Kangfa's export activities, we preliminarily find that Kangfa has established prima facie that it qualifies for a separate rate under the criteria established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.

When the Department investigates imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (FOPs), valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate values we have used in this new shipper review are discussed under the “Normal Value” section, below. On May 13, 2009, the Department determined that India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Colombia, Thailand and Peru are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development, and requested comments from interested parties on selecting the appropriate surrogate country for this review. See Letter to All Interested Parties, RE: New Shipper Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Linyi City Kangfa Foodstuff Drinkable Co., Ltd., dated May 18, 2009, at Attachment 1. No party submitted surrogate country selection comments.

The Department has examined the export levels  2 of subject merchandise from the above-mentioned countries and found that India and Indonesia are significant producers of comparable merchandise. See Memorandum from Fred Baker, International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Richard Weible, Office Director, “Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country,” dated concurrently with this notice (Surrogate Country Memorandum) at 4. During the POR India had exports in both of the HTS subheadings identified for subject merchandise, while Indonesia had exports under only one of the HTS subheadings. Accordingly, we find that the Indian export data are more comprehensive and representative of subject merchandise than Indonesian export data. Id. at 5.

In selecting the appropriate surrogate country, the Department examines the availability and reliability of data from the countries deemed to be economically comparable and significant producers of subject merchandise. For a description of our practice, see Department Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004). India has been the primary surrogate country in numerous past segments for this proceeding. In those past segments, the Department found India's import statistics to be an available and reliable source for surrogate values. See Surrogate Country Memorandum at 4. Therefore, because India: (1) Is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; (2) is at a similar level of economic development as the PRC; (3) has publicly available and reliable data, which the Department has previously relied upon for numerous segments of this proceeding; and, (4) has more comprehensive and more representative data regarding the subject merchandise than the data provided for Indonesia, the Department has selected India as the surrogate country, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act. See Surrogate Country Memorandum at 5.

To determine whether Kangfa's sale of subject merchandise to the United States was made at a price below NV, we compared its U.S. price to NV, as described in the “U.S. Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below.

In its section A response Kangfa stated that it intended to use the invoice date as the date of sale, stating that this was the date that best represented when the terms of sale are fixed. See Kangfa's April 22, 2009 section A submission at 14. Later, in its submission of June 3, 2009, Kangfa attempted to show that the terms of sale sometimes change after the contract date. Kangfa's evidence consisted of a contract and invoice for a shipment of non-subject fruit it had made to the German market during the POR which showed that the quantity invoiced to the customer differed from the quantity indicated on the contract. See Kangfa's June 3, 2009, submission at 1 and Exhibit 1. However, we note that the quantity and price of its U.S. sale did not change from the contact date to the invoice date, and the change in quantity of non-subject fruit, which respondent relied upon to justify the use of invoice date, was within the tolerance level specified on the contract. Therefore, we do not consider this to be a change to the material terms of sale relevant for purposes of determining date of sale. Thus, we used the contract date as the date of sale because there were no changes to either the price or quantity of Kangfa's U.S. sale after this date, and there is no record evidence that the material terms of sale changed following the contract date for any of Kangfa's other sales during the POR. The contract date is therefore the date that best represents when Kangfa established the material terms of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i).

In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based U.S. price on the export price (EP) of the sale to the United States by Kangfa because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made before the date of importation and the use of constructed export price was not otherwise warranted. We calculated EP based on the free-on-board (FOB) price to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. For this EP sale, we deducted foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling from the starting price (or gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. For Kangfa's U.S. sale, each of these services was provided by an NME vendor. Thus, we based the deduction of these movement charges on surrogate values.

We valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate calculated from data on the following Web site: http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm . The logistics section of this Web site contains inland freight truck rates between many large Indian cities. We used data from this Web site for six months of the POR for which the Web site contained data. See Memorandum from Fred Baker, International Trade Compliance Analyst, through Robert James, Program Manager, to the File, “New Shipper Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results” (Surrogate Values Memorandum) at Exhibit 6.

We valued brokerage and handling using a simple average of the brokerage and handling costs reported in public submissions filed in three antidumping duty cases. Specifically, we averaged the public brokerage and handling expenses reported by Navneet Publications (India) Ltd. in the 2007-2008 administrative review of certain lined paper products from India, Essar Steel Limited in the 2006-2007 antidumping duty administrative review of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India, and Himalaya International Ltd. in the 2005-2006 administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India. The Department adjusted the average brokerage and handling rate for inflation. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 8.

Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on FOPs because the presence of government controls on various aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 39744 (July 11, 2005), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2003-2004 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 71 FR 2517 (January 17, 2006).

We calculated NV by adding together the value of the FOPs, general expenses, profit, and packing costs. The FOPs for subject merchandise include: (1) Quantities of raw materials employed; (2) hours of labor required; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; (4) representative capital and selling costs; and (5) packing materials. We used the FOPs that Kangfa reported for materials, energy, labor, and packing, and valued those FOPs by multiplying the amount of the factor consumed in producing subject merchandise by the average unit surrogate value of the factor.

In addition, we added freight costs to the surrogate costs that we calculated for material inputs. We calculated freight costs by multiplying surrogate freight rates by the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory that produced the subject merchandise or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory that produced the subject merchandise, as appropriate. Where there were multiple domestic suppliers of a material input, we calculated a weighted-average distance after limiting each supplier's distance to no more than the distance from the nearest seaport to Kangfa. This adjustment is in accordance with the decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

We offset Kangfa's material costs for revenue generated from the sale of copper wire scrap and tin scrap. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 8.

We also increased the calculated costs of the FOPs for surrogate general expenses and profit. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 9.

In selecting surrogate values, we followed, to the extent practicable, the Department's practice of choosing public values which are non-export averages, representative of a range of prices in effect during the POR, or over a period as close as possible in time to the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). We also considered the quality of the source of surrogate information in selecting surrogate values. See Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 12440 (March 13, 1998). Where we could obtain only surrogate values that were not contemporaneous with the POR, we inflated (or deflated) the surrogate values using, where appropriate, the Indian wholesale price index (WPI) as published in International Financial Statistics by the International Monetary Fund. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 1.

In calculating surrogate values from import statistics, in accordance with the Department's practice, we disregarded statistics for imports from NME countries and countries deemed to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific subsidies which may benefit all exporters to all export markets ( e.g., Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand). See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From The People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. See also Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 66800, 66808 (November 28, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). Additionally, we excluded from our calculations imports that were labeled as originating from an unspecified country because we could not determine whether they were from an NME country.

We valued production material inputs (mushroom spawn, wheat straw, and manure) using the financial statements of Agro Dutch, an Indian producer of mushrooms and vegetables, as follows. To value the input of mushroom spawn, we used data from Agro Dutch's FY 2004-2005 (April 2004-March 2005) financial statement because Agro Dutch's mushroom spawn value is specific to the species Agaricus bisporous, which is the species used to produce subject merchandise. To value the input of wheat straw, we used the wheat straw value from Agro Dutch's FY 2006-2007 (April 2006-March 2007) financial statement because this value is specific to the input. To value the input of manure, we used the manure value from Agro Dutch's FY 2004-2005 financial statement because this value is specific to the input. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 2. We adjusted these values for inflation. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 1.

We valued processing and canning material inputs (super calcium phosphate, calcium carbonate, salt, citric acid, tin plate, copper wire, and sealing glue) using weighted-average Indian import values derived from the World Trade Atlas online (WTA), for the period February 2008 through January 2009. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibits 2 and 3. In addition, we valued packing material inputs (cartons, labels, hard paper board, and glue) with weighted-average Indian import values derived from the WTA for the period February 2008 through January 2009. Id. at Exhibit 5. The Indian import statistics obtained from the WTA were published by the Indian Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics, Ministry of Commerce of India, and are contemporaneous with the POR. As the Indian surrogate values were denominated in rupees, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, we converted them to U.S. dollars using the official exchange rate for India recorded on the date of sale of subject merchandise in this case. See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html .

To value land rent, the Department used data from the 2001 Punjab State Development Report, administered by the Planning Commission of the Government of India. Since the value of land rent was not contemporaneous with the POR, the Department adjusted the value for inflation. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 2.

We valued electricity using price data for small, medium, and large industries, as published by the Central Electricity Authority of the Government of India in its publication titled Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India, dated July 2006. These electricity rates represent actual country-wide publicly-available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to industries in India. As the rates listed in this source became effective on a variety of different dates, we are not adjusting the average value for inflation. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 4.

To value water, the Department used the revised Maharastra Industrial Development Corporation water rates, which are available at http://www.midcindia.com/water-supply . The Department found this source to be the best available information since it includes a wide range of industrial water rates. Since the water rates were not contemporaneous with the POR, the Department adjusted the value for inflation. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 4.

We valued coal using weighted-average Indian import values derived from the WTA for the period February 2008 through January 2009. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 4.

We valued truck freight expenses for inputs using the same surrogate data we used for valuing domestic inland freight for Kangfa's U.S. sale ( i.e., we used data from the Web site http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm , which contains inland freight truck rates between many large Indian cities). See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 6.

The Department's regulations require the use of a regression-based wage rate. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). Therefore, to value labor, the Department used the regression-based wage rate for the PRC published on the Import Administration Web site. See the IA Web site: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/05wages/05wages-041608.html , and see Corrected 2007 Calculation of Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 73 FR 27795 (May 14, 2008).

To value the surrogate financial ratios for factory overhead (OH), selling, general & administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit, the Department used the 2006-2007 financial statements of Agro Dutch and Flex Foods Limited (Flex Foods). Agro Dutch is a producer of mushrooms, and Flex Foods is a producer of mushrooms and other vegetable products. Agro Dutch's and Flex Foods' financial ratios for OH and SG&A are comparable to Kangfa's financial ratios because Agro Dutch's and Flex Foods' production experience is comparable to Kangfa's production experience by virtue of each company's production of subject merchandise. Moreover, an average of the financial statements of Agro Dutch and Flex Foods represents a broader spectrum of the Indian mushroom industry than does the financial statement of a single mushroom producer. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 9.

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

We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin exists during the period February 1, 2008, through January 31, 2009:

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of publication of these preliminary results. Interested parties may submit written comments (case briefs) within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs) within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 351.309(d)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the case or rebuttal briefs: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Further, the Department requests that parties submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing the public version of those comments.

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration within 30 days of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the briefs.

Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department will issue the final results of this new shipper review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 90 days of publication of these preliminary results.

Upon issuing the final results of the review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis. However, the final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

The following cash deposit requirements, when imposed, will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper review for all shipments of subject merchandise exported by Kangfa entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Kangfa, the cash-deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review; (2) for subject merchandise exported by Kangfa but not manufactured by Kangfa, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the PRC-wide rate ( i.e., 198.63 percent); and (3) for subject merchandise manufactured by Kangfa but exported by any other party, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the exporter. If the cash deposit rate calculated for Kangfa in the final results is zero or de minimis, a cash deposit will be not be required for entries of subject merchandise both produced and exported by Kangfa. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

This new shipper review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i).

On May 4, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the NSRs of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC. See Preliminary Results . Since the Preliminary Results , the following events have occurred.

Hejia filed surrogate value (SV) information for its single-clove garlic on May 19, 2009. On May 22, 2009, we extended the deadline for all interested parties to submit publicly available information to value factors of production until June 9, 2009. Chenglong and Tianheng filed SV information on June 9, 2009. On June 19, 2009, Fresh Garlic Producers Association (FGPA) and its individual members (Christopher Ranch L.L.C., the Garlic Company, Valley Garlic, and Vessey and Company, Inc.) (collectively, Petitioners), filed factual information intended to rebut SV information filed by Chenglong and Tianheng.

On May 27, 2009, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Shandong Zhengyang with a due date of June 10, 2009. On June 4, 2009, counsel for Zhengyang notified the Department that it was withdrawing its representation of the company and advised the Department to contact Zhengyang directly. On June 12, 2009, the Department sent a letter to Zhengyang stating that we had not received its supplemental questionnaire response and that we had canceled verification. Zhengyang did not respond to the Department's letter.

On May 27, 2009, the Department sent a supplemental questionnaire to Hejia. The Department received Hejia's timely response on June 2, 2009. On June 2, 2009, the Department was notified by Juye that it was withdrawing from the NSR.

On June 4, 2009, we extended the time limit for the completion of the final results of these reviews. See Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of New Shipper Reviews , 74 FR 26839 (June 4, 2009).

The Department conducted verification of the NSR respondents Chenglong, Hejia, and Yuanxiang from June 22, 2009 through June 30, 2009. On July 30 and 31, 2009, the Department issued its verification reports.

On July 30, 2009, the Department preliminarily found Tianheng's sale to be not bona fide. See Memorandum From Barbara E. Tillman, Office Director, Office 6, Re: Bona Fide Nature of the Sale in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”): Amended Intent to Preliminarily Rescind Jinxiang Tianheng Trade Co.'s New Shipper Review, July 30, 2009 ( Amended Memorandum ). We continue to find Tianheng's sale to be not bona fide for these final results.

In response to requests filed by Petitioners and the NSR respondents, the Department extended the due date for case briefs until August 17, 2009. The Department received timely filed case briefs from Petitioners, Hejia, Yuanxiang, Chenglong, and Tianheng. On August 21, 2009, the Department advised Hejia and Tianheng that each company's brief contained new factual information and instructed both Hejia and Tianheng to re-file their case briefs. Hejia and Tianheng complied with the Department's request and re-filed their case briefs on August 28, 2009 and September 9, 2009, respectively. In response to requests filed by Petitioners and the NSR respondents, the Department extended the deadline for rebuttal briefs to August 24, 2009, for arguments regarding everything except Hejia-related issues, and to August 28, 2009, for Hejia-specific matters. The Department received timely filed rebuttal briefs from all interested parties on August 24 and 28, 2009.

The products covered by this Order are all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay. The scope of this order does not include the following: (a) garlic that has been mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; or (b) garlic that has been specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed. The subject merchandise is used principally as a food product and for seasoning. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. In order to be excluded from the Order, garlic entered under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is (1) mechanically harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use or (2) specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by declarations to CBP to that effect.

Issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in Appendix 1 to this notice and addressed in the Memorandum from John Anderson, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration Re: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the New Shipper Reviews and Rescission, In Part, of the New Shipper Reviews ( Issues and Decision Memorandum ), September 24, 2009, which is hereby adopted by this notice. 2 Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in these NSRs and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117 of the main Department building. In addition, a copy of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on our website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Subsequent to our Preliminary Results , Zhengyang and Juye each ceased participation in its respective new shipper review. Specifically, Zhengyang did not respond to the Department's May 27, 2009 supplemental questionnaire and Juye withdrew from its new shipper review on June 4, 2009. By not fully participating in its new shipper review, each company has failed to establish that it qualified for a separate rate.

To establish whether a company operating in a non-market economy (NME) is sufficiently independent from the Government to be eligible for a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity under the test established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of China , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). Under the separate rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export activities. We note that by failing to fully participate in their new shipper reviews, Zhengyang and Juye did not demonstrate that they are free of government control and, therefore, are not eligible to receive a separate rate, and as part of the NME-entity are not eligible for a new shipper review. As such, the Department rescinds the new shipper reviews of Zhengyang and Juye.

While conducting a review, particularly a review where a company's margin would be based on a single sale, the Department examines price, quantity, and other circumstances associated with the sale under review, and must determine if the sale was based on normal commercial considerations and presents an accurate representation of the company's normal business practices. If the Department determines that the price was not based on normal commercial considerations or is atypical of the respondent's normal business practices, including other sales of comparable merchandise, the sale may be considered non- bona fide .

In the Preliminary Results , the Department preliminarily found that Chenglong's, Hejia's, and Yuanxiang's single POR sales were made on a bona fide basis. However, as a result of our analyses of information found during the verification of these companies, as well as comments made by interested parties, the Department has determined that Chenglong's POR transaction was not a bona fide sale. Finally, the Department continues to find Yuanxiang's and Hejia's sales to be bona fide for these final results.

Chenglong: In the Preliminary Results , the Department noted that certain information on the record called into question the bona fides of Chenglong's sale and that we would continue to examine all aspects of Chenglong's POR sale. See Preliminary Results at 20455. After conducting verification of Chenglong and reviewing interested parties' briefs, the Department has determined that Chenglong's sale was not a bona fide transaction. See the Chenglong Final Bona Fides Memorandum for a more detailed discussion of the Department's determination as well as the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Accordingly, the Department is rescinding this NSR with respect to Chenglong.

Tianheng: On July 30, 2009, the Department preliminarily found Tianheng's sale to be not bona fide. See Amended Memorandum . As noted in the “Background” section, both Petitioners and Tianheng submitted briefs and rebuttal briefs regarding the bona fides of Tianheng's single sale. Based on our analysis of arguments made by the parties, the Department continues to find Tianheng's sale to be not bona fide . See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. Therefore, we are rescinding the NSR with respect to Tianheng for these final results.

Yuanxiang: In the Preliminary Results , the Department preliminarily concluded that the single sale made by Yuanxiang was a bona fide commercial transaction. Petitioners and Yuanxiang have submitted arguments as to whether the Department should rescind Yuanxiang's NSR in these final results. See the Yuanxiang Final Bona Fides Memorandum for a more detailed discussion of the Department's determination as well as the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. Based on the totality of the circumstances as discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum addressing Yuanxiang's bona fides issues, for these final results, the Department continues to find that Yuanxiang's sale was bona fide. See id .

Hejia: In the Preliminary Results , the Department noted that certain information on the record called into question the bona fides of Hejia's POR sale and that we would continue to examine all aspects of Hejia's sale. See Preliminary Results at 20455. After conducting verification of Hejia and reviewing interested parties' briefs, the Department has determined that Hejia's sale was a bona fide transaction. See the Hejia Final Bona Fides Memorandum for a more detailed discussion of the Department's determination as well as the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Based on the totality of the circumstances as discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum addressing Hejia's bona fides issues, for these final results, the Department continues to find that Hejia's sale was bona fide. See id .

Based on our analysis of information on the record of these reviews, and comments received from the interested parties, we have made changes to the financial ratios used to value overhead expenses, selling expenses, general expenses, and profits for the respondents. In these final results, for Yuanxiang, we are calculating surrogate financial ratios using a simple average of financial data from four Indian processors of tea, coffee, and rice. Using an average of these four companies' data allows us to calculate financial ratios that better reflect the broader experience of the surrogate industry. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7 and Final Surrogate Values Memorandum . Also, based on our findings at verification, the Department is adjusting Yuanxiang's factors regarding packing for these final results. See Yuanxiang Verification Report at 3. The Department has also made changes to the valuation of Hejia's single-clove garlic input. The specific changes, which includes business proprietary information, are addressed in the Memorandum from Nicholas Czajkowski, Case Analyst, Re: New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Analysis for the Final Results of Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd. (Hejia).

As a result of our reviews, we determine that the following margins exist for the periods November 1, 2007 through April 30, 2008 and November 1, 2007 through June 9, 2008:

We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to these proceedings within five days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Consistent with the final results of the 13th administrative review (AR) and NSRs of Fresh Garlic from the PRC, we will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit ( i.e. , per kilogram) amount on each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 13th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews , 74 FR 29174, 29177 (June 19, 2009) ( 13th AR & NSRs of Fresh Garlic from the PRC ). Therefore, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for fresh garlic from the PRC. Specifically, we divided the total dumping margins for each importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise sold to that importer during the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment amount. We will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit ( i.e. , per kilogram) amount on each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis .

Consistent with the final results of the 13th AR & NSRs of Fresh Garlic from the PRC , we will collect a per kilogram cash-deposit amount which will be the per-unit equivalent of the company-specific dumping margin published in the final results of these reviews. The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of these reviews for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for subject merchandise produced and exported by Yuanxiang the cash deposit rate will be the per-unit rate determined in the final results of the new shipper review; (2) for subject merchandise exported by Yuanxiang but not produced by Yuanxiang, the cash deposit rate continues to be the per-unit PRC-wide rate; (3) for subject merchandise produced and exported by Hejia the cash deposit rate will be the per-unit rate determined in the final results of the new shipper review; (4) for subject merchandise exported by Hejia but not produced by Hejia, the cash deposit rate continues to be the per-unit PRC-wide rate; and (5) for subject merchandise produced or exported by Tianheng, Zhengyang, Chenglong, and Juye, the cash deposit rates continues to be the per-unit PRC-wide rate. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

These new shipper reviews and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR and 351.214.

On June 5, 2000, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on certain non-frozen apple juice concentrate from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the People's Republic of China , 65 FR 35606 (June 5, 2000) (“ Order ”). On June 30, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Results of this administrative review. On July 17, 2009, Itochu filed comments regarding the Department's Preliminary Results . On July 22, 2009, The Department subsequently rejected these comments as they contained an untimely submission of new factual information. See Memorandum to the File, from Alexis Polovina, Case Analyst, Office 9, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, regarding “Administrative Review of Apple Juice Concentrate from the People's Republic of China: Rejection of New Information” dated July 22, 2009 (“Rejection of New Information”). As the deadline to submit case briefs was July 30, 2009, the Department allowed Itochu to resubmit their case brief. Itochu submitted a revised case brief on July 30, 2009. No other party filed comments and no party requested a public hearing.

The product covered by this order is certain non-frozen apple juice concentrate. Apple juice concentrate is defined as all non-frozen concentrated apple juice with a brix scale of 40 or greater, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, and whether or not fortified with vitamins or minerals. Excluded from the scope of this order are: frozen concentrated apple juice; non-frozen concentrated apple juice that has been fermented; and non-frozen apple juice to which spirits have been added.

The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheadings 2106.90.52.00, and 2009.70.00.20 before January 1, 2002, and 2009.79.00.20 after January 1, 2002. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

All issues raised in the comments by Itochu are addressed in the concurrent Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Issues and Decision Memo”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which Itochu raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memo is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memo is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Main Commerce Building, Room 1117, and is accessible on the Web at http://www.trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and the electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content.

The Department has determined that the final dumping margin for the POR is:

Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and the CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries on an ad valorem basis. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific (or customer) duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis, i.e. , less than 0.50 percent.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise from Itochu entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”):(1) For subject merchandise exported by Itochu, no deposit will be required; (2) for companies previously found to be entitled to a separate rate in prior segments of the proceeding, and for which no review has been requested, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the rate established in the most recent review of that company; (3) for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be 51.74 percent, the PRC country-wide ad-valorem rate; and (4) for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC to the United States, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 351.221(b)(5).

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

With respect to the following collection of information, the Commission invites comments on:

• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Ways to enhance the quality of, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

The information collection consists of procurement activities relating to solicitations, amendments to solicitations, requests for quotations, construction contracts, awards of contracts, performance bonds, and payment information for individuals (vendors) or contractors engaged in providing supplies or services.

The Commission estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

1. Proposed Action: The Corps of Engineers and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife propose to evaluate alternative process based habitat restoration actions in the nearshore zone of Puget Sound (defined as that portion of Puget Sound that extends waterward from the upland and backshore areas that directly influence conditions along the marine shoreline to the depth offshore where light penetration falls below a level that supports plant growth and in river deltas to the head of tide) which encompasses Whatcom, Skagit, Island, San Juan, Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston, Mason, Kitsap, Jefferson, and Clallam counties, Washington. For preparation of this draft PEIS, the Corps, Seattle District is the lead Federal agency under NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and the Council on Environmental Quality's implementing guidelines (40 CFR 1500-1508). The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is the lead State agency under the Washington SEPA (Chapter 43.21C RCW) and the SEPA guidelines (Chapter 197-11 WAC).

The Corps is authorized to study Puget Sound water uses under Section 209 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (Pub. L. 87-874). Corps of Engineers activities in ecosystem restoration will concentrate on restoring and performing scientific analysis of habitat forming processes ( i.e., hydrology, sediment transport, nutrient delivery) in the marine nearshore zone of Puget Sound.

The proposed action could potentially restore nearshore ecosystem habitat and processes by reconnecting isolated habitat elements, increasing shoreform diversity, establishing areas of estuarine habitat, increasing floodplain habitat and connectivity, restoring small lagoons and estuaries, increasing the amount of submerged, emergent, and riparian vegetation, replenishing and protecting beach sediments, and improving tidal exchange. If the proposed action were approved, initial construction could begin in 2014.

2. Restoration Alternatives: Three programmatic restoration alternatives are currently being considered and evaluated in the environmental impact statement. The No Action alternative, as required by NEPA and SEPA, would include various agencies and groups continuing to implement small-scale restoration projects within existing frameworks without the implementation of this Corps of Engineers and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife project. Continued implementation of restoration projects would focus on reconnecting isolated habitat elements, localized shoreline revegetation, restoration of estuary features and other discrete projects as real estate and funding allows. The second alternative is to pursue restoration of Puget Sound nearshore ecosystem processes using physical actions to remove or mitigate barriers to habitat forming processes and/or create habitats that have been lost as a result of those barriers. Under this alternative, plans may be formulated, including strategic restoration, which uses change analysis data comparing current and historic conditions as a means to identify candidate restoration sites based on criteria established by an interdisciplinary team, as well as stakeholders. The third alternative focuses on non-structural means to restore nearshore processes in Puget Sound. This non-structural alternative would include actions such as education, regulation, and changes in land-use policy. These three alternatives are not final and may not be analyzed in the final EIS, as they may change and/or new alternatives may develop during the scoping and NEPA process.

3. Scoping and Public Involvement: Public involvement will be sought during the study in accordance with NEPA and SEPA procedures. Public meetings will be held at the beginning of the NEPA process to scope the efforts that will be undertaken to prepare the draft PEIS. The objectives of the public meetings will be to clarify issues of major concern, identify information that might be needed to analyze and evaluate impacts, obtain public input on the range and acceptability of approaches and provide further definition of alternatives. This notice of intent formally commences the joint scoping process under NEPA and SEPA. As part of the scoping process, all affected Federal, state, and local agencies, Native American tribes, and interested private organizations, including environmental interest groups, are invited to comment on the scope of the draft PEIS. Comments are requested concerning project alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant environmental impacts, and permits or other approvals that may be required. To date, the following impact areas have been identified and will be analyzed in depth in the draft PEIS: (1) Marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates and their habitat, (2) sediment supply, (3) wetlands and estuaries, (4) submerged, emergent, and riparian vegetation, (5) wildlife, (6) land use, (7) public safety, and (8) hydrologic connectivity. The environmental review process will be comprehensive and will integrate and satisfy the requirements of NEPA (Federal), SEPA (Washington State), and other relevant Federal, state, and local environmental laws. The public scoping period will commence on October 26, 2009 in conjunction with the first scoping meeting and will extend throughout the development of the joint NEPA/SEPA PEIS. Four scoping meetings will be held throughout the Puget Sound region from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. The meeting dates and locations are as follows:

October 26: Highline Community College, 2400 S. 240th St., Des Moines, WA 98198.

October 28: The chapel at Fort Worden State Park, 200 Battery Way, Port Townsend, WA 98368.

November 3: Lacey Community Center, 6729 Pacific Avenue SE., in the Woodland Creek Community Park, Lacey, WA 98503.

November 10: Skagit Station, 105 E. Kincaid, Mount Vernon, WA 98273.

All Federal, State, and local agencies, Native American Tribes, other interested private organizations, and the general public are invited to participate. Public comments will be considered in development of the draft PEIS. The formal public comment period will extend until December 10, 2009.

4. Other Environmental Review, Coordination, and Permit Requirements: Other environmental review, coordination, and permit requirements include preparation of a Clean Water Act, Section 404(b)(1) evaluation by the Corps, and consultation among the Corps, State of Washington, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration per Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Coordination will be continued with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to meet the requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and initiated with Washington Department of Ecology for Clean Water Act compliance, and with the Washington Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

5. Availability of the Draft PEIS: The draft PEIS is scheduled for release during the summer of 2012 and the final PEIS is scheduled for release during the winter of 2012.

None.

The committee will review the Army's historical activities for FY 2009 and those projected for FY 2010 based upon reports and manuscript received throughout the period. And the committee will formulate recommendations through the Chief of Military History to the Chief of Staff, Army, and the Secretary of the Army for advancing the use of history in the U.S. Army.

The meeting of the advisory committee is open to the public. Because of the restricted meeting space, however, attendance may be limited to those persons who have notified the Advisory Committee Management Office in writing at least five days prior to the meeting of their intention to attend the October 22, 2009, meeting. Notifications should be addressed to the Executive Secretary of the committee, Dr. William Stivers, at the U.S. Army Center of Military History, 103 Third Avenue, Fort Lesley J. McNair, DC 20319-5058.

Any member of the public may file a written statement with the committee before, during, or after the meeting. Such statements may be sent to the Executive Secretary of the committee at the address shown in the paragraph above. To the extent that time permits, the committee chairman may allow public presentations or oral statements at the meeting.

The invention relates to the use of Rapamycin as a treatment of toxic shock induced by staphylococcal exotoxins; more specifically, staphylococcal enterotoxins that are potent activators for human T cells and can cause lethal shock.

The invention relates generally to the field of antibodies. More specifically the invention relates to monoclonal antibodies against glycoproteins of the Ebola Sudan Boniface virus and methods of producing and using the same.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: New.

Title: William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program (DL) Regulations—Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA)

Frequency: On Occasion.

Affected Public: Individuals or household; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 4,500.

Burden Hours: 743.

Abstract: The William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program proposed regulations revise current regulations in areas of program administration. The proposed regulations assure the Secretary that the integrity of the program is protected from fraud and misuse of program funds. The proposed regulations would provide that upon a loan holder's receipt of a written request from a borrower and a copy of the borrower's military orders, the maximum interest rate that may be charged on Stafford loans made prior to entering active military duty is six percent while on active duty.

Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 4056. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments ” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: New.

Title: Part 601 Preferred Lender Arrangements.

Frequency: On Occasion.

Affected Public: Individuals or household; Not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 13,674,883.

Burden Hours: 3,197,761.

Abstract: Part 601—Institution and Lender Requirements Relating to Education Loans is a new section of the proposed regulations governing private education loans offered at covered institutions by lenders also participating in the FFEL program. These proposed regulations assure the Secretary that the integrity of the program is protected from fraud and misuse of program funds and places requirements on institutions and lenders to insure that borrowers receive additional disclosures about Title IV, HEA program assistance prior to obtaining a private education loan. These proposed regulations require covered institutions to provide a variety of new loan disclosures, disclosures on private loans, for institutions to prepare and submit an annual report on the use of private loans, and to establish and adopt a code of conduct for institutions participation in a preferred lender arrangement. The Department, in conjunction with outside entities are submitting the Private Education Loan Applicant Self-Certification form for OMB's approval. While information about the applicant's cost of attendance and estimated financial assistance must be provided to the student, if available, the student will provide the data to the private loan lender who must collect and maintain the self-certification form prior to disbursement of a Private Education Loan. The Department will not receive the Private Education Loan Applicant Self-Certification form and therefore will not be collecting and maintaining the form or its data.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 4046. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: New.

Title: Federal Family Educational Loan Program—Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA).

Frequency: On Occasion.

Affected Public: Individuals or household.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Abstract: The Federal Family Educational Loan Program proposed regulations revise current regulations in areas of program administration and assure the Secretary that program integrity is protected from fraud and misuse of program funds. The proposed regulations would provide that upon a loan holder's receipt of a written request from a borrower and a copy of the borrower's military orders, the maximum interest rate that may be charged on Stafford loans made prior to entering active military duty is six percent while on active duty.

Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 4055. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments ” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

The Acid Rain Program under title IV of the Clean Air Act limits annual sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions of fossil fuel-fired utility units. Under the Acid Rain Program, affected sources must hold enough allowances to cover their sulfur dioxide emissions, and certain coal-fired sources must meet an emission limit for nitrogen oxides. Under 40 CFR 77.6, sources that do not meet these requirements must pay a penalty without demand to the Administrator based on the number of excess tons emitted times $2,000 as adjusted by an annual adjustment factor, which must be published in the Federal Register.

The annual adjustment factor for adjusting the penalty for excess emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides under 40 CFR 77.6(b) for compliance year 2009 is 1.7583. This value is derived using the CPI for 1990 and 2009 (defined respectively at 40 CFR 72.2 as the CPI for August of the year before the specified year for all urban consumers) and results in an automatic penalty of $3,517 per excess ton of sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides emitted for 2009.

The annual adjustment factor for adjusting the penalty for such excess emissions under 40 CFR 77.6(b) for compliance year 2010 is 1.7322. This value is derived using the CPI for 1990 and 2010 and results in an automatic penalty of $3,464 per excess ton of sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides emitted for 2010.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who conduct or assess human studies, especially studies on substances regulated by EPA or to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

In addition to using regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “Federal Register” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ .

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the ORD Docket, EPA/DC, Public Reading Room. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is located in the EPA Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334 in the EPA West Building, located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Please call (202) 566-1744 or e-mail the ORD Docket at ord.docket@epa.gov for instructions. Updates to Public Reading Room access are available on the Web site ( http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm ).

EPA's position paper(s), charge/questions to the HSRB, and the meeting agenda will be available by early October 2009. In addition, the Agency may provide additional background documents as the materials become available. You may obtain electronic copies of these documents, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the regulations.gov website and the EPA HSRB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/ . For questions on document availability or if you do not have access to the Internet, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION .

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

a. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

b. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

d. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

e. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number

assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions in this section. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0658 in the subject line on the first page of your request.

a. Oral comments . Requests to present oral comments will be accepted up to October 13, 2009. To the extent that time permits, interested persons who have not pre-registered may be permitted by the Chair of the HSRB to present oral comments at the meeting. Each individual or group wishing to make brief oral comments to the HSRB is strongly advised to submit their request (preferably via e-mail) to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than noon, Eastern time, October 13, 2009, in order to be included on the meeting agenda and to provide sufficient time for the HSRB Chair and HSRB Designated Federal Officer (DFO) to review the agenda to provide an appropriate public comment period. The request should identify the name of the individual making the presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will represent, and any requirements for audiovisual equipment (e.g., overhead projector, LCD projector, chalkboard). Oral comments before the HSRB are limited to five minutes per individual or organization. Please note that this limit applies to the cumulative time used by all individuals appearing either as part of, or on behalf of an organization. While it is our intent to hear a full range of oral comments on the science and ethics issues under discussion, it is not our intent to permit organizations to expand these time limitations by having numerous individuals sign up separately to speak on their behalf. If additional time is available, there may be flexibility in time for public comments. Each speaker should bring 25 copies of his or her comments and presentation slides for distribution to the HSRB at the meeting.

b. Written comments . Although you may submit written comments at any time, for the HSRB to have the best opportunity to review and consider your comments as it deliberates on its report, you should submit your comments at least five business days prior to the beginning of the meeting. If you submit comments after this date, those comments will be provided to the Board members, but you should recognize that the Board members may not have adequate time to consider those comments prior to making a decision. Thus, if you plan to submit written comments, the Agency strongly encourages you to submit such comments no later than noon, Eastern Time, October 13, 2009. You should submit your comments using the instructions in Unit I.C. of this notice. In addition, the Agency also requests that person(s) submitting comments directly to the docket also provide a copy of their comments to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. There is no limit on the length of written comments for consideration by the HSRB.

a. Topics for discussion. The HSRB is a Federal advisory committee operating in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) 5 U.S.C. App. 2 § 9. The HSRB provides advice, information, and recommendations to EPA on issues related to scientific and ethical aspects of human subjects research. The major objectives of the HSRB are to provide advice and recommendations on: (1) Research proposals and protocols; (2) reports of completed research with human subjects; and (3) how to strengthen EPA's programs for protection of human subjects of research. The HSRB reports to the EPA Administrator through EPA's Science Advisor.

At its meeting on October 20-21, 2009, EPA's Human Studies Review Board will consider scientific and ethical issues surrounding three topics:

1. Two published reports of completed, pre-rule research on the effects of exposure to pesticides containing pyrethrins/pyrethroids. EPA requests the advice of the HSRB on the scientific merit, relevancy, and limitations of these studies, and on their ethical acceptability. EPA intends to incorporate into a future revision of the EPA White Paper, “A Review of the Relationship between Pyrethrins, Pyrethroid Exposure and Asthma and Allergies,” a discussion of either or both of these studies if they are deemed to be scientifically sound, relevant and ethically acceptable.

2. A proposal for new research to be conducted by Carroll-Loye Biological Research to evaluate in the laboratory the repellent efficacy to ticks of two registered products containing 20% picaridin. EPA requests the advice of the HSRB concerning whether, if it is revised as suggested in EPA's review and if it is performed as described, this research is likely to generate scientifically reliable data, useful for assessing the efficacy of the tested materials in repelling ticks, and to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26, subparts K and L.

3. A new scenario design and associated protocol from the Antimicrobials Exposure Assessment Task Force II (AEATF-II), describing proposed research to monitor at three sites the dermal and inhalation exposure of professional janitorial workers who apply an antimicrobial pesticide formulated as an aerosol spray. EPA requests the advice of the HSRB concerning whether, if it is revised as suggested in EPA's review and if it is performed as described, this research is likely to generate scientifically reliable data, useful for assessing the exposure of those who apply antimicrobial pesticides as aerosols, and to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26, subparts K and L.

In addition, the Board will be reviewing its draft June 24-25, 2009, meeting report for subsequent Board approval. Finally, the HSRB may also discuss planning for future HSRB meetings.

b. Meeting minutes and reports. Minutes of the meeting, summarizing the matters discussed and recommendations, if any, made by the advisory committee regarding such matters, will be released within 90 calendar days of the meeting. Such minutes will be available at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/ and http://www.regulations.gov . In addition, information concerning a Board meeting report, if applicable, can be found at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/ or from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

OMB Control No: 3060-0233.

Title: Part 36, Separations.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 1,997 respondents; 7,562 responses.

Estimated Time Per Response: 5 - 22 hours.

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

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. sections 151, 154(i), and (j), 221(c) and 410(c).

Total Annual Burden: 71,283 hours.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: No assurance of confidentiality has been given regarding the information.

Need and Uses: The Commission will submit this information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) during this 30 day comment period in order to obtain the full three year clearance from them. The Commission is requesting an extension (no change in the reporting and/or third party disclosure requirements) of this information collection. There is a change in the estimated respondents/responses and the annual burden hours. The Commission is reporting a 1,774 adjusted increase in the number of responses and a 12,865 hour increase in the total annual burden hours.

In order to determine which carriers are entitled to universal service support, all (both rural and non-rural) incumbent local exchange carriers(LECs) must provide the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) with the loop cost and loop count data required by 47 CFR 63.611 of the Commission's rules for each of its study areas and, if applicable, for each wire center (that term is defined in 47 CFR Part 54).

Loops are the telephone lines running from the carrier's switching facilities to the customer. The loop cost and loop count information is to be field annually with NECA by July 31st of each year, and may be updated quarterly pursuant to 47 CFR 63.612. Pursuant to section 36.613, the information filed on July 31st of each year will be used to calculate universal service support for each study area and is filed by NECA with the Commission by October 1 of each year. An incumbent LEC is define as a carrier that meets the definition of “incumbent local exchange carrier” in 47 CFR 51.5 of the Commission's rules.

Section 63.612(a) also requires non-rural carriers to file loop counts (no loop cost data) on a quarterly basis. The Commission requires that non-rural carriers submit quarterly loop counts in order to ensure that universal service fund (USF) support for non-rural carriers is accurately calculated when competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) are present in the incumbent LECs' operating areas. Quarterly loop cost and loop count data filings are voluntary for rural carriers. When a competitive ETC, however, is operating in an incumbent rural carrier's territory, the incumbent rural carrier is required to submit quarterly loop count data. Quarterly filings of loop counts are necessary because if an incumbent rural carrier does not update its loop count data more often than annually, but its competitor does, the competitor's more recent data may include loops captured from the incumbent since the incumbent's last filing. Thus, the incumbent would continue to receive USF support at the same per line support amount that the incumbent LEC receives in the same operating territory. In order to receive such support, the competitive ETC must file loop count data with the USAC on a quarterly basis.

The reporting requirements are necessary to implement the congressional mandate for universal service. The requirements are necessary to verify that rural and non-rural LECs are eligible to receive universal service support. Information filed with NECA pursuant to section 36.611 is used to calculate universal service support payments to eligible carriers. Without this information, NECA and USAC (Universal Service Administration Company) would not be able to calculate such payments to eligible carriers.

The Mandatory Guidelines were developed in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and section 503 of Public Law 100-71. Subpart C of the Mandatory Guidelines, “Certification of Laboratories Engaged in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies,” sets strict standards that laboratories must meet in order to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens for Federal agencies. To become certified, an applicant laboratory must undergo three rounds of performance testing plus an on-site inspection. To maintain that certification, a laboratory must participate in a quarterly performance testing program plus undergo periodic, on-site inspections.

Laboratories which claim to be in the applicant stage of certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum requirements described in the HHS Mandatory Guidelines. A laboratory must have its letter of certification from HHS/SAMHSA (formerly: HHS/NIDA) which attests that it has met minimum standards.

In accordance with subpart C of the Mandatory Guidelines dated April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19644), the following laboratories meet the minimum standards to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens:

* The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) voted to end its Laboratory Accreditation Program for Substance Abuse (LAPSA) effective May 12, 1998. Laboratories certified through that program were accredited to conduct forensic urine drug testing as required by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. As of that date, the certification of those accredited Canadian laboratories will continue under DOT authority. The responsibility for conducting quarterly performance testing plus periodic on-site inspections of those LAPSA-accredited laboratories was transferred to the U.S. HHS, with the HHS NLCP contractor continuing to have an active role in the performance testing and laboratory inspection processes. Other Canadian laboratories wishing to be considered for the NLCP may apply directly to the NLCP contractor just as U.S. laboratories do.

Upon finding a Canadian laboratory to be qualified, HHS will recommend that DOT certify the laboratory ( Federal Register , July 16, 1996) as meeting the minimum standards of the Mandatory Guidelines published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19644). After receiving DOT certification, the laboratory will be included in the monthly list of HHS-certified laboratories and participate in the NLCP certification maintenance program.

Background

The primary agenda topic is the peer review of the findings and conclusions of six draft NTP Technical Reports of rodent toxicology and carcinogenicity studies (see “PRELIMINARY AGENDA” below).

The meeting is scheduled for November 19, 2009, from 8:30 a.m. to adjournment and is open to the public with attendance limited only by the space available. Individuals who plan to attend are encouraged to register online at the NTP Web site ( http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/15833 ) by November 12, 2009, to facilitate access to the NIEHS campus. A photo ID is required to access the NIEHS campus. The NTP is making plans to videocast the meeting through the Internet at http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/video/live.

A copy of the preliminary agenda, committee roster, and any additional information, when available, will be posted on the NTP Web site ( http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/15833 ) or may be requested in hardcopy from the Executive Secretary (see ADDRESSES above). The draft reports should be posted on the NTP Web site by October 13, 2009. Following the meeting, summary minutes will be prepared and made available on the NTP Web site.

The NTP invites written comments on the draft reports, which should be received by November 5, 2009, to enable review by the TRR Subcommittee and NTP staff prior to the meeting. Persons submitting written comments should include their name, affiliation, mailing address, phone, e-mail, and sponsoring organization (if any) with the document. Written comments received in response to this notice will be posted on the NTP Web site, and the submitter will be identified by name, affiliation, and/or sponsoring organization.

Public input at this meeting is also invited and time is set aside for the presentation of oral comments on the draft reports. Each organization is allowed one time slot per draft report. At least 7 minutes will be allotted to each speaker, and if time permits, may be extended to 10 minutes at the discretion of the chair. Persons wishing to make an oral presentation are asked to notify Dr. Barbara Shane via online registration at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/15833, phone, or e-mail (see ADDRESSES above) by November 12, 2009, and if possible, to send a copy of the statement or talking points at that time. Written statements can supplement and may expand the oral presentation. Registration for oral comments will also be available at the meeting, although time allowed for presentation by on-site registrants may be less than that for pre-registered speakers and will be determined by the number of persons who register on-site.

The BSC is a technical advisory body comprised of scientists from the public and private sectors who provide primary scientific oversight to the NTP. Specifically, the BSC advises the NTP on matters of scientific program content, both present and future, and conducts periodic review of the program for the purposes of determining and advising on the scientific merit of its activities and their overall scientific quality. The TRR Subcommittee is a standing subcommittee of the BSC. BSC members are selected from recognized authorities knowledgeable in fields such as toxicology, pharmacology, pathology, biochemistry, epidemiology, risk assessment, carcinogenesis, mutagenesis, molecular biology, behavioral toxicology and neurotoxicology, immunotoxicology, reproductive toxicology or teratology, and biostatistics. Its members are invited to serve overlapping terms of up to four years. BSC and TRR Subcommittee meetings are held annually or biannually.

I. Purpose

The National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality was established in accordance with Section 921 (now Section 931) of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299c. In accordance with its statutory mandate, the Council is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Director, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), on matters related to actions of AHRQ to enhance the quality, and improve the outcomes, of health care services; improve access to such services through scientific research; and promote improvements in clinical practice and in the organization, financing, and delivery of health care services.

The Council is composed of members of the public, appointed by the Secretary, and Federal ex-officio members. AHRQ's National Advisory Council on Healthcare Research and Quality (NAC) will establish a Subcommittee on Patient Safety and Medical Liability Reform Demonstrations.

The Subcommittee will be created to provide advice to the NAC for consideration and transmission to AHRQ as AHRQ undertakes the development of a new demonstration initiative that will help States and health care systems to test models that put patient safety first and work to reduce preventable injuries, foster better communication between doctors and their patients, ensure that patients are compensated in a fair and timely manner for medical injuries, while reducing the incidence of frivolous lawsuits; and reduce liability premiums.

As directed by President Obama, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will launch a competitive three-pronged initiative that will include support for demonstration grants to States and health systems, planning grants to States and health systems, and a rapid and comprehensive review of current efforts, targeting patient safety and medical liability. Prior to finalizing the Funding Opportunity Announcement for this new initiative, the chairman of AHRQ's National Advisory Council will convene a subcommittee with diverse representation from expert and stakeholder groups to provide advice for this initiative. The date, time, location and agenda for the subcommittee meeting, which will be open to the public, will be available on the AHRQ Web site no later than two weeks in advance of such meeting. Members of the public will have the opportunity to submit comments to the subcommittee in person or in writing, and can participate in the meeting in person or via Web casting. The subcommittee will not review individual grants nor participate in award decisions.

A roster of the Subcommittee members will be available at http://www.AHRQ.gov.

A more specific proposed agenda will be available before the meeting at http://www.AHRQ.gov.

The final agenda, including the time for public comment during the meeting, will be available on the AHRQ Web site at http://www.AHRQ.gov. Public comments may also be submitted in writing by e-mail, fax, mail, or hand delivery. E-mails are preferred. Please submit comments to: Medicalliabilitydemos@AHRQ.hhs.gov. A comment submitted by e-mail should indicate that it is in response to “Medical Liability Reform Demonstrations Subcommittee.” The deadline for written comments will be posted on the AHRQ Web site. Meeting minutes will be available within 21 business days after the meeting.

CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The comments should address: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual costs burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (a total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

Title: Guarantee of Payment.

OMB Number: 1651-00127.

Form Number: Form I-510.

Abstract: The Form I-510 is executed upon the arrival of an alien crewman within the purview of section 253 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The information is used by CBP to help ensure that expenses of caring for an alien crewman are reimbursed by the carrier.

Current Actions: CBP is proposing to extend this collection of information with no change to the burden hours.

Type of Review: Extension (without change).

Affected Public: Businesses.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 100.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 100.

Estimated Time per Response: 5 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 8.

The Department will submit the proposed information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Debts Owed to PHAs & Terminations.

OMB Control Number: 2577-XXXX (Pending).

Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use: In accordance with new regulatory requirements at 24 CFR 5.233, published in the Federal Register on January 27, 2009 at 74 FR 4832, processing entities that administer the Public Housing, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher, Moderate Rehabilitation programs are required to use HUD's Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) system to verify employment and income information of program participants and to reduce administrative and subsidy payment errors. The EIV system is a system of records owned by HUD, as published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2005 at 70 FR 41780 and updated on August 8, 2006 at 71 FR 45066.

The Department seeks to identify families who no longer participate in a HUD rental assistance program due to adverse termination of tenancy and/or assistance, and owe a debt to a Public Housing Agency (PHA). In accordance with 24 CFR 982.552 and 960.203, the PHA may deny admission to a program if the family is not suitable for tenancy for such reasons (but not limited to): unacceptable past performance in meeting financial obligations, history of criminal activity, eviction from Federally assisted housing in the last five years, family has committed fraud, bribery, or any other corrupt or criminal act in connection with a Federal housing program, or if a family currently owes rent or other amounts to the PHA or to another PHA in connection with a Federally assisted housing program under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937.

Within the scope of this new collection of information, HUD seeks to collect from all PHAs, the following information:

1. Amount of debt owed by a former tenant to a PHA;

2. If applicable, indication of executed repayment agreement;

3. If applicable, indication of bankruptcy filing;

4. If applicable, the reason for any adverse termination of the family from a Federally assisted housing program.

This information will be collected electronically from PHAs via HUD's EIV system. This information will be used by HUD to create a national repository of families that owe a debt to a PHA and/or have been terminated from a Federally assisted housing program. This national repository will be available within the EIV system for all PHAs to access during the time of application for rental assistance. PHAs will be able to access this information to determine a family's suitability for rental assistance, and avoid providing limited Federal housing assistance to families who have previously been unable to comply with HUD program requirements. If this information is not collected, the Department is at risk of paying limited Federal dollars on behalf of families who may not be eligible to receive rental housing assistance. Furthermore, if this information is not collected, the public will perceive that there are no consequences for a family's failure to comply with HUD program requirements.

Agency Form Numbers: N/A.

Members of Affected Public: State or Local Government; Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), Individuals or Households.

Estimation of the Total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: 4,094 respondents; 356,270 average number of families annually, requiring monthly average of 29,689 responses; 0.08333 hours per response; 29,689.17 total burden hours.

Status of the Proposed Information Collection: New Request. Pending Authorization.

In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

The Hispanic-Serving Institutions Assisting Communities Program was approved by Congress under the Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 111-8, approved March 11, 2009) and is administered by the Office of University Partnerships under the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research. In addition to this program, the Office of University Partnerships administers HUD's ongoing grant programs to institutions of higher education as well as creates initiatives through which colleges and universities can bring their traditional missions of teaching, research, service, and outreach to bear on the pressing local problems in their communities.

The HSIAC program provides funds for a wide range of CDBG-eligible activities including housing rehabilitation and financing, property demolition or acquisition, public facilities, economic development, business entrepreneurship, and fair housing programs.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for this program is 14.514.

On July 8, 2009, a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for this program was posted on Grant.gov (Attachment 1) announcing the availability of approximately $6 million for funding grants under this program. The maximum amount an applicant can be awarded is $600,000 for a three-year (36 months) grant performance period. The Department reviewed, evaluated, and scored the applications received based on the criteria in the NOFA. As a result, HUD has funded the applications below, in accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545). More information about the winners can be found at http://www.oup.org .

The Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program was approved by the Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 111-8, approved March 11, 2009) and is administered by the Office of University Partnerships under the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research. In addition to this program, the Office of University Partnerships administers HUD's ongoing grant programs to institutions of higher education as well as creates initiatives through which colleges and universities can bring their traditional missions of teaching, research, service, and outreach to bear on the pressing local problems in their communities.

The HBCU Program provides funds for a wide range of CDBG-eligible activities including housing rehabilitation, property demolition or acquisition, public facilities, economic development, business entrepreneurship, and fair housing programs.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for this program is 14.520.

On June 25, 2009, a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) was posted on Grants.gov announcing the availability of approximately $9 million for funding grants under this program. The maximum amount an applicant could be awarded this year is $800,000 for a three-year (36 months) grant performance period.

The Department reviewed, evaluated, and scored the applications received based on the criteria in the NOFA. As a result, HUD has funded the applications below, in accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545). More information about the winners can be found at http://www.oup.org .

On April 15, 2008, we published a notice in the Federal Register (73 FR 20324) announcing the availability of an EA and amended HCP, and our receipt of an incidental take permit application from the City of Brisbane for an amendment to the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan, in San Mateo County, California. Pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, the amended permit authorizes the incidental take of the federally endangered callippe silverspot butterfly ( Speyeria callippe callippe ) and federally threatened Bay checkerspot butterfly ( Euphydryas editha bayensis ) within the HCP's 228.3-acre Northeast Ridge (Administrative Parcel 1-07) and protected habitat (Conserved Habitat) area under the terms of the amended HCP. Incidental take of the two butterflies would be in connection with development activities on the Northeast Ridge and management and monitoring of Conserved Habitat currently held or that will be held in fee title by San Mateo County or the State of California and carried out under the San Bruno Mountain HCP. Incidental take of the Bay checkerspot butterfly is not expected to occur since the species has not been observed on San Bruno Mountain since the mid 1980s. However, if the Bay checkerspot butterfly is reintroduced to San Bruno Mountain or naturally recolonizes the area, incidental take resulting from monitoring and management of Conserved Habitat will be covered under the amended incidental take permit.

The amended HCP reduces the size of the Northeast Ridge development area and increases the size of Conserved Habitat. The amended HCP increases undisturbed Conserved Habitat by 20.36 acres, and increases total Conserved Habitat to 144.7 acres in the Northeast Ridge parcel. The reconfigured Conserved Habitat area preserves high quality butterfly habitat including hilltops (used as mating sites), topographic diversity, and a high density of callippe silverspot butterfly larval host plants. The amendment eliminates the Unit II-Neighborhood I subdivision (UII-NI) and increases the size of the Unit II-Neighborhood II subdivision (UII-NII). The reconfigured UII-NII is within an area that has generally lower value habitat ( i.e., lower density of larval host plants, fewer hilltops, and a 7.85-acre grove of eucalyptus trees) than would have been disturbed by UII-NI. The increased development acreage in UII-NII would occur in the eucalyptus grove and areas previously proposed as revegetated areas.

Notice is hereby given that on May 20, 2009, the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) was selected and a FONSI determination was made for the action as described in the final EA for the San Bruno Mountain HCP Amendment. As authorized by the provisions of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), we issued an amended permit (TE-215574-5) to the Cities of Brisbane, South San Francisco, and Daly City, and the County of San Mateo, subject to certain conditions set forth in the permit. The permit amendment was granted only after we determined it was applied for in good faith, that granting the permit amendment would not be to the disadvantage of the listed species, and that granting the permit amendment was consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in the Act.

In 1984, the BLM was prohibited from using herbicides in Oregon by a U.S. District Court injunction issued in Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, et al. v. Block, et al. (Civ. No. 82-6273-E). Following completion of an EIS examining the use of four herbicides just on noxious weeds, the injunction was modified by the court in November 1987 (Civ. No. 82-6272-BU). For the subsequent 22 years, the BLM in Oregon has limited its herbicide use to the four herbicides analyzed and limited use of those four herbicides to the control and eradication of Federal-, state-, or county-listed noxious weeds. In that time, new herbicides have become available that can be used in smaller doses, are more target-specific, and are less likely to adversely affect people and other non-target organisms. These new herbicides are being used by adjacent cooperating agencies and landowners to achieve better invasive weed control. Further, there are limited additional native vegetation treatment needs that would be more feasibly met, and more efficiently accomplished with selected herbicides.

In 2007, the BLM Washington Office (WO220) completed the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) and related Record of Decision making 18 herbicides available for a full range of non-commodity vegetation treatments in 17 western states including Oregon. Oregon cannot implement that decision, however, until and unless the District Court injunction is lifted. The DEIS being released today, Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon, tiers to the PEIS, incorporates additional detailed analysis regarding the potential for human and environmental risks specific to Oregon and addresses the issues in the 1984 District Court decision and other information specific to Oregon. The additional analysis is similar to that presented in a similar EIS completed by the Forest Service in Oregon in 2005. The DEIS is programmatic, addressing all 15.7 million acres in Oregon and addressing all 18 herbicides approved for use by the 2007 Record of Decision for the PEIS and being used in the other 16 western states. The DEIS analyzes one “no action” alternative, one “no herbicide” alternative, and 3 action alternatives which were shaped in part by the comments received during 12 public scoping meetings held throughout Oregon in July 2008. No projects will be authorized; site-specific projects will be subject to additional National Environmental Policy Act analysis.

The analysis indicates that by using BLM manual section and policy standard operating procedures, along with PEIS-adopted mitigation measures, human and environmental risk from the use of herbicides is both minimized and reduced from current levels. The proposed action would also slow the spread of noxious weeds on BLM lands by about 50 percent and result in 2.2 million fewer infested acres in 15 years than under current program capabilities.

Following the public comment period, the BLM will prepare a Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. These are planned for release in mid-summer 2010.

The responsible official for the EIS is the BLM Oregon and Washington State Director. No public hearings or meetings are planned during the public comment period for the DEIS. Please note that public comments and information submitted; including the names, street addresses, and email addresses of respondents; will be available for public review and disclosure during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays, at the following address: 333 SW. 1st Avenue, Portland, OR 97204.

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.

Since the Potomac Park levee was constructed in the late 1930's, the levee system has relied upon a temporary earthen closure being built across 17th Street in the event of a flood emergency. Based on new policies since Hurricane Katrina (33 CFR 208.10), the USACE has deemed the temporary 17th Street closure unreliable and consequently gave the levee an unacceptable inspection rating. For this reason, FEMA's most recently proposed 100-year floodplain map for this area reflects a 100-year flood event as if the currently-designed 17th Street closure did not exist (44 CFR part 67, 72 FR 54631-54635). This new mapping would place portions of southeast and downtown Washington, DC, including the monumental core, within the 100-year flood insurance rate zone. The placement would require additional flood insurance and/or costly upgrades to comply with building standards for those facilities that would fall within the new 100-year floodplain. In addition, a number of projects that are currently in development on the National Mall would need to be revised and could be delayed in order to comply with these building codes. At the District of Columbia's request, FEMA agreed to delay issuance of the new floodplain map until November, 2009, in order to allow the District and the NPS time to design and implement a solution that will reliably stop a 100-year flood at 17th Street, NW., and therefore make re-mapping unnecessary.

In addition, the USACE requested that the solution be designed in such a manner as to allow for easy modification to meet the higher level of protection authorized by Congress in 1936 but never funded. The congressionally authorized level of protection is roughly equivalent to a 187-year storm. The District and NPS agreed that any improvements to the levee should be consistent with the current authorization so that the congressionally authorized level of protection can ultimately be achieved once funding is appropriated.

The EA evaluated five alternatives, all of which incorporate a permanent structure from Overlook Terrace in Constitution Gardens to the west side of 17th Street and another permanent structure on the east side of 17th Street which extends into the natural rise of the Washington Monument Grounds. The intervening space across 17th Street will have footings designed to receive a temporary post and panel closure system that would be deployed only during a major flood event. The permanent structures on either side of 17th Street will be a combination of earthen berms and concrete walls/embankments which will be clad in stone during a subsequent phase of the project. Since full funding for the entire project was not certain, all of the alternatives in this EA are presented in a phased approach.

The NPS identified Alternative 1B as its Preferred Alternative and has selected it for implementation. During the completion of this EA, it became apparent that considerable costs and time of construction and, therefore, time of disturbance to the National Mall and visitors, could be avoided if the levee at 17th Street was constructed to the higher level of protection initially, if funding would be available. Under Phase 1 of the alternative, a levee closure structure will be constructed at 17th Street, approximately 253 feet south of the centerline of Constitution Avenue, NW. The closure structure will consist of two symmetrical curved concrete flood walls built to the height of the Congressionally-authorized solution and set back approximately 23 feet to the east and west of 17th Street. The flood walls will require the re-grading of both the northwest corner of the Monument Grounds as well as the eastern edge of Constitution Gardens between the Overlook Terrace and 17th Street. Tree planting and final landscaping will also be completed as the first phase of the project. In the second phase of implementation, the remaining visible sections of the levee wall at 17th Street will be clad in stone to match the historic character of the adjacent cultural landscapes and historic resources. The cladding will enhance the aesthetic quality and character of the landscape to mitigate against adverse effects associated with concrete walls.

Phase Two includes a pedestrian path and additional landscaping. Improvements to the other parts of the Potomac Levee will also occur as part of the second phase of implementation since the existing conditions at 23rd Street, NW. and the Reflecting Pool do not meet the Congressionally-authorized level of protection. At the southwest corner of 23rd Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., portions of the site will be re-graded and raised by approximately one to two feet. Along the levee that runs parallel to the Reflecting Pool, several hundred feet of low spots will be filled to bring the height of the levee to the Congressionally-authorized level of protection.

This alternative will be further developed into preliminary and final designs which will be subject to additional review by the National Park Service, the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts.

The FONSI and other documents related to this action are available for review on the NPS's Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) Web site at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?parkID=427&projectId=22260 . You may also request a hard copy at (202) 619-7025.

The 12-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Northwest California. At this meeting agenda topics include discussion of BLM image and identity issues, a status report on public land equestrian projects, a status report on land use planning, information on the Weaverville Community Forest, a status report on development of a north coast Geotourism Map Guide, access to South Cow Mountain, and an update on BLM projects under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA). All meetings are open to the public. Members of the public may present written comments to the council. Each formal council meeting will have time allocated for public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak, and the time available, the time for individual comments may be limited. Members of the public are welcome on field tours, but they must provide their own transportation and meals. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation and other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above.

The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel will hold its 4th Quarterly Meeting for 2009. This discussion is pursuant to carrying out its statutory duties for which the Panel reviews, identifies, evaluates, and advises on those program activities, systems, procedures, and management activities that can contribute to program risk. Priority is given to those programs that involve the safety of human flight. The agenda will include Safety Mission Assurance Updates; Launch Services Program Overview; International Space Station Commercial Resupply Services Overview; and Thrust Oscillation Update.

The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. Seating will be on a first-come basis. Visitors will be requested to sign a visitor's register. Photographs will only be permitted during the first 10 minutes of the meeting. During the first 30 minutes of the meeting, members of the public may make a 5-minute verbal presentation to the Panel on the subject of safety in NASA. To do so, please contact Ms. Susan Burch at susan.burch@nasa.gov at least 48 hours in advance. Any member of the public is permitted to file a written statement with the Panel at the time of the meeting. Verbal presentations and written comments should be limited to the subject of safety in NASA.

The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Georgia, dated 09/24/2009 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Georgia, dated 09/24/2009 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 09/24/2009, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.

The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:

The Interest Rates are:

The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 118866 and for economic injury is 118870.

Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 09/26/2009, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.

The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:

The Interest Rates are:

This application and supporting documents are available for review in the Office of Mexican Affairs during normal business hours.

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

On September 14, 2009, China requested consultations regarding restrictions recently announced by the United States on imports of Chinese tires. According to China, these restrictions take the form of substantially higher tariffs over the next three years well in excess of the tariff rates permitted under U.S. international obligations to China. The restrictions were announced on September 11, 2009, by U.S. authorities following an investigation pursuant to section 421 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2451). The report by the U.S. International Trade Commission issued as part of the investigation can be found at Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the People's Republic of China, Investigation No. TA-421-7, USITC Publication No. 4085 (July 2009). The decision by the President can be found in the Proclamation issued by President Obama on September 11, 2009. The measures are to take effect on September 26, 2009. The request purports to include any other measures the United States may announce to implement the decision.

China alleges that the higher tariffs, not having been justified as emergency action under relevant WTO rules, are inconsistent with Article I:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”). China also alleges that these measures have not been properly justified pursuant to Article XIX of the GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement on Safeguards. China also alleges that these measures have not been properly justified as China-specific restrictions under the Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China (Protocol of Accession).

Furthermore, China alleges that the U.S. statute authorizing these China-specific restrictions is inconsistent on its face with Article 16 of the Protocol of Accession because, according to China, the statute impermissibly defines “significant cause” more narrowly than required by the ordinary meaning of the phrase as used in Article 16.4 of the Protocol of Accession. Finally, China alleges that each measure, as applied, is also inconsistent with the Protocol of Accession.

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning the issues raised in this dispute. Persons may submit public comments electronically to http://www.regulations.gov docket number USTR-2009-0035. If you are unable to provide submissions by http://www.regulations.gov, please contact Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-9483 to arrange for an alternative method of transmission.

To submit comments via http://www.regulations.gov, enter docket number USTR-2009-0035 on the home page and click “search”. The site will provide a search-results page listing all documents associated with this docket. Find a reference to this notice by selecting “Notice” under “Document Type” on the left side of the search-results page, and click on the link entitled “Submit a Comment.” (For further information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site, please consult the resources provided on the Web site by clicking on “How to Use This Site” on the left side of the home page.)

The http://www.regulations.gov site provides the option of providing comments by filling in a “Type Comment and Upload File” field, or by attaching a document. It is expected that most comments will be provided in an attached document. If a document is attached, it is sufficient to type “See attached” in the “Type Comment and Upload File” field.

A person requesting that information contained in a comment submitted by that person be treated as confidential business information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such and the submission must be marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page. Any comment containing business confidential information must be submitted by fax to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-3640. A non-confidential summary of the confidential information must be submitted to http://www.regulations.gov. The non-confidential summary will be placed in the docket and open to public inspection.

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

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

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

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

Any comment containing confidential information must be submitted by fax. A non-confidential summary of the confidential information must be submitted to http:// www.regulations.gov. The non-confidential summary will be placed in the docket and open to public inspection.

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

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

Title: Currency Transaction Report (CTR), 31 CFR 103.22(b).

OMB Number: 1506-0004.

Form Number: FinCEN Form 104.

Abstract: The statute generally referred to as the “Bank Secrecy Act,” Titles I and II of Public Law 91-508, as amended, codified at 12 U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959, and 31 U.S.C. 5311-5332, authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary), inter alia, to require financial institutions to keep records and file reports that are determined to have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, and regulatory investigations or proceedings, or in the conduct of intelligence or counter-intelligence activities, to protect against international terrorism, and to implement counter-money laundering programs and compliance procedures. 1 Regulations implementing Title II of the Bank Secrecy Act appear at 31 CFR Part 103. The authority of the Secretary to administer the Bank Secrecy Act has been delegated to the Director of FinCEN.

Section 5313(a) of the Bank Secrecy Act authorizes the Secretary to issue regulations that require a report when “a domestic financial institution is involved in a transaction for the payment, receipt, or transfer of United States coins or currency (or other monetary instruments the Secretary prescribes), in an amount, denomination, or amount and denomination, or under circumstances the Secretary prescribes.” Regulations implementing section 5313(a) are found at 31 CFR 103.22. In general, the regulations require the reporting of transactions in currency to, by, or through a financial institution in excess of $10,000 by or on behalf of any one person in any one-business day. Financial institutions, as defined in 31 U.S.C. 5312(a)(2) and 31 CFR 103.11, are subject to the currency transaction reporting requirement. The Currency Transaction Report, FinCEN Form 104, is the form that financial institutions use to comply with the currency transaction reporting requirements.

Current action: This is a renewal without change of a currently approved collection. A copy of the Currency Transaction Report, FinCEN Form 104, may be obtained from the FinCEN Web site at http://www.fincen.gov/forms/fin104_ctr.pdf , or by calling (800) 949-2732 and selecting option 5.

Type of Review: Renewal of a currently approved information collection.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit and non-profit institutions.

Frequency: As required.

Estimated Burden: Reporting average of 20 minutes per response. Form recordkeeping average of ten (10) minutes per response, for a total of 30 minutes.

Estimated number of respondents = 54,000.

Estimated Total Annual Responses = 13,710,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 6,855,000.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Records required to be retained pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act must be retained for five years.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

Titles: Customer Satisfaction Survey for Nutritional and Food Service.

OMB Control Number: 2900-0227.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: VA will use the data collected to determine the level of patient satisfaction and quality of service resulting from advanced food preparation and advanced food delivery systems. Meals are an integral part of a patient's therapy. VA Form 10-5387 will be used to collect and evaluate information needed to determine whether improvements are needed to enhance patient's nutritional therapy.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on July 29, 2009, at pages 37773-37774.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 4,187.

Estimated Average Burden per Respondent: 2 minutes.

Frequency of Response: Quarterly.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 125,600.