Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-07-03 · Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce · Notices

Notices. Issuance of permit

33,213 words·~151 min read·/register/2007/07/03/07-3228

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-863] Honey from the People's Republic of China: 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 currently conducting the semi-annual 2005-2006 new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).
We preliminarily determine to apply adverse facts available (“AFA”) with respect to Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Bloom”), which failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, provided unverifiable information, and impeded the proceeding. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the period of review (“POR”) for which the importer-specific assessment rates are above *de minimis* .
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 2007) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Begnal or Anya Naschak, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 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)482-6375, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 21, 2006, the Department received a timely request from Shanghai Bloom, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(c), for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). On July 20, 2006, the Department extended the deadline to initiate Shanghai Bloom's new shipper review, in order to clarify certain information contained in Shanghai Bloom's request for a new shipper review. On August 30, 2006, after receiving supplemental information from Shanghai Bloom, the Department found that the request for review with respect to Shanghai Bloom met all of the regulatory requirements set forth in 19 CFR 351.214(b) and initiated a antidumping duty new shipper review covering the period December 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. *See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review* , 71 FR 52764 (September 7, 2006) (“Initiation Notice”). On September 11, 2006, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to Shanghai Bloom. *See* Letter to Shanghai Bloom from Carrie Blozy, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9 (September 11, 2006). On October 2, 2006, Shanghai Bloom responded to section A of the Department's questionnaire. On October 18, 2006, Shanghai Bloom submitted its response to sections C and D, and importer-specific questions of the Department's questionnaire. On October 26, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Shanghai Bloom, and received Shanghai Bloom's response on November 24, 2006. On January 3, 2007, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Shanghai Bloom. Shanghai Bloom submitted its response and its importer's response to the Department's second supplemental questionnaire on January 31, 2007. On January 9, 2007, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of the new shipper review until June 26, 2007. *See Notice of Extension of the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Honey From the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 947 (January 9, 2007). On March 20, 2007, the Department rejected Shanghai Bloom's January 31, 2007, response on the grounds that proprietary information was not sufficiently summarized in the public version. On March 22, 2007, per the Department's instruction, Shanghai Bloom resubmitted its response as well as its importer's response to the Department's second supplemental questionnaire. On March 29, 2007, Shanghai Bloom submitted revised FOP spreadsheets and reconciliation charts that related to its March 22, 2007, filing. On March 30, 2007, the Department issued Shanghai Bloom a third supplemental questionnaire. The Department received Shanghai Bloom's response and its importer's response to the third supplemental questionnaire on April 13, 2007. On April 19, 2007, Shanghai Bloom re-filed its importer's response to the Department's March 30, 2007, importer-specific questions contained in its third supplemental questionnaire. From May 15, 2007, through May 18, 2007, the Department conducted verifications of the sales and factors of production information submitted by Shanghai Bloom and its unaffiliated producer, Linxiang Jindeya Bee-Keeping Co., Ltd. (“Linxiang Jindeya”). Surrogate Country and Factors On March 13, 2007, the Department provided parties with an opportunity to submit publicly available information (“PAI”) on surrogate countries and values for consideration in these preliminary results. *See* Letter to All Interested Parties, from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding * New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China * , dated March 13, 2007. On March 28, 2007, Shanghai Bloom submitted surrogate value data ( *see* Letter from Shanghai Bloom to the U.S. Department of Commerce regarding *Honey from the People's Republic of China New Shipper Review* (March 28, 2007). On May 14, 2007, the petitioners 1 submitted surrogate value data (see Letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, from petitioners, regarding *9th New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China* , dated May 14, 2007. 1 Petitioners are the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association. Verification As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), the Department verified the questionnaire responses of Shanghai Bloom from May 15, 2007, to May 18, 2007, (which included a verification of Shanghai Bloom's unaffiliated producer, Linxiang Jindeya). For these companies, we used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's and exporter's facilities, and examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the verification report for each company. For a further discussion, see Memorandum to the File, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Anya Naschak, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, and Michael Holton, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, regarding Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co. Ltd., in the Antidumping New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China (“Shanghai Bloom Verification Report”); *see also* Memorandum to the File, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Anya Naschak, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, and Michael Holton, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, regarding Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of Shanghai Bloom that relate to Linxiang Jindeya Bee-Keeping Co., Ltd., in the Antidumping New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China (“Linxiang Jindeya Verification Report”). Scope of Order The products covered by this order are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under order is dispositive. Separate Rates In proceedings involving non-market economy (“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 rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law ( *de jure* ) and in fact ( *de facto* ), with respect to its export activities. In this review, Shanghai Bloom submitted information in support of its claim for a company-specific rate. Accordingly, we have considered whether Shanghai Bloom is independent from government control, and therefore eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate-rate test to determine whether the exporters are independent from government control does not consider, in general, macroeconomic/border-type controls, *e.g* ., export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the individual firm level. *See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value* , 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997), and *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997). To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588, 20589 (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, 22586-7 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). In accordance with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* government control over export activities. Shanghai Bloom provided complete separate-rate information in its responses to our original and supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly, we performed a separate-rates analysis to determine whether it is independent from government control. Absence of *De Jure* Control The Department considers the following de jure criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate:
(1)an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;
(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and
(3)other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *See Sparklers* , 56 FR at 20589. Our analysis shows that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of *de jure* absence of government control for Shanghai Bloom. Shanghai Bloom has placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate absence of *de jure* control, including the “Company Law of the People's Republic of China” (December 29, 1993), and the “Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China” (May 12, 1994). *See* Exhibit A-2 of Shanghai Bloom's October 2, 2005, submission (Shanghai Bloom Section A). Shanghai Bloom also submitted a copy of its business license in Exhibit A-3 of its section A response, and a revised business license at verification. See Shanghai Bloom Verification Report at Exhibit SB2. The Shanghai Industry and Commerce Administration Bureau issued these licenses. Shanghai Bloom explained that its business license defines the scope of the company's business activities and ensures the company has sufficient capital to continue its business operations. Shanghai Bloom affirmed that license defines the scope of its business operations and that there are no other limitations imposed by the business license. Shanghai Bloom stated that it is governed by the Company Law and the Foreign Trade Law, which it claimed governs the establishment of limited liability companies and provides that such a company shall operate independently and be responsible for its own profits and losses and allowing them full autonomy from the central authority in governing their business operations. We have reviewed Article 11 of Chapter II of the Foreign Trade Law, which states, “foreign trade dealers shall enjoy full autonomy in their business operation and be responsible for their own profits and losses in accordance with the law.” As in prior cases, we have analyzed such PRC laws and found that they establish an absence of *de jure* control. *See, e.g., Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of New Shipper Review* , 63 FR 3085, 3086 (January 21, 1998) and Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 30695, 30696 (June 7, 2001), as affirmed in *Final Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 45006 (August 27, 2001). Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of *de jure* control over the export activities of Shanghai Bloom. Absence of *De Facto* Control Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether a respondent is subject to de facto government control of its export functions:
(1)whether the export prices are set by, or subject to, the approval of a government authority;
(2)whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts, and other agreements;
(3)whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of its management; and
(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. *See Silicon Carbide* , 59 FR at 22587. As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. *Id* . at 22586-22587. Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of *de facto* control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of government control, which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. Shanghai Bloom has asserted the following:
(1)it is a privately owned company;
(2)there is no government participation in its setting of export prices;
(3)its general manager has the authority to bind sales contracts;
(4)the company's executive director appoints the company's management and it does not have to notify government authorities of its management selection;
(5)there are no restrictions on the use of its export revenue; and
(6)its executive director decides how profits will be used. In support of its claim to independent price negotiations, Shanghai Bloom stated that such negotiations were conducted through emails and telephone calls, and that it had placed on the record copies of all emails between itself and its U.S. customer during the POR. 2 Shanghai Bloom also stated that its only email account was the account listed on the above-referenced sales negotiations. *Id* . 2 See e.g., Shanghai Bloom's Section A at Exhibit A-5, Shanghai Bloom's Response to the Departments Second Supplemental Questionnaire at 3, (March 22, 2007), and Shanghai Bloom's Response to the Department's Third Supplemental Questionnaire at 1, (April 13, 2007). At the verification of Shanghai Bloom, the Department found that the emails placed on the record by Shanghai Bloom were not stored in Shanghai Bloom's email account, and were instead stored in text files on Shanghai Bloom's computer hard drive. *See* Shanghai Bloom Verification Report at 9. In addition, the Department found at verification that Shanghai Bloom used an additional email address for official company business; the Department requested access to this email account. However, company officials stated that all information in the account had been deleted prior to granting the Department access to the account. *See* Shanghai Bloom Verification Report at 8. However, the Department successfully verified that Shanghai Bloom is a privately owned company ( *see* Shanghai Bloom Verification Report at 3-4 and Exhibit SB2), that Shanghai Bloom independently selected management ( *id* . at 10), and that Shanghai Bloom had authority to determine the use of sales revenue ( *id* .). Moreover, the Department found no indications of restrictions on the use of export revenue ( *id* .). Furthermore, Shanghai Bloom supplied sales negotiation documentation including a purchase order and sales contract with an independent third party, demonstrating its independent setting of export prices. *See* Shanghai Bloom Verification Report at 18. Irrespective of the issues with respect to the email accounts, which are addressed separately below under “Use of Adverse Facts Otherwise Available,” because evidence on the record preliminarily indicates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, over Shanghai Bloom's export activities, we preliminarily determine that it has met the criteria for the application of a separate rate. However, we will continue to carefully examine these issues for the Final Results. Use of Adverse Facts Otherwise Available For the reasons outlined below, we have applied total adverse facts available to Shanghai Bloom. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party:
(A)withholds information that has been requested by the Department;
(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and
(e)of the Act;
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that when the Department finds that a respondent has not complied with a request for information, the Department shall inform the respondent of the deficiency and allow them an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the Department finds that the subsequent response of the respondent is deficient or is not filed within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to subsection
(e)disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses. Moreover, section 782(e) states that the Department shall not decline to consider information by a respondent if:
(1)the information is submitted by the deadline established for its submission;
(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 in providing information and meeting the requirements established by the Department with respect to the information; and
(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. The Department conducted verification of Shanghai Bloom's sales and factors of production information placed on the record of this new shipper review. Shanghai Bloom impeded the Department's verification of its information by destroying or deleting information needed to verify completeness and price negotiations and by providing unverifiable factors of production (“FOP”) data. *See* Shanghai Bloom Verification Report; *see also* Linxiang Jindeya Verification Report. Because Shanghai Bloom deleted information needed to verify completeness and price negotiations, section 782(d) and
(e)of the Act are not applicable. See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration from Erin Begnal, Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, regarding *Honey from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Application of Adverse Facts Available to Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd* . (June 26, 2007). By hindering the Department's ability to conduct verification through destroying and/or deleting pertinent information and by providing information at verification that directly conflicted with information previously submitted on the record by Shanghai Bloom, Shanghai Bloom has not cooperated to the best of its ability. According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1 at 870 (1994). As explained above, Shanghai Bloom provided unverifiable information on the record, deleted information requested by the Department, and failed to provide evidence of price negotiations. Therefore, Shanghai Bloom did not cooperate to the best of its ability. Because Shanghai Bloom did not cooperate to the best of its ability in the proceeding, the Department finds it necessary, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A),(B) and
(C)and 776(b) of the Act, to use adverse facts available (“AFA”) as the basis for these preliminary results of review for Shanghai Bloom . Selection of AFA Rate In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on information derived from
(1)the petition,
(2)a final determination in the investigation,
(3)any previous review or determination, or
(4)any information placed on the record. In reviews, the Department normally selects, as AFA, the highest rate on the record of any segment of the proceeding. *See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 19504 (April 21, 2003). The Court of International Trade (“CIT”) and the Federal Circuit have consistently upheld the Department's practice in this regard. *See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States* , 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Circ. 1990) (“ *Rhone Poulenc* ”); NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a LTFV investigation); *see also Kompass Food Trading Int'l v. United States* , 24 CIT 678, 689
(2000)(upholding a 51.16 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different, fully cooperative respondent); and *Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States* , 360 F. Supp 2d 1339, 1348 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a previous administrative review). The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value* , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures “that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* SAA at 870; *see also Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil* , 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 2004); *D&L Supply Co. v. United States* , 113 F. 3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In choosing the appropriate balance between providing respondents with an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior margin “reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.” *Rhone Poulenc* , 899 F.2d at 1190. Consistent with the statute, court precedent, and its normal practice, the Department has assigned the rate of 212.39 percent, the highest rate on the record of any segment of the proceeding, to Shanghai Bloom as AFA. *See, e.g., Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* 71 FR 34893 (June 16, 2006) (“ *Third AR Final Results* ”). As discussed further below, this rate has been corroborated. Corroboration of Secondary Information Used as AFA Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, where the Department selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on “secondary information,” the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. Secondary information is described in the SAA as “{i}nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See* SAA at 870. The SAA states that “corroborate” means to determine that the information used has probative value. The Department has determined that to have probative value information must be reliable and relevant. *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). The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan* , 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003); and, *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada* , 70 FR 12181 (March 11, 2005). To be considered corroborated, information must be found to be both reliable and relevant. Unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated dumping margins. The only sources for calculated margins are administrative determinations. The information upon which the AFA rate we are applying for the current review was calculated during the third administrative review. *See Third AR Final Results* . Furthermore, no information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of this information. Thus, the Department finds that the information is reliable. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. *See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996). Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. *See D & L Supply Co. v. United States* , 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). The AFA rate we are applying for the current review was corroborated in the third administrative review of honey from the PRC. See Third AR Final Results. Moreover, as there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriately used as adverse facts available, we determine that this rate has relevance. As the *Third AR Final Results* margin is both reliable and relevant, we find that it has probative value. As a result, the Department determines that the Third AR Final Results margin is corroborated for the purposes of this administrative review and may reasonably be applied to Shanghai Bloom. Because these are preliminary results of review, the Department will consider all margins on the record at the time of the final results of review for the purpose of determining the most appropriate final margin for Shanghai Bloom. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian Federation* , 65 FR 1139 (January 7, 2000). Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily determine that the following margin exists during the period December 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006: Honey from the PRC Shanghai Bloom 212.39 We will disclose our analysis to parties to these proceedings within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration within 30 days of 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 case and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument
(1)a statement of the issue and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. The Department will issue the final results of this review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice. Assessment Rates Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)the cash deposit rate will be established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or *de minimis, i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that company);
(2)for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 212.39 percent; and
(4)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. 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 and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.214. Dated: June 26, 2007. Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-12891 Filed 7-2-03; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XB04 Endangered Species; File No. 1599 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Issuance of permit. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Inwater Research Group, Inc. (Michael J. Bresette-Responsible Party), 4160 NE Hyline Dr, Jensen Beach, FL 34957 has been issued a permit to take green ( *Chelonia mydas* ), loggerhead ( *Caretta carett* a), hawksbill ( *Eretmochelys imbricata* ), and Kemp's ridley ( *Lepidochelys kempii* ) sea turtles for purposes of scientific research. ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Ave South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; phone (727)824-5312; fax (727)824-5309. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Swails or Patrick Opay,
(301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 21, 2007, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 13250) that a request for a scientific research permit to take sea turtles had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226). The purpose of the proposed research is to continue long term monitoring of sea turtles foraging in the Key West National Wildlife Refuge and surrounding waters. The applicant will net or hand capture up to 90 green, 135 loggerhead, 15 hawksbill, and 5 Kemp's ridley sea turtles per year. The turtles will be measured, weighed, flipper and Passive Integrated Transponder tagged, blood and tissue sampled, marked with paint, and released. A subset of green turtles would be lavaged and satellite tagged. The permit is valid for five years. Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit
(1)was applied for in good faith,
(2)will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered or threatened species, and
(3)is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Dated: June 27, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-12871 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XB15 Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement; Seismic Surveys in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, Alaska AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of extension of comment period. SUMMARY: On April 6, 2007, notice was published in the Federal Register that NMFS and the Minerals Management Service had released for public comment a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Draft PEIS) for Seismic Surveys in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, Alaska. Based on a written request, the comment period on this document has been extended. DATES: Written comments must be postmarked by July 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments on the Draft PEIS should be addressed to Mr. P. Michael Payne, Chief of the Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225. The mailbox address for providing email comments is *PR1.ALASKAEIS@noaa.gov* . Comments sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. A copy of the Draft PEIS may be obtained by writing to this address or by telephoning the contact listed here and is also available at: *http://www.mms.gov/alaska/* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth R. Hollingshead, (301)713-2289, ext 128. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information on the content of the Draft PEIS can be found in the notice of availability (72 FR 17117, April 6, 2007). Notice of a previous extension of the comment period can be found at 72 FR 26788 (May 11, 2007). Dated: June 27, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-12880 Filed 6-28-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XB06 Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; Application for Exempted Fishing Permit Related to Horseshoe Crabs AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, is considering issuing an Exempted Fishing Permit to Limuli Laboratories of Cape May Court House, NJ, to conduct the seventh year of an exempted fishing operation otherwise restricted by regulations prohibiting the harvest of horseshoe crabs in the Carl N. Schuster Jr. Horseshoe Crab Reserve (Reserve) located 3 nautical miles
(nm)seaward from the mouth of the Delaware Bay. If granted, the EFP would allow the harvest of up to 10,000 horseshoe crabs for biomedical purposes and require, as a condition of the EFP, the collection of data related to the status of horseshoe crabs within the Reserve. This notice also invites comments on the issuance of the EFP to Limuli Laboratories. DATES: Written comments on this action must be received on or before July 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Alan Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13362, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Horseshoe Crab EFP Proposal.” Comments may also be sent via fax to
(301)713-0596. Comments on this notice may also be submitted by e-mail to: *Horseshoe-Crab.EFP@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: Horseshoe Crab EFP Proposal. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Meyer, Fishery Management Biologist,
(301)713-2334 x173. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The regulations that govern exempted fishing, at 50 CFR 600.745(b) and 50 CFR 697.22, allow a Regional Administrator or the Director of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries to authorize for limited testing, public display, data collection, exploration, health and safety, environmental clean-up and/or hazardous removal purposes, the targeting or incidental harvest of managed species that would otherwise be prohibited. Accordingly, an EFP to authorize such activity may be issued, provided: there is adequate opportunity for the public to comment on the EFP application, the conservation goals and objectives of the fishery management plan are not compromised, and issuance of the EFP is beneficial to the management of the species. The Reserve was established on March 7, 2001, to protect the Atlantic coast stock of horseshoe crabs and to support the effectiveness of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (Commission) Interstate Fishery Management Plan (ISFMP) for horseshoe crabs. The final rule (66 FR 8906; February 5, 2001) prohibited fishing for and possession of horseshoe crabs in the Reserve on a vessel with a trawl or dredge gear aboard while in the Reserve. While the rule did not allow for any biomedical harvest or the collection of fishery dependent data, NMFS stated in the comments and responses section that it would consider issuing EFPs for the biomedical harvest of horseshoe crabs in the Reserve. The biomedical industry collects horseshoe crabs, removes approximately 30 percent of their blood, and returns them alive to the water. Approximately 10 percent do not survive the bleeding process. The blood contains a reagent called *Limulus* Amebocyte Lysate
(LAL)that is used to test injectable drugs and medical devices for bacteria and bacterial by-products. Presently, there is no alternative to the LAL derived from horseshoe crabs. NMFS manages horseshoe crabs in the exclusive economic zone in close cooperation with the Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Commission's Horseshoe Crab Management Board met on April 21, 2000, and again on December 16, 2003, and recommended to NMFS that biomedical companies with a history of collecting horseshoe crabs in the Reserve be given an exemption to continue their historic levels of collection not to exceed a combined harvest total of 10,000 crabs annually. In 2000, the Commission's Horseshoe Crab Plan Review Team reported that biomedical harvest of up to 10,000 horseshoe crabs should be allowed to continue in the Reserve given that the resulting mortality should be only about 1,000 horseshoe crabs (10 percent mortality during bleeding process). Also in 2000, the Commission's Horseshoe Crab Stock Assessment Committee Chairman recommended that, in order to protect the Delaware Bay horseshoe crab population from over-harvest or excessive collection mortality, no more than a maximum of 20,000 horseshoe crabs should be collected for biomedical purposes from the Reserve. In addition to the direct mortality of horseshoe crabs that are bled, it can be expected that more than 20,000 horseshoe crabs will be trawled up and examined for LAL processing. This is because horseshoe crab trawl catches usually include varied sizes and sexes of horseshoe crabs and large female horseshoe crabs are the ones usually selected for LAL processing. The remaining horseshoe crabs are released at sea with some unknown amount of mortality. Although unknown, this mortality is expected to be negligible. Collection of horseshoe crabs for biomedical purposes from the Reserve is necessary because of the low numbers of horseshoe crabs found in other areas along the New Jersey Coast from July through early November and because of the critical role horseshoe crab blood plays in health care. In conjunction with the biomedical harvest, NMFS is considering requiring that scientific data be collected from the horseshoe crabs taken in the Reserve as a condition of receiving an EFP. Since the Reserve was first established, the only fishery data from the Reserve were under EFPs issued to Limuli Laboratories for the past five years, and under Scientific Research Activity Letter of Acknowledgment issued Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University's Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Science on September 4, 2001 (or collections from September 1-October 31, 200l), on September 24, 2002 (for collections from September 24-November 15, 2002), on August 14, 2003 (for collections from September 1-October 31, 2003), on September 15, 2004 (for collections from September 15-October 31, 2004), on September 9, 2005 (for collections from September 9-October 30, 2005), and on May 3, 2006 (for collections from June 1-November 30, 2006). Further data are needed to improve the understanding of the horseshoe crab population in the Delaware Bay area and to better manage the horseshoe crab resource under the cooperative state/Federal management program. The data collected through the EFP will be provided to NMFS, the Commission, and to the State of New Jersey. Results From 2006 EFP Limuli Laboratories applied for an EFP to collect horseshoe crabs for biomedical and data collection purposes from the Reserve in 2006. The EFP application specified that:
(1)the same methods would be used in 2006 that were used in years 2001-2005,
(2)15 percent of the bled horseshoe crabs would be tagged, and
(3)there had not been any sighting or capture of marine mammals or endangered species in the trawling nets of fishing vessels engaged in the collection of horseshoe crabs since 1993. In 2005, a Supplemental Environmental Assessment was completed and found that there was no significant impacts in conducting the EFP. An EFP was issued to Limuli Laboratories on August 4, 2006, which allowed them to collect horseshoe crabs in the Reserve until November 30, 2006. A total of 2,720 horseshoe crabs were collected in the Reserve in late September and October of 2006. Of these, 2,460 animals were used for the manufacture of LAL. Female horseshoe crab activity levels were active and very active; no males were used for the manufacture of LAL. The remaining 260 animals were rejected; 190 crabs (6.99 percent) were injured horseshoe crabs (a slight decrease from 7.8 percent last year), and 57 crabs (2.1 percent) were unresponsive and presumed dead due to collecting, transporting and handing (a decrease from 6.81 percent last year). In addition, 13 horseshoe crabs (0.48 percent) were rejected due to small size and not utilized in the manufacturing process. Horseshoe crabs were collected during 11 days in late September and October of 2006 (2 days in September and 9 days in October), and were transported to the laboratory for the bleeding operation and inspected for sex, size, injuries and responsiveness. Three to four tows were conducted during each fishing trip with the tows lasting no more than 30 minutes to avoid impacting loggerhead turtles. Horseshoe crabs were unloaded at Two Mile Dock, Wildwood Crest, New Jersey and at County Dock, Ocean City, Maryland and transported to the laboratory by truck. Since large horseshoe crabs, which are generally females, are used for LAL processing, all of the crabs transported to the laboratory were females. Of those 2,460 processed for LAL, 200 female crabs were measured (inter-ocular distances and prosoma widths), weighed, aged, and tagged to establish baseline morphometrics and ages, prior to being released. An additional 225 female bled animals were tagged for a total of 425 animals or 17.3 percent. The average measurements for the female horseshoe crabs were 167.69 mm for the inter-ocular distance (161.64 mm in 2005); 268.74 mm for the prosoma width (260.4 mm in 2005); and 2.51 kg for the weight (2.08 kg in 2005). The most common encrusting organism observed this year was the slipper shell. Sand tube worms were also noted on many of the animals. Only one crab had a barnacle and bryozoans were not found on any of the shells. It should be noted that many organisms may be removed during the washing/cleaning process prior to blood collection. Horseshoe crabs were aged in 2006 using Dr. Carl N. Schuster Jr.'s criteria of aging by appearance: female horseshoe crabs - virgin (1.5 percent), young (7.0 percent), young-medium (11.5 percent), medium (75 percent); medium-old (4.5 percent); and old (0.5 percent). Last year's percentages showed the majority of crabs were virgins (65 percent), while this year the majority were medium age (75 percent). This may have occurred because the horseshoe crab specimens were trawled off the coast of Sea Isle City, New Jersey and later in the season than in 2005. The specimens studied last year were trawled in deeper waters off Ocean City, Maryland in August and early September. In 2006, a total of 425 horseshoe crabs from the Reserve were tagged and released at the water's edge on Highs Beach, New Jersey. The beach was checked frequently, following release, to ensure the crabs had returned to the water. Sixteen live recoveries occurred; two animals from 2003 releases, two from 2004 and 12 from the 2005 releases. Thirteen of the recaptures were observed along the shores of Delaware Bay. Three horseshoe crabs migrated to the Atlantic Ocean. One was observed on the beach in Avalon, New Jersey, another within the Great Bay Inlet, New Jersey and the third crab was found in deep water off the coast of Ocean City, Maryland. Data collected under the EFP were supplied to NMFS, the Commission, and the State of New Jersey. Proposed 2006 EFP Limuli Laboratories proposes to conduct an exempted fishery operation using the same means, methods, and seasons utilized during the EFPs in 2001-2006, as described below under terms and conditions. Limuli proposes to continue to tag 15 percent of the bled horseshoe crabs as they did in 2006. The proposed EFP would exempt three commercial vessels from regulations at 50 CFR 697.7(e), which prohibit fishing for horseshoe crabs in the Reserve under § 697.23(f)(1) and prohibit possession of horseshoe crabs on a vessel with a trawl or dredge gear aboard in the same Reserve. Limuli Laboratories, in cooperation with the State of New Jersey's Division of Fish and Wildlife, submitted an application for an EFP on June 16, 2007. NMFS has made a preliminary determination that the subject EFP contains all the required information and warrants further consideration. NMFS has also made a preliminary determination that the activities authorized under the EFP would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Federal horseshoe crab regulations and the Commission's Horseshoe Crab ISFMP. Regulations at 50 CFR 600.745(b)(3)(v) authorize NMFS to attach terms and conditions to the EFP consistent with: the purpose of the exempted fishery, the objectives of horseshoe crab regulations and fisheries management plan, and other applicable law. NMFS is considering adding the following terms and conditions to the EFP: 1. Limiting the number of horseshoe crabs collected in the Reserve to no more than 500 crabs per day and to a total of no more than 10,000 crabs per year; 2. Requiring collections to take place over a total of approximately 20 days during the months of July, August, September, October, and November. Horseshoe crabs are readily available in harvestable concentrations nearshore earlier in the year, and offshore in the Reserve from July through November; 3. Requiring that a 5 1/2 inch (14.0 cm) flounder net be used by the vessel to collect the horseshoe crabs. This condition would allow for continuation of traditional harvest gear and adds to the consistency in the way horseshoe crabs are harvested for data collection; 4. Limiting trawl tow times to 30 minutes as a conservation measure to protect sea turtles, which are expected to be migrating through the area during the collection period, and are vulnerable to bottom trawling; 5. Restricting the hours of fishing to daylight hours only, approximately from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. to aid law enforcement. NMFS also is considering a requirement that the State of New Jersey Law Enforcement be notified daily as to when and where the collection will take place; 6. Requiring that the collected horseshoe crabs be picked up from the fishing vessels at docks in the Cape May Area and transported to local laboratories, bled for LAL, and released alive the following morning into the Lower Delaware Bay; and 7. Requiring that any turtle take be reported to NMFS, NERO Assistant Regional Administrator of Protected Resources Division (phone,
(978)281-9328) within 24 hours of returning from the trip in which the incidental take occurred. Also as part of the terms and conditions of the EFP, for all horseshoe crabs bled for LAL, NMFS is considering a requirement that the EFP holder provide data on sex ratio and daily numbers, and tag 15 percent of the horseshoe crabs harvested. Also, the EFP holder may be required to examine at least 200 horseshoe crabs for: morphometric data, by sex (e.g., interocular (I/O) distance and weight), and level of activity, as measured by a response or by distance traveled after release on a beach. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: June 27, 2007. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-12879 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XB08 Marine Mammals; File Nos. 808-1735 and 1058-1733 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permits. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Andrew Read, Ph.D., Duke University Marine Laboratory, 135 Pivers Island Road, Beaufort, North Carolina 28516 and Mark Baumgartner, Ph.D., MS #33, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 02543 have been issued permits to conduct research on humpback whales ( *Megaptera novaeangliae* ), blue whales ( *Balaenoptera musculus* ), fin whales ( *Balaenoptera physalus* ), sei whales ( *Balaenoptera borealis* ), and Antarctic minke whales ( *Balaenoptera bonaerensis* ). ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521;Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562)980-4001; fax (562)980-4018; and Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978)281-9300; fax (978)281-9394. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Hapeman or Jaclyn Daly, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 7, 2004, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (69 FR 18357) that requests for scientific research permits to take the species identified above had been submitted by the above-named individuals. The requested permits have been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226). Permit No. 808-1735, issued to Dr. Andrew Read, allows for the take of humpback, blue, fin, sei, and Antarctic minke whales in the Southern Ocean to examine their foraging behavior relative to krill patches. The permit authorizes the close approach of up to 295 humpback whales and 65 of each species of blue, fin, sei, and Antarctic minke whales annually during vessel surveys for photo-identification, behavioral observation, tracking, and incidental harassment. Of these animals, up to 45 humpbacks and 15 of each species of blue, fin, sei, and Antarctic minke whales may be suction-cup tagged annually during surveys. The permit is issued for five years. Permit No. 1058-1733, issued to Dr. Baumgartner, allows for the take of baleen whalesto examine aspects of foraging and diving behaviors in the Southern Ocean as well as to determine the overlap of diving behaviors with the vertical structure of fixed fishing gear in the North Atlantic Ocean. In the Southern Ocean, researchers may closely approach up to 324 of each species of humpback, blue, fin, sei, and Antarctic minke whales annually during vessel surveys for photo-identification, behavioral observation, tracking, and incidental harassment. Of these animals, up to 108 of each species may be suction-cup tagged annually during surveys. In the North Atlantic, researchers may closely approach up to 324 of each species of humpback, fin, and sei whales annually during vessel surveys for photo-identification, behavioral observation, tracking, and incidental harassment. Of these animals, up to 108 of each species may be suction-cup tagged annually during surveys. The permit is issued for five years. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), an environmental assessment was prepared analyzing the effects of the permitted activities. After a Finding of No Significant Impact, the determination was made that it was not necessary to prepare an environmental impact statement. Issuance of the permits, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permits:
(1)Were applied for in good faith;
(2)will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and
(3)are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Dated: June 27, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-12873 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 050107L] Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Low-Energy Marine Seismic Survey in the Northeastern Indian Ocean AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA)regulations, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization
(IHA)to Scripps Institute of Oceanography
(SIO)for the take of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, incidental to conducting a low-energy marine seismic survey in the northeastern Indian Ocean during summer 2007. DATES: Effective from June 20, 2007, through August 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and the application are available by writing to Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation, and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning the contact listed here. A copy of the application containing a list of references used in this document may be obtained by writing to this address, by telephoning the contact listed here ( *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT* ) or online at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm* . Documents cited in this notice may be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolie Harrison, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
(301)713-2289, ext 166. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and
(D)of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. Authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as ”...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which
(i)has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or
(ii)has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment]. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either approve or deny the authorization. Summary of Request On January 5, 2007, NMFS received an application from SIO for the taking, by Level B harassment only, of 32 species of marine mammals incidental to conducting, with research funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), a low-energy marine seismic survey in the northeastern Indian Ocean from May-August 2007. The purpose of the research program was outlined in the NMFS'notice of the proposed IHA (72 FR 17849, April 10, 2007). Description of the Activity The seismic surveys will involve one vessel, the R/V *Roger Revelle* ( *Roger Revelle* ), which was originally scheduled to depart from Fremantle, Australia, between May 22 and June 19, 2007. A change of schedule resulted in the *Roger Revelle* leaving Australia in March, instead, however, the seismic survey will still occur in the window indicated in the notice for the proposed IHA (72 FR 17849, April 10, 2007). No other changes have been made either in the applicants activity or the proposed IHA since the notice of the proposed IHA was published. The *Roger Revelle* will conduct the cruise in the Indian Ocean, beginning in late June, and arrive at Colombo, Sri Lanka, between July 16 and August 13, 2007. The overall area within which the seismic surveys will occur is located between approximately 5° N. and 25° S., along approximately 90° E. (Figure 1 in the application), in the Indian Ocean. The surveys will be conducted entirely in International Waters. The *Roger Revelle* will deploy a pair of low-energy Generator-Injector
(GI)airguns as an energy source (each with a discharge volume of 45 in3), plus a 800 m-long (2625-ft long), 48-channel, towed hydrophone. The program will consist of approximately 2700 km (1678 mi) of surveys, including turns. Water depths within the seismic survey areas are 1600-5100 m (1750-5577 yd). The GI guns will be operated on a small grid for approximately 49 hours at each of 5 sites. In addition to the operations of the GI guns, a 3.5-kHz sub-bottom profiler , a Kongsberg-Simrad EM-120 multi-beam sonar, and a gravimeter will be used continuously throughout the cruise, and passive geophysical sensors will be deployed to conduct magnetic surveys at all times except during dredging. A more detailed description of the authorized action, including vessel specifications and acoustic source specifications, was included in the notice of the proposed IHA (72 FR 17849, April 10, 2007). Safety Radii Received sound levels have been modeled by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (L-DEO) for a number of airgun configurations, including two 45-in 3 Nucleus G-guns, in relation to distance and direction from the airguns. The model does not allow for bottom interactions, and is most directly applicable to deep water. Based on the modeling, estimates of the maximum distances from the GI guns where sound levels of 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 μPa
(rms)are predicted to be received in deep (>1000-m (3280-ft)) water are 10, 40, and 400 m (33, 131, and 1312 ft), respectively. Because the model results are for G guns, which have more energy than GI guns of the same size, those distances are overestimates of the distances for the 45-in *3* GI guns. A general discussion of acoustic thresholds and safety radii, as well as further discussion of the modeling conducted by L-DEO, was included in the notice of the proposed IHA (72 FR 17849, April 10, 2007). Comments and Responses A notice of receipt of the SIO application and proposed IHA was published in the **Federal Register** on April 10, 2007 (72 FR 17849). During the comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission
(MMC)and one individual. One individual expressed the opinion that the authorization should be denied because this type of profiteering activity is murderous and destructive and results in permanent hearing loss of marine mammals. No supporting information was provided for these assertions and NMFS believes that the contrary analyses presented in the EA and our **Federal Register** Notice remain correct. MMC's comments are as follows: *Comment 1:* The MMC states that because the applicant is requesting authority to take marine mammals by harassment only, NMFS should require that operations be suspended immediately if a dead or seriously injured marine mammals is found in the vicinity of the operations and the death or injury could have occurred incidental to conducting the seismic survey. The MMC further recommends that any such suspension should remain in place until NMFS has
(1)reviewed the situation and determined that further mortalities or serious injuries are unlikely to occur, or
(2)issued regulations authorizing such takes under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. *Response:* NMFS concurs with MMC's recommendations and has included a requirement to this effect in the IHA. *Comment 2:* The MMC also questioned the likely ability of the proposed monitoring program to detect an injured or dead beaked whale or other small cetacean. *Response:* Because of the cryptic nature of beaked whale behavior and the movement of the *Roger Revelle* during the seismic survey, it is unlikely that a distressed beaked whale or small cetacean would be sighted from a ship running transects through an area. However, NMFS believes that it is highly unlikely that a marine mammals will be exposed to levels of sound likely to result in Level A Harassment or mortality given the very small radii (40 m for 180 dB) around the *Roger Revelle* 's small airguns and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation measures. Description of Marine Mammals in the Activity Area Thirty-two species of cetacean, including 25 odontocete (dolphins and small and large toothed whales) species and seven mysticete (baleen whales) species, are thought to occur in the seismic survey areas along the Ninety East Ridge in the northeastern Indian Ocean (Table 1). Several are listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act
(ESA)as Endangered: the sperm whale, humpback whale, blue whale, fin whale, and sei whale. Additional information regarding the status and distribution of the marine mammals in the area and how the densities were calculated was included in the notice of the proposed IHA (72 FR 17849, April 10, 2007) and may be found in SIO's application. Species Habitat Occurrence Auth Take Mysticetes Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)* Mainly nearshore waters and banks Common 0 Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) Pelagic and coastal Uncommon 5 Antarctic minke whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis Coastal and oceanic Uncommon 5 Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera edeni) Pelagic and coastal Very common 5 Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) * Primarily offshore, pelagic Uncommon 0 Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus)* Continental slope, mostly pelagic Common 0 Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus)* Pelagic and coastal Very common 1 Odontocetes Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus)* Usually pelagic and deep seas Common 1 Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) Deep waters off the shelf Common 5 Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) Deep waters off the shelf Common 5 Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) Pelagic Common 5 Shepherd's beaked whale (Tasmacetus shepherdi) Pelagic Rare 5 Longman's beaked whale (Indopacetus pacificus) Pelagic Common? 1 Southern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon planifrons) Pelagic Uncommon 5 True's beaked whale (Mesoplodon mirus) Pelagic Rare 5 Gray's beaked whale (Mesoplodon grayi) Pelagic Uncommonv 5 Ginkgo-toothed whale (Mesoplodon ginkgodens) Pelagic Common 5 Blainville's beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) Pelagic Very common 5 Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis) Deep water Uncommon 69 Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Coastal and oceanic, shelf break Common 129 Pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata) Coastal and pelagic Uncommon 65 Spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris) Coastal and pelagic Abundant 215 Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) Off continental shelf Common 86 Fraser's dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei) Waters >1000 m Rare 22 Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) Shelf and pelagic, seamounts Very common 151 Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus) Waters >1000 m, seamounts Very common 151 Melon-headed whale (Peponocephala electra) Oceanic Very common 50 Pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata) Deep, pantropical waters Common 25 False killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) Pelagic Common 15 Killer whale (Orcinus orca) Widely distributed Common 5 Long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas) Mostly pelagic Rare 30 Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus) Mostly pelagic, high-relief topography Very common 15 Table 1. Species expected to be encountered (and potentially harassed) during SIO's Indian Ocean cruise. The far right column indicates the number of takes authorized by the IHA. *Species are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act Potential Effects on Marine Mammals The effects of sounds from airguns might include one or more of the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral disturbance, temporary or permanent hearing impairment (Richardson *et al.* , 1995), or other non-auditory physiological effects such as stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage. To avoid injury, NMFS has determined that cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to pulsed underwater noise at received levels exceeding, respectively, 180 and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms). The predicted 180- and 190-dB distances for the GI guns operated by SIO are 40 m (131 ft) and 10 m (33 ft). Given the small size of the GI guns (two 45-in 3 GI guns) planned for the present project and the required mitigation and monitoring measures, effects are anticipated to be considerably less than would be the case with a large array of airguns. It is very unlikely that there would be any cases of temporary or, especially, permanent hearing impairment or other serious non-auditory physiological effects. Also, behavioral disturbance is expected to be limited to relatively short distances. The notice of the proposed IHA (72 FR 17849, April 10, 2007) included a discussion of the effects of sounds from airguns on mysticetes, odontocetes, and pinnipeds, including tolerance, masking, behavioral disturbance, hearing impairment and other non-auditory physical effects. Additional details on the behavioral reactions (or the lack thereof) by all types of marine mammals to seismic vessels can be found in Appendix A
(e)of SIO's application. The notice of the proposed IHA also included a discussion of the potential effects of the bathymetric sonar and the sub-bottom profiler. Because of the shape of the beams of these sources and their power, NMFS believes it unlikely that marine mammals will be exposed to either the bathymetric sonar or the sub-bottom profiler at levels at or above those likely to cause harassment. Further, NMFS believes that the brief exposure of cetaceans or pinnipeds to small numbers of signals from the multi-beam bathymetric sonar system are not likely to result in the harassment of marine mammals. Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment The notice of the proposed IHA (72 FR 17849, April 10, 2007) included an in-depth discussion of the methods used to calculate the densities of marine mammals in the area of the seismic survey and the take estimates. Additional information was included in SIO's application. A summary of the total take authorized is included here. All anticipated takes authorized by this IHA are Level B Harassment, involving temporary changes in behavior. The far right column in Table 1, “Auth Take”, shows the numbers for which take is authorized. Take calculations were based on on maximum exposure estimates (based on maximum density estimates), vs. best estimates, and are based on the 160-dB isopleth of a larger set of airguns. Given these considerations, the predicted numbers of marine mammals that might be exposed to sounds 160 dB may be somewhat overestimated. The stock structures of the marine mammals present in the Indian Ocean have not been identified by NMFS; therefore, NMFS must make the necessary findings based on the species as a whole. The species anticipated to be affected during the authorized activities are wide-ranging species. Though worldwide abundance (or abundance outside of that estimated for the U.S. stocks) has not been estimated, localized surveys in the west tropical Indian Ocean and elsewhere have been conducted. Since the take estimates authorized in this IHA fall largely within 6 percent (all but common dolphin (21 percent) and rough-toothed dolphin (14 percent)) of the numbers estimated to be present during a localized survey of the west tropical Indian Ocean, and the species range far beyond the Indian Ocean (i.e., the abundance of the species is notably larger), NMFS believes that the estimated take numbers for these are small relative both to the worldwide abundance of these species and to numbers taken in other activities that have been authorized for incidental take of these species. Potential Effects on Habitat A detailed discussion of the potential effects of this action on marine mammal habitat, including physiological and behavioral effects on marine fish and invertebrates, was included in the notice of the proposed IHA (72 FR 17849, April 10, 2007). Based on the discussion in the proposed IHA and the nature of the activities (small airguns and limited duration), the authorized operations are not expected to have any habitat-related effects that could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations or stocks. Monitoring Either dedicated marine mammal observers
(MMOs)or other vessel-based personnel will watch for marine mammals near the seismic source vessel during all daytime and nighttime airgun operations. GI airgun operations will be suspended when marine mammals are observed within, or about to enter, designated safety radii where there is a possibility of significant effects on hearing or other physical effects. At least one dedicated vessel-based MMO will watch for marine mammals near the seismic vessel during daylight periods when shooting is being conducted, and two MMOs will watch for marine mammals for at least 30 min prior to start-up of airgun operations. Observations of marine mammals will also be made and recorded during any daytime periods without airgun operations. At night, the forward-looking bridge watch of the ship's crew will look for marine mammals that the vessel is approaching, and execute avoidance maneuvers; the 180dB/190dB safety radii around the airguns will be continuously monitored by an aft-looking member of the scientific party, who will call for shutdown of the guns if mammals are observed within the safety radii. Nighttime observers will be aided by (aft-directed) ship's lights and night vision devices (NVDs). Observers will be appointed by SIO with NMFS concurrence. Two observers will be on the vessel, and both will have gone through NOAA/NMFS training for marine mammal observations. Observers will be on duty in shifts usually of duration no longer than two hours. Use of two simultaneous observers prior to start up will increase the detectability of marine mammals present near the source vessel, and will allow simultaneous forward and rearward observations. Bridge personnel additional to the dedicated marine mammal observers will also assist in detecting marine mammals and implementing mitigation requirements, and before the start of the seismic survey will be given instruction in how to do so. The *Roger Revelle* is a suitable platform for marine mammal observations, and has been used for that purpose during the routine CalCOFI (California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations). Observing stations will be at the 02 level, with observers' eyes approximately 10.4 m (34 ft) above the waterline: one forward on the 02 deck commanding a forward-centered, approximately 240° view, and one atop the aft hangar, with an aft-centered view that includes the 60-m radius area around the airguns. The eyes of the bridge watch will be at a height of approximately 15 m (49 ft); marine mammal observers will repair to the enclosed bridge and adjoining aft steering station during any inclement weather (unlikely at this place and season), and as necessary to use the 50 X “big-eye” binoculars that are mounted there. Standard equipment for marine mammal observers will be 7 X 50 reticle binoculars and optical range finders. At night, night vision equipment will be available. The observers will be in wireless communication with ship's officers on the bridge and scientists in the vessel's operations laboratory, so they can advise promptly of the need for avoidance maneuvers or airgun power-down or shut-down. The vessel-based monitoring will provide data required to estimate the numbers of marine mammals exposed to various received sound levels, to document any apparent disturbance reactions, and thus to estimate the numbers of mammals potentially “taken” by harassment. It will also provide the information needed in order to shut down the GI airguns at times when mammals are present in or near the safety zone. When a mammal sighting is made, the following information about the sighting will be recorded:
(1)Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, apparent reaction to seismic vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.), and behavioral pace.
(2)Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel (shooting or not), sea state, visibility, cloud cover, and sun glare. The data listed under
(2)will also be recorded at the start and end of each observation watch and during a watch, whenever there is a change in one or more of the variables. All mammal observations and airgun shutdowns will be recorded in a standardized format. Data will be entered into a custom database using a notebook computer when observers are off duty. The accuracy of the data entry will be verified by computerized data validity checks as the data are entered, and by subsequent manual checking of the database. Those procedures will allow initial summaries of data to be prepared during and shortly after the field program, and will facilitate transfer of the data to statistical, graphical, or other programs for further processing and archiving. Results from the vessel-based observations will provide: • The basis for real-time mitigation (airgun shut down). • Information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals potentially taken by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS. • Data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals in the area where the seismic study is conducted. • Information to compare the distance and distribution of marine mammals relative to the source vessel at times with and without seismic activity. • Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals seen at times with and without seismic activity. Mitigation For the seismic surveys in the Northeastern Indian Ocean during June-August 2007, SIO will deploy two GI airguns as an energy source, with a total discharge volume of 90 in3. The energy from the airguns will be directed mostly downward. The small size of the airguns to be used during SIO's study will reduce the potential for effects relative to those that might occur with a large airgun arrays. In addition to marine mammal monitoring, the following mitigation measures are required during the seismic program. Although power-down procedures are often standard operating practice for seismic surveys, it will not be used here because powering down from two guns to one gun would make only a small difference in the 180- or 190-dB radius probably not enough to allow continued one-gun operations if a mammal came within the safety radius for two guns. Mitigation measures that will be adopted are:
(1)Speed or course alteration;
(2)Ramp-up and shut-down procedures; and
(3)Night operations; *Speed or Course Alteration* - If a marine mammal is detected outside the safety radius and, based on its position and the relative motion, is likely to enter the safety radius, the vessel's speed and/or direct course may, when practical and safe, be changed in a manner that also minimizes the effect to the planned science objectives. The marine mammal activities and movements relative to the seismic vessel will be closely monitored to ensure that the animal does not approach within the safety radius. If the animal appears likely to enter the safety radius, further mitigative actions will be taken, i.e. either further course alterations or shut down of the airguns. *Shut-down Procedures* - If a marine mammal is detected outside the safety radius but is likely to enter the safety radius, and if the vessel's course and/or speed cannot be changed to avoid having the animal enter the safety radius, the airguns will be shut down before the animal is within the safety radius (10 m (33 ft) for pinnipeds (190-dB isopleth) or 40 m (131 ft) for cetaceans (180-dB isopleth)). Likewise, if a marine mammal is already within the safety radius when first detected, the airguns will be shut down immediately. Airgun activity will not resume until the animal has cleared the safety radius. The animal will be considered to have cleared the safety radius if it is visually observed to have left the safety radius, or if it has not been seen within the radius for 15 min (small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 min (mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, beaked, and bottlenose whales). *Ramp-up Procedures* - A “ramp-up” procedure will be followed when the airguns begin operating after a period without airgun operations. The two GI guns will be added in sequence 5 minutes apart. During ramp-up procedures, the safety radius for the two GI guns will be maintained. *Night Operations* - At night, vessel lights and/or night vision devices
(NVDs)could be useful in sighting some marine mammals at the surface within a short distance from the ship (within the safety radii for the two GI guns in deep water). Start up of the airguns will only occur in situations when the entire safety radius is visible with vessel lights and NVDs. Reporting A report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the cruise. The end of the northeastern Indian Ocean cruise is predicted to occur between July 16 and August 13, 2007. The report will describe the operations that were conducted and the marine mammals that were detected near the operations. The report will be submitted to NMFS, providing full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The 90-day report will summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations, marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities), and estimates of the amount and nature of potential “take” of marine mammals by harassment or in other ways. Endangered Species Act Pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, the National Science Foundation
(NSF)has consulted with NMFS on this seismic survey. NMFS has also consulted internally pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. In a Biological Opinion (BO), NMFS concluded that the 2007 SIO seismic survey in the norhteastern Indian Ocean and the issuance of the associated IHA are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or destroy or adversely modify any designated critical habitat. NMFS has issued an incidental take statement
(ITS)for 1 blue whale and 1 sperm whale (as well as a number of individuals of olive-Ridley sea turtles, green sea turtles, leatherback turtles, and hawksbill sea turtles) that contains reasonable and prudent measures with implementing terms and conditions to minimize the effects of this take. The terms and conditions of the BO have been incorporated into the SIO. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)NSF prepared an Environmental Assessment of a Planned Low-Energy Marine Seismic Survey by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the Northeast Indian Ocean, May July 2007. NMFS has adopted NSF's EA and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact for the issuance of the IHA. Determinations NMFS has determined that the impact of conducting the seismic survey in the northeast Indian Ocean may result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior (Level B Harassment) of small numbers of 29 species of cetaceans. Further, this activity is expected to result in a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks. The provision requiring that the activity not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the affected species or stock for subsistence uses does not apply for this action. This determination is supported by:
(1)the likelihood that, given sufficient notice through relatively slow ship speed and ramp-up, marine mammals are expected to move away from a noise source that is annoying prior to its becoming potentially injurious;
(2)the fact that marine mammals would have to be closer than 40 m from the vessel to be exposed to levels of sound (180 dB) believed to have even a minimal chance of causing TTS; and
(3)the likelihood that marine mammal detection ability by trained observers is high at that short distance from the vessel. As a result, no take by injury or death is anticipated and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment is very low and will be avoided through the incorporation of the required mitigation measures. While the number of potential incidental harassment takes will depend on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the vicinity of the survey activity, the number of potential harassment takings is estimated to be small, less than a few percent of any of the estimated population sizes, and has been mitigated to the lowest level practicable through incorporation of the measures mentioned previously in this document. Authorization As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to SIO for conducting a low-energy seismic survey in the Indian Ocean from June - August, 2007, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. Dated: June 20, 2007. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-12870 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration XRIN 0648-XB20 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will convene a public meeting of the Ad Hoc Review Panel for Red Drum. DATES: The Ad Hoc Review Panel for Red Drum meeting will convene at 1 p.m. on Monday, July 23, 2007 and conclude no later than 3 p.m. on Tuesday, July 24, 2007. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the W New Orleans, 333 Poydras St., New Orleans, LA 70130; telephone:
(504)525-9444. *Council address* : Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Swingle, Fishery Executive Director, telephone:
(813)348-1630. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Panel will be convened to consider the Council's change to assess the availability of the information needed to conduct a SEDAR stock assessment for red drum and to propose data collection activities for that information that should be carried out in 2008. Representatives of the five gulf states will summarize fisheries dependent and independent data available from their state. The federal representatives will summarize the data available through their agency. The Panel will discuss other issues related to the stock assessment and SEDAR process. Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Panel for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions of the Ad Hoc Review Panel for Red Drum will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency. Copies of the agenda can be obtained by calling
(813)348-1630. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Tina Trezza at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 working days prior to the meeting. Dated: June 28, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-12867 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 4, 2007. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, e.g., new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues:
(1)Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department;
(2)will this information be processed and used in a timely manner;
(3)is the estimate of burden accurate;
(4)how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(5)how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Dated: June 27, 2007. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Institute of Education Sciences *Type of Review:* New. *Title:* The Effectiveness of Sheltered Instruction on English Language Learners in Georgia 4th and 5th Grade Classrooms (SIOP). *Frequency:* Annually. *Affected Public:* Individuals or household; State, Local, or Tribal government SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 640. *Burden Hours:* 160. *Abstract:* This data collection is for the purpose of assessing the effectiveness of the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol
(SIOP)Model, a model of instruction for teaching English Language Learners
(ELLs)that is widely used but whose effectiveness has to date not been evaluated rigorously. This one-year study utilizes an experimental design to examine the impact of SIOP instruction in 4th and 5th grade classrooms in 64 public schools in Georgia (32 treatment, 32 control schools). Research on educational issues of regional importance—such as the teaching of a growing population in the Southeast region, English Language Learners—is a key component of the REL-SE's contract with the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences. The study utilizes predominantly extant data (student assessment data collected by LEAs and school personnel data collected by the state department of education) but includes a brief Teacher Survey and classroom observations in the Spring of 2009, with a total of 640 respondents on the survey (and 640 teachers' classrooms observed). Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov,* by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3401. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov.* Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E7-12842 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or via fax to
(202)395-6974. Commenters should include the following subject line in their response “Comment: [insert OMB number], [insert abbreviated collection name, e.g., “Upward Bound Evaluation”]. Persons submitting comments electronically should not submit paper copies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. Dated: June 27, 2007. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools *Type of Review:* Reinstatement. *Title:* Alcohol, Other Drug, and Violence Prevention Survey of American College Campuses. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 1,050. *Burden Hours:* 875. *Abstract:* This survey's purpose is to determine the state of alcohol and other drug abuse and violence prevention in higher education and assess current and emerging needs of institutions of higher education and their surrounding communities. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3322. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov.* Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E7-12843 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or via fax to
(202)395-6974. Commenters should include the following subject line in their response “Comment: [insert OMB number], [insert abbreviated collection name, e.g., “Upward Bound Evaluation”]. Persons submitting comments electronically should not submit paper copies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. Dated: June 27, 2007. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* RSA Grantee Reporting Form. *Frequency:* Annually. *Affected Public:* Businesses or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't., SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 350. *Burden Hours:* 400. *Abstract:* The Rehabilitation Services Administration
(RSA)uses the RSA Grantee Reporting Form to assess grantees' compliance with program requirements and to report to Congress performance and progress in meeting the purpose for training programs as mandated in Title III of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended: To “ensure that skilled personnel are available to provide rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities through vocational, medical, social, and psychological rehabilitation programs * * *” The Grantee Reporting Form provides specific information in this regard, including the number of RSA scholars entering the public vocational rehabilitation workforce, in what rehabilitation field, and in what type of employment (e.g. State VR agency, nonprofit service provider or practice group). Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3317. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to I *CDocketMgr@ed.gov* 202-245-6604. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E7-12844 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or via fax to
(202)395-6974. Commenters should include the following subject line in their response “Comment: [insert OMB number], [insert abbreviated collection name, e.g., “Upward Bound Evaluation”]. Persons submitting comments electronically should not submit paper copies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. Dated: June 27, 2007. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services *Type of Review:* Revision. *Title:* Performance Report: Personnel Development for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). *Frequency:* Annually. *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 450. *Burden Hours:* 3,510. *Abstract:* This package is a revision and contains instructions and the form necessary for grantees and contractors supported under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Personnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities, CFDA No. 84.325. Data obtained are used to evaluate and monitor the implementation of IDEA and for Congressional reporting. Analysis of these data will be used in the following ways:
(a)To inform the activities and priorities specific to personnel preparation conducted by the U.S Department of Education;
(b)to determine variation in personnel preparation and factors related to that variation; and
(c)to evaluate the outcomes of the IDEA and the Office of Special Education Programs'
(OSEP)performance measures under the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA)and the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). OSEP revisions have:
(a)Added six items to the data collection instrument to collect data required for reporting under the PART (these additional items will only be requested for students that have completed the preparation program and include data on their knowledge and skill attainment and on their highly qualified teacher status (or qualified for paraprofessionals, or fully certified for related service providers and early intervention service providers);
(b)revised the race and ethnicity items to reflect current OMB policy;
(c)changed collection to better account for all students that benefit from the grant, as requested by both grantees and OSEP. OSEP will now collect data on all students that participated in grant supported preparation, not just those students that received direct funding. This change will increase the number of students that grantees will enter data on. To address this change, all text limiting responses to those students “receiving grant support” have been removed; and
(d)enhanced instructions for a few items to make the form more user-friendly and diminish response ambiguity. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov,* by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3309. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov.* Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E7-12845 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act AGENCY: Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of arbitration panel decision under the Randolph-Sheppard Act. SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) gives notice that on March 30, 2007, an arbitration panel rendered a decision in the matter of *Ronald Carter* v. *Georgia Department of Labor, Division of Rehabilitation Services (Case No. R-S/06-2)* . This panel was convened by the Department under 20 U.S.C. 107d-1(a), after the Department received a complaint filed by the petitioner, Ronald Carter. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may obtain a copy of the full text of the arbitration panel decision from Suzette E. Haynes, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5022, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone:
(202)245-7374. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 6(c) of the Randolph-Sheppard Act (the Act), 20 U.S.C. 107d-2(c), the Secretary publishes in the **Federal Register** a synopsis of each arbitration panel decision affecting the administration of vending facilities on Federal and other property. Background This dispute concerned alleged violations of the Act, the implementing regulations in 34 CFR part 395, and State rules and regulations by the Georgia Department of Labor, Division of Rehabilitation Services, the State licensing agency
(SLA)regarding complainant's termination as manager at Facility #348 at the United States Postal Service's
(USPS)Atlanta Bulk Mail Center. Summary Complainant has been a licensed blind vendor in the Georgia Business Enterprise Program
(BEP)for 16 years. In 1999, complainant was assigned as the vending facility manager at the USPS Atlanta Bulk Mail Center, Facility #348. Facility #348 is a vending machine route. In the termination letter dated September 24, 2004, the SLA informed the complainant that the USPS was dissatisfied with his performance for the following reasons:
(1)Lack of inventory in the vending machines,
(2)expired food items,
(3)failure to maintain vending machines,
(4)complainant's absence from the facility,
(5)limited food selection, and
(6)failure to resolve customer service complaints. The letter further indicated that the USPS threatened to terminate the permit agreement with the SLA unless there was improvement regarding the level of service customers received and the complainant was replaced. Shortly thereafter, complainant requested an administrative review concerning his license termination. On November 29, 2004, the SLA issued a decision denying his petition. In December 2004, complainant filed for a state fair hearing on this matter, which was held on April 15, 2005. On June 29, 2005, the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ)issued a decision affirming the SLA's termination of complainant's operator license. Subsequently, the SLA informed complainant it had adopted the ALJ's decision as final agency action. Complainant sought review by a Federal arbitration panel of that decision. Arbitration Panel Decision The issue heard by the panel was whether the actions taken by the Georgia Department of Labor, Division of Rehabilitation Services violated the Act, 20 U.S.C. 107 *et seq.* , the implementing regulations in 34 CFR part 395, and its own rules and regulations concerning the alleged improper termination of complainant's vending operating license to manage Facility #348 at the USPS Atlanta Bulk Mail Center. After reviewing the entire case file and hearing testimony of witnesses, the majority of the panel ruled that the SLA acted properly and in full and fair compliance with the Act, implementing regulations, and State rules and regulations. Therefore, the panel denied complainant's grievance. One panel member dissented. The views and opinions expressed by the panel do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the U.S. Department of Education. Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* 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. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html* . Dated: June 28, 2007. John H. Hager, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E7-12893 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Science; DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC). Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the **Federal Register** . DATES: Thursday, July 26, 2007; 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: Radisson Hotel Reagan National Airport, 2020 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda L. May, U.S. Department of Energy; SC-26/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290; Telephone: 301-903-0536. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Purpose of Meeting:* To provide advice and guidance on a continuing basis to the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation on scientific priorities within the field of basic nuclear science research. *Tentative Agenda:* Agenda will include discussions of the following: Thursday, July 26, 2007 • Perspectives from Department of Energy and National Science Foundation • Presentation of the Neutrino Scientific Assessment Group Subcommittee Report • Discussion of Rare Isotope Beam
(RIB)Task Force Report • Update from the Performance Measures Subcommittee • Reports on the Long Range Plan Writing Progress • Public Comment (10-minute rule) *Public Participation:* The meeting is open to the public. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of these items on the agenda, you should contact Brenda L. May, 301-903-0536 or *Brenda.May@science.doe.gov* (e-mail). You must make your request for an oral statement at least 5 business days before the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule. *Minutes:* The NSAC will prepare meeting minutes within 45 days of the meeting. The minutes will be posted on the NSAC Web site at *http://www.sc.doe.gov/np/nsac/nsac.html.* Issued at Washington, DC on June 27, 2007. Rachel Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-12839 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ID-5355-000] Edwards, Jeffrey S.; Notice of Filing June 26, 2007. Take notice that on June 14, 2007, Jeffrey S. Edwards filed an application for authorization to hold interlocking directorate positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d(b), Part 45 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR Part 45 (2005), and Order No. 664. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 5, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-12802 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. EL07-75-000; EC07-99-000] Great Plains Energy Incorporated Kansas City Power & Light Company Aquila, Inc., Black Hills Corporation; Notice for Petition of Declaratory Order June 26, 2007. Take notice that on June 20, 2007, Great Plains Energy Incorporated and Aquila, Inc. jointly filed a petition of declaratory order, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Commission's Rule and Regulations, 18 CFR 385.207, requesting that the Commission consider the confirmation requested in section V of its Section 203 application, filed with the Commission on May 25, 2007. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 20, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-12804 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP07-398-000, CP07-399-000, CP07-400-000, CP07-401-000, CP07-402-000 and CP07-403-000] Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC; Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Enogex Inc.; Notice of Application June 26, 2007. Take notice that on June 19, 2007, Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC (Gulf Crossing) and Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South), 9 East Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, filed in Docket Nos. CP07-398-000, CP07-399-000, CP07-400-000, CP07-401-000 and CP07-402-000, a joint application pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA)to authorize Gulf Crossing to site, construct, and operate certain facilities, and Gulf South to abandon capacity by lease and to site, construct, and operate certain facilities. In Docket No. CP07-398-000, Gulf Crossing seeks authorization to construct a 353.2 mile pipeline and associated compression facilities extending from Sherman, Texas to an interconnect with Gulf South at Gulf South's Tallulah Compressor Station in Madison Parish, Louisiana. In that filing, Gulf Crossing also seeks authorization to lease up to 165,000 Dth/d of upstream capacity on the intrastate pipeline system of Enogex and up to 1.4 billion cubic feet
(Bcf)of natural gas per day from Gulf South from Tallulah to Transco's Station 85 located at the terminus of Gulf South's Southeast Expansion Project. In Docket Nos. CP07-399-000 and CP07-400-000, Gulf Crossing seeks blanket certificates under Part 157, Subpart F and under Part 284, Subpart G, respectively, of the Commission's regulations. Gulf South seeks authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA in Docket Nos. CP07-401-000 and CP07-402-000, respectively, to construct approximately 17.8 miles of pipeline loop between Gulf South's Tallulah Compressor Station and its Harrisville Compressor Station located in Simpson County, Mississippi, and as described above, to abandon by lease up to 1.4 Bcf/d of natural gas capacity to Gulf Crossing. In a related application filed on June 20, 2007 in Docket No. CP07-403-000, Enogex seeks a limited jurisdiction certificate to lease up to 165,000 Dth/d of natural gas on its intrastate system from Bennington, Oklahoma to the new pipeline facilities of Gulf Crossing, all as more fully set forth in the applications which are on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The instant filings may be also viewed on the Web at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call
(866)208-3676 or TTY,
(202)502-8659. Any questions regarding this application may be directed to J. Kyle Stephens, Director of Certificates, 9 East Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046 or by telephone at 713-544-7309 or telecopy to 713-479-1846 or by e-mail to *kyle.stephens@bwpmlp.com.* On November 30, 2006, the Commission staff granted Gulf Crossing's request to utilize the Commission's Pre-Filing Process for its Gulf Crossing Project and assigned Docket No. PF07-1-000 to staff activities involved therein. Now, as of the filing of Gulf Crossing's application on June 19, 2007, the Commission's Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time forward, Gulf Crossing's proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP07-398-000, *et. al,* as noted in the caption of this Notice. There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding. However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest. Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order. Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 17, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-12803 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. NJ07-4-000] South Carolina Public Service Authority; Notice for Petition of Declaratory Order June 26, 2007. Take notice that on June 20, 2007, pursuant to section 35.28(e) of the Regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 35.28(e) and
(f)(2006), and Rule 207(a)(2) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Commission, 18 CFR 385.207(a) (2006), South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper) filed a petition for declaratory order determining that its open access transmission tariff
(OATT)continues to qualify as a “safe harbor” tariff within the meaning of Order Nos. 888 and 890. Santee Cooper, also requests a waiver of the filing fee applicable to petitions for declaratory orders, pursuant to section 381.108 of the Rules and Regulations, 18 CFR 381.108
(2006)and Order No. 888-A at 30,288-89. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 20, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-12806 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. QF07-129-000] Tiqun Energy, Inc.; Notice of Self-Certification of Qualifying Status of a Cogeneration Facility June 26, 2007. Take notice that on June 23, 2007, Tiqun Energy, Inc. filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a notice of self-certification of a facility as a qualifying cogeneration facility pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(a) of the Commission's regulations. The facility is a cogeneration facility with the primary energy source being natural gas. The power production equipment will consist of one GE LM6000PF Sprint gas turbine with a duct-fired heat recovery steam generator driving one steam turbine generator for a total net output capacity of 70 MWe. The facility will be located in Palmer, Alaska. The Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. and the Chugach Electric Association, Inc. are the electric utilities with which the facility expects to interconnect, transmit or sell electric energy to, or purchase supplementary, standby, back-up and maintenance power. A notice of self-certification [or self-recertification] does not institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status; a notice of self-certification [or self-recertification] provides notice that the entity making filing has determined the Facility meets the applicable criteria to be a qualifying facility. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii). This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-12805 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP07-397-000] Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization June 25, 2007. Take notice that on June 13, 2007 and supplemented on June 18, 2007, Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), 1250 West Century Avenue, Bismarck, North Dakota 58503, filed in Docket No. CP07-397-000, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.210, and 157.216 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act for authorization to replace, modify, and abandon natural gas pipeline facilities, located in Burleigh and Morton Counties, North Dakota, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or call toll-free,
(886)208-3676 or TYY,
(202)502-8659. Williston Basin states that due to the construction of a new bridge and the demolition of the Memorial Bridge, Williston Basin must relocate and abandon the section of pipeline attached to the Memorial Bridge. Specifically, Williston Basin requests authorization to construct approximately four miles of 16-inch diameter steel pipeline, install a new regulator station, reconfigure the operation of certain existing facilities, construct a mainline valve setting and a pig launcher-receiver, and abandon short segments of pipeline. Williston Basin estimates the cost of construction to be $3,100,000. Any questions regarding the application should be directed to Keith A. Tiggelaar, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company, P. O. Box 5601, Bismarck, North Dakota 58506-5601, or call at
(701)530-1560. Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act
(NGA)(18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) under the “e-Filing” link. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-12807 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL07-77-000] R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC v. Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation; Notice of Complaint June 26, 2007. Take notice that on June 25, 2007, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC (Ginna) filed a formal complaint against Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RGE), pursuant to section 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act and Rule 206 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Commission's Regulations, 18 CFR §§ 385.206 and 306 (2006). Ginna complains that RGE is violating its Interconnection Agreement, to which Ginna and RGE are parties. Ginna certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for RGE as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 16, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-12801 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings # 1 June 26, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Number:* EC07-66-001; ES07-26-002; EL07-45-001. *Applicants:* Entergy Gulf States, Inc.; Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C.; Entergy Texas, Inc. *Description:* Entergy Services, Inc *et al.* submit a narrative that explains their proposed journal entries, in response to FERC's 6/1/07 request for additional information. *Filed Date:* 06/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070625-0294. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 2, 2007. *Docket Number:* EC07-109-000. *Applicants:* Gexa Energy LLC; FPL Energy LLC. *Description:* Gexa Energy LLC and *et al.* submit an application for authorization of transfer of jurisdictional assets, request for waivers and for expedited action under section 203 of the Federal Power Act. *Filed Date:* 06/20/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070622-0015. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 5, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Number:* ER02-1632-003; ER06-386-001. *Applicants:* Energy America, LLC; Direct Energy Services, LLC. *Description:* Direct Energy Services, LLC and Energy America, LLC submit a notice of Non-Material Change in Status Regarding Market-Based Rate Authority. *Filed Date:* 06/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070621-5088. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 12, 2007. *Docket Number:* ER07-415-002. *Applicants:* DTE Pontiac North LLC. *Description:* DTE Pontiac North LLC submits a notice of no material change in status. *Filed Date:* 06/19/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070621-0122. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 10, 2007. *Docket Number:* ER07-788-001. *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corp. *Description:* American Electric Power Service Corporation, designated as agent for AEP Operating Companies submits an amendment to the Interconnection and Local Delivery Service Agreement 1426 with the Village of Republic. *Filed Date:* 06/18/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070620-0104. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 09, 2007. *Docket Number:* ER07-1040-000. *Applicants:* Hopewell Cogeneration Ltd Partnership. *Description:* Hopewell Cogeneration Limited Partnership submits an application seeking authorization to sell electric energy, capacity and ancillary services. *Filed Date:* 06/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070619-0132. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 06, 2007. *Docket Number:* ER07-1044-000. *Applicants:* PacifiCorp. *Description:* PacifiCorp submits the First Revised Sheet 109 *et al.* to Substitute First Revised Rate Schedule, Amended and Restated AC Intertie Agreement with Bonneville Power Administration. *Filed Date:* 06/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070619-0133. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 06, 2007. *Docket Number:* ER07-1049-000. *Applicants:* PacifiCorp. *Description:* PacifiCorp submits a Notice of Termination of Service Agreement 67 dated 8/1/97 with Black Bills Corporation for Network Integration Transmission Service. *Filed Date:* 06/19/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070620-0163. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 10, 2007. *Docket Number:* ER07-1050-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC submits revisions to the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff and the Reliability Assurance Agreement. *Filed Date:* 06/19/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070621-0121. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 10, 2007. *Docket Number:* ER07-1051-000. *Applicants:* Texzon Utilities, Ltd. *Description:* Texzon Utilities Ltd submits a notice of succession reflecting their name change. *Filed Date:* 06/20/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070620-0164. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 11, 2007. *Docket Number:* ER07-1052-000. *Applicants:* PacifiCorp *Description:* PacifiCorp submits an unexecuted Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement with Black Hills Corporation designated as Original Service Agreement 347 to FERC Electric Tariff, Sub Sixth Revised Volume 11. *Filed Date:* 06/19/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070620-0165. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 10, 2007. *Docket Number:* ER07-1053-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC submits revisions to its Amended and Restated Operating Agreement and Open Access Transmission Tariff pursuant to section 205 of the FPA. *Filed Date:* 06/19/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070621-0123. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 10, 2007. *Docket Number:* ER07-1054-000. *Applicants:* Southern Company Services, Inc. *Description:* Southern Company Services, Inc, as agent for Alabama Power Company *et al.* submits a service agreement for long-term firm point-to-point transmission service under the Open Access Transmission Tariff of its FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 5. *Filed Date:* 06/20/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070621-0068. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 11, 2007. *Docket Number:* ER07-1055-000. *Applicants:* Northeast Utilities Service Company. *Description:* Northeast Utilities Service Co, on behalf of Connecticut Light and Power Company *et al.* submits a Notice of Termination to cancel the Nu Operating Companies' Service Agreement 2 to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 8 etc. *Filed Date:* 06/20/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070621-0069. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 11, 2007. *Docket Number:* ER07-1056-000. *Applicants:* Southern California Edison Company. *Description:* Southern California Edison Co submits First Revised Sheet 6 *et al.* to the Cherry Valley, Crafton Hills and Green Spot Pumping Stations Interconnection Facilities Agreement with the State of California Dept of Water Resources. *Filed Date:* 06/20/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070621-0070. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 11, 2007. *Docket Number:* ER07-1057-000. *Applicants:* Perryville Energy Partners, LLC. *Description:* Perryville Energy Partners, LLC submits its Second Revised Sheet 22 to its FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 2. *Filed Date:* 06/20/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070621-0071. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 11, 2007. *Docket Number:* ER07-1058-000. *Applicants:* Glacial Energy of Maryland Inc. *Description:* Glacial Energy of Maryland Inc submits a petition for acceptance of initial tariff, waivers and blanket authority. *Filed Date:* 06/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070622-0013. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 12, 2007. *Docket Number:* ER07-1059-000. *Applicants:* Connecticut Light & Power Company. *Description:* The Connecticut Light and Power Co submits revised Interconnection and Operations Agreement with the Lake Road Trust, designated as First Revised Service Agreement 104. *Filed Date:* 06/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070622-0014. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 12, 2007. *Docket Number:* ER07-1060-000. *Applicants:* California Independent System Operator Corporation *Description:* California Independent System Operator Corp submits amendment (the SC Certification and Termination Amendment) to the ISO Tariff. *Filed Date:* 06/20/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070622-0009. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 11, 2007. *Docket Number:* ER07-1061-000. *Applicants:* AB Energy. *Description:* AB Energy, Inc submits a notice of cancellation of its market based rate electric tariff, Rate Schedule FERC 1. *Filed Date:* 06/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070622-0011. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 12, 2007. *Docket Number:* ER07-1062-000. *Applicants:* AB Energy NY, Pty. Ltd. *Description:* AB Energy NY, Pty. Ltd submits a petition for acceptance of initial tariff, waivers and blanket authority. *Filed Date:* 06/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070622-0010. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 12, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings: *Docket Number:* ES07-40-000. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Application of Southwest Power Pool, Inc under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act for an order authorizing the issuance of securities. *Filed Date:* 06/20/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070622-0016. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 11, 2007. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* . or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-12808 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings # 1 June 27, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* EC06-126-000. *Applicants:* Canal Electric Company; Boston Edison Company; Cambridge Electric Light Company; Commonwealth Electric Company. *Description:* NSTAR Electric and Gas submits the accounting entries related to the merger of Cambridge Electric Light Co *et al.* into Boston Edison Co in accordance with FERC's 10/20/06 Order. *Filed Date:* 06/22/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070626-0042. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 13, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* EC07-111-000. *Applicants:* Brookfield Asset Management Inc.; Brookfield Power Inc.; Brookfield Power U.S. Holding America Company. *Description:* Brookfield Asset Management Inc *et al* submit a joint application for authorization a proposed transaction by which BP U.S. Holding will acquire the sole ownership interest in FH Opco LLC. *Filed Date:* 06/22/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070626-0068. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 13, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER98-4159-008; ER07-157-001; ER06-398-002; ER06-399-002; ER04-268-005. *Applicants:* Macquarie Cook Power, Inc.; Duquesne Power, LLC; Duquesne Keystone, LLC; Duquesne Conemaugh, LLC; Duquesne Light Company. *Description:* Macquire Cook Power, Inc *et al.* submit their notice of change in status related to the 5/31/07 acquisition of Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc. *Filed Date:* 06/25/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070627-0101. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 16, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-563-062; EL04-102-017. *Applicants:* Devon Power LLC. *Description:* Devon Power LLC, *et al.* , Tenth Compliance Report of ISO New England Inc. *Filed Date:* 06/25/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070625-5031. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 16, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-1150-002. *Applicants:* Texzon Utilities, Ltd. Co. *Description:* Texzon Utilities Ltd submits an updated market power analysis. *Filed Date:* 06/22/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070626-0084. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 13, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-457-002; ER07-458-002. *Applicants:* E.ON U.S., LLC. *Description:* Kentucky Utilities Company submits a revised version of the executed Interconnection Agreement with Big Rivers Electric Corporation. *Filed Date:* 06/22/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070626-0056. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 13, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-529-002. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc submits revisions to its Open Access Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff pursuant to Section 205 of the FPA. *Filed Date:* 06/25/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070626-0051. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 16, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-546-002; ER07-547-001. *Applicants:* ISO New England Inc.; New England Power Pool Participants Committee. *Description:* ISO New England, Inc *et al.* submit their compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's 4/16/07 order. *Filed Date:* 06/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070626-0085. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-666-001. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc submits a Small Generator Interconnection Agreement with Hardin Hilltop Wind, LLC *et al.* pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act etc under ER07-666. *Filed Date:* 06/25/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070626-0054. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 16, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-737-001. *Applicants:* PacifiCorp. *Description:* PacifiCorp submits a refund report in Compliance with the Commission's June 7, 2007 Letter Order. *Filed Date:* 06/25/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070625-5075. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 16, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-881-002. *Applicants:* Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. *Description:* Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc submits its second errata to its System Coordination and Operating Agreement. *Filed Date:* 06/22/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070626-0055. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 13, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-918-001. *Applicants:* AP Holdings Southaven, LLC. *Description:* AP Holdings Southaven, LLC resubmits Original Sheet 1 *et al.* to FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume 1 to reflect the name change with correct pagination re the 5/18/07 filing of notification of succession. *Filed Date:* 06/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070626-0081. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1063-000. *Applicants:* AB Energy NE, Pty. Ltd. Description: AB Energy NE, Pty, Ltd submits their FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1. *Filed Date:* 06/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070626-0082. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1064-000. *Applicants:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company. *Description:* Pacific Gas and Electric Co submits Notice of Cancellation of Service Agreement 76 under FERC Electric Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 5 with Federal Power Avenal, LLC. *Filed Date:* 06/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070626-0083. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1066-000. *Applicants:* New York State Electric & Gas Corporation. *Description:* New York State Electric & Gas Corp submits Original Service Agreement 1147 with WM Renewable Energy, LLC under the New York Independent System Operator, Inc Open Access Transmission Tariff etc. *Filed Date:* 06/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070626-0079. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1067-000. *Applicants:* Ocean State Power I; Ocean State Power II. *Description:* Ocean State Power I and Ocean State Power II submits. Revised Rate Schedules 1 and 5. *Filed Date:* 06/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070626-0080. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1068-000. *Applicants:* Ontelaunee Power Operating Company, LLC. *Description:* Metropolitan Edison Company submits the instant filing in compliance with the Commission's order denying in Part complaint and establishing hearing and Settlement Judge Procedures. *Filed Date:* 06/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070626-0086. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1069-000. *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corporation. *Description:* American Electric Power Service Corp, on behalf of Public Service Co of Colorado *et al.* submits its revised pro-forma tariff sheets for AEP's pricing zone under Schedule 1, Addendum 1 to Schedule 1, Attachment H etc. *Filed Date:* 06/22/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070626-0071. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 13, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1070-000. *Applicants:* Florida Power & Light Company. *Description:* Florida Power & Light Company submits a new Rate Schedule 306, Agreement for Generator Balancing Service with New Hope Power Partnership pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act. *Filed Date:* 06/22/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070626-0061. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 13, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1071-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, LLC. *Description:* Virginia Electric and Power Co dba Dominion Virginia Power submits a new Attachment H-16B to the Open Access Transmission Tariff. *Filed Date:* 06/22/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070626-0060. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 13, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1072-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, LLC; Virginia Electric and Power Company. *Description:* Virginia Electric and Power Co dba Dominion Virginia. Power submits a new Attachment H-16B to the Open Access Transmission Tariff. *Filed Date:* 06/22/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070626-0060. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 13, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1073-000. *Applicants:* Entergy Arkansas, Inc. *Description:* Entergy Services, Inc on behalf of Entergy Arkansas, Inc *et al.* submit an amended Exhibit H to the Power Coordination, Interchange and Transmission Service Agreement with Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp. *Filed Date:* 06/22/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070626-0059. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 13, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1074-000. *Applicants:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. *Description:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc *et al.* submit an executed Small Generator Interconnection Agreement with Seneca Energy II, LLC. *Filed Date:* 06/22/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070626-0058. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 13, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1075-000. *Applicants:* New York State Electric & Gas Corporation. *Description:* New York State Electric & Gas Corporation submits a notice of cancellation of a Service Agreement under which it provided interconnection service to Seneca Energy II LLC. *Filed Date:* 06/22/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070626-0057. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 13, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1076-000. *Applicants:* Upper Peninsula Power Company. *Description:* Upper Peninsula Power Co. submits a letter of understanding with the City of Escanaba, Michigan memorializing the parties' understanding concerning the cost of energy relative to an Escanaba power purchase that will begin on 6/25/07. *Filed Date:* 06/25/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070627-0108. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 16, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings: *Docket Numbers:* EG07-61-000. *Applicants:* Warm Springs Biomass Project, LLC. *Description:* Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status. *Filed Date:* 06/26/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070625-5079. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 17, 2007. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-12809 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Hearings and Appeals Implementation of Special Refund Procedures AGENCY: Office of Hearings and Appeals, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of implementation of Special Refund Procedures. SUMMARY: The Office of Hearings and Appeals
(OHA)of the Department of Energy
(DOE)announces the procedures for the disbursement of $1,592,901, plus accrued interest, in motor gasoline overcharges obtained by the DOE pursuant to remedial orders issued to Powerine Oil Company, Case No. TEF-0006, and Storey Oil Company, Inc., Case No. TEF-0009. The OHA has determined that the funds will be distributed in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR part 205, subpart V. DATES: Applications must be filed in duplicate with OHA by December 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: Applications should be sent to the Office of Hearings and Appeals, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585-1615. All applications should display a reference to Case Nos. TEF-0006 or TEF-0009. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Cronin, Jr., Assistant Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585-1615,
(202)287-1589, *richard.cronin@hq.doe.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 10 CFR 205.282(b), notice is hereby given of the issuance of the Decision and Order set out below. The Decision sets forth the procedures that the DOE has formulated to distribute to eligible claimants $1,592,901, plus accrued interest, obtained by the DOE pursuant to Remedial Orders issued to Powerine Oil Company (Powerine) and Storey Oil Company, Inc. (Storey). The Remedial Orders issued to Powerine and Storey adjudicated allegations concerning violations of the federal petroleum price regulations involving the sale of motor gasoline during the relevant audit periods. The OHA will distribute the Remedial Order funds in a refund proceeding using the procedures described in the Proposed Decision and Order published in the **Federal Register** on May 8, 2007. See 72 FR 26083 (May 8, 2007). This refund proceeding seeks to provide restitution for those parties injured by Powerine or Storey's alleged violations of pricing regulations for motor gasoline. Purchasers of motor gasoline from Powerine or Storey will have the opportunity to submit refund applications. Refunds will be granted to applicants who satisfactorily demonstrate that they were injured by the pricing violations and who document the volume of motor gasoline they purchased from one of the firms during the relevant consent order period. All applications must be postmarked by December 28, 2007. All applications received in this proceeding will be made available for public inspection between the hours of 1 p.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, in Room 7132 ( the public reference room), 950 L'Enfant Plaza, Washington, DC. Dated: June 27, 2007. Fred L. Brown, Acting Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals. Decision And Order—Department Of Energy Implementation of Special Refund Procedures *Names of Firms:* Powerine Oil Company, Storey Oil Company, Inc. *Dates of Filing:* June 23, 2005, June 23, 2005. *Case Numbers:* TEF-0006, TEF-0009. The Office of General Counsel
(OGC)of the Department of Energy
(DOE)filed a Petition requesting that the Office of Hearings and Appeals
(OHA)formulate and implement Subpart V special refund proceedings. Under the procedural regulations of the DOE, special refund proceedings may be implemented to refund monies to persons injured by violations of the DOE petroleum price regulations, provided DOE is unable to readily identify such persons or to ascertain the amount of any refund. 10 CFR 205.280. We have considered OGC's request to formulate refund procedures for the disbursement of monies remitted by Powerine Oil Company (Powerine) and Storey Oil Company (Storey) pursuant to Remedial Orders DOE has issued regarding them and have determined that such procedures are appropriate. Under the terms of the Remedial Orders, Powerine's bankruptcy trustee has remitted a total of $1,546,302 to the DOE to remedy motor gasoline retailer-reseller pricing violations which occurred during the relevant audit period. Storey has remitted a total of $46,599 to remedy similar violations. These funds are being held in an escrow account established with the United States Treasury pending a determination of their proper distribution. This Decision sets forth OHA's plan to distribute those funds. The specific application requirements are detailed in Section III of this Decision. I. Background Powerine was a privately held corporation which operated a refinery located in Santa Fe Springs, California during the period of price controls, August 13, 1973 through January 27, 1981. During this period, Storey, operating in Colorado, was a reseller of refined petroleum products. Economic Regulatory Administration audits of Powerine and Storey revealed possible violations of the Mandatory Petroleum Price Regulations
(MPPR)in their sales of motor gasoline. Subsequently, OHA issued Remedial Orders in each case directing Powerine and Storey to remit to the DOE $7,956,934 and $64,639 in restitution with respect to overcharges of each firm in regard to sales to their customers during the period of price controls. 1 1 See Powerine Oil Company, 21 DOE ¶ 83,008 (1991); Storey Oil Company, Inc., 16 DOE ¶ 83,007 (1987). II. Jurisdiction and Authority The general guidelines that govern OHA's ability to formulate and implement a plan to distribute refunds are set forth at 10 CFR part 205, subpart V. These procedures apply in situations where the DOE cannot readily identify the persons who were injured as a result of actual or alleged violations of the regulations or ascertain the amount of the refund each person should receive. For a more detailed discussion of Subpart V and the authority of the OHA to fashion procedures to distribute refunds, *see Office of Enforcement* , 9 DOE ¶ 82,508
(1981)and *Office of Enforcement* , 8 DOE ¶ 82,597 (1981). On May 8, 2007, the OHA issued a Proposed Decision and Order (PD&O) establishing tentative procedures to distribute the Consent Order funds. That PD&O was published in the **Federal Register** , and a 30-day period was provided for the submission of comments regarding our proposed refund plan. See 72 FR 26083 (May 8, 2007). More than 30 days have elapsed and OHA has received no comments concerning these proposed refund procedures. Consequently, the procedures will be adopted as proposed. III. Refund Procedures A. Allocation of Consent Order Funds Both firms violations of the MPPR involved sales of a refined petroleum product—motor gasoline. Consequently, all of the funds that have been remitted by Powerine and Storey will be allocated for restitution for those parties injured by the firms' alleged violations of the pricing regulations for motor gasoline. B. Refined Petroleum Product Refund Procedures 1. Application Requirements In cases where the ERA is unable to identify parties injured by the alleged overcharges or the specific amounts to which they may be entitled, we normally implement a two-stage refund procedure. In the first stage, those who bought refined petroleum products from the consenting firms may apply for refunds, which are typically calculated on a pro-rata or volumetric basis. In order to calculate the volumetric refund amount, the OHA divides the amount of money available for direct restitution by the number of gallons sold by the firm during the price control period covered by the remedial order. In the present case, however, we lack much of the information that we normally use to provide direct restitution to injured customers of the consenting firms. In particular, we have been unable to obtain any information on the volumes of motor gasoline products sold by the firms during the price control period. Nor do we have any information concerning the customers of these firms. Based on the present state of the record in these cases, it would be difficult to implement a volumetric refund process. Nevertheless, we will accept any refund claims submitted by persons who purchased motor gasoline from Powerine or Storey during the settlement periods discussed above. We will work with those claimants to develop additional information that would enable us to determine who should receive refunds and in what amounts. 2 2 Applications for Refund be accepted only for motor gasoline pricing violations. With regard to crude oil pricing violations the deadline for filing applications for refund has passed. See infra. To apply for a refund from the Powerine or Storey Remedial Order funds, a claimant should submit an Application for Refund containing the following information:
(1)Identifying information including the claimant's name, current business address, business address during the refund period, social security number or taxpayer identification number, a statement indicating whether the claimant is an individual, corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, or other business entity, the name, title, and telephone number of a person to contact for additional information, and the name and address of the person who should receive any refund check. 3 3 An applicant must submit the social security number or employer identification number of the person or legal entity that is seeking the refund. This information will be used in processing refund applications, and is requested pursuant to our authority under the Petroleum Overcharge Distribution and Restitution Act of 1986 and the regulations codified at 10 CFR part 205, subpart V. The information may be shared with other Federal agencies for statistical, auditing or archiving purposes, and with law enforcement agencies when they are investigating a potential violation of civil or criminal law.
(2)A monthly motor gasoline gallonage purchase schedule covering the price control order period. The applicant should specify the source of this gallonage information. In calculating its purchase volumes, an applicant should use actual records from the refund period, if available. If these records are not available, the applicant may submit estimates of its refined petroleum product purchases, but the estimation method must be reasonable and must be explained;
(3)A statement whether the applicant or a related firm has filed, or has authorized any individual to file on its behalf, any other application in that refund proceeding. If so, an explanation of the circumstances of the other filing or authorization must be submitted;
(4)If the applicant is or was in any way affiliated with Powerine or Storey, it must explain this affiliation, including the time period in which it was affiliated; 4 4 As in other refund proceedings involving alleged refined product violations, the DOE will presume that affiliates of a remedial order firm were not injured by the firm's overcharges. See, e.g., Marathon Petroleum Co./EMRO Propane Co., 15 DOE ¶ 85,288 (1987). This is because the remedial order firm presumably would not have sold petroleum products to an affiliate if such a sale would have placed the purchaser at a competitive disadvantage. See Marathon Petroleum Co./Pilot Oil Corp., 16 DOE ¶ 85,611 (1987), amended claim denied, 17 DOE ¶ 85,291 (1988), reconsideration denied, 20 DOE ¶ 85,236 (1990). Furthermore, if an affiliate of the remedial order firm were granted a refund, the remedial order firm would be indirectly compensated from a Remedial Order fund remitted to settle its own alleged violations.
(5)The statement listed below signed by the individual applicant or a responsible official of the firm filing the refund application: I swear (or affirm) that the information contained in this application and its attachments is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that anyone who is convicted of providing false information to the federal government may be subject to a fine, a jail sentence, or both, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001. I understand that the information contained in this application is subject to public disclosure. I have enclosed a duplicate of this entire application which will be made available at OHA. All applications should be either typed or printed and clearly labeled with the name and case number of the relevant firm (Powerine Oil Company, Case No. TEF-0006 or Storey Oil Company, Inc., Case No. TEF-0009). Each applicant must submit an original and one copy of the application. If the applicant believes that any of the information in its application is confidential and does not wish for that information to be publicly disclosed, it must submit an original application, clearly designated “confidential,” containing the confidential information, and two copies of the application with the confidential information deleted. All refund applications should be postmarked on or before December 28, 2007: Office of Hearings and Appeals, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585-1615. We will adopt the standard OHA procedures relating to refund applications filed on behalf of applicants by “representatives,” including refund filing services, consulting firms, accountants, and attorneys. See, e.g., Starks Shell Service, 23 DOE ¶ 85,017 (1993); Texaco Inc., 20 DOE ¶ 85,147
(1990)(Texaco); Shell Oil Co., 18 DOE ¶ 85,492 (1989). We will also require strict compliance with the filing requirements as specified in 10 CFR 205.283, particularly the requirement that applications and the accompanying certification statement be signed by the applicant. The OHA reiterates its policy to scrutinize applications filed by filing services closely. Applications submitted by a filing service should contain all of the information indicated above. Finally, the OHA reserves the authority to require additional information from an applicant before granting any refund in these proceedings. 2. Allocation Claims We may receive claims based upon Powerine's or Storey's failure to furnish motor gasoline that they were obliged to supply under the DOE allocation regulations that became effective in January 1974. See 10 CFR Part 211. Any such application will be evaluated with reference to the standards set forth in Texaco (and cases cited therein). See Texaco, 20 DOE at 88,321. 3. Impact of the Petroleum Overcharge Distribution and Restitution Act of 1986 (PODRA) Amendments on Powerine and Storey Refined Product Refund Claims The Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 1999 amended certain provisions of the Petroleum Overcharge and Distribution and Restitution Act of 1986 (PODRA). These amendments extinguished rights that refund applicants had under PODRA to refunds for overcharges on the purchases of refined petroleum products. They also identified and appropriated a substantial portion of the funds being held by the DOE to pay refund claims (including the funds paid by Powerine and Storey). Congress specified that these funds were to be used to fund other DOE programs. As a result, the petroleum overcharge escrow accounts in the refined product area contain substantially less money than before. In fact they may not contain sufficient funds to pay in full all pending and future refund claims (including those in litigation) if they should all be found to be meritorious. See Enron Corp./Shelia S. Brown, 27 DOE ¶ 85,036 at 88,244
(2000)(Brown). Congress directed OHA to “assure the amount remaining in escrow to satisfy refined petroleum product claims for direct restitution is allocated equitably among all claimants.” Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act of 1999, Public Law 105-277 section 337, 112 Stat 2681, 2681-295
(1998)(language added to PODRA); Brown, 27 DOE at 88,244. In view of this Congressional directive and the limited amount of funds available, it may become necessary to prorate the funds available for the meritorious claimants in the Powerine and Storey refund proceedings. *It Is Therefore Ordered That:* The payments remitted to the Department of Energy by Powerine Oil Company and Storey Oil Company, Inc., pursuant to remedial orders signed on August 30, 1991 and June 24, 1987 respectively, will be distributed in accordance with the foregoing Decision. Dated: June 27, 2007. Fred L. Brown, Acting Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals. [FR Doc. E7-12832 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0064, FRL-8334-6] Agency Information Collection Activity; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Information Collection Request for Questionnaire for Nominees for the Annual National Clean Water Act Recognition Awards Program, EPA ICR 1287.09, OMB Control Number 2040-0101 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection Request
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0064, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: ow-docket@epa.gov* (Identify Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0064, in the subject line). • *Mail:* Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. • *Hand Delivery:* EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments identified by the Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0064. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gajindar Singh, Municipal Support Division, Office of Wastewater Management, OWM Mail Code: 4204M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202)564-0634; e-mail address: *singh.gajindar@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments? EPA has established a public docket for the ICR identified in this document (ID number EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0064), which is available for online viewing at *www.regulations.gov,* or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is 202-566-2426. Use *www.regulations.gov* to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document. What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in? Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
(i)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;
(ii)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;
(iii)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv)Minimize the burden of the collection 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. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection. What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of technical information/data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity. 6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES . 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and **Federal Register** citation. What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to? *Affected entities:* Entities potentially affected by this action are public wastewater treatment plants, municipalities, industries, universities, manufacturing sites and States. *Title:* Questionnaire for Nominees for the Annual National Clean Water Act Recognition Awards Program. *ICR numbers:* EPA ICR No. 1287.09, OMB Control No. 2040-0101. *ICR status:* This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on September 30, 2007. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* This ICR requests reapproval to collect data from EPA's National Clean Water Act Recognition Awards nominees. The awards are for the following program categories: Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Excellence, Biosolids (Biosolids) Management Excellence, Combined Sewer Overflow Control
(CSO)Program Excellence and Storm Water
(SW)Management Excellence. In 1985, EPA established the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) awards program to provide a positive incentive for compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Because of the successes of the O&M Awards program, in 1988 EPA established the Beneficial Biosolids Use awards (formerly Sludge awards). In 1989, the Pretreatment awards were added. In 1990, EPA established the Combined Sewer Overflow
(CSO)and Storm Water
(SW)Management awards programs. The questionnaire provides the mechanism for the applicant to demonstrate outstanding and innovative wastewater management practices. The Pretreatment awards program is covered by ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0009, EPA ICR No. 0002.12), approved through September 30, 2007. A framework to implement the awards recognition program is at 40 CFR part 105. The respondent, *i.e.* , those applying for the award program, will read the instructions for completing the questionnaire. The respondent will use existing files, planning and progress reports, and institutional memory to complete the questionnaire. Based on the instructions provided with the questionnaire, the respondent will compile the requested information. The requested design and operating information should be readily available from wastewater treatment facility or pollution abatement program operating records. The data collection will include flow, permit, operating and environmental data. The information collection will be used by the respective awards program in the Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management to evaluate and determine which pollution abatement achievements should be recognized. Based on the collection, national panels will evaluate the nominee's efforts and recommend finalists. As currently structured, the O&M awards program has nine sub-categories to recognize municipal achievements based on plant flows and treatment level. The Biosolids awards program has four sub-categories which recognize municipal biosolids operations, technology and research achievements, and public acceptance. The CSO awards program has one sub-category which recognizes municipal programs, and the SW awards program has two sub-categories which recognize municipal and industrial programs. Regions and States may also have recognition awards programs and are included in these burden estimates. National second place category winners may also be recognized. Additionally, nominated activities may sometimes receive an honorable mention or special award. The National Clean Water Act Recognition Awards are presented annually at an EPA ceremony. *Burden Statement:* The total number of respondents is estimated to be 145, including 100 for the O&M program, 25 for the Biosolids program, 10 for the CSO program, and 10 for the SW program. The responses are collected once annually. The respondents reporting burden of 8 person hours per response is estimated to be 1,160 hours and a cost of $49,458. The States' review burden of 6 person hours per response is 870 hours and a cost of $37,459. Total estimated burden for this collection is 2,030 hours and $86,917. The public reporting burden for respondents is estimated to average 8 hours per response per year. For State respondents, the reporting burden is estimated to average 6 hours per response per year. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and use technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose information. The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here: *Estimated total number of potential respondents:* 195 (145 applicants respondents and 50 states). *Frequency of response:* once annually. *Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:* 1. *Estimated total annual burden hours:* 2,030 hours. *Estimated total annual costs:* $86,917. This includes an estimated burden cost of $86,917 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs. *Changes in the Estimates:* There is no change in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. EPA has not modified the requirements that were included in the previous ICR. Dated: June 27, 2007. James A. Hanlon, Director, Office of Wastewater Management. [FR Doc. E7-12878 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL—8334-8] Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to South Dakota State Operating Permit for GCC Dacotah Cement Manufacturing Plant, Rapid City, SD AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of direct final Order. SUMMARY: This notice announces that the EPA Administrator has responded to a citizens' petition asking EPA to object to a State operating permit issued by the South Dakota Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (DENR). Specifically, the Administrator has partially granted and partially denied the petition submitted by Jeremy Nichols, and the other Petitioners, to object to the issuance of the operating permit issued to GCC Dacotah Cement Manufacturing Plant (“GCC Dacotah”), located in Rapid City, South Dakota. Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (Act), Petitioners may seek judicial review of those portions of the petition which EPA denied in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate Circuit. Any petition for review shall be filed within 60 days of the date this notice appears in the **Federal Register** , pursuant to section 307(d) of the Act. ADDRESSES: You may review copies of the final Order, the petition, and other supporting information at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-1129 after June 30, 2007. EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the copies of these documents. You may view these documents Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding federal holidays. If you wish to examine these documents, you should make an appointment at least 24 hours before the visiting day. The final Order is also available electronically at each of the following addresses: *http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/dacotah_decision2006.pdf* and *http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/title5/petitiondb/petitiondb2006.htm* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Ajayi, Environmental Engineer, Air and Radiation Program, Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance, Mail Code 8P-AR, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129, telephone
(303)312-6320, or e-mail at *ajayi.christopher@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Clean Air Act
(Act)affords EPA a 45-day period to review and object to, as appropriate, operating permits proposed by State permitting authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator within 60 days after the expiration of this review period to object to State operating permits if EPA has not done so. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the State, unless the Petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to object during the comment period or that the grounds for the objection or other issues arose after this period. On January 18, 2006, the EPA received a petition from Petitioners requesting that EPA object to the issuance of the Title V operating permit issued by South Dakota Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
(DENR)to GCC Dacotah Cement Manufacturing Plant in Rapid City, South Dakota (“the Facility”). The Petitioners request that EPA object to the issuance of the proposed permit and raise the following objections as the bases for their petition: 1. The permit fails to ensure low sulfur coal is utilized to ensure compliance with BACT for Sulfur Dioxide emissions; 2. the permit fails to require the baghouses and electrostatic precipitators for control of Particulate Matter
(PM)be operated and maintained in any specific way to ensure they control particulate emissions within acceptable limits; 3. the permit is vague, lacks enforceability and is inadequate to ensure compliance with PM limits; 4. the permit fails to require sufficient monitoring of BACT for Nitrogen Oxide emissions; 5. the permit fails to require operation and maintenance of equipment according to manufacture's specification thereby failing to ensure compliance with BACT for CO emissions; 6. the permit fails to require continuous PM monitoring or in the alternative fails to require sufficient periodic monitoring of PM for several units (kilns and clinker coolers); 7. the permit does not require prompt reporting of permit violations; 8. the permit fails to require prompt reporting of permit deviations; 9. the permit fails to require sufficient periodic monitoring in Condition 6.1 for the presence of uncombined water and/or its effects on opacity; 10. the permit fails to require sufficient periodic monitoring in Condition 6.4 and it is unclear how Test Method 201 (Method 201) will assure compliance with established limits; 11. the permit fails to require sufficient periodic monitoring in Condition 6.8 to ensure compliance with short-term BACT SO <sup>2</sup> and CO limits for kiln #6 system; 12. the permit is flawed in Condition 6.12 because it implies an affirmative defense to the Permittee with respect to injunction relief; and 13. the permit provides an inappropriate broad exemption for maintenance in Conditions 8.4 & 8.5 for Continuous Emissions Monitoring
(CEMs)and Continuous Opacity Monitors
(COMs)which render the Conditions unenforceable as a practical matter. On June 15, 2007, the Administrator issued an Order in response to Petitioners' allegations outlined above. The Order explains the reasons for partially granting and partially denying objection #2 and granting objection #8 and directs DENR to revise certain permit conditions for clarification and/or include applicable provisions in the permit. The Order also directs DENR to take specific steps to improve compliance demonstration with certain permit conditions. Finally, the Order explains the reasons for denying the Petitioners' remaining claims. Dated: June 22, 2007. Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. E7-12852 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8334-5] Notice of Disclosure of Confidential Business Information Obtained Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act to Subcontractors of EPA Contractor U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Science Applications International Corporation, Harry-Torchiana, and CACI, Inc. AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice, request for comment. SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) hereby complies with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.310(h) for authorization to disclose confidential business information (“CBI”) submitted to EPA Region 9 pursuant to CERCLA to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' contractors: Science Applications International Corporation (“SAIC”) of Santa Barbara, California; Harry-Torchiana of San Francisco, California; and CACI, Inc., of Arlington, Virginia. DATES: Comments may be submitted by July 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to: Keith Olinger, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, SFD-7-5, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415)972-3125. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Olinger, Superfund Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, SFD-7-5, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415)972-3125. Notice of Required Determinations, Contract Provisions and Opportunity to Comment The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”) as amended, (commonly known as “Superfund”) requires completion of enforcement activities at Superfund sites in concert with other site events. EPA has entered into several contracts for enforcement support in relation to the Operating Industries, Inc. Superfund Site:
(1)Contract No. W91238-05-F-0062, issued to SAIC by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“CoE”) pursuant to Interagency Agreement No. DW 96955495 between EPA and the CoE;
(2)Contract No. W91238-07-C-0008 issued to Harry-Torchiana by the CoE pursuant to Interagency Agreement No. DW 96955495 between EPA and the CoE; and
(3)Task Order 263 issued to CACI, Inc. under the U.S. Department of Justice's (“DOJ”) MEGA2ALS contract, Contract No. 02-C-0437, pursuant to Interagency Agreement No. DW-15-95566201-1 between EPA and DOJ. Enforcement support services will be provided to EPA by SAIC, Harry-Torchiana, and CACI, Inc. EPA has determined that disclosure of CBI to SAIC, Harry-Torchiana, CACI, Inc., and their respective employees, is necessary in order for these companies to carry out their respective work for EPA under their respective contracts with the CoE and DOJ, as applicable. The information EPA intends to disclose includes submissions made by Potentially Responsible Parties to EPA in accordance with EPA's enforcement activities at the Operating Industries Inc., Superfund Site. The information would be disclosed to the above-named contractors for any of the following reasons: to assist with document handling, inventory, and indexing; to assist with document review and analysis; to verify completeness; and to provide technical review of submittals. The respective contracts comply with all requirements of 40 CFR 2.310(h)(2). EPA Region 9 will require that each of the respective subcontractors' employees with access to CBI sign a written agreement that he or she:
(1)Will use the information only for the purpose of carrying out the work required by the contract,
(2)will refrain from disclosing the information to anyone other than EPA without prior written approval of each affected business or of an EPA legal office, and
(3)will return to EPA all copies of the information (and any abstracts or extracts therefrom) upon request from the EPA program office, whenever the information is no longer required by the subcontractor for performance of the work required by the subcontract or upon completion of the subcontract. Dated: April 6, 2007. Keith Takata, Director, Superfund Division, U.S. EPA, Region IX. [FR Doc. E7-12877 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8334-2] Proposed Administrative Order on Consent—Belden Cribbing Site AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice and request for public comment. SUMMARY: As required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9601, *et seq.* , as amended (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given that an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Removal Action (“Agreement”) is proposed by the United States, on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), and Union Pacific Railroad Company (“Union Pacific”) for payment of certain response costs and for performance of a removal action at the Belden Cribbing Site, in Eagle County, Colorado (“Site”). The Site is located in a steep canyon on the slopes of Battle Mountain just south of the historic mining mill station of Belden, between the towns of Minturn and Red Cliff, in Eagle County, Colorado. The Site includes at least twenty-one significant waste rock piles from former mining operations and a series of deteriorating wood cribbings holding up the waste piles, several of which are located on Union Pacific's right-of-way along the river at the bottom of the canyon. The removal action will address the threat posed by the potential collapse of the cribbing structures and the resulting deposition into the Eagle River of the waste rock. Waste rock entering the river would release large quantities of zinc, among other metals, endangering the trout fishery and other aquatic resources. This Agreement requires Union Pacific to provide EPA with site access in order for EPA and its contractors to conduct necessary response actions within the Site in accordance with the EPA's June 2006 Action Memorandum. Union Pacific will either remove the track and ties on the Union Pacific right-of-way from Belden to the southern end of the Repository or will cover such track and ties in-place in order to create the necessary temporary access road. The Agreement also includes a grant of permanent access on Union Pacific's right-of-way for a waste rock repository, for seep collection systems and for additional rock-fall protection devices. EPA will construct and install the necessary repository, rock-fall protection devices and seep collection systems, as described in the Action Memorandum. Under the Agreement, Union Pacific will reimburse the United States a portion of past and estimated future response costs incurred or to be incurred, respectively, by the United States at or in connection with the Site. EPA has notified the State of Colorado of this action pursuant to Section 106(a) of CERCLA. DATES: Comments should be received by August 2, 2007. The Agency will consider all comments received on the proposed Agreement and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the EPA Superfund Record Center, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 3rd Floor, in Denver, Colorado. ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement and additional background information relating to the settlement are available for public inspection at the EPA Superfund Records Center, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 3rd Floor, in Denver, Colorado. Comments and requests for a copy of the proposed settlement should be addressed to Sharon Abendschan, Enforcement Specialist (8ENF-RC), Technical Enforcement Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-2466,
(303)312-6957, and should reference the Belden Cribbing Site proposed Agreement. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Stearns, Legal Enforcement Attorney (ENF-L), Legal Enforcement Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466,
(303)312-6912. It Is So Agreed. Dated: June 8, 2007. Michael T. Risner, Acting Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Enforcement, Compliance and Environmental Justice, Region VIII. [FR Doc. E7-12859 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8334-1] Public Notice of Proposed Reissuance of NPDES General Permits for Facilities/Operations That Generate, Treat, and/or Use/Dispose of Sewage Sludge by Means of Land Application, Landfill, and Surface Disposal in EPA Region 8 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Intent to reissue NPDES general permits and request for comments. SUMMARY: Region 8 of EPA is hereby giving notice of its tentative determination to reissue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permits for facilities or operations that generate, treat, and/or use/dispose of sewage sludge by means of land application, landfill, and surface disposal in the States of CO, MT, ND, and WY and in Indian country in the States of CO, MT, ND, SD, WY and UT (except for the Goshute Indian Reservation and the Navajo Indian Reservation). On June 21, 2000 and September 21, 2000, U.S. District Judge Donald W. Molloy issued orders stating that until all necessary total maximum daily loads under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act are established for a particular water quality limited segment, the EPA is not to issue any new permits or increase permitted discharges under the NPDES program. (The orders were issued in the lawsuit *Friends of the Wild Swan, Inc., et al.* , v. *U.S. E.P.A., et al.* , CV 97-35-M-DWM, District of Montana, Missoula Division.) EPA finds that the reissuance of this proposed general permit does not conflict with this order, because
(1)the proposed permit would not authorize any point source discharges and
(2)as discussed under the “Protection of Public Health and The Environment” section of the Fact Sheet for the general permits, the use and/or disposal of sewage sludge in compliance with the conditions of this permit is not likely to have any adverse effect on any water body in Montana that has been listed under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. If any member of the public believes that EPA should interpret the District Court's decision otherwise, EPA requests that this issue be brought to its attention during the public comment period on this proposed permit. Region 8 is proposing to continue to use general permits instead of individual permits for permitting such sewage sludge related activities in order to reduce the Region's administrative burden of issuing separate individual permits. The renewal permits are very similar to the previous permits. The administrative burden for most of the regulated sources is expected to be less under the general permits than with individual permits, and it will be much quicker to obtain permit coverage with general permits than with individual permits. The substantive permit requirements would be essentially the same with an individual permit or under the general permit. Facilities or operations that incinerate sewage sludge are not eligible for coverage under these general permits and must apply for an individual permit. Wastewater lagoon systems that are not using/disposing of sewage sludge do not need to apply for permit coverage unless notified by the permit issuing authority. The deadlines for applying for coverage under the general permits are given in the permits and the Fact Sheet. Facilities/operations that had coverage under the previous general permit and have submitted a timely request for coverage under this renewal permit are covered automatically under this permit unless the permit issuing authority requires the submittal of a new notice of intent (NOI). DATES: Public comments on this proposal must be received, in writing, on or before August 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Public comments should be sent to: Wastewater Unit (8P-W-WW); Attention: Biosolids Program; U.S. EPA, Region 8; 1595 Wynkoop Street; Denver, CO 80202-1129. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For a copy of the draft permit and Fact Sheet, please write Ellen Bonner at the above address or telephone
(303)312-6371. Copies of the draft permit and Fact Sheet may also be downloaded from the EPA Region 8 Web page at *http://www.epa.gov/region08/biosolids* . Questions regarding the specific permit requirements may be directed to Bob Brobst, telephone
(303)312-6129. *Public Comment Period* : Public comments are invited. Comments must be written and must be received by no later than August 2, 2007. Comments should be sent to: Wastewater Unit (8P-W-WW); Attention: Biosolids Program; U.S. EPA, REGION 8; 1595 Wynkoop Street; Denver, CO 80202-1129. Each comment should cite the page number and, where possible, the section(s) and/or paragraph(s) in the draft permit or Fact Sheet to which each comment refers. Commenters should use a separate paragraph for each issue discussed. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 19, 1993 (58 FR 9248), the EPA promulgated “Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge” (40 CFR part 503) and made revisions to the NPDES regulations to include the permitting of facilities/operations that generate, treat, and/or use/dispose of sewage sludge. The 503 regulations were amended on August 4, 1999 (64 FR 42551). The States of South Dakota and Utah currently are the only States in Region 8 that have been authorized to administer the biosolids (sludge) program. It is proposed that EPA general permits be reissued for facilities or operations that generate, treat, and/or use/dispose of sewage sludge by means of land application, landfill, and surface disposal within the following areas: State Permit No. Area covered by the general permit Colorado COG650000 State of Colorado except for Federal Facilities and Indian country. COG651000 Indian country within the State of Colorado and the portions of the Ute Mountain Indian Reservation located in New Mexico and in Utah. COG652000 Federal Facilities in the State of Colorado, except those located in Indian country, which are covered under permit COG51000. Montana MTG650000 State of Montana except for Indian country. MTG651000 Indian country in the State of Montana. North Dakota NDG650000 State of North Dakota except for Indian country. NDG651000 Indian country within the State of North Dakota (except for Indian country located within the former boundaries of the Lake Traverse Indian Reservation, which are covered under permit SDG651000) and that portion of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation located in South Dakota. South Dakota SDG651000 Indian country within the State of South Dakota (except for the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, which is covered under permit NDG651000), that portion of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation located in Nebraska, and Indian country located in North Dakota within the former boundaries of the Lake Traverse Indian Reservation. Utah UTG651000 Indian country within the State of Utah except for the Goshute Indian Reservation, Navajo Indian Reservation, and Ute Mountain Indian Reservation (which is covered under permit COG651000). Wyoming WYG650000 State of Wyoming except for Indian country. WYG651000 Indian country within the State of Wyoming. The States of South Dakota and Utah have been authorized permitting authority for sewage sludge, therefore EPA's general permits will be reissued only for Indian country in those States. The general permit for Indian country in Utah does not include the portions of the Goshute Indian Reservation and the Navajo Indian Reservation in Utah because the permitting activities for these reservations are done by Region 9 of EPA. The State of Colorado has not been authorized permitting authority for Federal facilities, so a general permit is proposed for Federal facilities not located in Indian country. Authorization for use/disposal of sewage sludge under the general permits may be for one of the following three categories: Category 1—Facilities/operations that generate and/or partially treat sewage sludge, but do not use/dispose of sewage sludge; Category 2—Facilities/operations that use/dispose of sewage sludge and may also generate and/or treat sewage sludge; and Category 3—Wastewater lagoon systems that need apply sewage sludge to land on an occasional, restricted basis. Authorization for use/disposal of sewage sludge under the general permit will be limited to one of the three categories, but authorization may be granted to one or more subcategories under Category 2. In applying for authorization for use/disposal of sewage sludge under the general permit, the applicant will be required to specify under which category or subcategory(s) authorization is being requested. However, the permit issuing authority will have the final determination as to which category or subcategory(s) the authorization will be granted. The requirements in the permit for the use/disposal of sewage sludge are based primarily on 40 CFR part 503. Since these permits do not involve discharges to waters of the United States, certification under section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act is not necessary for the issuance of these permits and certification will not be requested. *Economic Impact (Executive Order 12866):* EPA has determined that the issuance of this general permit is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) and is therefore not subject to formal OMB review prior to proposal. *Paperwork Reduction Act:* EPA has reviewed the requirements imposed on regulated facilities in these proposed general permits under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 *et seq.* The information collection requirements of these permits have already been approved by the Office of Management and Budget in submissions made for the NPDES permit program under the provisions of the Clean Water Act. *Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA):* The RFA requires that EPA prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for rules subject to the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) that have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The permit proposed today, however, is not a “rule” subject to the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and is therefore not subject to the RFA. *Unfunded Mandates Reform Act:* Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, generally requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their “regulatory actions” defined to be the same as “rules” subject to the RFA) on tribal, state, local governments and the private sector. The permit proposed today, however, is not a “rule” subject to the RFA and is therefore not subject to the requirements of the UMRA. Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 *et seq.* Dated: June 21, 2007. Stephen S. Tuber, Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-12857 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Program Requirement Revisions Related to the Public Water System Supervision Programs for the State of New Hampshire, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of New Hampshire are in the process of revising their respective approved Public Water System Supervision
(PWSS)programs to meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has adopted drinking water regulations for the Variances and Exemptions Rule (63 FR 43834-43851) promulgated on August 14, 1988, the Radionuclides Rule (66 FR 76708-76753) promulgated on December 7, 2000, and the Consumer Confidence Rule (63 FR 44511-44536) promulgated on August 19, 1998. After review of the submitted documentation, EPA has determined that the Commonwealth's rules are no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulations. Therefore, EPA intends to approve Massachusetts' PWSS program revision for these rules. The State of New Hampshire has adopted drinking water regulations for the Public Notification Rule (65 FR 25982-26049) promulgated on May 4, 2000, and the Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (66 FR 31086-311054) promulgated on June 8, 2001. After review of the submitted documentation, EPA has determined that the State's rules are no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulations. Therefore, EPA intends to approve New Hampshire's PWSS program revision for these rules. DATES: All interested parties may request a public hearing for any of the above EPA determinations. A request for a public hearing must be submitted within thirty
(30)days of this Federal Register publication date to the Regional Administrator at the address shown below. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing may be denied by the Regional Administrator. However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is made by this date, a public hearing will be held. If no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received, and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his/her own motion, this determination shall become final and effective 30 days after the publication of this Federal Register Notice. Any request for a public hearing shall include the following information:
(1)The name, address, and telephone number of the individual organization, or other entity requesting a hearing;
(2)a brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's determination;
(3)information that the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; and
(4)the signature of the individual making the request, or if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity. ADDRESSES: All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following office(s): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ecosystem Protection, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, MA 02114. For documents specific to that State: MA Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Supply, 1 Winter Street, 6th Floor, Boston, MA 02108. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Water Supply Engineering Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Barbara McGonagle, Office of Ecosystem Protection (telephone 617-918-1608). Authority: Section 1401 (42 U.S.C. 300f) and Section 1413 (42 U.S.C. 300g-2) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (1996), and (40 CFR 142.10) of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Dated: May 16, 2007. Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator, EPA—New England. [FR Doc. 07-3228 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 41
Traces to 41 documents
CFR
21 references not yet in our index
  • 899 F.2d 1185
  • 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312
  • 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339
  • 113 F.3d 1220
  • 50 CFR 600.745(b)
  • 50 CFR 697.22
  • 50 CFR 697.7(e)
  • 50 CFR 600.745(b)(3)(v)
  • 50 CFR 216
  • 50 CFR 216.103
  • 34 CFR 395
  • Pub. L. 92-463
  • 18 CFR 45
  • 10 CFR 205
  • 10 CFR 211
  • Pub. L. 105-277
  • 40 CFR 9
  • 40 CFR 105
  • 40 CFR 503
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 40 CFR 142.10
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Issuance of permit
C.F.R.§ 351.214
C.F.R.§ 351.307
C.F.R.§ 351.308
C.F.R.§ 351.310
C.F.R.§ 351.309
C.F.R.§ 351.212
C.F.R.§ 351.402
C.F.R.§ 351.213
U.S.C.§ 1531
F. App'x899 F.2d 1185
F. Supp.346 F. Supp. 2d 1312
F. Supp.360 F. Supp. 2d 1339
Cites 62 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.