The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2002), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with May anniversary dates. The Department also received timely requests to revoke in part the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from Germany with respect to one exporter and ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan with respect to one exporter.

In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the period of review (POR). We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of this initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within 10 calendar days of publication of thisFederal Registernotice.

In accordance with section 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than May 31, 2009.

During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under section 351.211 or a determination under section 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary will determine, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review and consistent with FAG Italia v.United States, 291 F.3d 806 (Fed. Cir. 2002), as appropriate, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department publishedAntidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures(73 FR 3634). Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of separate letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in itsProcedures for Conducting Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98.3 -Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset Review of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders:

As a courtesy, we are making information related to Sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Department's regulations, the Department schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on the Department's sunset Internet Web site at the following address:

"http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.” All submissions in these Sunset Reviews must be filed in accordance with the Department's regulations regarding format, translation, service, and certification of documents. These rules can be found at 19 CFR 351.303.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103 (c), the Department will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact the Department in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties to apply for access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (“APO”) immediately following publication in theFederal Registerof this notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The Department's regulations on submission of proprietary information and eligibility to receive access to business proprietary information under APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304-306.

Domestic interested parties defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in theFederal Registerof this notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The required contents of the notice of intent to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the Department's regulations, if we do not receive a notice of intent to participate from at least one domestic interested party by the 15-day deadline, the Department will automatically revoke the order without further review.See19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii).

If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Department's regulations provide thatall partieswishing to participate in the Sunset Review must file complete substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in theFederal Registerof this notice of initiation. The required contents of a substantive response, on an order-specific basis, are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note that certain information requirements differ for respondent and domestic parties. Also, note that the Department's information requirements are distinct from the Commission's information requirements. Please consult the Department's regulations for information regarding the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews.1Please consult the Department's regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms and for other general information concerning antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at the Department.

This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218 (c).

The Department has developed, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, information on subsidies (as defined in section 702(h) of the Act) being provided either directly or indirectly by foreign governments on articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty. The appendix to this notice lists the country, the subsidy program or programs, and the gross and net amounts of each subsidy for which information is currently available. The Department will incorporate additional programs which are found to constitute subsidies, and additional information on the subsidy programs listed, as the information is developed.

The Department encourages any person having information on foreign government subsidy programs which benefit articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty to submit such information in writing to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230.

This determination and notice are in accordance with section 702(a) of the Act.

A complete application for an EFP for this project was submitted on June 3, 2008, by Steve Eayrs of the Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI) for the F/V Skipper (Permit #250573). This project is funded by Jane's Trust and the Maine (ME) Sea Grant Program.

The primary goal of this EFP is to determine the optimal trawl configuration to reduce undersized bycatch. At present, fishermen from the Port Clyde Draggermen's Association (PCDA) voluntarily remove the chafing net from their groundfish trawls in the belief that the chafing net masks codend meshes and increases the retention of undersized bycatch. This EFP will help quantify the effectiveness of this modification for three common codend mesh sizes: 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) square; 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) diamond; and 7-inch (17.8-cm) diamond mesh.

This EFP would be issued to GMRI and Captain Glen Libby of the F/V Skipper to conduct 15 at-sea days of experimental fishing in an area north of the Cashes Ledge Habitat Closure Area and east of the Jeffery's Bank Habitat Closure Area (see Table 1). Fishing would not overlap with any GOM Rolling Closures. As a condition of this EFP, this vessel would complete no more than 78 tows, fishing 6 tows per day, each 1 hour in duration. Each tow would test one of the four possible trawl configurations: 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) diamond, with and without chafing gear; 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) square, without chafing gear; and 7-inch (17.8-cm) diamond, without chafing gear. A small-mesh 1.75 to 2.25-inch (4.4 to 5.7-cm) cover would be installed around the codend of each of these nets, supported by a hoop to prevent direct masking of the codend meshes. This small-mesh cover would provide information to determine which mesh configuration effects the greatest reduction in undersized bycatch.

The data collection would include 48 complete tows, with additional tows (not to exceed 30), during which a camera would be installed to observe codend geometry and fish behavior. The camera system could upset the geometry and performance of the codend, so the researchers opted not to install the camera during any of the primary tows. The additional 7 days and 30 tows for camera work would also allow flexibility for any potential gear, weather, or other unforeseen problems during the first 8 days of testing. The researchers intend to complete this project before October 1, 2008.

The applicants have asked for an exemption from the minimum GOM regulated mesh size specified at 50 CFR 648.80(a)(3)(i), so that they may install a small-mesh cover net around the codend to sample the variability in bycatch released from each of the four codend configurations. The applicants have also asked for temporary exemptions from the following regulations: NE multispecies minimum fish sizes (§ 648.83); NE multispecies possession restrictions (§ 648.86), monkfish minimum fish sizes(§ 648.93); and monkfish possession restrictions (§ 648.94). These exemptions are necessary to allow sampling of undersized fish and fish in excess of the possession limit; however, these exemptions would not permit the landing of fish outside of regular A days-at-sea (DAS) possession limits. These exemptions are only for the time period when trained technicians or crew are measuring, weighing, or sampling fish that would otherwise be immediately discarded.

During the 15 at-sea days of comparative fishing trials, the F/V Skipper would use A DAS and would be subject to all day and trip possession limits, with the exemptions listed above. All fish caught would be weighed, and as many fish as possible would be measured. As a condition of this EFP, all undersized fish or fish that cannot legally be landed (e.g., in excess of possession limits) would be returned to the sea as quickly as practicable after measurement. The overall catch estimates expected for the remainder of this project under this EFP can be found in Table 2. The applicants anticipate a total harvest of 19,500 lb (8,845 kg), and an additional 6,283 lb (2,850 kg) of discards. The estimated GOM cod catch per day for the proposed number of DAS during this EFP would be 27 percent of the current daily possession limit of 800 lb (363 kg). All legal-sized fish, within the possession limit, would be sold.

The applicants may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the course of research. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further public notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and result in only a minimal change in the scope or impacts of the initially approved EFP request.

In accordance with NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, a Categorical Exclusion or other appropriate NEPA document would be completed prior to the issuance of the EFP.

Further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made to issue the EFP. After publication of this document in theFederal Register, the EFP, if approved, may become effective following the public comment period.

The clauses at FAR 52.225-9, Buy American Act—Construction Materials, and FAR 52.225-11, Buy American Act—Construction Materials under Trade Agreements, prove that offerors/contractors requesting to use foreign construction material, other than construction material eligible under a trade agreement shall provide adequate information for Government evaluation of the request. These regulations implement the Buy American Act for construction (41 U.S.C. 10a - 10d).

Respondents:500.

Responses Per Respondent:2.

Annual Responses:1,000.

Hours Per Response:2.5.

Total Burden Hours:2,500.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals:Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0141, Buy American Act—Construction (Grimberg Decision) in all correspondence.

In 2005, the Secretary of Defense and the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission recommended that certain realignment actions occur at MCB Quantico. The President and Congress approved these recommendations, which became law on November 9, 2005. These recommendations must now be implemented as provided for in the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-510), as amended, no later than September 15, 2011. The actions directed at MCB Quantico are the collocation of Military Department Investigation Agencies Headquarters with the Counterintelligence Field Activity, and the Defense Security Service at MCB Quantico. These realignment actions will add approximately 3,000 personnel to work at MCB Quantico by 2011.

Projected personnel growth in Marine Corps units currently on Mainside, requirements to consolidate personnel located elsewhere, replacement of inadequate facilities on Mainside, and an expectation that other federal and Marine Corps initiatives will continue to identify MCB Quantico as a site for relocation, combined with limited redevelopment potential on Mainside, comprise the additional need to develop Westside.

Proposed Action.The Marine Corps proposes development of the Westside of MCB Quantico including the 2005 BRAC action at MCB Quantico. The development would entail construction of new facilities in two undeveloped areas west of I-95. These areas, the Russell Road Area and the MCB-1 Area, would accommodate the collocation of Military Department Investigation Agencies with the Department of Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency at MCB Quantico as directed by the 2005 BRAC law. They would also provide space for adequate facilities to support Marine Corps units currently at MCB Quantico, as well as potentially other federal and MarineCorps initiatives that may identify MCB Quantico as a site for relocation. The components of the Proposed Action include construction and operation of new facilities with the necessary infrastructure, road improvements, and security measures to support new facilities.

Alternatives Considered:The Final EIS assesses two action Alternatives, A and B, that respectively provide development to support only the BRAC Action involving 3,000 personnel, or development to support both the BRAC Action and an additional 2,000 personnel that would relocate to the Westside. Both Alternatives A and B include the two development location options for the BRAC component that were identified in the 2006Quantico Land Use Plan, I-95 West:(BRAC Option 1 (Russell Road) and BRAC Option 2 (MCB-1)). The following four options to implement the Proposed Action are evaluated by the Final EIS. Alternative B BRAC Option 1 (Russell Road) is the Marine Corps Preferred Alternative.

Alternative A, BRAC Action.Alternative A would add only the development required to accommodate those personnel (approximately 3,000) associated with the BRAC 2005 action. About 70 acres would be required for the facilities. About 735,000 square feet of space and provision of parking and necessary supporting infrastructure would be constructed. Road widening and intersection improvements would be required throughout the Russell Road/MCB-1 corridor, from the intersection of Russell Road with U.S. Route 1 to the Southern Russell Road Site and/or to the MCB-1 Area. Alternative A BRAC Option 1 (Russell Road) would site the entire BRAC development in the Southern Russell Road Site, south of Telegraph Road and just east of the intersection of Russell Road with Telegraph Road. Alternative A BRAC Option 2 (MCB-1) would site the entire BRAC development in the Northern MCB-1 Site along Hotpatch Road.

Alternative B, 5,000 Personnel Including BRAC.Alternative B would add 5,000 personnel to work in the Westside, including 3,000 BRAC and 2,000 non-BRAC personnel. The non-BRAC personnel include approximately 1,000 personnel currently working elsewhere at MCB Quantico. Total space needed for BRAC and non-BRAC components is estimated to be approximately 148 acres and 1,300,000 square feet of interior space. Road widening and intersection improvements would be required throughout the Russell Road/MCB-1 corridor, from the intersection of Russell Road with U.S. Route 1 to the Southern Russell Road Site and/or to the MCB-1 Area.

Alternative B BRAC Option 1 (Russell Road) (The Preferred Alternative) would site the entire BRAC development in the Southern Russell Road Site; the remainder of the development for the additional 2,000 personnel would be sited in the MCB-1 Area, including approximately 300 personnel potentially at the Weapons Training Battalion Site. Alternative B BRAC Option 2 (MCB-1) would site the entire BRAC development in the MCB-1 Site along Hotpatch Road. The remaining development for 2,000 personnel could be completely sited in other parcels of the MCB-1 Area, or completely sited in the Southern Russell Road Site, or split between the two areas in some combination. Development for 300 personnel would be considered for the Weapons Training Battalion Site.

No Action Alternative.The No Action Alternative would maintain the status quo. The No Action Alternative would not permit the implementation of the BRAC-directed action and would not be consistent with current law.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative.The No Action Alternative maintains the status quo and therefore does not impact the existing environment. It is the environmentally preferred alternative. However, it does not meet the purpose and need of the action, and does not comply with BRAC law. Therefore, a further environmental comparison of the two action alternatives, which meet purpose and need, is provided.

Alternative A would disturb a smaller quantity of environmental resources and consequently would be environmentally preferred to Alternative B. In terms of satisfying the BRAC requirement, either BRAC Option 1 (Russell Road) or BRAC Option 2 (MCB-1) is equally environmentally preferred depending upon the environmental resource of concern. Option 1 under either alternative potentially disturbs a greater quantity of wetlands, which can be mitigated, however. Option 2 entails more roadway construction under Alternative A and results in more traffic congestion on Base under both Alternatives A and B by placing a higher density of personnel in one general area than Option 1. Option 2 also places more personnel within the radii of potentially disturbing sound contours from training exercises. Other impacts are similar for Options 1 and 2.

Environmental Impacts:Environmental impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative, Alternative B BRAC Option 1 (Russell Road), are discussed below.

Water Resources.The widening of Russell Road will cross Chopawamsic Creek, but would avoid all other wetlands or Waters of the U.S. The Marine Corps would obtain any required permits under the Virginia/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Joint Permit Application process. Implementation of stormwater and erosion and sedimentation best management measures would reduce impacts to water quality.

Biological Resources.The Preferred Alternative would directly impact an estimated 148 acres of primarily forested habitat. The Preferred Alternative would occupy approximately two percent of the total 6,895 forested acres in which the Russell Road and MCB-1 Areas are located and would be near roads that already act as a barrier to wildlife. Therefore impacts to forest habitat would be minimal. Impacts to migratory birds would also be minimal. Proposed site development would avoid areas containing the federally-threatened small whorled pogonia or its designated protection zone. No other threatened or endangered species are expected in the proposed development areas. Consistent with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommendations, widening of Russell Road would occur on the opposite side of most recently identified small whorled pogonia colonies. Through informal consultation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife agreed the road widening is not likely to adversely affect the small whorled pogonia and/or its associated habitat as long as the widening of Russell Road occurred as recommended.

Build out of the construction site has the potential, through the importation of aggregate and other construction materials, as well as landscaping and natural re-vegetation processes to introduce invasive or non-native species. Mitigation measures will be employed to prevent any such introduction of invasive or non-native species and all landscape plantings will be in accordance with the approved plant list described in the Base Exterior Architecture Plan.

Air Quality:MCBQ is located in an air quality control region that is in moderate nonattainment for ozone and in nonattainment for particulate matter with diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). It is also in an ozone transport region. Federal actions located in nonattainment and maintenance areas are required to demonstrate compliance with the general conformity guidelines. The Final EIS has a completed GeneralConformity Rule applicability analysis for the ozone precursor pollutants nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, for PM2.5, and for the PM2.5precursor pollutant sulfur dioxide to analyze impacts to air quality. It determined that annual project emissions are well belowde minimisvalues and are not regionally significant; therefore, a further conformity determination is not required and impacts from these pollutants are not significant. A Record of Non-Applicability was included in the Final EIS.

Noise:The proposed development areas could be impacted by noise from nearby training ranges that will increase in the future with the introduction of new aircraft and increased ordnance. Reports from noise studies indicate that in the future much of the MCB-1 Area and approximately 10 acres in the western portion of the Southern Russell Road Site are projected to be within a zone of moderate noise impact. Noise attenuation measures would be employed to meet noise standards, most of which are already designed into the construction to meet security requirements. Temporary noise associated with construction and any increase in noise levels from traffic would not be expected to cause impacts off Base.

Transportation.Traffic studies conducted in conjunction with the EIS show that most secondary intersections within the project area currently operate at acceptable levels; major access points that serve the Base typically perform at unacceptable levels during peak commuter periods.

Anticipated growth within the region and the corresponding increase in vehicular traffic are predicted to further degrade the operation of most intersections within the area. This degradation is expected to occur with or without implementation of the proposed development of the area west of I-95, unless improvements to those intersections are made. The EIS analysis projects levels of service considered unacceptable at intersections that provide access from U.S. Route 1 and I-95, as well as within the Westside at proposed development sites, unless roadway improvement measures are implemented, including those proposed as mitigation in this document. In general, impacts within the Westside are less if the development is spread between the Southern Russell Road Site and MCB-1 Area, as occurs for the Preferred Alternative.

Socioeconomics.Implementation of the Preferred Alternative could increase local residents employed at MCB Quantico by approximately 2,800 over time, and also would add associated additional family members to the region. The additional population would be expected to add students to the region's schools and could contribute to any need for additional services in the region. The projected additional residents represent a small percent of projected regional growth and impacts to the region are not expected to be significant. Implementation of the Preferred Alternative is not expected to have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or younger segments of the local population.

Land Use:Proposed alternatives are consistent with MCBQ land use plans; however, some land currently used for training and recreational hunting would become unavailable and routes to training areas currently passing through the development sites could require realignments. Traffic on MCB-1 Road passes through the explosive safety arcs for the adjacent ammunition supply point and would necessitate an adjustment of ammunition storage. A project is planned to accomplish this by 2011.

Mitigation:The Marine Corps has identified potential mitigation measures for any impacts to wetlands, surface water, invasive species, and federally-threatened species, control of fugitive emissions to air, potential noise exposure, and for traffic generated by the alternatives that could cause unacceptable levels of service at nearby intersections or exceed safety limits associated with the Ammunition Supply Point. Implementation of mitigation will be monitored by the Marine Corps construction management teams involved with each project.

Wetland Impacts Mitigation.The Virginia/USACE Joint Permit Application process would be followed and best management practices for erosion and sediment control will be implemented during and following construction. Use of wetlands bank credits may be used by MCB Quantico to mitigate the potential wetland losses.

Surface Water Measures.Stormwater management plans and best management practices would be employed to control runoff. In addition, a stormwater construction permit issued by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation is required for all land disturbing projects greater than or equal to one acre of disturbance.

Invasive Species Measures.In accordance with Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species), and as discussed in detail in the FEIS, during development of the sites, recommended measures to reduce the spread of invasive species would be implemented as practicable.

Threatened Species Measures.In accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommendation, road widening would only occur on the west side of Russell Road.

Fugitive Dust Control Measures.Fugitive dust from construction would be kept to a minimum by using control methods in accordance with the Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution (9 VAC 5-50-60et seq).

Noise Impacts Measures.For facilities sited in a zone of moderate noise impacts, Noise Level Reduction (NLR) measures will be included in the design of administrative facilities to reduce noise and impulse vibrations.

Ammunition Safety and Overpressure Zone Measures.The ammunition supply point operations building will be moved to avoid a hazard to passing vehicles. Development designs will consider the overpressure zone when a specific location for buildings has been determined and the distance can be measured to identify design requirements.

Potential Traffic Improvement Measures.The following roadway improvements will be funded and implemented by the Marine Corps to mitigate impacts caused by the Preferred Alternative: (1) Russell Road will be widened to 4 lanes from the Russell Road/Telegraph Road intersection east to approximately 300 feet past the northbound entrance ramp to I-95 (I-95 overpass support structures will not be altered); (2) a connector road will be constructed between Telegraph Road and Russell Road with traffic signals installed at each end; (3) the existing Chopawamsic Creek bridge will be rehabilitated; (4) an additional 2-lane bridge will be constructed over Chopawamsic Creek adjacent to the existing bridge; (5) the I-95 southbound exit ramp will have an additional lane added (westbound) and a traffic signal installed; (6) the I-95 northbound exit ramp will have an additional lane added (westbound) and a traffic signal installed; (7) a traffic signal will be installed on Russell Road adjacent to the northbound entrance ramp to I-95 from Russell Road; (8) Ponderosa Gate will be improved; and (9) the U.S. Route 1 ramps to and from Russell Road are under study in conjunction with gate improvements to Mainside to improve level of service.

Additional roadway improvements to the west of Ponderosa Gate will be identified when development there and resultant traffic volumes warrant. TheEIS identified off-Base improvements at the U.S. Route 1/VA 637 and VA 610/Onville road intersections that would be under the purview of the Commonwealth of Virginia; the Marine Corps will cooperate with the Commonwealth as appropriate if these improvements are implemented. The Defense Access Roads (DAR) Program is the only authority the Marine Corps has to address these recommended improvements and the Marine Corps will submit requests for consideration under this program if they meet DAR criteria. In the next update of the Base Transportation Management Plan the Marine Corps will identify strategies to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips during peak hours. This plan will also encourage carpooling and staggered work hours where these do not impair accomplishment of the defense mission. The Base will cooperate with regional mass transit initiatives. State and/or local governments have jurisdiction over off-Base roads and intersections and would determine whether improvements identified off-Base in the EIS should be implemented.

Response To Comments Received Regarding the Final EIS:Comments on the Final EIS were received from the Commonwealth of Virginia. They noted the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) concerns with the statement in the Final EIS that state and/or local governments are the action proponents for off-Base road improvements and the inference that these had been approved and funded by State or local governments. VDOT also requested commitments to carpooling, staggered work hours, regional mass transit initiatives, and a transportation demand management plan focused on reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips during peak hours. The Marine Corps has addressed these comments in the preceding section.

Conclusions:After careful consideration of the purpose and need for the proposed action, the analysis contained in the EIS and the comments received on the EIS from federal, state, and local agencies, non-governmental organizations, and individual members of the public, I have decided to proceed with the Preferred Alternative, Alternative B BRAC Option 1 (Russell Road) for development of Westside and implementation of BRAC 2005 at MCB Quantico, Virginia.

Consistent with this decision and the Proposed Action and analyses described in the Final EIS, at the sites identified in the Preferred Alternative, the Marine Corps will implement the Preferred Alternative and address all mitigation measures.

On May 15, 2002, Congress enacted the “Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002,” which is now known as the No FEAR Act. See Pub. L. 107-174, codified at 5 U.S.C. 2301 note. As stated in the full title of the Act, the Act is intended to “require that federal agencies be accountable for violations of antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws.” In support of this purpose, Congress found that:

The Act also requires the Board to provide this notice to federal employees, former federal employees and applicants for federal employment to inform them of the rights and protections available under Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws.

A federal agency cannot discriminate against an employee or applicant with respect to the terms, conditions or privileges of employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status, or political affiliation. Discrimination on these bases is prohibited by one or more of the following statutes: 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(1), 29 U.S.C. 206(d), 29 U.S.C. 631, 29 U.S.C. 633a, 29 U.S.C. 791 and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16.

If you believe that you have been the victim of unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status, or political affiliation, you must contact an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) counselor within 45 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory action, or, in the case of a personnel action, within 45 calendar days of the effective date of the action, before you can file a formal complaint of discrimination with the Board. See, e.g., 29 CFR 1614. If you believe that you have been the victim of unlawful discrimination on the basis of age, you must either contact an EEO counselor as noted above or give notice of intent to sue to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory action. If you are alleging discrimination based on marital status or political affiliation, you may file a written complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) (see contact information below). In the alternative (or in some cases, in addition), you may pursue a discrimination complaint by filing a grievance through the Agency's administrative or negotiated grievance procedures, if such procedures apply and are available.

A federal employee with authority to take, direct others to take, recommend or approve any personnel action must not use that authority to take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, a personnel action against an employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that individual that is reasonably believed to evidence violations of law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, unless disclosure of such information is specifically prohibited by law and such information is specifically required by Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs.

Retaliation against an employee or applicant for making a protected disclosure is prohibited by 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8). If you believe that you have been the victim of whistleblower retaliation, you may file a written complaint (Form OSC-11) with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) at 1730 M Street, NW., Suite 218, Washington, DC 20036-4505 or online through the OSC Web site:http://www.osc.gov.

A federal agency cannot retaliate against an employee or applicant because that individual exercises his or her rights under any of the Federal antidiscrimination or whistleblower protection laws listed above. If you believe that you are the victim of retaliation for engaging in protected activity, you must follow, as appropriate, the procedures described in Antidiscrimination Laws and Whistleblower Protection Laws or, if applicable, administrative or negotiated grievance procedures in order to pursue any legal remedy.

Under the existing laws, each agency retains the right, where appropriate, to discipline a federal employee for conduct that is inconsistent with Federal Antidiscrimination and Whistleblower Protection Laws up to and including removal. If OSC has initiated an investigation under 5 U.S.C. 1214, however, according to 5 U.S.C. 1214(f), agencies must seek approval from the Special Counsel to discipline employees for, among other activities, engaging in prohibited retaliation. Nothing in the No FEAR Act alters existing laws or permits an agency to take unfounded disciplinary action against a federal employee or to violate the procedural rights of a federal employee who has been accused of discrimination.

For further information regarding the No FEAR Act regulations, refer to 5 CFR part 724, as well as the Board's EEO Director or Counselors. Additional information regarding Federal antidiscrimination, whistleblower protection and retaliation laws can be found at the EEOC Web sitehttp://www.eeoc.govand the OSC Web sitehttp://www.osc.gov.

Pursuant to section 205 of the No FEAR Act, neither the Act nor this notice creates, expands or reduces any rights otherwise available to any employee, former employee or applicant under the laws of the United States, including the provisions of law specified in 5 U.S.C. 2302(d).

The purchasing of loans is intended to encourage eligible FFELP lenders to provide students and parents access to Stafford and PLUS loans for the 2008-2009 academic year. To accomplish this objective, the Department is offering lenders the opportunity to participate in a Loan Purchase Commitment Program (“Purchase Program”) and a Loan Participation Purchase Program (“Participation Program”) (collectively, “Programs”).

Under the Loan Purchase Commitment Program, the Department may purchase eligible loans that are held by eligible lenders. To participate in the Purchase Program, each eligible lender must enter into a Master Loan Sale Agreement with the Department and deliver to the Department or its agent the fully executed master promissory note (or all electronic records evidencing the same) evidencing each eligible loan that the eligible lender wishes to sell to the Department and any and all other documents and computerized records relating to such eligible loans.

Under the Loan Participation Purchase Program, the Department may purchase participation interests in eligible loans that are held by an eligible lender acting as a sponsor under a Master Participation Agreement. To participate in the Participation Program, each sponsor must enter into a Master Participation Agreement with theDepartment and a third-party custodian acceptable to the Department and must have provided appropriate notice to the Department of the intent to participate in the Loan Purchase Commitment Program.1

Pursuant to section 459A of the HEA, the Secretaries and Director establish the terms and conditions that will govern the Loan Purchase Commitment Program (“Loan Purchase Commitment Program Terms and Conditions,” attached as Appendix B to this notice) and the terms and conditions that will govern the Loan Participation Purchase Program (“Loan Participation Purchase Program Terms and Conditions,” attached as Appendix C to this notice). The Loan Purchase Commitment Program Terms and Conditions and the Loan Participation Purchase Program Terms and Conditions are collectively referred to as the “Terms and Conditions.” (The Notice of Intent to Participate, referenced in the Terms and Conditions, is attached as Appendix D to this notice.)

In accordance with Public Law 110-227, the goal in structuring the Purchase Program and the Participation Program described in this notice is to maximize student loan availability while ensuring loan purchases result in no net costs to the Federal Government. These programs will offer temporary liquidity to FFELP lenders at prices that will encourage their continued participation in the FFELP. This notice responds, in particular, to the requirement in section 459A of the HEA for an outline of the methodology and factors considered in evaluating the price at which loans may be purchased, and describes how the use of such methodology and consideration of such factors will ensure that no net cost to the Federal Government results from the loan purchases under these programs.

Servicing and Financing Costs. In determining the prices described in this notice, the Secretary and the Secretary of the Treasury analyzed the costs incurred in making FFELP loans by large and small lenders, for-profit and not-for-profit lenders, and national and regional lenders based on publicly available data and consultations with a number of lenders and financial market analysts. This analysis examined lender returns in the context of loan servicing and financing expenses associated with obtaining funding to pay program costs and finance actual loan disbursements.

• The rate of lender returns on FFELP loans in the in-school and grace periods are effectively set by section 438 of the HEA at the commercial paper (CP) rate plus 1.19 percent or CP plus 119 basis points for for-profit lenders (a basis point equals one one-hundredth of a percent). 20 U.S.C. 1087-1(b)(2)(I)(ii) and (b)(2)(I)(vi)(I)(bb). For eligible not-for-profit holders, the HEA provides a return of CP plus 134 basis points. 20 U.S.C. 1087-1(b)(2)(I)(ii) and (b)(2)(I)(vi)(II)(bb). (These return levels reflect the net of borrower interest payments and Federal interest subsidies.) Returns are different for PLUS loans, which make up a relatively small portion of overall FFELP volume. These PLUS return levels were reflected in the cost neutrality calculations but, for simplicity, are not detailed in this notice.

• Lenders reported that loan servicing costs generally average between 30 basis points and 60 basis points per dollar loaned, with larger, more efficient lenders typically averaging closer to 30 basis points and small or not-for-profit lenders averaging closer to 60 basis points. Lenders pay the Department a 1 percent fee on each loan they make. 20 U.S.C. 1087-1(d)(2)(B). In addition, lenders must repay excess interest payments as required by section 438 of the HEA. 20 U.S.C. 1087-1(b)(2)(v). Because the student borrowers of most loans subject to the Purchase Program and the Participation Program will be in school and not making payments on their loans during the 2008-2009 academic year, lenders may need to obtain funding to make these statutorily-required payments to the Department. Financing costs (i.e., interest expenses incurred to obtain capital from deposits or from private capital markets) typically total 15 basis points for every dollar loaned.

• Subtracting estimated servicing and financing costs from the lender return levels established in the HEA leaves lenders with estimated pre-tax returns of CP plus 44-74 basis points for for-profit lenders and CP plus 59-89 basis points for lenders that are eligible not-for-profit holders. Lenders finance loan disbursements from these returns. If lenders sell participation interests in their loans under the Participation Program, they are charged CP plus 50 basis points, leaving a net pre-tax return of −6 basis points to 24 basis points for for-profit lenders. If lenders can obtain private financing at a lower interest rate, their net pre-tax return would be higher.

Based on this background information, the Secretaries and Director determined that setting the price paid by lenders on a participation interest in a loan at the principal of that loan and the commercial paper rate plus 50 basis points would offer most lenders sufficient opportunity to continue their participation in the FFELP. Setting a higher price risks limiting participation to only the largest lenders, while offering a lower price would be overly generous, especially for those same large lenders.

Origination and Deconversion Costs. In addition to servicing and financing costs, lenders incur administrative costs to originate loans and remove or “deconvert” loans from their servicing systems. In determining the proper price to reimburse lenders for these costs, the Department and the Department of the Treasury analyzed information from lenders and servicers.

The Department and the Department of the Treasury consulted with lenders, who provided them with their estimated origination and deconversion costs. Larger, more efficient lenders indicated that their origination costs ranged between $20-$30 per loan while these costs for smaller lenders were $75 per loan. Lenders indicated that their estimated deconversion costs (i.e.the costs resulting from the process of taking a loan from one lender's servicing system and transferring it to another servicing system) ranged from $20-$50 per loan.

To ensure the Participation Program is open to more than just the largest lenders, the Secretaries and Director used these estimates to establish a flat $75 fee paid on each loan sold to the Department to cover all servicing, origination, and deconversion costs. This assumes the lower end of the origination cost range and the higher end of the deconversion costs range.

Pricing structures on many private servicing contracts tend to have costs that differ greatly for different services, with high origination costs and relatively low deconversion costs, or at times, the converse. Notwithstanding these differences, the Secretaries and Director are reasonably certain that the $75 fee accounts for these variationswhile ensuring adequate participation in the Participation Program.

The cost-neutrality analysis used credit subsidy cost estimation procedures established under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508) and OMB Circular A-11. These procedures entail performing various analyses, projecting cash flows to and from the Government, and discounting those cash flows to the point of disbursement; the analysis also used the Credit Subsidy Calculator (“OMB calculator”), developed by the Office of Management and Budget to estimate credit subsidy costs for all Federal credit programs, as the discounting tool.2 The results of the analysis were subsidy rates that reflect the Federal costs associated with a loan; these costs are expressed as a percentage of the credit extended by the loan. For example, a subsidy rate of 10.0 percent indicates a Federal cost of $10 on a $100 loan.

The metric to determine cost neutrality was that costs under the new Programs should not exceed costs expected under the FFELP had the loan purchase authority in section 459A of the HEA not been enacted. Thus all costs were compared to estimates in the 2009 President's Budget for the FFELP, after adjustments were made for enacted legislation (other than the loan purchase authority provided by Pub. L. 110-227), including administrative costs.

Student loan cost estimates were developed to assess the Federal cost incurred for loans financed for students in five categories: Students attending proprietary schools, students attending two-year schools, freshmen/sophomores at four-year schools, juniors/seniors at four-year schools, and students in graduate programs. Risk categories have separate assumptions based on historical patterns—for example, the likelihood of default or the likelihood of statutory deferments or discharge benefits—of borrowers in each category. The analysis also considered risk factors that are particular to the new programs, such as the likelihood that lenders involved in loan participation agreements file for bankruptcy protection.

This discussion outlines the analysis of the new Purchase Program and Participation Program with respect to the following critical aspects affecting the Federal cost:

○ Administrative costs;

○ Borrower behavior;

○ Lender behavior; and

○ Various risk factors.

Administrative Costs. Under the Federal Credit Reform Act, Federal administrative costs are not included in credit subsidy cost calculations. However, to capture the full cost of the Purchase Program and Participation Program, section 459A of the HEA requires the determination of cost neutrality to include total costs, including Federal administrative costs that are subject to appropriation, and thus administrative costs were estimated and included in the cost-neutrality analysis. Administrative cash flows primarily involve servicing costs associated with loans purchased by the Department. These costs extend for up to 40 years, because servicing must continue until the last loan is paid in full. Administrative costs also include start-up costs to enhance the Department's systems to accommodate the purchase of participation interests and any put FFELP loans. Other start-up costs include legal and technical advisory contracts and changes to Department accounting, reporting, and program compliance systems and processes.

For the new programs, the Secretaries and Director estimated that start-up costs would be $15.7 million and servicing costs would vary, according to the amount of volume in the program. Estimates for start-up costs were derived from conversations with the Department's existing service contract providers, while servicing cost estimates were derived from costs currently incurred with the Department's Federal Direct Loan servicing contract.

Borrower Behavior. Given the base FFELP serves as the foundation of the new programs, and the characteristics of the base program are unchanged, there is no reason to believe that the Purchase Program and Participation Program outlined in this notice will affect borrower behavior. Thus, this cost analysis uses the same borrower behavior assumptions as were used in preparing the 2009 President's Budget to gauge the effect on program costs of borrower-based activities such as loan repayment, use of statutory benefits such as deferments and loan discharges, and default rates and timing. These assumptions are based on a wide range of data sources, including the National Student Loan Data System, the Department's operational and financial systems, and a group of surveys conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics such as the 2004 National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey, the 1994 National Education Longitudinal Study, and the 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Student Survey.

Lender Behavior. A key factor in assessing whether the Purchase Program and Participation Program would operate in a cost-neutral manner was lender behavior: Specifically, how many lenders would participate in each program and how many loans would they eventually choose to sell to the Department. The Secretaries and Director considered alternative scenarios of market conditions and lender behavior to determine whether each program could be considered cost-neutral.

In one scenario, the Secretaries and Director assumed that market conditions would not improve and that FFELP lenders would put or sell participation interests to the Department in 100 percent of all FFELP loans made for the 2008-09 academic year. At the end of the participation period, FFELP lenders would also put 50 percent of those loans to the Department. The Secretaries and Director assumed that the loan volume would be $65 billion and that the total portfolio would be similar to the expected 2008-2009 school year of student loans under the FFELP before enactment of the loan purchase authority in Public Law 110-227.3 Further, the loans purchased at the end of the participation period would be representative of the total loan volume. Under this scenario, we determined that costs for both the Purchase Program and the Participation Program were less expensive to the Government than for the baseline subsidy costs for FFELP loans costs for the FFELP baseline in this period. (Please seeTable 2, located in Appendix A, for a summary of the analysis for this scenario, which also includes the risk factors discussed in this notice.)

The Secretaries and Director also considered other scenarios. In those scenarios, the Secretaries and Director sorted the expected FFELP volume under the Purchase Program and Participation Program into threecategories: Loans made by lenders and sold to the Department; loans made by lenders on which the lenders first sold participation interests to the Department and then, on September 30, 2009, sold the loans themselves to the Department; and loans made by lenders on which participation interests were sold to the Department but then redeemed by the lender, for a cash payment, eliminating the Department's participation interest. In general, the Secretaries and Director derived volume allocations under particular scenarios by making assumptions about near-term market conditions, likely lender behavior based on type of lending institution and operational capability, and projecting lender demand for any particular option under those conditions.

One of these scenarios, considered to be one of the most costly to the Government, would be that market conditions improve significantly over the next year, and that lenders sell a greater proportion of higher cost loans to the Government (in a process often termed “cherry-picking”). A Congressional Budget Office analysis, and other analyses, of the FFELP portfolio have found that certain loans are more profitable for FFELP lenders than others. In particular, borrowers with small balances provide relatively little margin income relative to the fixed costs lenders face to service those loans. Some borrowers, including those that attended schools with higher than average default rates, are more likely to become delinquent and, consequently, present higher expected default costs, and greater losses of margin income due to default.

The Terms and Conditions seek to reduce the impact of these risk factors. For example, program guidelines requiring lenders to sell all 2008-09 Stafford loans held for a specific borrower, combined with the administrative complexity and expense of identifying and deconverting only less profitable loans, make it less likely that lenders will choose to sell only poorly-performing loans to the Department.

Nevertheless, if financial markets improve to the point where lenders can finance most loans privately, they might still sell those least profitable loans to the Department. In this situation, borrowers with very low balances will present relatively high servicing costs to the Department per dollar of outstanding balance.

Under the scenario described in the preceding paragraph, the analysis estimates 4 percent of FFELP volume ($65 billion in the 2008-2009 academic year) will be loans made by lenders and sold to the Department; 32 percent of volume ($21 billion) would be loans for which participation interests, and then the loans themselves, would be sold to the Department; and 32 percent ($21 billion) would be loans for which participation interests were sold, but then redeemed.4 Cost estimates assuming these volume allocations and risk adjustments for this scenario still compared favorably with the costs for the base FFELP. (Please seeTable 3, located in Appendix A, for a summary of the analysis for this scenario and the risk factors discussed in the following sections.)

It should also be noted that, in addition to the examples discussed herein that represent certain abnormal market and lender behavior conditions, all other alternatives under which the Purchase Program and Participation Program were analyzed were less expensive than base FFELP costs.

Risk Factors. Analyzing whether the Purchase Program and Participation Program would operate in a cost-neutral manner requires that projected costs account for the presence of various risks and cost factors that must be assumed since the programs will not operate entirely like the base FFELP, nor without operational risk. In addition to cherry-picking, the Secretaries' and Director's estimates included adjustments for four other factors: that lenders involved in loan participation agreements file for bankruptcy protection (“bankruptcy remoteness”); that lenders redeem their participation agreements early, reducing Federal earnings from the participation interests acquired (“interest adjustments”); that unforeseen problems undermine the Department's ability to effectively oversee and administer the Purchase Program and Participation Program (“operational risk”); and that some of the loans purchased by the Department would be those where the Department would otherwise reject a claim under the FFELP program (“claim rejects”).

The Terms and Conditions for each program seek to reduce the impact of these risk factors. None of these factors is likely to lead to significant additional Federal costs. For example, the requirement that lenders sell participation interests that total at least $50 million will limit involvement to large financial institutions that, in general, are financially stable and not likely to proceed to bankruptcy. Additionally, upon filing for bankruptcy, the yield owed by the lender to the Department increases from principal of that loan and the commercial paper rate plus 50 basis points, to principal of that loan and the commercial paper rate plus 300 basis points.

However, to ensure estimates reflect a conservative assessment of possible Federal costs, the Secretaries and Director added cost adjustments to incorporate each risk factor in all of the scenarios noted in the preceding paragraphs. The adjustments were based on an assessment of private-sector behavior and program data as follows:

•Bankruptcy remoteness. The Government might face legal risks if a lender declares bankruptcy while holding rights to loans under the participation agreement. The Secretaries and Director believe that the structure to be utilized under the Participation Program offers sufficient bankruptcy protection, in that legal title of these participated loans will be placed in a custodial facility, and that the participation agreement vests the Government with a valid security interest under the Uniform Commercial Code. Nonetheless, a bankruptcy court might tie up control of the loans until the claims of other creditors are settled. This risk is more present if markets remain distressed during the next one to two years as the likelihood of bankruptcy is higher; however, the risk never goes to zero entirely. For the scenario in Table 2 below (where the market conditions do not improve), the analysis assumes an increase in cost of 15 basis points. For the scenario in Table 3, where market conditions do improve, the analysis assumes anincrease in cost of 5 basis points. Assumptions are based on an estimated one-year default rate of lenders and potential recoveries on default.

•Interest adjustments. If financial market conditions significantly improve between now and the end of September 2009, lenders that took advantage of the participation agreements might opt to buy their loans out early and finance them privately through more favorable rates. While this outcome is highly desirable from a policy perspective, it would deprive the Department of some of the margin income it might expect from the participation agreement under a scenario where lenders opt to maintain their loans in the participation agreements until the last possible moment. The cost neutrality analysis below assumes a 20 basis point increase in the cost for interest that the Department does not realize, based on the expected placement of FFELP loans in the participation interest program, and the difference between the commercial paper rate plus 50 basis points lenders must pay the Department and the cost of Government borrowing.

•Operational risk. Operational risk is in general a major concern in all credit activities in both the public and private sectors, and has been a major focus in recent efforts to overhaul bank regulations. (Operational risk is limited in this analysis to that related to funding and management of the participation or loan purchase agreements.) In the new Purchase Program and Participation Program, operational risk might result from imperfect controls of ineligible lending, servicing errors, technology failures, and the risk of fraud. While the Department has made every effort to mitigate operational risk, the emergency nature and accelerated implementation timeframe for these Programs make operational risk more of a concern than in established Department programs. For the low risk scenario, the analysis below assumes a 10 basis point increase in cost, reflecting risks other than credit or market risk, as banks are currently required to finance on average about eight percent of their assets with capital. For the high scenario, we raised the factor related to operational risk by 70 basis points to equal a total of 0.80 percent. We estimated this worst-case scenario using survey data from bank regulators implementing an overhaul of bank regulations. The largest United States banking organizations will be subject to a new system of capital requirements which includes an explicit charge for operational risk. Under that regulation banks must develop models generating a probability distribution of losses for operational risk, and hold capital equal to the 99.9th percentile of that estimated probability distribution. Banks were surveyed to measure the anticipated impact of the regulation. Using the best available models of operational risk, the banks reported that operational risk would account for roughly ten percent of their required capital. As banks currently finance on average about eight percent of their assets with capital, worst-case scenario operational risk losses can thus be estimated at about one percent of total assets. Also, while we do not believe that this program has, or necessarily will, face such a level of operational risk, we developed the high scenario to ensure that the program is cost neutral, even under extreme and unlikely circumstances.

•Claim rejects.This risk factor takes into account the costs associated with the purchase of loans that would not typically qualify for the federal guarantee in the FFEL program due to improper origination or servicing. The 6 basis point increase in cost is based on a historical rejected claim rate of 1 percent of volume, and assumes that these loans would have higher loss rates than the average portfolio.

Cost estimates reflecting these factors, for each of the market condition and lender behavior scenarios discussed elsewhere in this notice, were calculated and included, as illustrated inTables 2and3.As those analyses show, even with these risk adjustments, the estimated costs of the loans included in the Purchase Program and Participation Program remained lower than those for standard FFELP loans.

Conclusion.After taking into account alternative market and lender behavior scenarios and appropriate risk factors, the Secretaries and Director determine that the Purchase Program and Participation Program are in the best interest of the United States and will result in no net cost to the Federal Government (including the cost of servicing the loans purchased).

Applicable Program Regulations:34 CFR part 682.

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

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530. You may also view this document in PDF at the following site:http://www.ifap.ed.gov.

The Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Advisory Board (Board) is authorized by Title III, Part D, Section 347 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended in 1998 (20 U.S.C. 1066f). The Board is established within the Department of Education to provide advice and counsel to the Secretary and the designated bonding authority as to the most effective and efficient means of implementing construction financing on historically black college and university campuses and to advise Congress regarding the progress made in implementing the program. Specifically, the Board will provide advice as to the capital needs of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, how those needs can be met through the program, and what additional steps might be taken to improve the operation and implementation of the construction financing program.

The purpose of this meeting is to review current program activities, provide guidance for 2008 activities, to make recommendations to the Secretary on the current capital needs of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and to share additional steps in which the HBCU Capital Financing Program might improve its operation.

Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (e.g., interpreting services, assistance listening devices, or materials in alternative format) should notify Don Watson at (202) 219-7037, no later than July 1, 2008. We will attempt to meet requests for accommodations after this date but cannot guarantee their availability. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities.

An opportunity for public comment is available on Friday, July 11, 2008 between 10:30 a.m.-11 a.m. Those members of the public interested in submitting written comments may do so by submitting them to the attention of Don E. Watson, 1990 K Street, NW., Washington, DC, by Monday, July 7, 2008.

Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for public inspection at the Office of The Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Advisory Board (Board), 1990 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, from the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday (EST).

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

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

This information collection request contains:

(1)OMB No.:New.

(2)Information Collection Request Title:Refinery Disruption and Incident Report.

(3)Type of Review:New.

(4)Purpose:

(4)(I). Background;

(4)(II). Current Actions;

(4)(III). Request for Comments.

Section 202(b) of the Department of Energy Organization Act ((DOE Act), Pub. L. 95-91, 42 U.S.C. 7132(b)) and Secretary of Energy Delegation Orders 00-002.00 and 00-001.10 provides the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy reliability the authority to:

(1) Implement section 13 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-275) (15 U.S.C. 772), to collect, assemble, evaluate and analyze energy information;

(2) Implement section 11 of the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974 (ESECA) (Pub. L. 93-319, 15 U.S.C. 796), to request, acquire and collect such energy information as the Secretary of Energy determines to be necessary to assist in the formulation of energy policy or to carry out the purposes of ESECA, and to exercise all energy information reporting authorities provided in section 11;

(3) Carry out the responsibilities assigned to the Secretary of Energy in Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-5 (Management of Domestic Incidents) and the National Response Framework adopted pursuant to HSPD-5 with respect to energy supply and distribution and related activities;

(4) Carry out the responsibilities assigned to the Secretary of Energy in HSPD-7 (Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection) with respect to energy supply and distribution and related activities;

(5) Carry out the responsibilities assigned to the Secretary of Energy in HSPD-8 (National Preparedness) with respect to energy supply and distribution and related activities; and

(6) Formulate and establish enforcement policy, initiate and conduct investigations, conduct conferences, administrative hearings and public hearings, prepare required reports, issue orders, and take such other action as may be necessary or appropriate to perform any of the above functions.

The DOE, as part of its effort to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), provides the general public and other Federal agencies with opportunities to comment on collections of energy information. Any comments received help the DOE to prepare data requests that maximize the utility of the information collected, and to assess the impact of collection requirements on the public. Also, the DOE will later seek approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(a) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

The purpose of the “Refinery Disruption and Incident Report” would be to provide the Department of Energy with the information necessary to alert it to the existence and severity of a problem with a refinery and its ability to supply the market with petroleum products; the report would also provide contact information should it be necessary for the Department to discuss and address the situation. The report would be filed during an emergency, when certain conditions were met, indicating that a serious problem were occurring at a refinery.

OE proposes to collect information on refinery disruptions and incidents when there is (1) an emergency shutdown of a refinery; or (2) an emergency shutdown of a major unit, processes, or system at a refinery with potential for significant production disruption; or (3) a physical or cyber attack that causes major interruptions to critical refinery facilities, systems or operations. OE proposes to collect “Emergency Alert” information within one hour that indicates when the disruption or incident began, and if it is over, when it ended. In addition, OE proposes to collect information within one hour on the type of disruption or incident and whether the there is any anticipated loss of production of transportation fuels or heating oil as a result of the problem. If there is no production impact, then the one hour Emergency Alert filing is all that is required of a refinery.

OE proposes to collect more information on the disruption or incident within six hours of the occurrence, if there is a projected production impact. OE proposes to collect detailed data on the actions taken as a result of the problem, including the units or processed affected by the disruption or incident and the estimated loss of production in barrels per day of gasoline, gasoline blending stocks, jet fuel, and distillate fuel, including heating oil. OE also proposes to collect detailed information (in a narrative format) regarding: Why the refinery reduced runs or shut down, supply impacts, feedstock deficiencies, storage issues, and distribution problems.

The frame for the report would include operators of all petroleum refineries with a crude distillation capacity of at least 50,000 barrels per day that are located in the 50 States, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and other U.S. possessions. Filing of the report would be mandatory pursuant to Section 13 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-275) (15 U.S.C. 772), Section 202(b) of the Department of Energy Organization Act ((DOE Act), Pub. L. 95-91, 42 U.S.C. 7132(b)) and Secretary of Energy Delegation Orders 00-002.00 and 00-001.10, when a disruption or incident meets certain criteria or conditions indicating the situation is significant. This is an emergency report, without any set schedule, that will only be filed when criteria for filing are met. When the criteria are met, it is critical that the report is filed in a timely manner, so the Department of Energy, if necessary, can make policy decisions and take actions to quickly address a petroleum product supply emergency.

The information collected on the report would be used by the Department to perform due diligence on policy recommendations concerning emergency actions. The Department needs accurate information and assessments of impacts and the expected duration of emergency disruptions and incidents at refineries to provide the most effective regulatory relief and restoration assistance.

Information collected on refinery disruptions and incidents will be shared with DOE policy-makers and may be shared with relevant federal and state officials who have emergency authorities to waive certain regulations in order to expedite recovery or mitigate the adverse effects of the disruption. Information that is not protected on Schedule 1 may also be published in OE's Emergency Situation Reports, which provide public information on the status of the energy infrastructure in the United States. All information collected related to actions taken, units or processes affected by the disruption or incident, the estimated losses of production, and any additional information provided in the narrative will be considered protected data. The protected data will be kept confidential and not disclosed to the public to the extent that it satisfies the criteria for exemption under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, the DOE regulations, 10 CFR 1004.11, implementing the FOIA, and the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1905. TheDepartment of Energy (DOE) will protect the information in accordance with its confidentiality and security policies and procedures.

Information on refinery disruptions and incidents and the possible effects on petroleum product supplies are essential to the mission of the DOE in general and to Energy Information Administration and OE, in particular. Data on refinery outages are limited from commercial sources.

Consideration of a proposal for OE to collect information on refinery disruptions and incidents was necessitated by requesters citing the important roles that petroleum product supplies and prices have in the U.S. economy and the potential significant effects of refinery disruptions and incidents. The survey will not collect information on planned, scheduled outages. Public and private analysts must rely on commercially available sources of information for such information, to the extent that it is available.

OE is considering collecting refinery disruption and incident information only during an emergency which meets certain defined conditions. The conditions are:

A. Emergency shutdown of refinery; or

B. Emergency shutdown of a major unit, process, or system at the refinery with potential for significant production disruption; or

C. Physical or cyber attack that causes major interruptions or impacts to critical refinery facilities, systems, or operations.

The information to be reported would include: The date and time of the disruption or incident, its duration, the type of incident, actions taken by the refinery, units or processes affected, and the estimated production impact. The report also asks the respondent to provide a narrative description of the disruption or incident and details on supply impacts, feedstock deficiencies, storage issues or distribution problems, including pipeline, waterborne transport, railroad, or truck loading issues to or from the refinery.

At this time, OE is soliciting public comments on this proposal. OE then plans to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the new emergency report to collect data on refinery disruptions and incidents.

A. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency and does the information have practical utility? Practical utility is defined as the actual usefulness of information, taking into account its accuracy, adequacy, reliability, timeliness, and the agency's ability to process the information it collects.

B. What enhancements can be made to the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected and disseminated?

C. How soon after a disruption or incident would one expect refiners to be able to provide a meaningful estimate of a potential loss in production of transportation fuels and heating oil?

D. Given the availability of public and subscription information regarding refinery disruptions and incidents, please provide detailed reasons why actions taken by a refinery, unit- and process-level information, and estimates of production impacts collected from a refinery should not be considered as public information and releasable to the public in identifiable form. Put another way, why should OE treat such information as protected from public release and consider the information as trade secrets?

E. What, if any, issues or potential questions should OE address in this proposed emergency report and instructions for collecting information on significant disruptions and incidents affecting refinery operations?

F. The “Refinery Disruption and Incident Report” is expected to take one hour to fill out per response. The estimated burden includes the total time necessary to provide the requested information. In your opinion, how accurate is this estimate? Will a respondent incur any start-up costs for reporting, or any recurring annual costs for operation, maintenance, and purchase of services associated with the information collection?

G. What additional actions could be taken to minimize the burden of this collection of information? Such actions may involve the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

H. Does any other Federal, State, or local agency or any private organization collect similar information? If so, specify the agency/organization, the data element(s), the methods of collection, and what additional value would be derived from OE undertaking a collection of that information.

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

(5)Respondents:100 Respondents—100 refinery operators (number not expected to change over the next three years);

(6)Estimated Number of Burden Hours:OE estimates the annual reporting burden to be 485 hours. OE estimates the respondent burden on the Emergency Report for Schedule 1 to be about six minutes. OE estimates the respondent burden on the Status Report (Schedule 1 Schedule 2) to be about 1 hour per response. OE estimates the respondent burden on the Final Report (Schedule 1 Schedule 2) to be about 1 hour per response. OE estimates 150 Emergency Report filings with no production impact and 200 Emergency Report filing with a production impact. The 200 Emergency Report filings with production impact will require Status Reports and Final Reports to be filed. OE assumes about 50 respondents will file two Status Reports.

This section contains the following information about the energy information collection submitted to OMB for review: (1) The collection numbers and title; (2) the sponsor (i.e., the Department of Energy component); (3) the current OMB docket number (if applicable); (4) the type of request (i.e., new, revision, extension, or reinstatement); (5) response obligation (i.e., mandatory, voluntary, or required to obtain or retain benefits); (6) a description of the need for and proposed use of the information; (7) a categorical description of the likely respondents; and (8) an estimate of the total annual reporting burden (i.e., the estimated number of likely respondents times the proposed frequency of response per year times the average hours per response).

1. EIA-882T, “Generic Clearance for Questionnaire Testing and Research”.

2. Energy Information Administration.

3. OMB Number 1905-0186.

4. Three-year approval requested.

5. Voluntary.

6. The EIA-882T is used to conduct pretest/pilot surveys (face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews, mail questionnaires, electronic questionnaires), focus groups, and cognitive interviews. Data are used to modify questionnaires to improve the quality of data. Samples of potential respondents to proposed surveys are selected to participate.

7. Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for profit institutions; Farms; Federal Government; and State, Local or Tribal Government.

8. 1000 hours ( 4,000 respondents × 1 response per year × .25 hours per response).

Pursuant to FACA, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the EPA SAB Drinking Water Committee will hold a public teleconference to discuss and finalize its report concerning EPA's draft Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 3 (CCL 3). The SAB was established by 42 U.S.C. 4365 to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., App. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.

Background:The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments (SDWA) require EPA to (1) publish every five years a list of currently unregulated contaminants in drinking water that may pose risks (the Contaminant Candidate List or “CCL”), and (2) make determinations on whether or not to regulate at least five contaminants from that list on a staggered five year cycle. SDWA requires EPA to publish a new list of contaminants that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems every five years. The draft CCL 3 was published on February 21, 2008 (73 FR 9628) and includes 93 chemicals or chemical groups and 11 microbiological contaminants.

The EPA sought comment from the SAB DWC on the draft CCL 3, the approach used to develop the list, and the specific contaminants. The DWC held a public, face-to-face meeting to review the draft CCL 3 on April 23-24, 2008 (announced in 73 FR 12999). At that meeting, the DWC discussed the charge questions, sought clarification from EPA staff, and began to draft comments and recommendations. Materials and public comments from the April meeting are posted on the SAB Web site athttp://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/MeetingCal/C990CC0808123428852573C4007A5B6F?OpenDocument.The purpose of the teleconference on August 13 is for the DWC to discuss and finalize the draft advisory report.

Availability of Meeting Materials:The meeting agenda and draft advisory report will be posted on the SAB Web site athttp://www.epa.gov/sabunder the calendar entry for that date in advance of the meeting. The draft CCL 3 can be found athttp://www.epa.gov/safewater/ccl/index.html.

Procedures for Providing Public Input:Interested members of the public may submit relevant written or oral information for the Drinking Water Committee to consider throughout the advisory process.Oral Statements:In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a public SAB teleconference will be limited to three minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of one-half hour for all speakers. To be placed on the public speaker list, interested parties should contact Dr. Resha M. Putzrath, DFO, in writing (via e-mail), by August 4, 2008, at the contact information noted above.Written Statements:Written statements should be received in the SAB Staff Office by August 4, 2008, so that the information may be made available to the SAB DWC for their consideration prior to the teleconference. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO via e-mail toputzrath.resha@epa.gov(acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat PDF, WordPerfect, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format).

Accessibility:For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Resha M. Putzrath at (202) 343-9978 orputzrath.resha@epa.gov.To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Dr. Putzrath, preferably at least ten days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting thatOMB provide paperwork clearance for the information collection noted herein.

The FTC invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collections of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

All comments should be filed as prescribed in theADDRESSESsection above, and must be received on or before September 2, 2008.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) provides identity theft victims with certain rights, such as the ability to place fraud alerts on their credit files, designed to assist them in avoiding or mitigating the harms they suffer as a result of the crime.

The Commission intends to use consumer survey research to advance its understanding of the experiences of identity theft victims who interact with consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) and who seek to avail themselves of their FCRA remedies. The consumer research will include focus group interviews of 30 consumers, to be followed by a pretesting phase consisting of phone interviews of another 30 consumers, and then mail surveys sent to individual consumers. The Commission seeks information from consumers who have been victims of identity theft and who have contacted one or more of the three nationwide CRAs for assistance. The information from consumers will be collected on a voluntary basis and will be maintained anonymously. The FTC staff will identify consumers to be contacted for each phase of the research from a random selection of consumers who have communicated with the FTC’s Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse database between January 1, 2008 and May 30, 2008. Staff is seeking approximately 1,000 returned surveys because that input would enable it to project the results from the sample to the population from which the sample was drawn with a maximum error rate of 3%. Assuming a response rate of about 25% - 30%, this would require staff to mail the survey to approximately 3,000 - 4,000 individuals.

Questions to identity theft victims in the research will address several topics, including but not limited to: victim experiences when they contacted one or more CRAs and whether they received the required notice of rights from CRAs; their access to free credit reports; and their ability to place fraud alerts on their files, dispute inaccurate information, and block information due to identity theft. The results of the focus groups and mail surveys will assist the FTC in assessing the experiences of identity theft victims when they interact with CRAs. This assessment will help to inform and guide the FTC’s future efforts to enforce provisions of the FCRA and to educate consumers and the consumer reporting industry of their rights and obligations under the FCRA.

The FTC staff intends to include a total of 30 consumers divided between three separate focus groups, consisting of 10 per group, and estimates that each consumer will take approximately one hour to participate in the focus groups. Thus, the estimated annual burden imposed by the focus groups will be approximately 30 hours. The staff estimates that respondents to the mail survey will require, on average, approximately 8 minutes to answer the survey (based on anticipated variations among consumers when they interacted with CRAs). The staff will pretest the survey through phone interviews of approximately 30 respondents to ensure that all questions are easily understood. The pretest will take approximately 4 hours as a whole (30 respondents x 8 minutes each). For the full survey, the staff intends to mail 3,000-4,000 surveys and anticipates receiving a response rate as high as 30% of the consumer recipients (i.e., 900 - 1,200 responses). Assuming 1,200 consumers respond to the survey, the staff further estimates the final survey will require approximately 160 hours to complete (1,200 respondents x 8 minutes each). Thus, cumulative burden hours for the clearance would total 194 hours.

The cost per respondent should be negligible. Participation is voluntary and will not require start-up, capital, or labor expenditures by respondents.

Under the HHS regulations for the protection of human subjects, found at 45 CFR part 46, institutions or organizations that are engaged in human subjects research that is conducted or supported by HHS must file with OHRP an assurance of compliance with the human subjects protection regulations. The assurance must be executed by an individual authorized to act on behalf of the institution and authorized to assume, on behalf of the institution, the obligations imposed by the human subjects protection regulations [45 CFR 46.103(c)]. Thus, to fulfill his or her regulatory responsibilities, the institutional official must be knowledgeable about the requirements of the human subjects protection regulations.

The institution's assurance of compliance must also designate one or more IRBs to review research covered by the regulations, and the institution must ensure that each designated IRB has sufficient staff to support the IRB's activities [45 CFR 46.103(b)(2)]. IRB members must be sufficiently qualified through experience and expertise and diversity to promote respect for their advice and counsel in safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects. IRB members also must have the professional competence necessary to review human subjects research activities of the institution, including the ability to ascertain the acceptability of the proposed research in terms of institutional commitments and regulations, applicable law, and standards of professional conduct and practice; therefore, members must be knowledgeable in those areas [45 CFR46.107]. Thus, to fulfill their regulatory responsibilities, IRB members must be informed about human subjects protection requirements.

Investigators involved in the conduct of human subjects research that is conducted or supported by HHS play a crucial role in protecting the rights and welfare of human subjects. Investigators have specific responsibilities under the human subjects protection requirements related to the conduct of IRB-approved research. For example, no investigator may involve a human being in research that is conducted or supported by HHS or covered by the institution's assurance unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative in accordance with, and to the extent required by, HHS regulations at 45 CFR 46.116. Moreover, investigators are responsible for providing required information to the IRB [45 CFR 46.103(b)(5), 46.111]. Investigators are responsible for obtaining prior approval from the IRB for any modifications of the previously approved research, except those necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to subjects, and investigators are responsible for ensuring that progress reports and requests for continuing review and approval are submitted to the IRB in accordance with the policies, procedures, and actions of the IRB as referenced in the institution's OHRP-approved FWA [45 CFR 46.103(b)(4), 45 CFR 46.109(e), 45 CFR 46.115(a)(1)]. Thus, investigators need to be informed about human subjects protection requirements. The HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG), in its 1998 Report, “Institutional Review Boards: A Time for Reform,” called for strong Federal action concerning education of investigators conducting, and IRB members reviewing, human subjects research (http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-01-97-00193.pdf). In that report, the OIG recommended enactment of Federal requirements that help ensure that investigators and IRB members are adequately educated about, and sensitized to, human subjects protections.

In October 2000, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) instituted a policy that requires education on the protection of human research participants for all key personnel as a condition of funding grant applications or contract proposals involving human subjects research (http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-010061.html). Key personnel include all individuals who are responsible for the design and conduct of research studies involving human subjects.

In its 2001 report, “Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants,” the National Bioethics Advisory Committee (NBAC) recommended that all institutions and sponsors engaged in research involving human participants should provide educational programs in research ethics to appropriate institutional officials, investigators, IRB members, and IRB staff (http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/nbac/human/overvol1.pdf). NBAC also recommended that the Federal Government, in partnership with academic and professional societies, should enhance research ethics education related to protecting human research subjects, as well as stimulate development of innovative educational programs.

In its 2002 report commissioned by HHS, “Responsible Research: A Systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants,” the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended that research organizations should ensure that investigators, IRB members, and other individuals substantively involved in research with humans are adequately educated to perform their respective duties (http://www.nap.edu/books/0309084881/html/).

On March 29, 2007, SACHRP recommended that OHRP require that institutions ensure that initial and continuing training is provided for IRB members and staff, investigators, and certain institutional officials, including the official that signed the institution's FWA.

Over the past several years, OHRP has identified serious, systemic noncompliance with the requirements of HHS regulations for the protection of human subjects at a significant number of major institutions engaged in human subjects research conducted or supported by HHS. In OHRP's experience, inadequate training and education of individuals involved in the conduct or review of human subjects research has been a major root cause of such noncompliance.

OHRP developed the FWA as a new type of assurance in December 2000. Initially, OHRP proposed that the FWA include requirements for training and education regarding human subjects protection regulations for institutional officials, IRB members, IRB staff, investigators and other institutional personnel. Following public comment on the proposed FWA, OHRP issued a revised version of the FWA on March 20, 2002 that strongly recommended, rather than required, such training and education. This decision was based, in part, on a determination that rulemaking would be a more appropriate mechanism for requiring such training and education.

In the current FWA terms of assurance, OHRP strongly recommends that the institutional official, human protections administrator, and IRB chairperson(s) designated under the assurance complete the OHRP Assurance Training Modules available on the OHRP Web site athttp://137.187.172.153/CBTs/Assurance/login.asp.Furthermore, OHRP recommends that the institution and the designated IRB(s) establish educational training and oversight mechanisms appropriate to the nature of the institution's research portfolio to ensure that research investigators, IRB members, IRB staff, and other appropriate personnel maintain continuing knowledge of, and comply with, relevant ethical principles, relevant Federal regulations, OHRP guidance, other applicable guidance, state and local laws, and institutional policies for the protection of human subjects. OHRP also recommends that IRB members and staff complete relevant educational training before reviewing human subjects research; and that research investigators complete appropriate institutional educational training before conducting human subjects research.

Based on the recommendations of the OIG, NBAC, IOM, and SACHRP, as well as OHRP's own experience in compliance activities, which has revealed that many individuals involved in the conduct or review of HHS-supported or conducted research at numerous institutions had a significant gap in knowledge about human subject protections, OHRP is seeking comment from affected entities and individuals about (a) whether OHRP should issue additional guidance recommending that institutions engaged in human subjects research conducted or supported by HHS implement training and education programs for certain individuals involved in the conduct, review, or oversight of human subjects research, or (b) whether HHS should develop a regulation requiring the implementation of such training and education programs. The implementation of such training and education programs might help to ensure that individuals involved in the conduct or review of human subjects research at institutions holding OHRP-approved FWAs understand and meet their regulatory responsibilities for protecting human subjects.

OHRP specifically seeks comment on the following questions. Comments should also include a reference to the specific numbered question being addressed:

(1) For the past 5 years OHRP has strongly recommended through the Terms of the FWA that:

• Institutional signatory officials, human protections administrators, and the IRB chairpersons personally complete the relevant OHRP Assurance Training Modules (seehttp://137.187.172.153/CBTs/Assurance/login.asp), or comparable training that includes the content of these modules;

• Institutions and their designated IRBs establish educational training and oversight mechanisms (appropriate to the nature and volume of its research) to ensure that research investigators, IRB members and staff, and other appropriate personnel maintain continuing knowledge of, and comply with, the following: Relevant ethical principles; relevant federal regulations; written IRB procedures; OHRP guidance; other applicable guidance, state and local laws; and institutional policies for the protection of human subjects;

• IRB members and staff complete relevant educational training before reviewing human subjects research; and

• Research investigators complete appropriate institutional educational training before conducting human subjects research.

(1a) Have institutions holding OHRP-approved FWAs routinely implemented OHRP's recommendations?

(1b) What, if any, are the reasons for institutions not implementing OHRP's recommendations?

(1c) Has any failure of institutions to implement OHRP's recommendations been a significant contributing factor to noncompliance with the requirements of 45 CFR part 46 and inadequate protection of the rights and welfare of human subjects? If so, please provide examples.

(1d) If failure of institutions to implement OHRP's recommendations has been a significant contributing factor to noncompliance with the requirements of 45 CFR part 46 and inadequate protection of the rights and welfare of human subjects, would promulgation of a regulation requiring institutions to implement training and education programs for certain individuals involved in the conduct, review or oversight of human subjects research be the best mechanism to address this problem, or should different mechanisms be used (for example, would it be better if OHRP instead issued additional guidance regarding training and education programs)?

(1e) Even if there are no data suggesting that failure of institutions to implement OHRP's recommendations regarding education and training has been a contributing factor in non-compliance with the requirements of 45 CFR part 46, are there other sound reasons for developing further guidance or a regulation regarding education and training, and if so, what are they?

(2) If HHS decided to propose further guidance recommending, or a regulation requiring, that institutions implement training and education programs for certain individuals involved in the conduct, review, or oversight of human subjects research, which of the following categories of individuals should receive training and education and why: IRB chairpersons; other IRB members; IRB staff; principal investigators; others involved in the conduct of human subjects research (e.g., co-investigators, study coordinators); FWA signatory officials; human protection administrators; or any other category of individuals (please specify)?

(3a) Should further guidance or a regulation include provisions stipulating specific content for the training and education programs? If so, what should the specific content include and why (for example, should a regulation require inclusion of any or all of the following in the content of the training and education programs: The commitments and responsibilities of the institution under the FWA; relevant ethical principles cited in the institution's FWA; relevant Federal regulations for human subjects protection; OHRP guidance; other applicable guidance; relevant state and local laws; institutional policies for the protection of human subjects; or other content (please specify))?

(3b) Should the training and education recommendations or requirements differ depending upon the nature of the individual's involvement in research? If so, in what manner?

(3c) Notwithstanding whether training should be tailored according to an individual's role in the clinical research process, is there a minimum level of knowledge and skill that should be expected of anyone working in some aspect of the research enterprise?

(3d) How often should the content of the materials used for this training be updated?

(4) Should further guidance or a regulation include provisions stipulating that proficiency in human subjects protection requirements be demonstrated in some way (please specify)?

(5) Should further guidance or a regulation include recommendations or requirements for individuals to complete some minimum amount of training and education prior to any involvement in the conduct, review, or oversight of human subjects research?

(6) Should further guidance or a regulation include recommendations or requirements for periodic continuing training and education? If so, should the guidance or regulation stipulate a specific time interval for such periodic training and education (for example, should the regulation require individuals to complete continuing training and education activities every 1, 2, or 3 years)?

(7) Should further guidance or a regulation include recommendations or requirements for institutions to prepare and maintain written procedures for ensuring implementation of the training and education requirements?

(8) Should further guidance or a regulation include recommendations or requirements for institutions to prepare and maintain written documentation that individuals covered by the regulation have completed the required training and education activities?

(9) If HHS decided to propose a regulation, what would the estimated costs of the regulation be to institutions in terms of infrastructure and man-hour costs? OHRP is interested in receiving specific information on such estimated costs from all types and sizes of institutions that hold OHRP-approved FWAs. OHRP recognizes that the HHS human subjects protection regulations extend to a wide-range of institutions, from very small organizations and businesses that employ no more than a total of 5-10 individuals, to major academic research and health centers that may have literally thousands of individuals affected by any new training and education regulation. When providing comments regarding cost estimates, please include a description of assumptions that were made for calculating cost estimated (for example, assumptions made regarding the number and types of individuals who would be required to undergo training and education, the modalities that would be used for delivering the training and education, the time it would take for covered individuals to complete initial and continuing training and education, and how often continuing training and education would need to occur).

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, AoA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance. With respect to the following collection of information, AoA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AoA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of AoA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

The Certification on Maintenance of Effort for the Title III and Certification of Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program Expenditures provides statutorily required information regarding state's contribution to programs funded under the Older Americans Act and conformance with legislative requirements, pertinent Federal regulations and other applicable instructions and guidelines issued by Administration on Aging (AoA). This information will be used for Federal oversight of Title III Programs and Title VII Ombudsman Program.

AoA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: 56 State Agencies on Aging respond annually which should be an average burden of one half (1/2) hour per State agency per year or a total of twenty-eight hours for all state agencies annually. In theFederal Registerof March 19, 2008 (Vol. 73, No. 54 Page 14821), the agency requested comments on the proposed collection of information. No comments on the content of the collection were received.

In theFederal Registerof April 17, 2008 (73 FR 20785), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0623. The approval expires on June 30, 2011. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet athttp://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), 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 Federalagencies to provide a 60-day notice in theFederal Registerconcerning each proposed collection of information before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

The proposed information collection will help FDA protect the public from foodborne illness by increasing the agency's understanding of how farmers and growers use Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) to address common risk factors in their operations and thereby minimize food safety hazards potentially associated with fresh produce. Fresh fruits and vegetables are those that are likely to be sold to consumers in an unprocessed or minimally processed (i.e., raw) form and that are reasonably likely to be consumed raw. Under section 903(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 393 (b)(2)), FDA is authorized to conduct research relating to foods and to conduct educational and public information programs relating to the safety of the Nation's food supply. Under Title 42 of the Public Health Service Act (1944), FDA has authority to act to protect the public health.

In 1998, FDA issued a guidance document entitled “Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables,” available athttp://www.cfsan.fda.gov/˜dms/prodguid.html. The guidance addresses microbial food safety hazards and good agricultural and good management practices common to the growing, harvesting, washing, sorting, packing, and transporting of most fruits and vegetables sold to consumers in an unprocessed or minimally processed (raw) form.

There is evidence that growers have not fully implemented the GAPs to reduce production risks, despite intensive GAPS training programs. FDA is planning to conduct a study to determine growers' decision-making processes with regard to understanding and implementing GAPs on the farm, to more fully understand the barriers and constraints associated with GAPs implementation.

The project will use “mental modeling,” a qualitative research method wherein the decision-making processes of a group of respondents (described below) concerning the implementation of GAPs on the farm are modeled and compared to a model based on expert knowledge and experience in the implementation of GAPs. The information will be collected via a telephone interview concerning the factors that influence the perceptions and motivations related to the implementation of GAPs. A comparison between expert and consumer models based on the collected information may identify “consequential knowledge gaps” that can be redressed through information campaigns designed by FDA.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

The study will involve approximately 60 respondents, including 24 farmers or growers of fruits and vegetables, 24 GAPs trainers, and 12 retail buyer or grower association representatives. FDA will also conduct a pretest using 9 respondents. FDA estimates that each respondent will take 45 minutes (0.75 hours) to complete the interview for the study (60 respondents x 0.75 hours = 45 hours). Thus, the total annual burden for this one-time collection of information is 51.75 hours (6.75 hours + 45 hours = 51.75 hours). These estimates are based on FDA's experience with consumer research.

Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only through FDMS athttp://www.regulations.gov.

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

FDA has received four reports of medical gas mix-ups occurring during the past 9 years. These reports were received from hospitals and nursing homes and involved 7 deaths and 15 injuries to patients who were thought to be receiving medical grade oxygen, but who were actually receiving a different gas (e.g., nitrogen, argon) that had been mistakenly connected to the facility's oxygen supply system. In 2001, FDA published guidance making recommendations to help hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care facilities avoid the tragedies that result from medical gas mix-ups and alerting these facilities to the hazards. This survey is intended to assess the degree of facilities' compliance with safety measures to prevent mix-ups, to determine if further steps are warranted to ensure the safety of patients.

In theFederal Registerof March 7, 2008 (73 FR 12452), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the information collection provisions. No comments were received.

The National Ombudsman of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has asked each Federal agency to adopt a policy that the agency will not retaliate against small businesses that question or complain about the way the agency does business. On June 24, 2008, the Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approved the following statement of USCIS policy:

If a small business questions or complains about a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policy or action or seeks help from others to deal with a USCIS policy or action, USCIS will not retaliate against that small business in any way. If a small business thinks that USCIS has not followed this policy, the agency will investigate, take appropriate action, and ensure that mistakes are not repeated. Small businesses may comment, ask questions, or file a complaint about USCIS policies or actions by contacting the USCIS Customer Assistance Office, local USCIS offices, or the Small Business Administration's Office of the National Ombudsman at 1-888-REG-FAIR (734-3247), fax 202-481-5719; e-mailombudsman@sba.gov.

Small businesses generally are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields. If you need help determining whether or not your business qualifies as a “small business,” contact the SBA's Office of the National Ombudsman using the information as noted above.

The following applicants have requested issuance of enhancement of survival permits to conduct certain activitieswith endangered species pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531et seq.).

Applicant—Eric Zach, Nebraska Department of Roads, Lincoln, Nebraska, TE-186282. The applicant requests a permit to take American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) in conjunction with recovery activities throughout the species' range for the purpose of enhancing its survival and recovery.

Applicant—William Busby, University of Kansas, Kansas Biological Survey, Lawrence, Kansas, TE-186231. The applicant requests a permit to take American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) in conjunction with recovery activities throughout the species' range for the purpose of enhancing its survival and recovery.

Applicant—Chadwin Smith, Headwaters Corporation, Kearney, Nebraska, TE-183430. The applicant requests a permit to take interior least tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos) and piping plover (Charadrius melodus) in conjunction with recovery activities throughout the species' range for the purpose of enhancing their survival and recovery.

Applicant—Randy Wisthoff, Kansas City Zoo, Kansas City, Missouri, TE-183432. The applicant requests a permit to take Wyoming toad (Bufo baxteri) in conjunction with recovery activities throughout the species' range for the purpose of enhancing its survival and recovery.

Applicant—Paul Wolf, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, TE-057399. The applicant requests a renewed permit to takePrimula maguirei(Maguire primrose) in conjunction with recovery activities throughout the species' range for the purpose of enhancing its survival and recovery.

Applicant—Mike Phillips, Turner Endangered Species Fund, Cimarron, New Mexico, TE-051139. The applicant requests a permit amendment to add reintroduction of black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes) to their permit in conjunction with recovery activities throughout the species' range for the purpose of enhancing its survival and recovery.

Applicant—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bozeman Fish Technology Center, Bozeman, Montana, TE-038970. The applicant requests a permit amendment to add take of bonytail (Gila elegans) and woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus) to their permit in conjunction with recovery activities throughout the species' range for the purpose of enhancing their survival and recovery.

Applicant—John Sowell, Western State College of Colorado, Gunnison, Colorado, TE-186566. The applicant requests a permit to take Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly (Boloria acrocnema) in conjunction with recovery activities throughout the species' range for the purpose of enhancing its survival and recovery.

In accordance with NAWCA (Pub. L. 101-233, 103 Stat. 1968, December 13, 1989, as amended), the State-private-Federal Council meets to consider wetland acquisition, restoration, enhancement, and management projects for recommendation to, and final funding approval by, the Commission. Proposal due dates, application instructions, and eligibility requirements are available on the NAWCA Web site athttp://birdhabitat.fws.gov. Proposals require a minimum of 50 percent non-Federal matching funds. The Council will consider U.S. Standard grant proposals at the July meeting. The tentative date for the Commission meeting is September 10, 2008.

Title:30 CFR 250, Subpart M, Unitization.

OMB Control Number:1010-0068.

Abstract:The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331et seq.and 43 U.S.C. 1801et seq.), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to prescribe rules and regulations to administer leasing of the OCS. Such rules and regulations will apply to all operations conducted under a lease. Operations on the OCS must preserve, protect, and develop oil and natural gas resources in a manner that is consistent with the need to make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; to balance orderly energy resource development with protection of human, marine, and coastal environments; toensure the public a fair and equitable return on the resources of the OCS; and to preserve and maintain free enterprise competition. Section 1334(a) specifies that the Secretary “provide for the prevention of waste and conservation of the natural resources of the [O]uter Continental Shelf, and the protection of correlative rights therein” and include provisions for “unitization, pooling, and drilling agreements.”

Regulations implementing these responsibilities are under 30 CFR Part 250, Subpart M, Unitization. Responses are mandatory and generally on occasion or they are required to obtain or retain a benefit. No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked. The MMS protects information considered proprietary according to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR 2), and 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection,” and 30 CFR Part 252, “OCS Oil and Gas Information Program.”

The MMS Regional Supervisor must approve any lessee's proposal to enter an agreement to unitize operations under two or more leases. We must also approve modification of a unit agreement when changes in circumstances warrant. We encourage unitization of operations on OCS leases where unitized operations will further exploration of prospective geological structures; increase the ultimate recovery of oil and gas or sulphur reserves; lead to more efficient operation of leases and reservoirs; and/or is necessary to protect correlative rights. Unitization can be particularly beneficial in high-cost, high-risk OCS areas. Lessees submit consolidated Exploration Plans and Development and Production Plans for a unit area. We use the information to ensure that operations under the proposed unit agreement will result in preventing waste, conserving natural resources, and protecting correlative rights including the government's interests. We need to review all pertinent data before determining competitiveness of a reservoir or deciding that compelling unitization will achieve the desired results.

Frequency:On occasion.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents:Approximately 130 respondents (Federal oil and gas OCS lessees).

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden:The estimated annual “hour” burden for this information collection is a total of 4,913 hours. The following chart details the individual components and estimated hour burdens. In calculating the burdens, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden:There are three non-hour costs associated with this information collection. The estimated non-hour cost burden is $234,140. Section 250.1303 has two fees requiring respondents to pay a filing fee when applying for a voluntary unitization proposal or unit expansion, and a fee for unitization revision. The filing fees are required to recover the Federal Government's processing costs. Section 250.1304(d) provides an opportunity for parties notified of compulsory unitization to request a hearing; therefore, section 250.1304(e) requires the party seeking the compulsory unitization to pay for the court reporter and copies of the verbatim transcript of the hearing. It should be noted there have been no such hearings in the recent past, and none are expected in the near future. We estimate that the burden would be less than $500 to reproduce the copies and hire the reporter. We have not identified any other “non-hour cost” burdens associated with this collection of information.

Public Disclosure Statement:The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501,et seq.) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond.

Comments:Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501,et seq.) requires each agency “ * * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

To comply with the public consultation process, on December 26, 2007, we published aFederal Registernotice (72 FR 73041) announcing that we would submit this ICR to OMB for approval. The notice provided the required 60-day comment period. In addition, § 250.199 provides the OMB control number for the information collection requirements imposed by the 30 CFR 250 regulations. The regulation also informs the public that they may comment at any time on the collections of information and provides the address to which they should send comments. We received one comment in response to these efforts from a private citizen, B. Sachau, and the comment was not germane to the paperwork burden of this collection.

If you wish to comment in response to this notice, you may send your comments to the offices listed under theADDRESSESsection of this notice. The OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should receive public comments by July 31, 2008.

Public Availability of Comments: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.

MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer:Arlene Bajusz (202) 208-7744.

Title:30 CFR Part 250, Subpart D, Oil and Gas Drilling Operations.

Forms:MMS-123, MMS-123S, MMS-124, MMS-125, MMS-133, and MMS-133S.

OMB Control Number:1010-0141.

Abstract:The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331et seq.and 43 U.S.C. 1801et seq.), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe rules and regulations to administer leasing of the OCS. Such rules and regulations will apply to all operations conducted under a lease. Operations on the OCS must preserve, protect, and develop oil and natural gas resources in a manner that is consistent with the need to make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; to balance orderly energy resource development with protection of human, marine, and coastal environments; to ensure the public a fair and equitable return on the resources of the OCS; and to preserve and maintain free enterprise competition. Section 1332(6) states that “operations in the Outer Continental Shelf should be conducted in a safe manner by well-trained personnel using technology, precautions, and other techniques sufficient to prevent or minimize the likelihood of blowouts, loss of well control, fires, spillages, physical obstructions to other users of the waters or subsoil and seabed, or other occurrences which may cause damage to the environment or to property or endanger life or health.”

Regulations implementing these responsibilities are under 30 CFR part 250, subpart D. Responses are mandatory or are required to obtain or retain a benefit. No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked. The MMS will protect proprietary information according to 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection,” 30 CFR part 252, “OCS Oil and Gas Information Program,” and the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2).

The MMS needs the information to ensure safe drilling operations and to protect the human, marine, and coastal environment. Among other things, MMS specifically uses the information to ensure: The drilling unit is fit for the intended purpose; the lessee or operator will not encounter geologic conditions that present a hazard to operations; equipment is maintained in a state of readiness and meets safety standards; each drilling crew is properly trained and able to promptly perform well-control activities at any time during well operations; compliance with safety standards; and the current regulations will provide for safe and proper field or reservoir development, resource evaluation, conservation, protection of correlative rights, safety, and environmental protection. We also review well records to ascertain whether drilling operations have encountered hydrocarbons or H2S and to ensure that H2S detection equipment, personnel protective equipment, and training of the crew are adequate for safe operations in zones known to contain H2S and zones where the presence of H2S is unknown.

The following forms are also submitted to MMS under subpart D. The forms and their purposes are:

The MMS uses the information from these forms to determine the conditions of a drilling site to avoid hazards inherent in drilling operations. Specifically, the appropriate MMS District Office uses the information to evaluate the adequacy of a lessee's plan and equipment for drilling, sidetracking or bypass operations. This includes the adequacy of the proposed casing design, casing setting depths, drilling fluid (mud), and cementing programs to ascertain that the proposed operations will be conducted in an operationally safe manner that provides adequate protection for the environment. The District Office also reviews the information to ensure conformance with specific provisions of the lease. In addition, except for proprietary data, MMS is required by the OCS Lands Act to make available to the public certain information submitted on forms MMS-123 and MMS-123S.

The MMS uses the information on this form to evaluate and approve the adequacy of the equipment, materials, and/or procedures that the lessee plans to use during such post APD modifications or operations as plugging back or temporary abandonment where the well bore will be reentered andcompleted or permanently plugged. In addition, except for proprietary data, MMS is required by the OCS Lands Act to make available to the public certain information submitted on form MMS-124.

The MMS uses this information to ensure that they have accurate and up-to-date data and information on wells and leasehold activities under their jurisdiction and to ensure compliance with approved plans and any conditions placed upon a suspension or temporary prohibition. It is also used to evaluate the remedial action in the event of well equipment failure or well control loss. Form MMS-125 is updated and resubmitted in the event the well status changes. The information keeps MMS aware of the status of drilling and completion operations. In addition, except for proprietary data, MMS is required by the OCS Lands Act to make available to the public certain information submitted on form MMS-125.

The MMS uses this information to monitor the conditions of a well and status of drilling operations. Specifically, the drilling engineer in the District Office reviews the information to be aware of the well conditions and current drilling activity (i.e., well depth, drilling fluid weight, casing types and setting depths, completed well logs, and recent safety equipment tests and drills). The engineer uses this information to determine how accurately the lessee anticipated well conditions and if the lessee is following the approved Application for Permit to Drill (form MMS-123). The MMS engineer and District Supervisor also use the information in their review of an Application for Permit to Modify (form MMS-124). With the information collected on form MMS-133 available, the reviewers can analyze the proposed revisions (i.e., revised grade of casing or deeper casing setting depth) and make a quick and informed decision on the request.

In addition, except for proprietary data, MMS is required by the OCS Lands Act to make available to the public certain information submitted on forms MMS-133 and MMS-133S.

Frequency:Submissions are generally on occasion, weekly, monthly, semi-annually, annually, and varies by section.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents:Approximately 130 respondents (Federal oil and gas OCS lessees).

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden:The estimated annual “hour” burden for this information collection is a total of 146,827 hours. The following chart details the individual components and estimated hour burdens. In calculating the burdens, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden:We have identified two non-hour cost burdens for this collection. When respondents submit an Application for Permit to Drill (Form MMS-123), they submit a $1,850 fee for initial applications only (there is no fee for revisions); and when respondents submit an Application for Permit to Modify (Form MMS-124), they submit a $110 fee. These two fees total $1,789,340. Refer to the chart to see these specific fee breakdowns. We have not identified any other non-hour cost burdens associated with this collection of information.

Public Disclosure Statement:The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501,et seq.) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond.

Comments:Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501,et seq.) requires each agency “* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *”. Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

To comply with the public consultation process, on January 28, 2008, we published aFederal Registernotice (73 FR 4911) announcing that we would submit this ICR to OMB for approval. The notice provided the required 60-day comment period. In addition, § 250.199 provides the OMB control number for the information collection requirements imposed by the 30 CFR part 250 regulations and forms. The regulation also informs the public that they may comment at any time on the collections of information and provides the address to which they should send comments. We have received no comments in response to these efforts.

If you wish to comment in response to this notice, you may send your comments to the offices listed under theADDRESSESsection of this notice. The OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should receive public comments by July 31, 2008.

Public Availability of Comments: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.

MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer:Arlene Bajusz (202) 208-7744.

Title:30 CFR Part 243-Suspensions Pending Appeal and Bonding—Minerals Revenue Management.

OMB Control Number:1010-0122.

Bureau Form Number:Forms MMS-4435, MMS-4436, and MMS-4437.

Abstract:The Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior (Secretary) is responsible for matters relevant to mineral resource development on Federal and Indian lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The Secretary, under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 1923), Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-382—Dec. 22, 1982), and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1353), is responsible for managing the production of minerals from Federal and Indian lands and the OCS, collecting royalties and other mineral revenues from lessees who produce minerals, and distributing the funds collected in accordance with applicable laws. The Secretary also has a trust responsibility to manage Indian lands and seek advice and information from Indian beneficiaries. The MMS performs the mineral revenue management functions for the Secretary and assists the Secretary in carrying out the Department's trust responsibility for Indian lands. Public laws pertaining to mineral revenues are on our Web site athttp://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/PublicLawsAMR.htm.

Regulations at 30 CFR 243 govern the suspension of orders or decisions pending administrative appeal for Federal and Indian leases. These regulations require the submission of information demonstrating financial solvency by the person who represents the appellant, requesting a suspension without the need to provide a surety. For Federal leases, the RSFA Section 4(l), “Stay of Payment Obligation Pending Review,” requires MMS to evaluate any person, ordered by the Secretary or a delegated state to pay any obligation (other than an assessment) subject to RSFA, to determine whether that person is entitled to a stay of the order without bond or other surety instrument, pending an administrative or judicial proceeding, based on the financial solvency of that person. For those appellants who are not financially solvent or for appeals involving Indian leases, MMS requires that a surety instrument be posted to secure the financial interest of the public and Indian lessors during the entire administrative or judicial appeal process. This information collection request covers the burden hours associated with appellants submitting financial statements or surety instruments, subject to annual audit, required to stay an MMS order.

Minerals produced from Federal and Indian leases vary greatly in the nature of occurrence, production, and processing methods. When a company or an individual enters into a lease to explore, develop, produce, and dispose of minerals from Federal or Indian lands, that company or individual agrees to pay the lessor a share in an amount or value of production from the leased lands. The lessee is required to report various kinds of information to the lessor relative to the disposition of the leased minerals. Such information is generally available within the records of the lessee or others involved in developing, transporting, processing, purchasing, or selling such minerals. The information collected includes data necessary to ensure that the royalties are accurately valued and appropriately paid.

Proprietary information submitted to MMS under this collection is protected, and no items of a sensitive nature are collected. A response is voluntary and required to obtain the benefit of suspending compliance of an order pending appeal.

Title 30 CFR 243.1 states that lessees or recipients of MMS Minerals Revenue Management (MRM) orders may suspend compliance with an order if they appeal in accordance with 30 CFR Part 290, Subpart B—Minerals Revenue Management Appeal Procedures. Pending appeal, MMS suspends the payment requirement if the appellant submits a formal agreement of paymentin case of default, such as a bond or other surety, or demonstrates financial solvency. The MMS accepts the following surety types: Form MMS-4435, Administrative Appeal Bond; Form MMS-4436, Letter of Credit; Form MMS-4437, Assignment of Certificate of Deposit; Self-bonding; and U.S. Treasury Securities.

When one of the surety types is selected and put in place, appellants must maintain the surety until completion of the appeal. If the appeal is decided in favor of the appellant, MMS returns the surety to the appellant. If the appeal is decided in favor of MMS, then MMS will take action to collect full royalty payment or draw down on the surety. The MMS draws down on a surety if the appellant fails to comply with requirements relating to amount due, timeframe, or surety submission or resubmission. Whenever MMS must draw down on a surety, MMS must draw down the total amount due, which is defined as unpaid principal plus the interest accrued to the projected receipt date of the surety payment. Appellants may refer to the Surety Instrument Posting Instructions for each of the five surety types to submit the respective information. These instructions for the five surety types discussed below can also be found athttp://www.mrm.mms.gov/ReportingServices/PDFDocs/SuretyInst.pdf.

Appellants may file Form MMS-4435, Administrative Appeal Bond, which MMS uses to secure the financial interests of the public and Indian lessors during the entire administrative and judicial appeal process. Under 30 CFR 243.4, appellants are required to submit their contact and surety amount information on the bond to obtain the benefit of suspension of an obligation to comply with an order. The bond must be issued by a qualified surety company that is approved by the Department of the Treasury (see Department of the Treasury Circular No. 570, revised periodically in theFederal Register). The Associate Director for MRM (Associate Director) or the MRM-delegated bond-approving officer (officer) maintains these bonds in a secure facility. Once the appeal has concluded, MMS may release and return the bond to the appellant or collect royalty payment on the bond. If collection is necessary for a remaining royalty payment balance, MMS will issue a demand for payment to the surety company with a notice to the appellant. The MMS will also include all interest accrued on the affected bill.

Appellants may choose to file Form MMS-4436, Letter of Credit, with no modifications. Requirements of 30 CFR 243.4 continue to apply. The Associate Director or officer maintains the Letter of Credit (LOC) in a secure facility. A bank must notarize and issue the LOC for appellants in which the bank has a minimum Fitch rating of “C” for an LOC of less than $1 million, “B/C” for an LOC between $1 million and $10 million, or “B” for an LOC over $10 million. The LOC must have a minimum coverage period of 1 year and be automatically renewable for up to 5 years.

The appellant is responsible for verifying that the bank provides a current rating to MMS. If the issuing bank's rating falls below the minimum acceptable level, a satisfactory replacement surety must be submitted within 14 days, or MMS will draw down the existing LOC. If the bank issuing the LOC chooses not to renew the existing LOC, it must provide MMS with a notice of its decision not to renew 30 days prior to expiration of the LOC. Once the appeal has been concluded, MMS may release and return the LOC to the appellant or collect royalty payment on the LOC. If collection is necessary for a remaining royalty payment balance, MMS will issue a demand for payment, which includes all interest assessed on the affected bill, to the bank with a notice to the appellant.

Appellants may choose to secure their debts by requesting to use a Certificate of Deposit (CD) from their bank and submitting Form MMS-4437, Assignment of Certificate of Deposit. Requirements of 30 CFR 243.4 continue to apply. Appellants must file the request with MMS prior to the invoice due date. The MMS will accept a book-entry CD that explicitly assigns the CD to the Associate Director. A bank must issue the CD in which the bank has a minimum Fitch rating or is confirmed by a bank with an acceptable rating. The acceptable ratings for a CD are the same as for an LOC. If collection of the CD is necessary for a royalty payment balance, MMS will return unused CD funds to the appellant after total settlement of the appealed issues, including applicable interest charges.

For Federal oil and gas leases, RSFA Section 4(l), as promulgated at 30 CFR 243.201, provides that no surety instrument is required when a person representing the appellant periodically demonstrates, to the satisfaction of MMS, that guarantor or appellant is financially solvent or otherwise able to pay the obligation. Appellants must submit a written request to “self-bond” every time a new appeal is filed. To evaluate the financial solvency and exemption from requirements of appellants to maintain a surety related to an appeal, MMS requires appellants to submit a consolidated balance sheet, subject to annual audit. In some cases, MMS also requires copies of the most recent tax returns—up to 3 years—filed by appellants.

In addition, appellants must annually submit financial statements, subject to annual audit, to support their net worth. The MMS uses the consolidated balance sheet or business information supplied to evaluate the financial solvency of a lessee, designee, or payor seeking a stay of payment obligation pending review. If appellants do not have a consolidated balance sheet documenting their net worth, or if they do not meet the $300 million net worth requirement, MMS selects a business information or credit reporting service to provide information concerning an appellant's financial solvency. We charge the appellant a $50 fee each time we need to review data from a business information or credit reporting service. The fee covers our costs in determining an appellant's financial solvency.

Appellants may choose to secure their debts by requesting to use a U.S. Treasury Security (TS). Appellants must file the letter of request with MMS prior to the invoice due date. The TS must be a U.S. Treasury note or bond with maturity equal to or greater than 1 year. The TS must equal 120 percent of the appealed amount plus 1 year of estimated interest (necessary to protect MMS against interest rate fluctuations). The MMS accepts only a book-entry TS.

The MMS is requesting OMB's approval to continue to collect this information. Not collecting this information would limit the Secretary's ability to discharge his/her duties and may also result in loss of royalty payments.

Frequency:Annually and on occasion.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents:140 Federal/Indian appellants.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden:140 hours.

The following chart shows the estimated annual burden hours by CFR section and paragraph. We have not included in our estimates certain requirements performed in the normal course of business and considered usual and customary.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-hour” Cost Burden:There are no additional recordkeeping costs associated with this information collection. However, MMS estimates 15 appellants will pay MMS a $50 fee to obtain credit data from a business information or credit reporting service as a “non-hour” cost burden over the next three years, or 5 appellants per year, for a total of $250 per year (5 appellants per year × $50 = $250).

Public Disclosure Statement:The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.) provides that 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.

Comments:Before submitting an ICR to OMB, PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) requires each agency “* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *.” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

To comply with the public consultation process, we published a notice in theFederal Registeron August 13, 2007 (72 FR 45264), announcing that we would submit this ICR to OMB for approval. The notice provided the required 60-day comment period. We received no comments in response to the notice.

If you wish to comment in response to this notice, you may send your comments to the offices listed under theADDRESSESsection of this notice. The OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should receive public comments by July 31, 2008.

Public Comment Policy:We will post all comments in response to this notice on our Web site athttp://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/InfoColl/InfoColCom.htm. We will also make copies of the comments available for public review, including names and addresses of respondents, during regular business hours at our offices in Lakewood, Colorado. 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 view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer:Arlene Bajusz (202) 208-7744.

OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. This notice identifies an information collection that OSM will be submitting to OMB for approval. The collection is contained in 30 CFR part 780, Surface Mining Permit Applications Minimum Requirements for Reclamation and Operation Plans. OSM will request a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity. Applicants must complete and submit the information for this part in order to receive a permit for surface coal mining.

Comments are invited on:(1) The need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information. A summary of the public comments will accompany OSM's submission of the information collection requests to OMB.

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.

The following information is provided for the information collection: (1) Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control number; (3) summary of the information collection activity; and (4) frequency of collection, description of the respondents, estimated total annual responses, and the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for the collection of information.

Title:30 CFR Part 780—Surface Mining Permit Applications—Minimum Requirements for Reclamation and Operation Plan.

OMB Control Number:1029-0036.

Summary:Sections 507(b), 508(a), 510(b), 515(b) and (d), and 522 of Public Law 95-87 require applicants to submit operations and reclamation plans for coal mining activities. Information collection is needed to determine whether the plans will achieve the reclamation and environmental protections pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. Without this information, Federal and State regulatory authorities cannot review and approve permit application requests.

Bureau Form Number:None.

Frequency of Collection:Once.

Description of Respondents:Applicants for surface coal mine permits on Federal lands, and State Regulatory Authorities. Total Annual Responses: 225 applicants and 221 State responses.

Total Annual Burden Hours for Applicants:131,378.

Total Annual Burden Hours for States:76,115.

Total Annual Burden for All Respondents:207,853.

Total Annual Burden Costs for All Respondents:$1,992,392.

Background.On August 12, 2003, the Department of Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on imports of certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam (68 FR 47909). The Commission is conducting a review to determine whether revocation of the order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonablyforeseeable time. It will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct a full review or an expedited review. The Commission's determination in any expedited review will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice.

Definitions. The following definitions apply to this review:

(1)Subject Merchandiseis the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of the five-year review, as defined by the Department of Commerce.

(2) TheSubject Countryin this review is Vietnam.

(3) TheDomestic Like Productis the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, theSubject Merchandise. In its original determination, the Commission defined theDomestic Like Productas frozen catfish fillets, whether or not breaded or marinated.

(4) TheDomestic Industryis the U.S. producers as a whole of theDomestic Like Product, or those producers whose collective output of theDomestic Like Productconstitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. In its original determination, the Commission defined theDomestic Industryas processing operations producing frozen catfish fillets (whether or not breaded or marinated), not including catfish farming operations.2

(5) TheOrder Dateis the date that the antidumping duty order under review became effective. In this review, theOrder Dateis August 12, 2003.

(6) AnImporteris any person or firm engaged, either directly or through a parent company or subsidiary, in importing theSubject Merchandiseinto the United States from a foreign manufacturer or through its selling agent.

Participation in the review and public service list. Persons, including industrial users of theSubject Merchandiseand, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the review as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in theFederal Register. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the review.

Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official recently has advised that a five-year review is no longer considered the “same particular matter” as the corresponding underlying original investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR. 24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was developed in consultation with the Office of Government Ethics. Consequently, former employees are no longer required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202-205-3088.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and APO service list. Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI submitted in this review available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the review, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in theFederal Register. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the review. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Certification. Pursuant to section 207.3 of the Commission's rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with this review must certify that the information is accurate and complete to the best of the submitter's knowledge. In making the certification, the submitter will be deemed to consent, unless otherwise specified, for the Commission, its employees, and contract personnel to use the information provided in any other reviews or investigations of the same or comparable products which the Commission conducts under Title VII of the Act, or in internal audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the Commission pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3.

Written submissions. Pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules, each interested party response to this notice must provide the information specified below. The deadline for filing such responses is August 20, 2008. Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the Commission's rules, eligible parties (as specified in Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments concerning the adequacy of responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission should conduct an expedited or full review. The deadline for filing such comments is September 15, 2008. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of sections 201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission's rules and any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission's rules, as amended, 67 Fed. Reg. 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or APO service list as appropriate), and a certificate of service must accompany the document (if you are not a party to the review you do not need to serve your response).

Inability to provide requested information. Pursuant to section 207.61(c) of the Commission's rules, any interested party that cannot furnish the information requested by this notice in the requested form and manner shall notify the Commission at the earliest possible time, provide a full explanation of why it cannot provide the requested information, and indicate alternative forms in which it can provide equivalent information. If an interested party does not provide this notification (or the Commission finds the explanation provided in the notification inadequate) and fails to provide a complete response to this notice, the Commission may take an adverse inference against the party pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act in making its determination in the review.

Information To Be Provided In Response to This Notice of Institution:As used below, the term “firm” includes any related firms.

(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address if available) and name,telephone number, fax number, and E-mail address of the certifying official.

(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of theDomestic Like Product, a U.S. union or worker group, a U.S. importer of theSubject Merchandise, a foreign producer or exporter of theSubject Merchandise, a U.S. or foreign trade or business association, or another interested party (including an explanation). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, identify the firms in which your workers are employed or which are members of your association.

(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this review by providing information requested by the Commission.

(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping duty order on theDomestic Industryin general and/or your firm/entity specifically. In your response, please discuss the various factors specified in section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the likely volume of subject imports, likely price effects of subject imports, and likely impact of imports ofSubject Merchandise on the Domestic Industry.

(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of theDomestic Like Product. Identify any known related parties and the nature of the relationship as defined in section 771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(4)(B)).

(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of theSubject Merchandiseand producers of theSubject Merchandisein theSubject Countrythat currently export or have exportedSubject Merchandiseto the United States or other countries since theOrder Date.

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of theDomestic Like Product, provide the following information on your firm's operations on that product during calendar year 2007 (report quantity data in pounds and value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms in which your workers are employed/which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of theDomestic Like Productaccounted for by your firm's(s') production;

(b) The quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of theDomestic Like Productproduced in your U.S. plant(s); and

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of theDomestic Like Productproduced in your U.S. plant(s).

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of theSubject Merchandisefrom theSubject Country, provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year 2007 (report quantity data in pounds and value data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports ofSubject Merchandisefrom theSubject Countryaccounted for by your firm's(s') imports;

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. commercial shipments ofSubject Merchandiseimported from theSubject Country; and

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers ofSubject Merchandiseimported from theSubject Country.

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of theSubject Merchandisein theSubject Country, provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year 2007 (report quantity data in pounds and value data in U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production ofSubject Merchandisein theSubject Countryaccounted for by your firm's(s') production; and

(b) The quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States ofSubject Merchandiseand, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States ofSubject Merchandisefrom theSubject Countryaccounted for by your firm's(s') exports.

(10) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for theDomestic Like Productthat have occurred in the United States or in the market for theSubject Merchandisein theSubject Countrysince theOrder Date, and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among theDomestic Like Productproduced in the United States,Subject Merchandiseproduced in theSubject Country, and such merchandise from other countries.

(11)(Optional) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of theDomestic Like ProductandDomestic Industry; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions.

Background.On September 15, 1997, the Department of Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on imports of crawfish tail meat from China (62 FR 48218). Following five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective August 13, 2003, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty order on imports of crawfish tail meat from China (68 FR 48340). The Commission is now conducting a second review to determine whether revocation of the order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. It will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct a full review or an expedited review. The Commission's determination in any expedited review will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice.

Definitions. The following definitions apply to this review:

(1)Subject Merchandiseis the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of the five-year review, as defined by the Department of Commerce.

(2) TheSubject Countryin this review is China.

(3) TheDomestic Like Productis the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, theSubject Merchandise. In its original determination and first full five-year review determination, the Commission defined theDomestic Like Productas crawfish tail meat, coextensive with Commerce's scope.

(4) TheDomestic Industryis the U.S. producers as a whole of theDomestic Like Product, or those producers whose collective output of theDomestic Like Productconstitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. In its original determination and its first full five-year review determination, the Commission defined theDomestic Industryas all domestic producers of crawfish tail meat, which, at that time, consisted of numerous processors that were generally small, family-owned businesses in Louisiana. The Commission did not include in its definition of theDomestic Industryproducers or growers of whole crawfish.

(5) TheOrder Dateis the date that the antidumping duty order under review became effective. In this review, theOrder Dateis September 15, 1997.

(6) AnImporteris any person or firm engaged, either directly or through a parent company or subsidiary, in importing theSubject Merchandiseinto the United States from a foreign manufacturer or through its selling agent.

Participation in the review and public service list. Persons, including industrial users of theSubject Merchandiseand, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the review as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in theFederal Register. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the review.

Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official recently has advised that a five-year review is no longer considered the “same particular matter” as the corresponding underlying original investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was developed in consultation with the Office of Government Ethics. Consequently, former employees are no longer required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202-205-3088.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and APO service list.Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI submitted in this review available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the review, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in theFederal Register. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the review. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Certification. Pursuant to section 207.3 of the Commission's rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with this review must certify that the information is accurate and complete to the best of the submitter's knowledge. In making the certification, the submitter will be deemed to consent, unless otherwise specified, for the Commission, its employees, and contract personnel to use the information provided in any other reviews or investigations of the same or comparable products which the Commission conducts under Title VII of the Act, or in internal audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the Commission pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3.

Written submissions. Pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules, each interested party response to this notice must provide the information specified below. The deadline for filing such responses is August 20, 2008.Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the Commission's rules, eligible parties (as specified in Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments concerning the adequacy of responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission should conduct an expedited or full review. The deadline for filing such comments is September 15, 2008. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of sections 201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission's rules and any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission's rules, as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or APO service list as appropriate), and a certificate of service must accompany the document (if you are not a party to the review you do not need to serve your response).

Inability to provide requested information. Pursuant to section 207.61(c) of the Commission's rules, any interested party that cannot furnish the information requested by this notice in the requested form and manner shall notify the Commission at the earliest possible time, provide a full explanation of why it cannot provide the requested information, and indicate alternative forms in which it can provide equivalent information. If an interested party does not provide this notification (or the Commission finds the explanation provided in the notification inadequate) and fails to provide a complete response to this notice, the Commission may take an adverse inference against the party pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act in making its determination in the review.

Information To Be Provided In Response to This Notice of Institution:As used below, the term “firm” includes any related firms.

(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address if available) and name, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address of the certifying official.

(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of theDomestic Like Product, a U.S. union or worker group, a U.S. importer of theSubject Merchandise, a foreign producer or exporter of theSubject Merchandise, a U.S. or foreign trade or business association, or another interested party (including an explanation). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, identify the firms in which your workers are employed or which are members of your association.

(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this review by providing information requested by the Commission.

(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping duty order on theDomestic Industryin general and/or your firm/entity specifically. In your response, please discuss the various factors specified in section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the likely volume of subject imports, likely price effects of subject imports, and likely impact of imports ofSubject Merchandise on the Domestic Industry.

(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of theDomestic Like Product. Identify any known related parties and the nature of the relationship as defined in section 771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(4)(B)).

(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of theSubject Merchandiseand producers of theSubject Merchandisein theSubject Countrythat currently export or have exportedSubject Merchandiseto the United States or other countries after 2002.

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of theDomestic Like Product, provide the following information on your firm's operations on that product during calendar year 2007 (report quantity data in pounds and value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms in which your workers are employed/which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of theDomestic Like Productaccounted for by your firm's(s') production;

(b) The quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of theDomestic Like Productproduced in your U.S. plant(s); and

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of theDomestic Like Productproduced in your U.S. plant(s).

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of theSubject Merchandisefrom theSubject Country, provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year 2007 (report quantity data in pounds and value data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports ofSubject Merchandisefrom theSubject Countryaccounted for by your firm's(s') imports;

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. commercial shipments ofSubject Merchandiseimported from theSubject Country; and

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers ofSubject Merchandiseimported from theSubject Country.

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of theSubject Merchandisein theSubject Country, provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year 2007 (report quantity data in pounds and value data in U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production ofSubject Merchandisein theSubject Countryaccounted for by your firm's(s') production; and

(b) The quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States ofSubject Merchandiseand, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States ofSubject Merchandisefrom theSubject Countryaccounted for by your firm's(s') exports.

(10) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for theDomestic Like Productthat have occurred in the United States or in the market for theSubject Merchandisein theSubject Countryafter 2002, and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (includingbarriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among theDomestic Like Productproduced in the United States, Subject Merchandise produced in theSubject Country, and such merchandise from other countries.

(11) (Optional) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of theDomestic Like ProductandDomestic Industry; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions.

Background.—On August 11, 2003, the Department of Commerce issued a countervailing duty order on imports of DRAMs and DRAM modules from Korea (68 FR 47546). The Commission is conducting a review to determine whether revocation of the order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. It will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct a full review or an expedited review. The Commission's determination in any expedited review will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice.

Definitions.—The following definitions apply to this review:

(1)Subject Merchandiseis the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of the five-year review, as defined by the Department of Commerce.

(2) TheSubject Countryin this review is Korea.

(3) TheDomestic Like Productis the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the Subject Merchandise. In its original determination, the Commission found a single Domestic Like Product consisting of all DRAM products regardless of density, including cased and uncased DRAMs as well as DRAMs packaged into memory modules, and including all DRAM product types.

(4) TheDomestic Industryis the U.S. producers as a whole of theDomestic Like Product, or those producers whose collective output of theDomestic Like Productconstitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. In its original determination, the Commission defined theDomestic Industryas all producers that fabricate and assemble DRAMs in the United States, excluding module “packagers” and fabless design houses. At the time of the Commission's original determination, theDomestic Industryconsisted of Micron, Dominion, Infineon, Samsung Austin Semiconductor, HSMA, Fujitsu, IBM, Payton, and NECELAM.

(5) TheOrder Dateis the date that the countervailing duty order under review became effective. In this review, theOrder Dateis August 11, 2003.

(6) AnImporteris any person or firm engaged, either directly or through a parent company or subsidiary, in importing theSubject Merchandiseinto the United States from a foreign manufacturer or through its selling agent.

Participation in the review and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of theSubject Merchandiseand, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the review as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in theFederal Register. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the review.

Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official recently has advised that a five-year review is no longer considered the “same particular matter” as the corresponding underlying original investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b)(19 CFR 201.15(b)). 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice wasdeveloped in consultation with the Office of Government Ethics. Consequently, former employees are no longer required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202-205-3088.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and APO service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI submitted in this review available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the review, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in theFederal Register. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the review. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Certification.—Pursuant to section 207.3 of the Commission's rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with this review must certify that the information is accurate and complete to the best of the submitter's knowledge. In making the certification, the submitter will be deemed to consent, unless otherwise specified, for the Commission, its employees, and contract personnel to use the information provided in any other reviews or investigations of the same or comparable products which the Commission conducts under Title VII of the Act, or in internal audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the Commission pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3.

Written submissions.—Pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules, each interested party response to this notice must provide the information specified below. The deadline for filing such responses is August 20, 2008. Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the Commission's rules, eligible parties (as specified in Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments concerning the adequacy of responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission should conduct an expedited or full review. The deadline for filing such comments is September 15, 2008. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of sections 201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission's rules and any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission's rules, as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or APO service list as appropriate), and a certificate of service must accompany the document (if you are not a party to the review you do not need to serve your response).

Inability to provide requested information.—Pursuant to section 207.61(c) of the Commission's rules, any interested party that cannot furnish the information requested by this notice in the requested form and manner shall notify the Commission at the earliest possible time, provide a full explanation of why it cannot provide the requested information, and indicate alternative forms in which it can provide equivalent information. If an interested party does not provide this notification (or the Commission finds the explanation provided in the notification inadequate) and fails to provide a complete response to this notice, the Commission may take an adverse inference against the party pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act in making its determination in the review.

Information To Be Provided in Response To This Notice of Institution:As used below, the term “firm” includes any related firms.

(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address if available) and name, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address of the certifying official.

(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of theDomestic Like Product, a U.S. union or worker group, a U.S. importer of theSubject Merchandise,a foreign producer or exporter of theSubject Merchandise,a U.S. or foreign trade or business association, or another interested party (including an explanation). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, identify the firms in which your workers are employed or which are members of your association.

(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this review by providing information requested by the Commission.

(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the countervailing duty order on theDomestic Industryin general and/or your firm/entity specifically. In your response, please discuss the various factors specified in section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the likely volume of subject imports, likely price effects of subject imports, and likely impact of imports ofSubject Merchandiseon theDomestic Industry.

(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of theDomestic Like Product.Identify any known related parties and the nature of the relationship as defined in section 771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(4)(B)).

(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of theSubject Merchandiseand producers of theSubject Merchandisein theSubject Countrythat currently export or have exportedSubject Merchandiseto the United States or other countries since theOrder Date.

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of theDomestic Like Product,provide the following information on your firm's operations on that product during calendar year 2007 (report quantity data in billion bits and value data in thousands of U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms in which your workers are employed/which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of theDomestic Like Productaccounted for by your firm's(s') production;

(b) The quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of theDomestic Like Productproduced in your U.S. plant(s); and

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of theDomestic Like Productproduced in your U.S. plant(s).

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of theSubject Merchandisefrom theSubject Country,provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year 2007 (report quantity data in billion bits and value data in thousands of U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of Subject Merchandisefrom theSubject Countryaccounted for by your firm's(s') imports;

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments ofSubject Merchandiseimported from theSubject Country;and

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers ofSubject Merchandiseimported from theSubject Country.

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of theSubject Merchandisein theSubject Country,provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year 2007 (report quantity data in billion bits and value data in thousands of U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including countervailing duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production ofSubject Merchandisein theSubject Countryaccounted for by your firm's(s') production; and

(b) The quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States ofSubject Merchandiseand, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States ofSubject Merchandisefrom theSubject Countryaccounted for by your firm's(s') exports.

(10) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for theDomestic Like Productthat have occurred in the United States or in the market for theSubject Merchandisein theSubject Countrysince theOrder Date,and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among theDomestic Like Productproduced in the United States,Subject Merchandiseproduced in theSubject Country,and such merchandise from other countries.

(11)(OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of theDomestic Like ProductandDomestic Industry;if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions.

Background.These investigations are being instituted in response to a petition filed on June 24, 2008, by Agri-Fab, Inc., Sullivan, IL.

Participation in the investigations and public service list.Persons (other than petitioners) wishing to participate in the investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the Commission's rules, not later than seven days after publication of this notice in theFederal Register. Industrial users and (if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level) representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties inCommission countervailing and antidumping investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to these investigations upon the expiration of the period for filing entries of appearance.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in these investigations available to authorized applicants representing interested parties (as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the investigations under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made not later than seven days after the publication of this notice in theFederal Register. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Conference.The Commission's Director of Operations has scheduled a conference in connection with these investigations for 9:30 a.m. on July 15, 2008, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. Parties wishing to participate in the conference should contact Russell Duncan (202-708-4727) not later than July 11, 2008, to arrange for their appearance. Parties in support of the imposition of countervailing and antidumping duties in these investigations and parties in opposition to the imposition of such duties will each be collectively allocated one hour within which to make an oral presentation at the conference. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the conference.

Written submissions.As provided in sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the Commission's rules, any person may submit to the Commission on or before July 18, 2008, a written brief containing information and arguments pertinent to the subject matter of the investigations. Parties may file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the conference no later than three days before the conference. If briefs or written testimony contain BPI, they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission's rules, as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even where electronic filing of a document is permitted, certain documents must also be filed in paper form, as specified in II (C) of the Commission's Handbook on Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002).

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

Section 306 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 826) requires that the Attorney General establish aggregate production quotas for each basic class of controlled substance listed in schedules I and II. This responsibility has been delegated to the Administrator of the DEA by 28 CFR 0.100. The Administrator in turn, has redelegated this function to the Deputy Administrator, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.104.

On August 24, 2007, a notice of proposed 2008 aggregate production quotas for certain controlled substances in schedules I and II was published in theFederal Register(72 FR 48683). This notice stipulated that the DEA would adjust the quotas in early 2008 as provided for in 21 CFR part 1303.

The proposed revised 2008 aggregate production quotas represent those quantities of controlled substances in schedules I and II that may be produced in the United States in 2008 to provide adequate supplies of each substance for: the estimated medical, scientific, research and industrial needs of the United States; lawful export requirements; and the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks. These quotas do not include imports of controlled substances for use in industrial processes.

The proposed revisions are based on a review of 2007 year-end inventories, 2007 disposition data submitted by quota applicants, estimates of the medical needs of the United States, product development, and other information available to the DEA.

Therefore, under the authority vested in the Attorney General by Section 306 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 826), and delegated to the Administrator of the DEA by 28 CFR 0.100, and redelegated to the Deputy Administrator pursuant to 28 CFR 0.104, the Deputy Administrator hereby proposes the following revised 2008 aggregate production quotas for the following controlled substances, expressed in grams of anhydrous acid or base:

The Deputy Administrator further proposes that aggregate production quotas for all other schedules I and II controlled substances included in 21 CFR 1308.11 and 1308.12 remain at zero.

All interested persons are invited to submit their comments in writing or electronically regarding this proposal following the procedures in theADDRESSESsection of this document. A person may object to or comment on the proposal relating to any of the above-mentioned substances without filing comments or objections regarding the others. If a person believes that one or more of these issues warrant a hearing, the individual should so state and summarize the reasons for this belief. Persons wishing to request a hearing should note that such requests must be written and manually signed; requests for a hearing will not be accepted via electronic means.

In the event that comments or objections to this proposal raise one or more issues which the Deputy Administrator finds warrant a hearing, the Deputy Administrator shall order a public hearing by notice in theFederal Register, summarizing the issues to be heard and setting the time for the hearing as per 21 CFR 1303.13(c).

The Deputy Administrator hereby certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact upon small entities whose interests must be considered under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The establishment of aggregate production quotas for schedules I and II controlled substances is mandated by law and by international treaty obligations. The quotas are necessary to provide for the estimated medical, scientific, research and industrial needs of the United States, for lawful export requirements, and the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks. While aggregate production quotas are of primary importance to large manufacturers, their impact upon small entities is neither negative nor beneficial. Accordingly, the Deputy Administrator has determined that this action does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

The Office of Management and Budget has determined that notices of aggregate production quotas are not subject to centralized review under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not preempt or modify any provision of state law; nor does it impose enforcement responsibilities on any state; nor does it diminish the power of any state to enforce its own laws. Accordingly, this action does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132.

This action meets the applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform.

This action will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $120,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This action is not a major rule as defined by Section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional Review Act). This action will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

The regulations at 20 CFR 651, 653, and 658 under the Wagner Peyser Act, as amended by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998, set forth requirements to ensure that Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers (MSFWs) receive services that are qualitatively equivalent and quantitatively proportionate to the services provided to non-MSFWs. In compliance with 20 CFR 653.109, DOL established record keeping requirements to allow for the efficient and effective monitoring of State Workforce Agencies' (SWAs) regulatory compliance. The ETA Form 5148, Services to Migrant and Seasonal Farm Workers Report, is used to collect data which are primarily used to monitor and measure the extent and effectiveness of SWA service delivery to MSFWs. The ETA Form 8429, One-Stop Career Center Compliant Referral Record, is used to collect and document complaints filed by MSFWs and non-MSFWs pursuant to the regulatory framework established at 20 CFR 658.400.

The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:

• 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;

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

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond by including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

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

Agency:Employment and Training Administration.

Title:Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker (MSFW) Monitoring Report and One-Stop Career Center Complaint/Referral Record.

OMB Number:1205-0039.

Affected Public:State governments.

Type of Response:Mandatory for ETA-5148 and voluntary for ETA-8429.

Number of Respondents:52.

Annual Responses:208.