Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2008 / Notices 6479 

1See Letter from Greenberg Traurig to the 

Department of Commerce, regarding ‘‘Sodium 

Hexametaphosphate from the People’s Republic of 

China: Withdrawal from Participation,’’ dated 

September 28, 2007 (‘‘Hubei Xingfa Withdrawal 

Letter’’). 

2See Letter from Williams Mullen to the 

Department of Commerce, regarding ‘‘Sodium 

Hexametaphosphate from China: Clerical Error 

Comments,’’ dated September 17, 2007. 

3See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9 through Scot T. 

Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, from Erin Begnal, Senior International 

Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

regarding ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the People’s 

Republic of China: Allegation of Ministerial Errors,’’

dated October 25, 2007 (‘‘Ministerial Error Memo’’). 

4 ICL Performance Products, LP and Innophos, 

Inc. 

This notice is not required by statute 

but is published as a service to the 

international trading community. 

Dated: January 24, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–1974 Filed 2–1–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–908] 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Sodium 

Hexametaphosphate From the 

People’s Republic of China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 4, 2008. 

SUMMARY: On September 14, 2007, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the 

antidumping investigation of sodium 

hexametaphosphate (‘‘SHMP’’) from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

July 1, 2006, through December 31, 

2006. We invited interested parties to 

comment on our preliminary 

determination of sales at LTFV. The 

final dumping margins for this 

investigation are listed in the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

Begnal or Scot Fullerton, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1442 or (202) 482–

1386, respectively. 

Final Determination 

We determine that SHMP from the 

PRC is being, or is likely to be, sold in 

the United States at LTFV as provided 

in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The estimated 

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in 

the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’

section of this notice. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The Department published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV on September 14, 2007. See 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Sodium 

Hexametaphosphate from the People’s 

Republic of China, 72 FR 52544 

(September 14, 2007) (‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’). 

On September 11, 2007, Hubei Xingfa 

Chemicals Group (‘‘Hubei Xingfa’’) 

requested a 60-day extension of the final 

determination. On September 28, 2007, 

the Department published the 

postponement of the final 

determination. See Postponement of 

Final Determination of Antidumping 

Duty Investigation: Sodium 

Hexametaphosphate from the People’s 

Republic of China, 72 FR 55176 

(September 28, 2007). On September 28, 

2007, Hubei Xingfa withdrew from 

participating in the investigation.1

On September 17, 2007, the 

Department received an allegation from 

Petitioners that the Department made 

clerical errors in its Preliminary 

Determination.2 On October 25, 2007, 

the Department found that it had made 

a clerical error with regard to its 

preliminary determination calculation 

for Hubei Xingfa, but found that the 

error was not ‘‘significant’’ to warrant 

amending the Preliminary 

Determination.3

We invited parties to comment on the 

Preliminary Determination. On 

November 19, 2007, the Petitioners 4

filed a case brief. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the 

‘‘Investigation of Sodium 

Hexametaphosphate from the People’s 

Republic of China: Issues and Decision 

Memorandum,’’ dated January 28, 2008, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice 

(‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’). 

A list of the issues which parties raised 

and to which we respond in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum is attached 

to this notice as an Appendix. The Issue 

and Decision Memorandum is a public 

document and is on file in the Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Main Commerce 

Building, Room B–099, and is accessible 

on the Web at http://www.trade.gov/ia. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of comments 

received, we have made changes in our 

margin calculations for the separate rate 

respondents. Additionally, because 

Hubei Xingfa refused to participate in 

verification, we determined to apply 

total adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’) to 

Hubei Xingfa. As AFA, we found that 

Hubei Xingfa did not demonstrate that 

it was entitled to a separate rate, and is 

therefore part of the PRC entity. See 

Adverse Facts Available below. 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise subject to this 

investigation is sodium 

hexametaphosphate (‘‘SHMP’’). SHMP 

is a water-soluble polyphosphate glass 

that consists of a distribution of 

polyphosphate chain lengths. It is a 

collection of sodium polyphosphate 

polymers built on repeating NaPO3 

units. SHMP has a P2O5 content from 

60 to 71 percent. Alternate names for 

SHMP include the following: Calgon; 

Calgon S; Glassy Sodium Phosphate; 

Sodium Polyphosphate, Glassy; 

Metaphosphoric Acid; Sodium Salt; 

Sodium Acid Metaphosphate; Graham’s 

Salt; Sodium Hex; Polyphosphoric Acid, 

Sodium Salt; Glass H; Hexaphos; 

Sodaphos; Vitrafos; and BAC-N-FOS. 

SHMP is typically sold as a white 

powder or granule (crushed) and may 

also be sold in the form of sheets (glass) 

or as a liquid solution. It is imported 

under heading 2835.39.5000, HTSUS. It 

may also be imported as a blend or 

mixture under heading 3824.90.3900, 

HTSUS. The American Chemical 

Society, Chemical Abstract Service 

(‘‘CAS’’) has assigned the name 

‘‘Polyphosphoric Acid, Sodium Salt’’ to 

SHMP. The CAS registry number is 

68915–31–1. However, SHMP is 

commonly identified by CAS No. 

10124–56–8 in the market. For purposes 

of the investigation, the narrative 

description is dispositive, not the tariff 

heading, CAS registry number or CAS 

name. 

The product covered by this 

investigation includes SHMP in all 

grades, whether food grade or technical 

grade. The product covered by this 

investigation includes SHMP without 

regard to chain length i.e., whether 

regular or long chain. The product 

covered by this investigation includes 

SHMP without regard to physical form, 

whether glass, sheet, crushed, granule, 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
6480 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2008 / Notices 

powder, fines, or other form, and 

whether or not in solution. 

However, the product covered by this 

investigation does not include SHMP 

when imported in a blend with other 

materials in which the SHMP accounts 

for less than 50 percent by volume of 

the finished product. 

Scope Comments 

We have addressed comments 

regarding the Scope in our Issues and 

Decision Memorandum and have 

determined to revise the scope of this 

investigation. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

Adverse Facts Available 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that, if an interested party (A) withholds 

information requested by the 

Department, (B) fails to provide such 

information by the deadline, or in the 

form or manner requested, (C) 

significantly impedes a proceeding, or 

(D) provides information that cannot be 

verified, the Department shall use, 

subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the 

Act, facts otherwise available in 

reaching the applicable determination. 

Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, 

the Department shall not decline to 

consider submitted information if all of 

the following requirements are met: (1) 

The information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability; and (5) 

the information can be used without 

undue difficulties. On September 28, 

2007, subsequent to the Preliminary 

Determination and before the 

commencement of verification, counsel 

for Hubei Xingfa informed the 

Department that it would not continue 

its participation in the instant 

investigation. See Hubei Xingfa 

Withdrawal Letter dated September 28, 

2007. Because Hubei Xingfa ceased 

participation in the instant 

investigation, the Department was not 

able to conduct its verification of Hubei 

Xingfa’s responses. Verification is 

integral to the Department’s analysis 

because it allows the Department to 

satisfy itself that it is relying upon 

accurate information and calculating 

dumping margins as accurately as 

possible. By failing to participate in 

verification, Hubei Xingfa prevented the 

Department from verifying its reported 

information, including separate rates 

information, and significantly impeded 

the proceeding. Moreover, by not 

permitting verification, Hubei Xingfa 

failed to demonstrate that it operates 

free of government control and is 

entitled to a separate rate. Therefore, we 

find the use of facts available, pursuant 

to sections 776(a)(2)(C) and (D), to be 

appropriate in determining the 

applicable rate for Hubei Xingfa. 

Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes 

the Department to use an adverse 

inference with respect to an interested 

party if the Department finds that the 

party failed to cooperate by not acting 

to the best of its ability to comply with 

a request for information. See, e.g., 

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and 

Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819–20 

(October 16, 1997); see also Crawfish 

Processors Alliance v. United States, 

343 F. Supp.2d 1242, 1270–1271 (CIT 

2004) (approving use of AFA when 

respondent refused to participate in 

verification). We find that Hubei 

Xingfa’s late withdrawal from 

participation and refusal to participate 

in verification constitutes a failure to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with a request from 

the Department. See section 776(b) of 

the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 

776(b) of the Act, we find that when 

selecting from among the facts available, 

an adverse inference is warranted. As 

AFA, due to its failure to demonstrate 

separateness, we have, as AFA, treated 

Hubei Xingfa as part of the PRC-wide 

entity and thus will receive the rate 

applicable to PRC-wide entity, which is 

188.05 percent. See the sections entitled 

‘‘The PRC-Wide Rate’’ and 

‘‘Corroboration,’’ below, for a discussion 

of the selection and corroboration of the 

PRC-Wide rate. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

stated that we had selected India as the 

appropriate surrogate country to use in 

this investigation for the following 

reasons: (1) It is a significant producer 

of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at 

a similar level of economic development 

pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) 

we have reliable data from India that we 

can use to value the factors of 

production. See Preliminary 

Determination. For the final 

determination, we received no 

comments and made no changes to our 

findings with respect to the selection of 

a surrogate country. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving non-marketeconomy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the 

Department begins with a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the country are subject to government 

control and, thus, should be assigned a 

single antidumping duty deposit rate. It 

is the Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate. See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), 

as amplified by Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’), and 

Section 351.107(d) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that the separate rate applicants, 

Jiangyin Chengxing International 

Trading Co., Ltd. (‘‘Chengxing’’) and 

Sichuan Mianzhu Norwest Phosphate 

Chemical Company Limited 

(‘‘Norwest’’), demonstrated their 

eligibility for separate-rate status. For 

the final determination, we continue to 

find that the evidence placed on the 

record of this investigation by 

Chengxing and Norwest demonstrate 

both a de jure and de facto absence of 

government control, with respect to 

their respective exports of the 

merchandise under investigation, and, 

thus are eligible for separate rate status. 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

assigned the rate for Hubei Xingfa, who 

was a cooperating respondent, as a 

separate rate to Chengxing and Norwest. 

However, we have found that Hubei 

Xingfa has not demonstrated 

entitlement to a separate rate for this 

final determination. As such, Hubei 

Xingfa will be assigned the PRC-wide 

rate, which is based on AFA. Normally 

the separate rate is determined based on 

the estimated weighted average 

dumping margins established for 

exporters and producers individually 

investigated, excluding de minimis 

margins or margins based entirely on 

AFA. See section 735(c)(5)(A). If, 

however, the estimated weighted 

average margins for all individually 

investigated respondents are de minimis 

or based entirely on AFA, the 

Department may use any reasonable 

method. See section 735(c)(5)(B). In this 

proceeding, because the rate for all 

individually investigated respondents is 

based on AFA, we have relied on 

information from the petition to 

determine a rate to be applied to the 

respondents that have demonstrated 

entitlement to a separate rate. See, e.g., 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative 

Final Determination of Critical 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2008 / Notices 6481 

Circumstances: Glycine from Japan, 72 

FR 67271 (November 28, 2007) (citing 

Notice of Final Determinations of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain ColdRolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 

Products From Argentina, Japan and 

Thailand, 65 FR 5520, 5527–28 

(February 4, 2000) and Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coil 

from Canada, 64 FR 15457 (March 31, 

1999)). Specifically, we have assigned 

an average of the margins calculated for 

purposes of initiation as the separate 

rate for the final determination. See 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Sodium 

Hexametaphosphate From the People’s 

Republic of China, 72 FR 9926 (March 

6, 2007) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). See also 

Memorandum to the File, from Erin 

Begnal, Senior International Trade 

Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

regarding ‘‘Calculation of the Separate 

Rate’’ dated January 22, 2008. 

To corroborate the initiation margins 

for use as a separate rate, to the extent 

appropriate information was available, 

we reviewed the adequacy and accuracy 

of the information in the petition during 

our pre-initiation analysis. See Initiation 

Checklist. We examined evidence 

supporting the calculations in the 

petition to determine the probative 

value of the margins alleged in the 

petition for use as the separate rate. 

During our pre-initiation analysis, we 

examined the key elements of the 

export-price and normal-value 

calculations used in the petition to 

derive margins. Also, during our preinitiation analysis, we examined 

information from various independent 

sources provided either in the petition 

or, based on our requests, in 

supplements to the petition, that 

corroborates key elements of the exportprice and normal-value calculations 

used in the petition to derive estimated 

margins. We received no comments as 

to the relevance or probative value of 

this information. Therefore, the 

Department finds that the rates derived 

from the petition for purposes of 

initiation are reliable for purposes of 

calculating the separate rate. We 

determined in the Preliminary 

Determination that Yibin Tianyuan 

Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Tianyuan’’) is not 

entitled to a separate rate. We received 

no comments on this issue and continue 

to find that Tianyuan is not entitled to 

a separate rate. 

The PRC-Wide Rate 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department found that certain 

companies and the PRC-wide entity did 

not respond to our requests for 

information. In the Preliminary 

Determination we treated these PRC 

producers/exporters as part of the PRCwide entity because they did not 

demonstrate that they operate free of 

government control over their export 

activities. No additional information has 

been placed on the record with respect 

to these entities after the Preliminary 

Determination. The PRC-wide entity has 

not provided the Department with the 

requested information; therefore, 

pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the 

Act, the Department continues to find 

that the use of facts available is 

appropriate to determine the PRC-wide 

rate. Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, in selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, the Department 

may employ an adverse inference if an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain ColdRolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 

Products from the Russian Federation, 

65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). 

See also, ‘‘Statement of Administrative 

Action’’ accompanying the URAA, H.R. 

Rep. No. 103–316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) 

(‘‘SAA’’). We determined that, because 

the PRC-wide entity did not respond to 

our request for information, it has failed 

to cooperate to the best of its ability. 

Therefore, the Department finds that, in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, an adverse 

inference is appropriate for the PRCwide entity. 

Because we begin with the 

presumption that all companies within 

an NME country are subject to 

government control and because only 

the companies listed under the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below 

have overcome that presumption, we are 

applying a single antidumping rate—the 

PRC-wide rate—to all other exporters of 

subject merchandise from the PRC. Such 

companies did not demonstrate 

entitlement to a separate rate. See, e.g., 

Synthetic Indigo from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000). 

The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries 

of subject merchandise except for 

entries from the respondents which are 

listed in the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section below. 

At the Preliminary Determination, we 

assigned to the PRC-wide entity the 

calculated margin for Hubei Xingfa, the 

highest rate calculated for any 

respondent in the investigation. For the 

final determination, as total AFA, we 

have assigned to the PRC-wide entity 

the rate of 188.05 percent, which is the 

rate based on the information supplied 

by Hubei Xingfa in the preliminary 

determination, with adjustments made 

for clerical errors. See Ministerial Error 

Memo. In selecting the AFA rate for the 

PRC-wide entity, we did not use the 

petition rates because we have an 

alternative that we find to be 

sufficiently adverse to effectuate the 

purpose of the AFA provision of the 

statute. See, e.g., Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, 69 FR 

76910, 76912 (December 23, 2004). See 

also, Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon 

and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From 

Moldova, 67 FR 55790 (August 30, 2002) 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2 and Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From 

Venezuela, 67 FR 62119, 62120 (October 

3, 2002). We assigned the rate of 188.05 

percent, which was based on 

information submitted by Hubei Xingfa 

in its questionnaire responses and 

database submissions, and remains on 

the record of this investigation. 

Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information in using the facts 

otherwise available, it must, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. We 

have interpreted ‘‘corroborate’’ to mean 

that we will, to the extent practicable, 

examine the reliability and relevance of 

the information submitted. See Certain 

Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality 

Steel Products From Brazil: Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, 65 FR 5554, 5568 

(February 4, 2000); See, e.g., Tapered 

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, 

and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four 

Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and 

Components Thereof, from Japan; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Partial Termination of Administrative 

Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 

6, 1996). Because the AFA rate is based 

on information provided to us by a 

respondent to this investigation, it is not 

considered to be secondary information, 

and therefore, needs not be 

corroborated. We conclude that this 

data, although unverified, continues to 

be the best information reasonably 

available to us to effectuate the purpose 

of AFA. 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
6482 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2008 / Notices 

Final Determination Margins 

We determine that the following 

percentage weighted-average margins 

exist for the POI: 

SODIUM HEXAMETAPHOSPHATE FROM

THE PRC 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weighted-average margin 

(percent) 

Jiangyin Chengxing International Trading Co., Ltd. 92.02 

Sichuan Mianzhu Norwest 

Phosphate Chemical Company Limited ...................... 92.02 

PRC-Wide Rate (including 

Yibin Tianyuan Group Co., 

Ltd., Mianyang Aostar 

Phosphorous Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., and Hubei 

Xingfa Chemicals Group 

Co., Ltd. ) .......................... 188.05 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all imports of subject 

merchandise that are entered or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after September 14, 

2007, the date of publication of the 

preliminary determination in the 

Federal Register. We will instruct CBP 

to continue to require a cash deposit or 

the posting of a bond for all companies 

based on the estimated weightedaverage dumping margins shown above. 

The suspension of liquidation 

instructions will remain in effect until 

further notice. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

of our final determination of sales at 

LTFV. As our final determination is 

affirmative, in accordance with section 

735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the 

ITC will determine whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise. 

If the ITC determines that material 

injury or threat of material injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: January 28, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

Comment 1: Scope Revision 

Comment 2: Basis for the Final 

Determination 

[FR Doc. E8–1971 Filed 2–1–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Northwest Region 

Vessel Identification Requirements 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before April 4, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Diana Hynek, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

Internet at dHynek@doc.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument and instructions should be 

directed to Jamie Goen, (206) 526–4646 

or jamie.goen@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

The success of fisheries management 

programs depends significantly on 

regulatory compliance. The vessel 

identification requirement is essential to 

facilitate enforcement. The ability to 

link fishing or other activity to the 

vessel owner or operator is crucial to 

enforcement of regulations issued under 

the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act. A vessel’s official number is 

required to be displayed on the port and 

starboard sides of the deckhouse or hull, 

and on a weather deck. It identifies each 

vessel and should be visible at distances 

at sea and in the air. Vessels that qualify 

for particular fisheries are readily 

identified, gear violations are more 

readily prosecuted, and this allows for 

more cost-effective enforcement. 

Cooperating fishermen also use the 

number to report suspicious activities 

that they observe. The regulationcompliant fishermen ultimately benefit 

as unauthorized and illegal fishing is 

deterred and more burdensome 

regulations are avoided. 

II. Method of Collection 

Fishing vessel owners physically 

mark vessel with identification numbers 

in three locations per vessel. 

III. Data 

OMB Number: 0648–0355. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

1,693. 

Estimated Time per Response: 45 

minutes (15 minutes per marking). 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 1,270. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $59,255. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES