Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices 60241 

systems, and other related uses. 

Standard pipe may also be used for light 

load–bearing and mechanical 

applications, such as for fence tubing, 

and for protection of electrical wiring, 

such as conduit shells. 

The scope is not limited to standard 

pipe and fence tubing, or those types of 

mechanical and structural pipe that are 

used in standard pipe applications. All 

carbon steel pipes and tubes within the 

physical description outlined above are 

included in the scope of this order, 

except for line pipe, oil country tubular 

goods, boiler tubing, cold–drawn or 

cold–rolled mechanical tubing, pipe and 

tube hollows for redraws, finished 

scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit. 

Imports of these products are 

currently classifiable under the 

following Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) 

subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 

7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 

7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 

7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

scope of this proceeding is dispositive. 

Intent to Rescind the 2007–2008 

Administrative Review, in Part 

Toscelik submitted a letter on July 8, 

2008, certifying that it did not, directly 

or indirectly, export or sell for 

consumption in the United States any 

subject merchandise during the POR. 

The petitioner did not comment on 

Toscelik’s no–shipment claim. 

We conducted an internal customs 

data query on July 23, 2008. See 

September 29, 2005, Memorandum to 

The File through James Terpstra, 

Program Manager, entitled ‘‘Internal 

Customs Data Query.’’ The data query 

indicated Toscelik had no entries, 

exports, or sales to the United States of 

subject merchandise during the POR. 

Based on our analysis of the shipment 

data, Toscelik is a non–shipper for this 

review. Therefore, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent 

with our practice, we preliminarily 

determine to rescind this review. See 

e.g., Stainless Steel Bar from India; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Review, and Partial Rescission 

of Administrative Review, 65 FR 12209 

(March 8, 2000); Persulfates From the 

People’s Republic of China; Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission of Administrative Review, 65 

FR 18963 (April 10, 2000). 

Public Comment 

An interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this preliminary notice. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 

will be held 44 days after the date of 

publication of this preliminary notice, 

or the first working day thereafter. 

Interested parties may submit case briefs 

no later than 30 days after the date of 

publication of this preliminary notice. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in such 

briefs, may be filed no later than five 

days after the time limit for filing the 

case brief 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties 

who submit arguments are requested to 

submit with the argument (1) a 

statement of the issue, (2) a brief 

summary of the argument, and (3) a 

table of authorities. Further, parties 

submitting written comments should 

provide the Department with an 

additional copy of the public version of 

any such comments on diskette. The 

Department will issue the final notice, 

which will include the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any such 

comments, or at a hearing, if requested, 

within 120 days of publication of this 

preliminary notice. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(d). 

Dated: October 01, 1008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–24204 Filed 10–9–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–351–840) 

Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review 

and Intent Not to Revoke, In Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 10, 2008. 

SUMMARY: On April 29, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published a notice of 

initiation of a changed circumstances 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on certain orange juice from Brazil to 

consider partially revoking the order to 

exclude ultra low pulp orange juice 

(ULPOJ) pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), and 19 CFR 351.216(b) and 

351.222(g)(1)(i). See Certain Orange 

Juice from Brazil: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review, 73 FR 23182 

(Apr. 29, 2008) (Initiation Notice). Upon 

analyzing the industry support 

information provided by the interested 

parties participating in this review, we 

preliminarily determine there is not 

sufficient industry support for the 

Department to partially revoke the order 

on certain orange juice from Brazil to 

exclude ULPOJ. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Eastwood or Henry Almond; 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3874 or (202) 482– 

0049, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 9, 2006, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on certain 

orange juice from Brazil. See 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Orange Juice from Brazil, 72 FR 12183 

(Mar. 9, 2006). 

On June 14, 2007, Tropicana 

Products, Inc. (Tropicana) requested 

that the Department initiate a changed 

circumstances review to consider 

partially revoking the antidumping duty 

order on certain orange juice from Brazil 

to exclude ULPOJ. According to 

Tropicana, producers accounting for 

substantially all of the production of the 

domestic like product have no interest 

in maintaining the order on ULPOJ, and 

no domestic producer is capable of 

producing ULPOJ. 

On July 24, 2007, we notified 

Tropicana that its June 14 request was 

insufficient for the Department to 

initiate a changed circumstances review, 

and we requested documentation from 

Tropicana regarding its industry support 

assertions and further information 

regarding the pulp content of ULPOJ. 

On January 31, 2008, Tropicana 

responded to the Department’s request 

for information, providing: 1) letters of 

support from processors either 

supporting or not opposing Tropicana’s 

request to exclude ULPOJ from the 

order; 2) a calculation of the level of 

industry support; and 3) documentation 

regarding the pulp content of ULPOJ. 

On February 29, 2008, we received 

comments from Florida Citrus Mutual, 

A. Duda & Sons, Inc. (doing business as 

Citrus Belle), and Citrus World, Inc., all 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

60242 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices 

1These entities are also petitioners in this 

proceeding and are opposing this changed 

circumstances review; however, another petitioner, 

Southern Gardens Citrus Processing Corporation, 

has not joined these entities in opposing 

Tropicana’s request. 

members of the domestic industry1, 

regarding Tropicana’s request. These 

domestic producers (hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘the petitioners’’) asserted that the 

Department must consider the position 

of the entire domestic industry (i.e., 

both processors and growers) when 

determining the level of industry 

support, as was done for purposes of the 

initiation of this proceeding. According 

to the petitioners, when the growers are 

considered, there is an insufficient level 

of industry support necessary for the 

Department to partially revoke the order 

under 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i). In 

addition, the petitioners note that, 

contrary to Tropicana’s assertion, the 

U.S. domestic industry is capable of 

producing ULPOJ. Therefore, the 

petitioners urged the Department to 

reject Tropicana’s request and not 

initiate this changed circumstances 

review. 

On March 6, 2008, we requested 

additional information from Tropicana 

regarding an incomplete letter contained 

in its January 31 response. On March 10, 

2008, Tropicana submitted the 

requested information. 

On April 29, 2008, the Department 

published a notice of initiation of a 

changed circumstances review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

orange juice from Brazil to consider 

partially revoking the order to exclude 

ULPOJ. See Initiation Notice, 73 FR 

23182. 

On May 6, 2008, we requested 

additional information from Tropicana 

regarding the industry support for its 

partial revocation request, including the 

position of growers, as well as the 

position of domestic growers and 

processors outside of Florida. On May 

27, 2008, Tropicana responded to this 

request with a revised calculation of 

industry support, including processors 

from states other than Florida, and it 

reiterated its position that growers 

should not be included in the 

Department’s industry support 

calculation and that the domestic 

industry is incapable of producing 

ULPOJ. 

On June 16, 2008, the petitioners 

submitted additional comments stating 

their position that growers should be 

included in the Department’s industry 

support calculation and that the 

domestic industry is capable of 

producing ULPOJ. 

On June 25, 2008, Tropicana 

submitted further information regarding 

a California orange juice processor’s 

support for Tropicana’s request for 

partial revocation, as well as a revised 

calculation of industry support 

including this processor, and on July 22, 

2008, it submitted further comments. 

On August 21, 2008, we requested 

additional information from the 

petitioners regarding their position on 

the partial revocation request and an 

industry support calculation reflecting 

their position. On September 4, 2008, 

the petitioners provided this 

information, stating their opposition to 

the partial revocation request along with 

an industry support calculation showing 

that the petitioners’ opposition accounts 

for well over 15 percent of the domestic 

industry. On September 12, 2008, 

Tropicana submitted comments 

responding to this submission. On 

September 19, 2008, the petitioners 

submitted further comments. 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of this order includes 

certain orange juice for transport and/or 

further manufacturing, produced in two 

different forms: (1) frozen orange juice 

in a highly concentrated form, 

sometimes referred to as frozen 

concentrated orange juice for 

manufacture (FCOJM); and (2) 

pasteurized single–strength orange juice 

which has not been concentrated, 

referred to as not–from-concentrate 

(NFC). At the time of the filing of the 

petition, there was an existing 

antidumping duty order on frozen 

concentrated orange juice (FCOJ) from 

Brazil. See Antidumping Duty Order; 

Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from 

Brazil, 52 FR 16426 (May 5, 1987). 

Therefore, the scope of this order with 

regard to FCOJM covers only FCOJM 

produced and/or exported by those 

companies which were excluded or 

revoked from the pre–existing 

antidumping order on FCOJ from Brazil 

as of December 27, 2004. Those 

companies are Cargill Citrus Limitada; 

Coinbra–Frutesp S.A.; Sucocitrico 

Cutrale, S.A.; Fischer S.A. Comercio, 

Industria and Agricutura; and 

Montecitrus Trading S.A. 

Excluded from the scope of the order 

are reconstituted orange juice and 

frozen concentrated orange juice for 

retail (FCOJR). Reconstituted orange 

juice is produced through further 

manufacture of FCOJM, by adding 

water, oils and essences to the orange 

juice concentrate. FCOJR is 

concentrated orange juice, typically at 

42 Brix, in a frozen state, packed in 

retail–sized containers ready for sale to 

consumers. FCOJR, a finished consumer 

product, is produced through further 

manufacture of FCOJM, a bulk 

manufacturer’s product. 

The subject merchandise is currently 

classifiable under subheadings 

2009.11.00, 2009.12.25, 2009.12.45, and 

2009.19.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

These HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and for customs 

purposes only and are not dispositive. 

Rather, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Scope of Changed Circumstances 

Review 

The product subject to this changed 

circumstances review is ULPOJ, which 

is concentrated orange juice with a pulp 

content of two percent or less by 

weight/volume on an 11.8 degree brix 

equivalent base. This product is a form 

of FCOJM and is commonly used in the 

manufacture of soft drink concentrates. 

Preliminary Results of Changed 

Circumstances Review 

Pursuant to section 751(d) of the Act, 

the Department may revoke an 

antidumping duty order based on a 

review under section 751(b) of the Act. 

The Department’s regulations at section 

351.222(g)(1)(i) provide that the 

Department may revoke an order, in 

whole or in part, based on changed 

circumstances if ‘‘{p}roducers 

accounting for substantially all of the 

production of the domestic like product 

to which the order (or part of the order 

to be revoked) pertains have expressed 

a lack of interest in the order, in whole 

or in part.’’ In this context, the 

Department has interpreted 

‘‘substantially all’’ production normally 

to mean at least 85 percent of domestic 

production of the like product. See e.g., 

Certain Corrosion–Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products From Japan: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review 

and Intent Not to Revoke, In Part, 70 FR 

35618, 35624 (June 21, 2005), 

unchanged in Certain Corrosion– 

Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

From Japan: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review and 

Determination Not to Revoke, In Part, 70 

FR 47787 (Aug. 15, 2005). 

In determining whether to initiate the 

less–than-fair–value (LTFV) 

investigation, the Department relied on 

section 771(4)(E) (i.e., the ‘‘agricultural 

provision’’) of the Act to include 

growers of oranges as part of the 

relevant industry for purposes of 

evaluating industry support for the 

petition. See Notice of Initiation of 

Antidumping Investigation: Certain 

Orange Juice From Brazil, 70 FR 7233, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices 60243 

2We note that pursuant to section 732(c)(4)(E) of 

the Act, ‘‘{a}fter the administering authority makes 

a determination with respect to initiating an 

investigation, the determination regarding industry 

support shall not be reconsidered.’’ 

7234 (Feb. 11, 2005). Tropicana argues 

that, although growers were permissibly 

included in the calculation of industry 

support in the LTFV investigation under 

the agricultural provision, that 

provision does not apply to changed 

circumstances reviews. Thus, Tropicana 

argues that only orange juice processors 

should be included in the Department’s 

calculations when determining whether 

‘‘producers’’ making this request 

account for substantially all of the 

production of the domestic like product 

under 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i). 

Moreover, Tropicana argues that to deny 

a revocation request, the Department 

normally requires producers accounting 

for at least 15 percent of domestic 

production to affirmatively demonstrate 

their opposition to revocation. See, e.g., 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

from Italy: Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review and Intent to 

Revoke Order, 71 FR 7737, 7739 (Feb. 

14, 2006); and Certain Corrosion– 

Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

and Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 

Products From Germany: Preliminary 

Results of Countervailing Duty Changed 

Circumstances Reviews, 69 FR 4114, 

4116 (Jan. 28, 2004). 

We disagree with Tropicana that 

growers of oranges for processing into 

juice should be excluded from the 

Department’s industry support 

calculation in this changed 

circumstances review. Under section 

732(b)(1) of the Act, the Department 

must determine whether the petition is 

filed on behalf of the domestic industry 

at the time that it initiates an 

investigation. In order to determine 

whether the petition has been filed on 

behalf of the domestic industry, section 

732(c)(4)(A) of the Act requires the 

Department to determine the proportion 

of the industry, in terms of production 

of the domestic like product, supporting 

the petition. Section 771(4)(A) of the 

Act defines the term ‘‘industry’’ as ‘‘the 

producers as a whole of a domestic like 

product, or those producers whose 

collective output of a domestic like 

product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product.’’ Moreover, section 771(4)(E)(i) 

of the Act states ‘‘in an investigation 

involving a processed agricultural 

product produced from any raw 

agricultural product, the producers or 

growers of the raw agricultural product 

may be considered part of the industry 

producing the processed product.’’ 

We find that the definition of the 

domestic industry from the LTFV 

investigation applies in subsequent 

segments of the proceeding.2 In the 

LTFV investigation, the Department 

‘‘included growers of round oranges for 

processing as part of the industry 

producing the processed agricultural 

product.’’ See the October 6, 2008, 

memorandum to the file from Henry 

Almond, analyst, entitled, ‘‘Placing 

Information Regarding the LTFV 

Industry Support Calculation on the 

Record of the ULPOJ Changed 

Circumstances Review,’’ at page 10 

(emphasis added) (LTFV Industry 

Support Memo). Similar to the 

determination required by section 

732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, the Department’s 

regulations require the Department to 

determine what proportion of the 

‘‘production of the domestic like 

product’’ those producers expressing a 

lack of interest in the order, in whole or 

in part, represent. Thus, because 

growers of the oranges that are 

ultimately processed into juice are part 

of the industry producing the domestic 

like product, we find that they are 

‘‘producers’’ for purposes of 19 CFR 

351.222(g)(1)(i) and must be included in 

the Department’s industry support 

calculation. Moreover, including these 

companies for industry support 

purposes when determining whether to 

initiate the LTFV investigation, but 

excluding them for purposes of a partial 

revocation, would create two mutually 

inconsistent definitions of the industry 

producing the domestic like product 

and would deny those petitioners the 

ability to maintain the order, in whole 

or in part. Although Tropicana has 

attempted to provide statutory support 

for its argument that the relevant 

industry for purposes of this changed 

circumstances review should not 

include the growers, these arguments 

are unpersuasive and do not justify 

creating two inconsistent definitions of 

the domestic industry. 

Regarding Tropicana’s claim that the 

domestic industry is incapable of 

producing ULPOJ and the petitioners’ 

counterclaim that it can, we note that 

neither party has based any argument on 

this fact, nor explained why this is 

relevant to the Department’s changed 

circumstances review. Moreover, the 

fact that the domestic industry does not 

produce a specific type or class of 

product covered under the scope of an 

antidumping duty order has no bearing 

on the scope of the order and is not 

grounds for partial revocation under 19 

CFR 351.222. See, e.g., Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cold–Rolled Carbon 

Steel Flat Products From Argentina, 58 

FR 37062 (July 9, 1993) (where the 

Department stated that ‘‘there is no 

requirement that interested parties 

manufacture every product within the 

like product designation, only that they 

are producers of a like product’’). 

Accordingly, the Department finds that 

the domestic industry’s ability to 

produce ULPOJ is not germane to these 

preliminary results. 

In the LTFV investigation, the 

Department calculated industry support 

by giving equal weight to the juice 

output of the processors and the orange 

fruit input of the growers. See LTFV 

Industry Support Memo at 18–20. Under 

this methodology, well over 15 percent 

of the domestic industry has expressed 

an interest in maintaining the order on 

ULPOJ. See the petitioners’ September 

4, 2008, submission at Exhibit 1. Thus, 

Tropicana has not shown that producers 

accounting for substantially all of the 

production of the domestic like product 

have expressed a lack of interest in the 

order with respect to ULPOJ, as required 

by 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i), and 

therefore, we preliminarily determine 

that there is insufficient evidence to 

warrant the revocation of ULPOJ from 

the scope of the order. 

Notice of Intent Not To Revoke the 

Antidumping Duty Order, In Part 

Under the definition of ‘‘substantially 

all,’’ as discussed above, over 15 percent 

of the domestic industry has expressed 

opposition to excluding ULPOJ from the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

orange juice from Brazil. As a result, we 

preliminarily determine that changed 

circumstances sufficient to warrant 

revocation in part of the antidumping 

duty order on certain orange juice from 

Brazil do not exist. The current 

requirements for the cash deposit of 

estimated antidumping duties on the 

subject merchandise will remain in 

effect until further notice. 

Parties wishing to comment on these 

results must submit briefs to the 

Department within 30 days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. Parties will have five days 

subsequent to this due date to submit 

rebuttal briefs. Parties who submit 

comments or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are requested to submit with 

the argument: (1) a statement of the 

issue, and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument (no longer than five pages, 

including footnotes). Any requests for 

hearing must be filed within 30 days of 

the publication of this notice in the 

Federal Register. In accordance with 19 

CFR 351.216(e), the Department will 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

60244 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices 

issue its final results of review within 

270 days after the date on which the 

changed circumstances review was 

initiated (i.e., no later than January 19, 

2009). 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.216. 

Dated: October 6, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–24205 Filed 10–9–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Coastal Zone 

Management Program Administration 

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, 

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2)(A)). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before December 9, 

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 Diana Olinger, 301–563– 

1149 or e-mail at 

diana.olinger@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

In 1972, in response to intense 

pressure on coastal resources, and 

because of the importance of coastal 

areas of the United States, the Congress 

passed the Coastal Zone Management 

Act of 1972 (CZMA). The CZMA 

authorized a federal program to 

encourage coastal states and territories 

to develop comprehensive coastal 

management programs. 

The CZMA has been reauthorized on 

several occasions, most recently with 

the enactment of the Coastal Zone 

Protection Act of 1996. The program is 

administered by the Secretary of 

Commerce, who in turn has delegated 

this responsibility to the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s (NOAA) National 

Ocean Services (NOS). 

The coastal zone management grants 

provide funds to states and territories to 

implement federally-approved coastal 

management plans; complete 

information for the Coastal Zone 

Management Program (CZMP) 

Performance Management System, 

revise assessment document and multiyear strategy; submit documentation as 

described in the CZMA Section 306A on 

the approved coastal zone management 

plans; submit requests to approve 

amendments or program changes; and 

report on the states’ coastal nonpoint 

(not from a specific location) source 

pollution programs (CNSPP). 

II. Method of Collection 

Information may be submitted by mail 

or by e-mail. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: 0648–0119. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: State, Local and 

Tribal Government. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

34. 

Estimated Time per Response: 

Performance reports, 27 hours; 

assessment and strategy, 240 hours; 

Section 306A documentation, 5 hours; 

amendments and routine program 

changes, 8 hours; CNSPP 

documentation, 4 hours, and CZMA 

Performance Management System 

information, 27 hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 8,261. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $680. 

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 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarify of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: October 6, 2008. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E8–24018 Filed 10–9–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Pacific Islands 

Region Coral Reef Ecosystems Permit 

Form 

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 December 9, 

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 Walter Ikehara, (808) 944– 

2275 or Walter.Ikehara@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

As described in 50 CFR Part 665, 

Subpart G, National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) requires any person: (1) 

Fishing for, taking, retaining, or using a 

vessel to fish for Western Pacific coral 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES