Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Notices 44825 

1Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii), we 

extended the POR of this new shipper review 

through September 30, 2008 to include Pacific 

Pipe’s entry. (See NSR Initiation). 

2Section A of the questionnaire requests general 

information concerning a company’s corporate 

structure and business practices, the merchandise 

under investigation that it sells, and the manner in 

which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. 

Section B requests a complete listing of all home 

market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, 

of sales in the most appropriate third-country 

market (this section is not applicable to respondents 

in non-market economy cases). Section C requests 

a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests 

information on the cost of production of the foreign 

like product and the constructed value of the 

merchandise under investigation. Section E 

requests information on further manufacturing. 

national inventories of greenhouse gas 

emissions from developed countries, 

and encourages national action to stem 

greenhouse gas emissions and slow 

climate change. Developed nations also 

pledge to share technology and 

resources with developing nations. 

Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations 

Framework Convention on Climate 

Change—The Kyoto Protocol was 

adopted in December 1997, entered into 

force on February 16, 2005, and has 

been ratified by 184 countries and the 

European Community. While the United 

States signed the document, the U.S. 

Senate has never ratified the treaty. The 

Kyoto Protocol sets binding emissions 

targets for 37 industrialized countries, 

includes mechanisms for measuring and 

reporting emissions, and provides for 

financing and technology assistance to 

developing countries. The Protocol will 

expire at the end of 2012. 

Current UNFCCC Negotiations— 

Negotiations under the UNFCCC are 

underway to formulate a successor 

agreement to the Kyoto Protocol. The 

discussions have the goal of concluding 

an agreement in Copenhagen this 

December. Potential impacts on U.S. 

industrial competitiveness will be 

discussed during the upcoming 

roundtable including technology 

transfer, intellectual property, financing, 

and related commercial opportunities. 

Cheryl McQueen, 

Acting Director, Office of Energy and 

Environmental Industries, U.S. Department 

of Commerce. 

[FR Doc. E9–20904 Filed 8–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–549–502] 

Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes 

and Tubes from Thailand: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting a 

semiannual new shipper review of the 

antidumping duty order on circular 

welded carbon steel pipes and tubes 

(Pipes and Tubes) from Thailand in 

response to a request from Pacific Pipe 

Public Company, Limited (Pacific Pipe). 

The period of review (POR) is March 1, 

2008 through September 30, 2008. The 

domestic interested parties for this 

proceeding are Allied Tube & Conduit 

Corporation and Wheatland Tube 

Company (petitioners). 

We preliminarily determine that the 

U.S. sale of subject merchandise made 

by Pacific Pipe is below normal value 

(NV). If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 

duties based on the difference between 

the export price (EP) and the NV. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

See the ‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ 

section of this notice. The final results 

will be issued 90 days after the date of 

issuance of these preliminary results, 

unless extended. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 31, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Myrna Lobo, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–2371. 

Background 

The Department published the 

antidumping duty order on Pipes and 

Tubes from Thailand on March 11, 

1986. See Notice of Antidumping Duty 

Order: Circular Welded Carbon Steel 

Pipes and Tubes from Thailand, 51 FR 

8341 (March 11, 1986) (Antidumping 

Duty Order). On September 30, 2008, 

the Department received a timely 

request from Pacific Pipe, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.214(c), to conduct a 

semiannual new shipper review of the 

antidumping duty order on Pipes and 

Tubes from Thailand. The Department 

found the request for review met all of 

the requirements set forth in 19 CFR 

351.214(b) and initiated the review on 

October 28, 2008. See Circular Welded 

Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from 

Thailand: Initiation of New Shipper 

Antidumping Duty Review, 73 FR 65290 

(November 3, 2008) (NSR Initiation).1

On November 7, 2008, the Department 

issued the initial questionnaire to 

Pacific Pipe.2 On December 9, 2008, the 

Department received Pacific Pipe’s 

section A response, the public version 

of which was revised due to bracketing 

deficiencies and resubmitted on 

December 15, 2008. On December 15, 

2008, the Department also preliminarily 

granted Pacific Pipe’s request to limit its 

reporting of home market sales data to 

the specific grades sold in the United 

States. See Letter to Pacific Pipe from 

Barbara E. Tillman, Director, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, dated December 15, 

2008. On January 6, 2009, the 

Department received Pacific Pipe’s 

sections B and C questionnaire 

response. On March 10 and July 24, 

2009, the Department issued 

supplemental questionnaires, and 

Pacific Pipe responded to the 

questionnaires on April 14 and August 

3, 2009, respectively. 

On May 8, 2009, petitioners urged the 

Department to rescind the new shipper 

review in favor of examining Pacific 

Pipe’s sale in the concurrent 

administrative review, because the entry 

occurred outside the normal six–month 

new shipper review period (March 1, 

2008 through August 31, 2008). 

Petitioners also questioned the bona 

fide nature of Pacific Pipe’s sale. We 

note that at the time of initiation, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.214(f)(2)(ii), the Department 

extended the POR through September 

30, 2008, to cover Pacific Pipe’s entry. 

We have also analyzed all aspects of 

Pacific Pipe’s U.S. sale and 

preliminarily found it to be bona fide. 

See ‘‘Bona Fides Analysis of U.S. Sale’’ 

section below. 

On March 27, 2009, the Department 

published a notice extending the 

deadline for the preliminary results to 

August 24, 2009. See Circular Welded 

Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from 

Thailand: Extension of Time Limit for 

Preliminary Results of New Shipper 

Antidumping Duty Review, 74 FR 13414 

(March 27, 2009). 

Verification 

The Department intends to conduct a 

sales verification of Pacific Pipe’s 

responses following the preliminary 

results of this review. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this 

antidumping order are certain welded 

carbon steel pipes and tubes from 

Thailand. The subject merchandise has 

an outside diameter of 0.375 inches or 

more, but not exceeding 16 inches. 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
44826 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Notices 

These products, which are commonly 

referred to in the industry as ‘‘standard 

pipe’’ or ‘‘structural tubing,’’ are 

hereinafter designated as ‘‘pipes and 

tubes.’’ The merchandise is classifiable 

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States (HTSUS) item 

numbers 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 

7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 

7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, and 

7306.30.5090. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and purposes of U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), 

our written description of the scope of 

the order is dispositive. 

Bona Fides Analysis of U.S. Sale 

On January 22, 2009, the petitioners 

submitted comments calling into 

question the bona fide nature of Pacific 

Pipe’s U.S. sale. Pacific Pipe responded 

to the comments on January 29, 2009. 

We have analyzed the information on 

the record, and preliminarily determine 

that Pacific Pipe’s U.S. sale is a bona 

fide transaction. Our analysis of Pacific 

Pipe’s sale and of the parties’ comments 

on the bona fides of Pacific Pipe’s U.S. 

sale are detailed in the Memorandum to 

Dana Mermelstein, Program Manager, 

from Myrna Lobo, Case Analyst, 

regarding Bona Fide Nature of the Sale 

in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Review of Circular Welded Carbon Steel 

Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Pacific 

Pipe Public Company, Limited, dated 

concurrently with this notice (Bona 

Fides Memorandum) and on file in the 

Central Records Unit, room 1117 of the 

main Department of Commerce building 

(CRU). Therefore, we are preliminarily 

treating Pacific Pipe’s sale to the United 

States as an appropriate transaction for 

review. See Am. Silicon Techs. V. 

United States, 110 F. Supp.2d 992,995 

(Ct. Int’l Trade 2000) 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether Pacific Pipe’s 

sale of subject merchandise from 

Thailand was made in the United States 

at less than NV, we compared the EP to 

the NV, as described in the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ 

and ‘‘Normal Value’’ section of this 

notice in accordance with section 

777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’). 

Product Comparisons 

Pursuant to section 771(16)(A) of the 

Act, for purposes of determining 

appropriate product comparisons to the 

U.S. sales, the Department considers all 

products sold in the comparison market 

as described in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ 

section of this notice, above, that were 

in the ordinary course of trade. In 

accordance with sections 771(16)(B) and 

(C) of the Act, where there are no sales 

of identical merchandise in the 

comparison market made in the 

ordinary course of trade, we compare 

U.S. sales to sales of the most similar 

foreign like product based on the 

characteristics listed in sections B and 

C of our antidumping questionnaire: 

grade, nominal pipe size, wall 

thickness, schedule of pipe, surface 

finish and end finish. We found that 

Pacific Pipe had sales of foreign like 

product that were identical in these 

respects to the merchandise sold in the 

United States, and therefore compared 

U.S. products with the identical 

merchandise sold in the comparison 

market based on the characteristics 

listed above, in that order of priority. 

Date of Sale 

Regarding date of sale, 19 CFR 

351.401(i) states that the Department 

will normally use the date of invoice as 

the date of sale, unless a different date 

better reflects the date on which the 

material terms of sale are established. 

Pacific Pipe reported invoice date as the 

date of sale for its home market sales 

and the proforma invoice date as the 

date of sale for its U.S. sale. We have 

analyzed the data on the record and 

preliminarily determine that the dates 

reported are the appropriate dates of 

sale for the U.S. and comparison market 

sales under review. 

U.S. Price 

We used EP methodology for Pacific 

Pipe’s U.S. sale, in accordance with 

section 772(a) of the Act, because the 

subject merchandise was sold directly to 

the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 

United States prior to importation, and 

constructed export price methodology 

was not otherwise warranted based on 

the facts of record. In accordance with 

sections 772(a) and (c) of the Act, we 

calculated EP using the price Pacific 

Pipe charged for packed subject 

merchandise shipped on a free on board 

(FOB) basis. We made deductions for 

movement expenses and brokerage 

expenses incurred in Thailand, 

including charges for service fees, 

document verification expenses, port 

passing charges, Customs formality 

expenses, Customs clearance charges, 

terminal handling charges and inland 

insurance. 

In addition, in accordance with 

section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we made 

an upward adjustment to export price 

for duty drawback Pacific Pipe received. 

See Analysis Memorandum for Pacific 

Pipe Public Company, Limited 

(Preliminary Analysis Memo) dated 

concurrently with this notice. 

Normal Value 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have based 

NV on the price at which the foreign 

like product was first sold for 

consumption in the comparison market, 

in the usual commercial quantities, in 

the ordinary course of trade, and, to the 

extent practicable, at the same level of 

trade (LOT) as the EP sale. See ‘‘Level 

of Trade’’ section below. After testing 

comparison market viability, we 

calculated NV for Pacific Pipe as 

discussed below. 

Home Market Viability 

In order to determine whether there is 

a sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product is five percent or 

more of the aggregate volume of U.S. 

sales), we compared the volume of 

Pacific Pipe’s home market sales of the 

foreign like product to the volume of its 

U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in 

accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Based on 

this comparison, we determined that 

Pacific Pipe’s home market was viable 

during the POR. 

Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 

practicable, we determine NV based on 

sales in the comparison market at the 

same LOT as EP. The NV LOT is that of 

the starting–price sales in the 

comparison market or, when NV is 

based on constructed value, that of the 

sales from which we derive selling 

expenses, G&A expenses, and profit. For 

EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the 

starting–price sale, which is usually 

from the exporter to the unaffiliated 

U.S. customer. 

To determine whether NV sales are at 

a different LOT than EP sales, we 

examine stages in the marketing process 

and selling functions along the chain of 

distribution between the producer and 

the unaffiliated customer. If the 

comparison market sales are at a 

different LOT and the difference affects 

price comparability, as manifested in a 

pattern of consistent price differences 

between the sales on which NV is based 

and comparison market sales at the LOT 

of the export transaction, we make an 

LOT adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 

In the home market, Pacific Pipe 

reported it sells to several customer 

categories through two channels of 

distribution: ex–factory, and direct 

shipments from Pacific Pipe to the 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Notices 44827 

customer. Further, Pacific Pipe reported 

that the selling functions in the home 

market do not differ between customer 

categories or channels of distribution. 

See Pacific Pipe’s supplemental 

response dated April 14, 2009 at page 8. 

After analyzing the information on the 

record with respect to these selling 

functions, we find that in the home 

market there were not sufficient 

differences in the selling functions 

performed for the different channels of 

trade to conclude that there is more than 

one level of trade in the home market. 

We therefore find a single level of trade 

exists for all of Pacific Pipe’s sales to the 

home market. Since there is only one 

LOT in the home market we find there 

is no basis for an LOT adjustment. See 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. 

Calculation of Normal Value 

We based NV on the starting prices of 

Pacific Pipe’s sales to the home market 

adjusting for billing adjustments where 

applicable, pursuant to section 

773(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Pursuant to 

section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we 

made deductions for discounts and 

movement expenses (i.e., inland freight 

and warehousing expenses) where 

appropriate. In accordance with sections 

773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we 

deducted comparison market packing 

costs and added U.S. packing costs. In 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), we 

deducted comparison market direct 

selling expenses (i.e., credit expenses) 

and added U.S. direct selling expenses. 

We made the appropriate adjustment for 

commissions paid in the home market 

pursuant to 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.410(c). We made 

adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses 

incurred on comparison market or U.S. 

sales where commissions were granted 

on sales in one market but not in the 

other, i.e., the ‘‘commission offset.’’ 

Specifically, where commissions are 

incurred in one market, but not in the 

other, we limit the amount of such 

allowance to the amount of either the 

selling expenses incurred in the one 

market or the commissions allowed in 

the other market, whichever is less. See 

Preliminary Analysis Memo. 

Currency Conversion 

In accordance with sections 773A(a) 

of the Act, we made currency 

conversions based on the official 

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank of New York. See also 19 

CFR 351.415. 

Preliminary Results of New Shipper 

Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1) that the 

following percentage margin exists for 

Pacific Pipe for the period March 1, 

2008, through September 30, 2008: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin 

Pacific Pipe Public Co., Ltd. ....... 4.79 % 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 

this new shipper review, as provided by 

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the 

cash deposit rate for subject 

merchandise manufactured and 

exported by Pacific Pipe will be the rate 

established in the final results of this 

new shipper review, except no cash 

deposit will be required if its weighted– 

average margin is de minimis (i.e., less 

than 0.5 percent); (2) if the exporter is 

not a firm covered in this review, but 

was covered in a previous review or the 

original less–than-fair–value (LTFV) 

investigation, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company–specific 

rate published for the most recent 

period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 

covered in this review, a previous 

review, or the original LTFV 

investigation, but the manufacturer is, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recent period 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit 

rate for all other manufacturers and/or 

exporters of this merchandise, shall be 

15.67 percent, the all–others rate 

established in the LTFV investigation. 

These requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Assessment Rate 

Upon completion of the new shipper 

review, the Department shall determine, 

and CBP shall assess, antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). The 

Department intends to issue assessment 

instructions for Pacific Pipe directly to 

CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

new shipper review. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we 

will calculate an importer–specific 

assessment rate on the basis of the ratio 

of the total amount of antidumping 

duties calculated for the examined sales 

and the total entered value of the 

examined sales. We will instruct CBP to 

assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review if the importer–specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate without 

regard to antidumping duties any 

entries for which the assessment rate is 

zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 

percent). See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). 

The final results of this review shall 

be the basis for the assessment of 

antidumping duties on entries of 

merchandise covered by the final results 

of this review. 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with these preliminary 

results within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Unless notified by the 

Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(c), interested parties may 

submit cases briefs not later than 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues 

raised in the case briefs, may be filed 

not later than five days after the 

deadline for filing the case briefs. See 19 

CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit 

case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are requested to submit with 

each argument: 1) a statement of the 

issue; 2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and 3) a table of authorities. 

Additionally, parties are requested to 

provide their case briefs and rebuttal 

briefs in electronic format (e.g., 

WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Adobe 

Acrobat, etc.). 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing or to participate if one is 

requested must submit a written request 

to the Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Room B–099, within 30 

days of the date of publication of this 

notice. Requests should contain: 1) the 

party’s name, address and telephone 

number; 2) the number of participants; 

and 3) a list of issues to be discussed. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in 

the hearing will be limited to those 

raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this review, including the 

results of its analysis of issues raised in 

any written briefs, within 90 days of 

publication of these preliminary results, 

unless the final results are extended. 

See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
44828 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Notices 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This new shipper review is issued 

and published in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act, as well as 19 CFR 351.214(i). 

Dated: August 24, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–20978 Filed 8–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army, Corps of 

Engineers 

Intent To Prepare a Second 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement to the Final EIS on Herbert 

Hoover Dike Major Rehabilitation and 

Evaluation Report, Reaches 2 and 3 

(Belle Glade to Moore Haven), in Palm 

Beach, Hendry, and Glades 

Counties, FL 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, DOD. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: Herbert Hoover Dike is the 

levee and water control system that 

provides flood protection to 

communities surrounding Lake 

Okeechobee. The purpose of this project 

is to evaluate rehabilitation solutions for 

Reaches 2 and 3 of the dike so that the 

authorized level of flood protection can 

be provided to reduce the risk of a 

catastrophic failure or breach of the 

embankment. Reaches 2 and 3 of the 

HHD extend for approximately 27 miles 

between an area west of Belle Glade, 

Palm Beach County to east of Moore 

Haven, Glades County, FL. On July 8 

2005, the Jacksonville District, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issued 

a Final Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the Major 

Rehabilitation actions proposed for 

Herbert Hoover Dike (HHD), Reach 1. 

On September 23, 2005, a Record of 

Decision was signed adopting the 

preferred alternative as the Selected 

Plan for Reach 1. 

The preferred plan described in the 

draft SEIS for the MRR Reaches 2 and 

3 was based on the Reach 1 preferred 

plan. However, as designs were 

optimized during development of the 

plans and specifications for Reach 1, it 

became apparent that a cutoff wall in 

combination with a seepage berm would 

not work for all of Herbert Hoover Dike. 

The alternative for Reaches 2 and 3 will 

be a combination of a cutoff wall with 

a seepage berm and a relief feature such 

as a Relief Trench, Soil Replacement 

Wedge, Relief Wells, Drainage Feature, 

or Sand Columns. The specific features 

selected and dimension of the features 

will be site specific, dependent on the 

local geology and site conditions along 

Reaches 2 and 3. This study is a 

cooperative effort between the Corps 

and the South Florida Water 

Management District (SFWMD). 

ADDRESSES: U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Planning Division, 

Environmental Branch, P.O. Box 4970, 

Jacksonville, FL 32232–0019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Angela Dunn at (904) 232–2108 or 

e-mail at 

Angela.E.Dunn@usace.army.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

a. The proposed action will be the 

selected plan described in the July 2005 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (SEIS) with the additional 

actions of: Extending construction along 

Reaches 2 and 3 of the levee and 

implementing the landside 

rehabilitation features as needed based 

on geology and adjacent land factors. 

The proposed action will not affect the 

Regulation Schedule for Lake 

Okeechobee. Land may have to be 

acquired outside of the existing right-ofway (ROW) and this SEIS will account 

for any impacts that result due to 

acquisition of additional real estate. 

b. The preferred plan design will be 

optimized according to the local geology 

and site conditions along Reaches 2 and 

3. The features that may be part of the 

preferred plan include: Cutoff Wall, 

Seepage Berm, Relief Trench, Soil 

Replacement Wedge, Relief Wells, Sand 

Column and Drainage Feature. 

c. A scoping letter will be used to 

invite comments on alternatives and 

issues from Federal, State, and local 

agencies, affected Indian tribes, and 

other interested private organizations 

and individuals. A Scoping Letter 

describing the proposed project and 

soliciting comments was sent to 

government agencies, non-governmental 

agencies, Indian Tribes and the 

interested public on August 10, 2006. A 

scoping meeting is not anticipated. 

d. A public meeting will be held after 

release of the Draft SEIS; the exact 

location, date, and times will be 

announced in a public notice and local 

newspapers. 

e. A Major Rehabilitation Evaluation 

Report (MRR) was approved by 

Congress in the Water Resources 

Development Act (WRDA) 2000 that 

addressed the need to repair the aging 

dike. 

f. Draft SEIS Preparation: The 2nd 

DSEIS is expected to be available for 

public review in the first quarter of CY 

2010. 

Dated: August 19, 2009. 

Kenneth R. Dugger, 

Acting Chief, Environmental Branch. 

[FR Doc. E9–20912 Filed 8–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

Army Science Board Plenary Meeting 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 

U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the 

Sunshine in the Government Act of 

1976 (U.S.C. § 552b, as amended) and 41 

Code of the Federal Regulations (CFR 

102–3. 140 through 160, the Department 

of the Army announces the following 

committee meeting: 

Name of Committee: Army Science 

Board (ASB). 

Date(s) of Meeting: Sept 15, 2009. 

Time(s) of Meeting: 1230–1430. 

Location: Institute for Defense 

Analysis, 4850 Mark Center Drive, 

Alexandria VA 22311. 

Purpose: The purpose of this meeting 

is to adopt a subcommittee’s finding and 

recommendations on survivability and 

deployability of ground platforms and 

hear opinions by the Army Science 

Board. 

Proposed Agenda: 

1230–1330 Survivability and 

Deployability Subcommittee Reports; 

1330–1430 Discussion and Votes; 

1430 Adjourn. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information please contact Mr. Justin 

Bringhurst at 

justin.bringhurst@us.army.mil or (703) 

604–7468 or Carolyn German at 

carolyn.t.german@us.army.mil or (703) 

604–7490. 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES