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 · 2007-09-11 · Forest Service, USDA · Notices

Notices. Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

49,049 words·~223 min read·/register/2007/09/11/07-4420·

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

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Sierra National Forest, California, Sierra National Forest Motorized Travel Management EIS AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. SUMMARY: The Sierra National Forest (Sierra NF) will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to disclose the impacts associated with the following proposed actions: 1. The prohibition of wheeled motorized vehicle travel off designated NFS roads, NFS trails and areas by the public except as allowed by permit or other authorization. 2.
The addition of approximately 54 miles of existing unauthorized tracks to the current system of National Forest System
(NFS)motorized trails, the permanent conversion of 72 miles of NFS Roads to NFS Trails, the management of 61 miles of NFS Roads as NFS Trails and the addition of six acres for motorized use. 3. The changing of the allowable use or season of use on approximately 970 miles of existing NFS Roads and closing approximately 200 miles of existing NFS Roads to public access usless allowed by permit or other authorization. DATES: The comment period on the proposed action will extend 45 days from the date the Notice of Intent is published in the **Federal Register** . Completion of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS)is expected in November 2007 and the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS)is expected in January 2008. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Travel Management Team, Sierra NF, 1600 Tollhouse Rd., Clovis, CA 93611. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Lowe, Sierra NF, 1600 Tollhouse Rd., Clovis, CA 93611; Phone:
(559)297-0706 extension 4840. E-mail: *sierra.route.designation@fs.fed.us.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Over the past few decades, the availability and capability of motorized vehicles, particularly off-highway vehicles
(OHVs)and sport utility vehicles
(SUVs)has increased tremendously. Nationally, the number of OHV users has climbed sevenfold in the past 30 years, from approximately 5 million in 1972 to 36 million in 2000. California is experiencing the highest level of OHV use of any state in the nation. There were 786,914 ATVs and OHV motorcycles registered in 2004, up 330% since 1980. Annual sales of ATVs and OHV motorcycles in California were the highest in the U.S. for the last 5 years. Four-wheel drive vehicle sales in California also increased by 1500% to 3,046,866 from 1989 to 2002. (Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United States, Regions and States: A National Report from a National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, USDA Forest Service, 2005). Unmanaged OHV use has resulted in unplanned roads and trails, erosion, watershed and habitat degradation, and impacts to cultural resource sites. Compaction and erosion are the primary effects of OHV use on soils. Riparian areas and aquatic dependent species are particularly vulnerable to OHV use. Unmanaged recreation, including impacts from OHVs, is one of “Four Key Threats Facing the Nation's Forests and Grasslands.” (USDA Forest Service, June 2004). On August 11, 2003, the Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service entered into a Memorandum of Intent
(MOI)with the California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission, and the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. That MOI set in motion a region-wide effort to “Designate OHV roads, trails, and any specifically defined open areas for motorized wheeled vehicles on maps of the 19 National Forests in California by 2007.” On November 9, 2005, the Forest Service published final travel management regulations in the **Federal Register** (FR Vol. 70, No. 216-Nov. 9, 2005, pp. 68264-68291). This final Travel Management Rule requires designation of those roads, trails, and areas that are open to motor vehicle use on National Forests. Designations will be made by class of vehicle and, if appropriate, by time of year. The final rule prohibits the use of motor vehicles off the designated system as well as use of motor vehicles on routes and in areas that are not designated. On some NFS lands, long managed as open to cross-country motor vehicle travel, repeated use has resulted in unplanned, unauthorized tracks. These tracks generally developed without environmental analysis or public involvement, and do not have the same status as NFS roads and NFS trails included in the forest transportation system. Nevertheless, some unauthorized tracks are well-sited, provide excellent opportunities for outdoor recreation by motorized and non-motorized users, and would enhance the National Forest system of designated roads, trails and areas. Other unauthorized tracks are poorly located and cause unacceptable impacts. Only NFS roads and NFS trails can be designated for wheeled motorized vehicle use. In order for an unauthorized track to be designated, it must first be added to the forest transportation system. In accordance with the MOI, the Sierra NF completed an inventory of unauthorized tracks on NFS lands in August of 2006, identifying approximately 520 miles of known unauthorized tracks. The Sierra NF then used an interdisciplinary process to conduct a Travel Analysis including working with the public to determine whether any of the unauthorized tracks should be proposed for addition to the Sierra NF transportation system. Roads, trails and areas that are currently part of the Sierra NF transportation system and are open to wheeled motorized vehicle travel will remain designated for such use except as described below under Proposed Action. This proposal focuses on the prohibition of wheeled motorized vehicle travel off designated routes and needed changes to the Sierra NF transportation system, including the addition of some unauthorized routes to the Sierra NF transportation system and minor changes to the existing transportation systems. The proposed action is being carried forward in accordance with the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR part 212). In accordance with the rule, following a decision on this proposal, the Sierra NF will publish a Motor Vehicle Use Map
(MVUM)identifying all Sierra NF roads, trails and areas that are designated for motor vehicle use. The MVUM shall specify the classes of vehicles and, if appropriate, the times of year for which use is designated. Purpose and Need for Action The following needs have been identified for this proposal: 1. There is a need for regulation of unmanaged wheeled motorized vehicle travel by the public. Currently, wheeled motorized vehicle travel by the public is allowed off designated routes below 6,800 feet elevation. In their enjoyment of the Sierra NF, motorized vehicle users have created numerous unauthorized routes. The number of such routes continues to grow each year with many routes having environmental impacts and safety concerns that have not been addressed. The Travel Management Rule, 36 CFR part 212), provides policy for ending this trend of unauthorized route proliferation and managing the Forest transportation system in a sustainable manner through designation of motorized NFS roads, trails and areas, and the prohibition of cross-country travel. 2. There is a need for limited changes and additions to the Sierra NF transportation system to: 2.1. Provide wheeled motorized access to dispersed recreation opportunities (camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, etc.) 2.2. Provide a diversity of wheeled motorized recreation opportunities (4x4 Vehicles, motorcyles, ATVs, passenger vehicles, etc.) It is Forest Service policy to provide a diversity of road and trail opportunities for experiencing a variety of environments and modes of travel consistent with the National Forest recreation role and land capability (FSM 2353.03(2)). In meeting these needs the proposed action must also achieve the following purposes: A. Avoid impacts to cultural resources. B. Provide for public safety. C. Provide for a diversity of recreational opportunities. D. Assure adequate access to public and private lands. E. Provide for adequate maintenance and administration of thr transportation system based on availability of resources and funding to do so. F. Minimize damage to soil, vegetation and other forest resources. G. Avoid harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitat. H. Minimize conflicts between wheeled motor vehicles and existing or proposed recreational uses of NFS lands. I. Minimize conflicts among different classes of wheeled motor vehicle uses of NFS lands or neighboring federal lands. J. Assure compatibility of wheeled motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account sound, emissions, etc. K. Have valid existing rights of use and access (rights-of-way). Proposed Action 1. Prohibition of wheeled motorized vehicle travel off the designated NFS roads, NFS trails and areas by the public except as allowed by permit or other authorization. 2. Additions to the National Forest Transportation System—The Sierra NF currently manages and maintains approximately 2,530 miles of NFS roads and no NFS motorized trails. Based on the stated purpose and need for action and as a result of the recent Travel Analysis process; the Sierra NF proposes to add no NFS roads; add approximately 54 miles of new motorized trail; permanently convert 72 miles of NFS Roads to NFS Trails; manage 71 miles of NFS Roads as NFS Trails; and add approximately six acres of new motorized use areas. Proposed Additions to Motorized Trails System Trail name Proposed use Length Season of use District Battalion Open to All Vehicles 0.50 May 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. Chiquito South Open to All Vehicles 0.35 May 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. Lost Lake Open to All Vehicles 0.58 Year Round Bass Lake. Deadman Miami Open to Motorcycles Only 0.83 Apr 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. Footman Open to Motorcycles Only 1.62 May 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. Beasore Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 0.79 May 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. BLT Miami Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 0.12 Apr 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. Browns Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 0.77 Apr 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. Cedar Loop Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 1.41 Year Round Bass Lake. Central Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 0.32 Apr 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. Chiquito North Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 0.72 May 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. Cody E Miami Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 0.79 Apr 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. Cody W Miami Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 1.62 Apr 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. Express Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 1.01 Apr 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. E-Zee Miami Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 0.65 May 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. Greys Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 0.56 Year Round Bass Lake. Hail Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 0.82 Apr 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. Halfmile Miami Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 0.62 Apr 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. Johnson Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 0.18 Year Round Bass Lake. Martin Miami Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 0.50 Apr 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. Miami Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 1.72 May 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. MMTB Miami Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 2.27 Apr 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. Power Loop E Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 0.25 Apr 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. Power Loop N Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 0.82 Apr 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. Powerline Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 0.70 May 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. Quartz Mtn Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 0.64 Jun 15 to Nov 01 Bass Lake. Rock Creek Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 0.53 Apr 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. Rush Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 1.73 May 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. Shady E Miami Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 0.35 Apr 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. Shady Miami Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 2.38 May 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. Soquel Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 0.68 Apr 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. Stagecoach Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 3.12 Apr 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. Summit Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 1.05 Year Round Bass Lake. Sunflower Miami Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 0.97 Year Round Bass Lake. Texas Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 0.64 Year Round Bass Lake. Whiskey Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 1.58 Year Round Bass Lake. 45 Cutoff Open to All Vehicles 0.69 May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. Basecamp Open to All Vehicles 1.07 Year Round High Sierra. Bearpaw Open to All Vehicles 0.64 Year Round High Sierra. Boneyard Open to All Vehicles 0.48 Year Round High Sierra. Buck Open to All Vehicles 0.10 Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. Campfire Open to All Vehicles 0.17 Year Round High Sierra. Campout Open to All Vehicles 0.09 Year Round High Sierra. Dayuse Open to All Vehicles 0.16 Year Round High Sierra. Doe Open to All Vehicles 0.29 Year Round High Sierra. Dry Camp Open to All Vehicles 0.07 Year Round High Sierra. Fawn Open to All Vehicles 0.11 Year Round High Sierra. Horseshoe Open to All Vehicles 0.13 Year Round High Sierra. Kaiser Open to All Vehicles 0.02 Year Round High Sierra. Lower Bald Open to All Vehicles 3.34 Year Round High Sierra. Lower Dinkey Open to All Vehicles 0.44 Year Round High Sierra. North Bald Open to All Vehicles 0.66 May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. One Mile Open to All Vehicles 0.26 Year Round High Sierra. Racoon Open to All Vehicles 0.71 Year Round High Sierra. Ridgeline Open to All Vehicles 0.68 Year Round High Sierra. Ridgetop Open to All Vehicles 1.08 Year Round High Sierra. Rockhopper Open to All Vehicles 1.15 Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. Rockslide Open to All Vehicles 1.20 Year Round High Sierra. Sand Flats Open to All Vehicles 0.27 Year Round High Sierra. South Fort Open to All Vehicles 0.13 Year Round High Sierra. Spike Open to All Vehicles 0.05 Year Round High Sierra. Streamside Open to All Vehicles 0.14 Year Round High Sierra. Tamarack Open to All Vehicles 0.06 Year Round High Sierra. Upper Bald Open to All Vehicles 2.14 Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. Upper Dinkey Open to All Vehicles 0.19 Year Round High Sierra. Creekside Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 1.91 Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. Roadside Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ 1.37 Year Round High Sierra. Convert From NFS Roads to NFS Trails Road/trail No. Beg MP End MP Vehicle class Season of use District HITE COVE OHV ROUTE (03S002) 1.25 4.95 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. STAR LAKES OHV ROUTE (05S026) 0.6 2.9 Open to All Vehicles Year Round Bass Lake. GREEN MTN OHV ROUTE (05S030X) 0 2 Open to All Vehicles Year Round Bass Lake. CATTLE MTN OHV ROUTE (05S030XA) 0 2 Open to All Vehicles Year Round Bass Lake. RED TOP OHV ROUTE (05S070A) 0 1.2 Open to All Vehicles Year Round Bass Lake. GLOBE ROCK AA SPUR (05S070AA) 0 0.66 Open to All Vehicles Year Round Bass Lake. IRON LAKES OHV ROUTE (05S092A) 0 0.6 Open to All Vehicles Year Round Bass Lake. DUSY-ERSHIM OHV ROUTE (07S032) 1.2 25.2 Open to All Vehicles Jul 15 to Nov 01 High Sierra. COYOTE OHV ROUTE (08S042) 3.2 6.1 Open to All Vehicles Jun 01 to Nov 01 High Sierra. STRAWBERRY OHV ROUTE (08S042X) 0 2.5 Open to All Vehicles Jun 01 to Nov 01 High Sierra. WEST LAKE OHV ROUTE (08S042XA) 0 0.3 Open to All Vehicles Jun 01 to Nov 01 High Sierra. MIRROR LAKE OHV ROUTE (08S042XB) 0 0.7 Open to All Vehicles Jun 01 to Nov 01 High Sierra. BREWER LAKE OHV ROUTE (09S034) 0 2.1 Open to All Vehicles Jun 01 to Nov 01 High Sierra. BALD MTN OHV ROUTE (09S043) 0 4.5 Open to All Vehicles Year Round High Sierra. BALD OHV B (09S043B) 0 1.8 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. PEEP OHV (09S043A) 0 0.2 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. TRI-TIP OHV ROUTE (09S091) 0 1.3 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. SWAMP LAKE OHV ROUTE (10S015) 0 13.8 Open to All Vehicles Jun 15 to Nov 01 High Sierra. SPANISH LAKE OHV ROUTE (11S007A) 0 5.7 Open to All Vehicles Aug 01 to Nov 01 High Sierra. NFS Roads to be Managed as NFS Trails Road/Trail No. Beg Mp End Mp Vehicle class Season of use District 50S009XA 0 0.6 Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ Year Round Bass Lake. 50S013G 0 0.4 Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ Year Round Bass Lake. 50S020X 0 2.5 Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ Year Round Bass Lake. 50S023 0 0.9 Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ Year Round Bass Lake. 50S027 0 0.4 Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ Year Round Bass Lake. 50S024C 0 0.6 Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ Year Round Bass Lake. 06S027M 0 0.3 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 06S034 0 1 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 06S034A 0 0.9 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 06S037 0 0.7 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 06S037A 0 0.1 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 06S040XA 0 1.2 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 Bass Lake. 06S042G 0 0.6 Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ Year Round Bass Lake. 06S043A 0 0.5 Open to All Vehicles Jun 15 to Oct 01 High Sierra. 06S044XB 0 1.5 Open to All Vehicles Jun 15 to Oct 01 High Sierra. 06S048A 0 0.3 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 06S086B 0 0.4 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 06S086C 0 0.9 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 06S089YA 0 0.6 Open to All Vehicles Jun 15 to Oct 01 High Sierra. 07S005SA 0 0.4 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 07S008A 0 0.7 Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ Year Round Bass Lake. 07S008B 0 0.5 Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ Year Round Bass Lake. 07S012 0 1.2 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 07S095 0 0.9 Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ Year Round Bass Lake. 07S095A 0 0.2 Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ Year Round Bass Lake. 07S099 0 0.2 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 07S099A 0 0.2 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 07S303A 0 0.3 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 07S500 0 0.5 Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ Year Round Bass Lake. 07S520A 0 1.1 Open to Vehicles Less Than 50″ Year Round Bass Lake. 08S056 0 1.1 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 08S057 0 0.4 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 08S098G 0 0.7 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 09S005E 0 0.5 Open to All Vehicles Aug 15 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 09S006A 0 0.5 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 09S009B 0 1.2 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 09S009C 0 0.6 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 09S009K 0 0.1 Open to All Vehicles Year Round High Sierra. 09S014A 0 1 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 09S015 0 0.7 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 09S034A 0 0.7 Open to All Vehicles Jun 01 to Nov 01 High Sierra. 09S034B 0 1 Open to All Vehicles Jun 01 to Nov 01 High Sierra. 09S066A 0 0.4 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 09S069C 0 0.5 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 09S072 0.8 2.2 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 09S072A 0 1.3 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 09S090 0 0.7 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 09S090A 0 0.5 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 09S090B 0 0.2 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 09S404 0.1 0.8 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 09S404A 0 0.2 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 09S404B 0 0.2 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S013A 0 1 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S013G 0 0.4 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S016A 0 0.3 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S016E 0 0.3 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S016H 0 0.7 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S016M 0 0.11 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S016NA 0 0.4 Open to All Vehicles Aug 15 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S018V 0 0.7 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S020E 0 0.3 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S036 4.6 5.1 Open to All Vehicles Jun 15 to Oct 01 High Sierra. 10S036B 0 0.8 Open to All Vehicles Jun 15 to Oct 01 High Sierra. 10S036DA 0 0.2 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S066C 0 1.2 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S066E 0 1.3 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S066H 0 0.6 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S066J 0 0.6 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S066JA 0 0.6 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S066L 0 0.5 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S066N 0 0.7 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S069C 0 0.3 Open to All Vehicles Year Round High Sierra. 10S069D 0 0.4 Open to All Vehicles Year Round High Sierra. 10S070BA 0 0.4 Open to All Vehicles Year Round High Sierra. 10S070T 0 0.3 Open to All Vehicles Year Round High Sierra. 10S075D 0 0.5 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S090 0 3.4 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S098 0 0.4 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S099 0 2.3 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S099A 0 1.1 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S099B 0 1.1 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S407 0 0.2 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S415 0 0.3 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 10S416 0 0.3 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 11S004C 0 0.4 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 11S010B 0 0.2 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 11S010F 0 0.6 Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 11S023D 0 0.5 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 11S023F 0.5 1.2 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 11S040G 0 0.5 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 11S040J 0 0.2 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 11S040N 0 0.7 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. 11S040XA 0 0.2 Open to All Vehicles Apr 20 to Dec 01 High Sierra. Proposed Motorized Use Area Additions Name Area Proposed use Season of use Tule Mdw Use Area 6 Acres Open to All Vehicles May 20 to Dec 1. 3. Changes of the allowable of use on the NFS Roads—It is proposed to restrict the type of vehicular use and/or the period of use on approximately 970 miles of existing NFS Roads. And to permanently close 200 miles of existing NFS Roads to public access unless allowed by permit or other authorization. [See Internet, *http://www.fs.us.fed/r5/sierra/projects/ohv,* for complete tables.] Maps and tables describing in detail both the Sierra NF transportation system and the proposed action can found at *http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sierra/projects/ohv.* In addition, maps will be available for viewing at: Supervisor's Office, 1600 Tollhouse Rd., Clovis, CA. Bass Lake Ranger District, 57003 Road 225, North Fork, CA. High Sierra Ranger District, 29688 Auberry Road, Prather, CA. Responsible Official Edward C. Cole, Forest Supervisor, 1600 Tollhouse Rd., Clovis, CA 93611. Nature of Decision To Be Made The responsible official will decide whether to adopt and implement the proposed action, an alternative to the proposed action, or take no action to make changes to the existing Sierra NF Transportation System and prohibit cross country wheeled motorized vehicle travel by the public off the designated system. Once the decision is made, the Sierra NF will publish a Motor Vehicle Use Map
(MVUM)identifying the roads, trails and areas that are designated for motor vehicle use. The MVUM shall specify the classes of vehicles and, if appropriate, the times of year for which use is designated. Scoping Process Public participation will be especially important at several points during the analysis. The Forest Service will be seeking information, comments, and assistance from the federal, state, and local agencies and other individuals or organizations who may be interested in or affected by the proposed action. Public Meetings will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the following locations: Mariposa: Sept 24, at the Best Western Yosemite Way, 4999 State Highway 49. Clovis: Sept 26, at the Sierra NF Headquaters. 1600 Tollhouse Road. Prather: Sept 27, at the High Sierra District Office, 29688 Auberry Road. Oakhurst: Oct 2, at the Oakhurst Community Center, Road 425B. The Notice of Intent is expected to be published in the **Federal Register** on September 14, 2007. The comment period on the proposed action will extend 30 days from the date the Notice of Intent is published in the **Federal Register** . The draft environmental impact statement is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)and to be available for public review by November 2007. EPA will publish a notice of availability of the draft EIS in the **Federal Register** . The comment period on the draft EIS will extend 45 days from the date the EPA notice appears in the **Federal Register** . At that time, copies of the draft EIS will be distributed to interested and affected agencies, organizations, and members of the public for their review and comment. It is very important that those interested in the management of the Sierra NF participate at that time. The final EIS is scheduled to be completed in January 2008. In the final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to substantive comments received during the comment period that pertain to the environmental consequences discussed in the draft EIS and applicable laws, regulations, and policies considered in making the decision. Substantive comments are defined as “comments within the scope of the proposed action, specific to the proposed action, and have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and include supporting reasons for the responsible official to consider” (36 CFR 215.2). Submission of substantive comments is a prerequisite for eligibility to appeal under the 36 CFR part 215 regulations. Comments Requested This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the **Federal Register** . The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978).* Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc.* v. *Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980).* Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft environmental impact statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection. (Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, section 21) Dated: September 5, 2007. Edward C. Cole, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E7-17834 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census [Docket Number: 070404074-7460-02] American Indian and Alaska Native Policy Statement AGENCY: Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of re-opening of a public comment period. SUMMARY: The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is issuing this notice to extend the comment period on the draft American Indian and Alaska Native
(AIAN)policy statement. The Census Bureau published the original notice and request for comments in the **Federal Register** on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 (72 FR 28952). Please see the earlier notice for more information about the draft AIAN policy. The Census Bureau is currently conducting consultation meetings with federally-recognized tribal governments in preparation for the 2010 Census and would like to extend the comment period to allow those tribal leaders and the general public the opportunity to review and provide their input on the draft policy. The Census Bureau will accept all public comments received from May 23 to the closing date identified in this notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before October 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Dee Alexander, Program Analyst, Decennial Management Division, Outreach and Promotions Branch, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 3H166, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Stop 7100, Washington, DC 20233-7100. Written comments may also be submitted via fax at
(301)763-8327, or e-mail to *dee.a.alexander@census.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed policy should be directed to Dee Alexander, Program Analyst, Decennial Management Division, Outreach and Promotions Branch, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 3H166, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Stop 7100, Washington, DC 20233-7100, telephone
(301)763-9335. Dated: Sepember 5, 2007. Charles Louis Kincannon, Director, Bureau of the Census. [FR Doc. E7-17846 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board (Docket 45-2007) Foreign-Trade Zone 49 -- Newark, New Jersey, Area, Application for Subzone Status In Mocean Group, LLC (Swimwear/Beach Accessories), North Brunswick, New Jersey An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, grantee of FTZ 49, requesting special-purpose subzone status for the distribution facility of In Mocean Group, LLC (IMG), located in North Brunswick, New Jersey. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on August 31, 2007. The IMG facility (146,150 sq. ft., with possible expansion of an additional 100,000 sq. ft., on 22 acres; 100 employees) is located at 2400 Route U.S. 1 in North Brunswick. The facility is used for the receipt, storage, manipulation (repacking/sorting) and distribution of swimwear and beach accessories. The products are distributed throughout the U.S. and abroad. FTZ procedures could exempt IMG from Customs duty payments on foreign products that are re-exported. Some 5 percent of the facility's shipments are exported. On domestic sales, the company would be able to defer payments until merchandise is shipped from the facility and entered for U.S. consumption. IMG also plans to realize logistical benefits through the use of weekly entry procedures. The application indicates that zone savings would help improve the international competitiveness of the distribution facility. In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board. Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is November 13, 2007. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period November 26, 2007. A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at each of the following locations: U.S. Department of Commerce, Export Assistance Center, 20 West State Street, Trenton, NJ 08625; and, Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. For further information, contact Camille Evans at *Camille_Evans@rita.doc.gov* . or
(202)482-2350. Dated: September 4, 2007. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-17858 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-888 Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting the an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables and certain parts thereof from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The period of review (“POR”) is August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. We have preliminarily determined that Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (“Since Hardware”), the sole company subject to this review, has not made sales to the United States of the subject merchandise at prices below normal value. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties filing comments are requested to submit with each argument
(1)a statement of the issue and
(2)a brief summary of the argument(s). EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anya Naschak or Bobby Wong, 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)482-6375 or
(202)482-0409, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 6, 2004, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order regarding floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables and certain parts thereof (“ironing tables”) from the PRC. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 47868 (August 6, 2004) ( *Amended Final FR* ). On August 1, 2006, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the ironing tables antidumping duty order. *See Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation* , 71 FR 43441 (August 1, 2006). On August 2, 2006, and August 29, 2006, respectively, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd. (“Foshan Shunde”) and Since Hardware requested administrative reviews of their sales under the antidumping duty order on ironing tables from the PRC. On August 31, 2006, Home Products International Inc. (“Petitioner”) also requested an administrative review of Since Hardware's sales. On September 29, 2006, the Department initiated an administrative review of Since Hardware and Foshan Shunde. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 2006). On December 21, 2006, Foshan Shunde filed a letter withdrawing its request for review. On January 23, 2007, the Department rescinded this administrative review with respect to Foshan Shunde. *See Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 2856 (January 23, 2007). On April 17, 2007, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of review until August 31, 2007. *See Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Extension of the Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 2005/2006 Administrative Review* , 72 FR 19173 (April 17, 2007). On April 19, 2007, Petitioner submitted comments regarding the selection of appropriate surrogate values for valuing the factors of production for these preliminary results. On April 26, 2007, we invited interested parties to comment on the Department's surrogate country selection and/or significant production in the other potential surrogate countries and to submit publicly available information to value the factors of production. On April 30, 2007, Since Hardware submitted comments regarding Petitioner's April 19, 2007, submission. On May 9, 2007, Petitioner submitted additional comments regarding surrogate values for the preliminary results. On July 2, 2007, Petitioner submitted comments on the Department's selection of a surrogate country. On July 11, 2007, we extended the time limit for submitting publicly available surrogate values for consideration in these preliminary results. On July 20, 2007, Petitioner submitted additional comments on the appropriate surrogate values for valuing the factors of production for these preliminary results. In addition, on July 27, 2006, Petitioner submitted Indian audited financial statements for the 2005-2006 fiscal year. Since Hardware submitted rebuttal comments to Petitioner's July 20, 2007, comments on July 30, 2007. The Department received timely filed original and supplemental questionnaire responses from Since Hardware. Between July 31, 2007, and August 9, 2007, the Department received the following pre-preliminary results comments: Petitioner's July 31, 2007, submission (“Petitioner Pre-Prelim Comments”); Since Hardware's August 6, 2007, submission (“Since Hardware Pre-Prelim Comments”); and Petitioner's August 9, 2007, submission (“Petitioner Additional Prelim Comments”) Scope of the Order For purposes of this order, the product covered consists of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables, assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain parts thereof. The subject tables are designed and used principally for the hand ironing or pressing of garments or other articles of fabric. The subject tables have full-height leg assemblies that support the ironing surface at an appropriate (often adjustable) height above the floor. The subject tables are produced in a variety of leg finishes, such as painted, plated, or matte, and they are available with various features, including iron rests, linen racks, and others. The subject ironing tables may be sold with or without a pad and/or cover. All types and configurations of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables are covered by this review. Furthermore, this order specifically covers imports of ironing tables, assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain parts thereof. For purposes of this order, the term “unassembled” ironing table means a product requiring the attachment of the leg assembly to the top or the attachment of an included feature such as an iron rest or linen rack. The term “complete” ironing table means product sold as a ready-to-use ensemble consisting of the metal-top table and a pad and cover, with or without additional features, *e.g.* iron rest or linen rack. The term “incomplete” ironing table means product shipped or sold as a “bare board” - *i.e.* , a metal-top table only, without the pad and cover with or without additional features, e.g. iron rest or linen rack. The major parts or components of ironing tables that are intended to be covered by this order under the term “certain parts thereof” consist of the metal top component (with or without assembled supports and slides) and/or the leg components, whether or not attached together as a leg assembly. The order covers separately shipped metal top components and leg components, without regard to whether the respective quantities would yield an exact quantity of assembled ironing tables. Ironing tables without legs (such as models that mount on walls or over doors) are not floor-standing and are specifically excluded. Additionally, tabletop or countertop models with short legs that do not exceed 12 inches in length (and which may or may not collapse or retract) are specifically excluded. The subject ironing tables were previously classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheading 9403.20.0010. Effective July 1, 2003, the subject ironing tables are classified under new HTSUS subheading 9403.20.0011. The subject metal top and leg components are classified under HTSUS subheading 9403.90.8040. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) purposes, the Department's written description of the scope remains dispositive. Non-Market-Economy Status Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a NME. *See* , *e.g.* , *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review* , 68 FR 7500, 7500-01 (February 14, 2003), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 2003). None of the parties to these reviews has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated normal value
(NV)in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries. Separate Rates In proceedings involving 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. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ *Sparklers* ”). In this review, Since Hardware submitted information in support of its claim for a company-specific rate. Accordingly, we have considered whether Since Hardware 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 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine* , 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 *Sparklers* , 56 FR 20588 at Comment 1, further discussed in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585, 22586-87 (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. *See Sparklers* , 56 FR 20588 at Comment 1 and *Silicon Carbide* , 59 FR 22586-87. Since Hardware provided complete separate-rate information in its responses to our original and supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly, we performed a separate-rates analysis to determine whether these exporters are 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 20588 at Comment 1. As discussed below, our analysis shows that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of an absence of *de jure* government control for the three fully responsive companies based on each of these factors. Since Hardware has placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate absence of *de jure* control, including documentation substantiating its claims that it is a wholly foreign-owned enterprise registered in China, the “Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China” (May 12, 1994) (“ *Foreign Trade Law* ”), and “Administrative Regulations of the People's Republic of China Governing the Registration of Legal Corporations” (June 3, 1988) (“ *Legal Corporations Regulations* ”). *See* Since Hardware's Section A questionnaire response dated November 8, 2006 (“Since Hardware Section A”) at Exhibits A-2 and A-5. Since Hardware also submitted a copy of its business license, which was issued by the Guangzhou Municipal Industrial and Commercial Administration. *See* Since Hardware Section A at Exhibit A-4. Since Hardware explained that its business license ensures that Since Hardware maintains sufficient capital and operating capacity to engage in normal business operations and that only Since Hardware may use its business license. *See* Since Hardware Section A at 4. Since Hardware affirms that there are no limitations imposed on Since Hardware by this license. *See id* . The license may be revoked, according to Since Hardware, only if a situation arises where, consistent with Article 30 of the *Legal Corporations Regulations* , Since Hardware engages in prohibited activities. See Since Hardware Section A at 4 and Exhibit A-5. Further, Since Hardware states that to obtain a renewal of its business license, it must submit balance sheets and profit and loss (‘P&L”) statements to the issuing authority. *See id* . Since Hardware has placed on the record the *Foreign Trade Law* and states that this law allows it full autonomy from the central authority in governing its business operations. *See* Since Hardware Section A at 3. 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.* , *Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 30695, 30696 (June 7, 2001), unchanged 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 Since Hardware. Absence of De Facto Control 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. *See Silicon Carbide* , 59 FR at 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. *See id* . 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 id* . Since Hardware has asserted the following:
(1)it is a wholly foreign-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 general manager 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 board of directors decides how profits will be used. See Since Hardware Section A at 4-8. We have examined the documentation provided and noted no discrepancies between the information on the record and Since Hardware's statements on the record with respect to *de facto* control over its export activities. Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, over Since Hardware's export activities, we preliminarily determine that Since Hardware has met the criteria for the application of a separate rate. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether the respondent's sales of the subject merchandise to the United States were made at prices below normal value, we compared its United States prices to normal values, as described in the “U.S. Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. *See* section 773(a) of the Act. U.S. Price Export Price We based U.S. price for Since Hardware on export price (“EP”) in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and constructed export price (“CEP”) was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We deducted foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling expenses from the starting price (gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Also, we added billing adjustments for origin receiving charges and freight revenue to the gross unit price, where applicable. We have preliminarily determined to accept these billing adjustments on the basis of the statements and documentation provided by Since Hardware indicating that these charges were separately listed on the sales invoice and paid for by the customer. Where foreign inland freight or foreign brokerage and handling were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we valued these services using Indian surrogate values ( *see* “Factors of Production” section below for further discussion). Treatment of Sample Transactions During the course of this review, Since Hardware reported that it provided a small number of samples to certain U.S. customers. *See* Since Hardware's 2 nd Supplemental response dated July 30, 2007 (“2 nd Supplemental”) at 2-4. In determining whether to include these transactions in Since Hardware's margin calculation, the Department analyzed whether Since Hardware received consideration for these samples, consistent with the Federal Circuit's decision that a sale requires “both a transfer of ownership to an unrelated party and consideration. Consideration generally requires a bargained-for exchange.” *See NSK Ltd. v. United States* , 115 F.3d 965, 975 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“ *NSK* ”). In the instant case, the Department notes that these samples were provided by Since Hardware to unaffiliated parties in the United States, and that none of the samples reported by Since Hardware were provided for commercial value ( *i.e.* , samples shipped during the POR were zero-price transactions). Further, we note that certain of the reported samples were the first shipment of the applicable product code made to that customer, and the remaining samples were made for no commercial consideration in a non-commercial quantity, and shipped in a manner inconsistent with the remainder of Since Hardware's sales during the POR. Consequently, for these preliminary results, we find that these reported samples were made for no commercial consideration and in non-commercial quantities to unaffiliated customers in a manner inconsistent with Since Hardware's other sales during the POR. Therefore, consistent with the Federal Circuit's determination in NSK ( *see NSK* at 115 F.3d 965, 975), the Department preliminarily determines that Since Hardware's transactions involving its samples do not constitute sales. As a result, the Department is excluding these transactions from Since Hardware's margin calculation. Normal Value Surrogate Country Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on the NME producer's factors of production valued in a surrogate market economy country or countries. Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an NME producer's factors of production based on the prices or costs of the factors of production, in one or more market-economy countries that to the extent possible:
(1)are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and
(2)are significant producers of comparable merchandise. India is among the countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic development, as identified in the Memorandum from the Office of Policy to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, dated April 18, 2007. *See* Memorandum to the File from Anya Naschak, Senior International Trade Analyst, regarding Selection of a Surrogate Country in the Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, dated August 31, 2007 (“Surrogate Country Memorandum”) at Attachment I. In addition, based on information from the investigation of ironing tables, India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Investigation: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China* , 68 FR 44040, 44042 (July 25, 2003), unchanged in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 35296, 35297 (June 24, 2004). Accordingly, we considered India the surrogate country for purposes of valuing the factors of production because it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate-country selection. See Surrogate Country Memorandum. Market Economy Purchases Certain of Since Hardware's inputs into the production of the subject merchandise were purchased from market economy (“ME”) suppliers and paid for in ME currencies. We used the weight-averaged ME prices paid by Since Hardware when the inputs were obtained from a ME supplier, paid for in a ME currency, were demonstrated to be consistent with ME prices, and were a significant portion of the total purchases of that input. In the recently-completed final results of the first administrative review of this order ( *see Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 13239 (March 21, 2007) (“ *AR1 Final Results* ”), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6 (“AR1 Decision Memorandum”), 1 the Department determined that “there is a potential, in situations where a supplier is physically located in a ME, but overwhelmingly owned by an entity(ies) located in an NME, that such a supplier may make pricing decisions based on NME rather than ME principles.” *See* AR1 Decision Memo at Comment 6. In this case, Since Hardware has again purchased ME inputs from the same NME-owned entity as discussed in the *AR1 Final Results* . 1 While the calculation was revised in the *Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 19689 (April 19, 2007) (“ *AR1 Amended Final* ”), the determination remained consistent with the *AR1 Final Results* . Both Petitioner and Since Hardware have submitted comments regarding the treatment of Since Hardware's ME purchases and the analysis of these purchases in the context of the above facts. *See* , *e.g.* , Petitioner Pre-Prelim Comments, Since Hardware Pre-Prelim Comments, and Petitioner Additional Prelim Comments. Based on the information on the record of this administrative review with respect to the supplier of Since Hardware's ME inputs, the Department preliminarily finds that a similar analysis of Since Hardware's ME purchases is necessary to ensure that these purchases were made according to ME principles. However, as a full discussion of these issues is not possible here due to their business proprietary nature, we have fully addressed the basis for this preliminary decision in Since Hardware's analysis memo. * See* Memorandum to the File from Anya Naschak Senior International Trade Analyst and Bobby Wong, International Trade Analyst, regarding Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Since Hardware) Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Review, dated August 31, 2007 (“Since Hardware Analysis Memo”). Consistent with the methodology 2 utilized in the *AR1 Amended Final* , we have examined the average purchase price of each input purchased by Since Hardware from the NME-owned supplier, and compared the average purchase prices to weighted-average international market prices derived from annualized export statistics obtained from World Trade Atlas (“WTA”) for the country from which the input was originally produced. As discussed in detail in the Since Hardware Analysis Memo, the Department found that certain of Since Hardware's purchases of cold rolled steel, hot rolled steel, powder coating, and nails, were made at prices that were at or above the weighted-average international market price based on WTA export statistics. Because these prices are at or above the weighted-average international market price, the Department finds that Since Hardware's purchases of these inputs were made at prices reflective of ME principles, and have utilized Since Hardware's ME purchases for these inputs. See Since Hardware Analysis Memo for a detailed discussion of these prices. However, certain of Since Hardware's purchases of cold rolled steel, steel wire rod, cotton fabric, springs, bolts, and rivets from the same supplier show that these purchases were made at prices below the international market prices. Accordingly, the Department finds that record evidence demonstrates that purchases of these inputs may not be reflective of ME principles ( *i.e.* , the prices were below the weighted-average international market price based on the WTA statistics). Thus, the Department has disregarded these purchases in calculating normal value. For those inputs for which no purchases were made consistent with ME principles, the Department has relied upon its factors of production methodology described below. 2 Where modifications were made to the details of this methodology, the Department has discussed these details in the Since Hardware Analysis Memo, due to their proprietary nature. The Department recently changed its practice with respect to the use of ME inputs in NME proceedings ( *see Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments* , 71 FR 61716 (October 19, 2006) (“ *ME Input Policy* ”)). The Department stated that this practice “will take effect for all segments of NME proceedings that are initiated after publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** ” ( *id* . at 71 FR 61719), which was October 19, 2006. Given that the instant administrative review was initiated on September 29, 2006, the Department's new ME input policy will not be applied to this case. Therefore, we have analyzed Since Hardware's inputs which were purchased consistent with ME principles pursuant to our previous practice, which entailed a case-by-case basis analysis of whether the volume of ME inputs was meaningful. *See* * e.g.* , * Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review * , 71 FR 71509 (December 11, 2006) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 (“ *T&C Final* ”); *Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Administrative Review and Final Results of New Shipper Review* : 72 FR 27287 (May 15, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 12 (“ *Hand Trucks Final* ”). Section IV of the Department's standard Section D questionnaire requires respondents to report for each raw material the percentage purchased from a ME country and the percentage purchased from an NME. In its responses to the Department, Since Hardware reported the percentages of each raw material purchased from ME countries and paid for in a ME currency. For each of the inputs where Since Hardware's ME purchases were found to be reflective of ME principles, the Department found that the percentage purchased from market economy suppliers was meaningful. Due to the proprietary nature of Since Hardware's ME purchases and quantities, we are not able to discuss the details of these purchases here. For a complete discussion, see Since Hardware Analysis Memo. As a result, the Department found that Since Hardware's ME purchases of cold rolled steel, hot rolled steel, powder coating, and nails were a meaningful portion of total purchases of that input and, in accordance with section 351.408(c)(1) of the Department's regulations, have preliminarily valued these inputs using the actual ME prices paid. Factors of Production In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on the factors of production which included, but were not limited to:
(A)hours of labor required;
(B)quantities of raw materials employed;
(C)amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and
(D)representative capital costs, including depreciation. We used the factors of production reported by the producer for materials, energy, labor, and packing. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported unit factor quantities by publicly available values in the surrogate country, India. Since Hardware reported by-product sales. With respect to the application of the by-product offset to normal value, consistent with the Department's determination in the investigation of diamond sawblades from the PRC, because the surrogate financial statements on the record of this administrative review contain no references to the treatment of by-products and because Since Hardware reported that it sold its by-products, we will deduct the surrogate value of the by-product from normal value. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9, unchanged in *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 35864 (June 22, 2006). This is consistent with accounting principles based on a reasonable assumption that if a company sells a by-product, the by-product necessarily incurs expenses for overhead, SG&A, and profit. *See id* . In selecting the surrogate Indian values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data, in accordance with our practice. *See* , *e.g.* , *Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review* , 67 FR 72139 (December 4, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Garlic Decision Memorandum”) at Comment 6; and *Final Results of First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. When we used publicly available import data from the Ministry of Commerce of India (“Indian Import Statistics”) for August 2005 through July 2006 to value inputs sourced domestically by PRC suppliers, we added to the Indian surrogate values a surrogate freight cost calculated using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the closest seaport to the factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the Federal Circuit's decision in *Sigma Corp. v. United States* , 117 F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). When we used non-import surrogate values for factors sourced domestically by PRC suppliers, we based freight for inputs on the actual distance from the input supplier to the site at which the input was used. In addition, in instances where we relied on Indian import data to value inputs, in accordance with the Department's practice, we excluded imports from both NME countries and countries deemed to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific subsidies which may benefit all exporters to all export markets ( *i.e.* , Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand) from our surrogate value calculations. *See* , *e.g.* , *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1999-2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part* , 66 FR 57420 (November 15, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. *See* Memorandum to the File: Factors of Production Valuation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Floor-standing, Metal-top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, dated August 31, 2007 (“Factor Valuation Memo”), for a complete discussion of the import data that we excluded from our calculation of surrogate values. Where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with the POR to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (“WPI”) as published in the *International Financial Statistics* of the International Monetary Fund, for those surrogate values in Indian rupees. We made currency conversions, where necessary, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415, to U.S. dollars using the daily exchange rate corresponding to the reported date of each sale. We relied on the daily exchanges rates posted on the Import Administration website ( *http://www.trade.gov/ia/* ). See Factor Valuation Memo. We valued the factors of production as follows: The Department used the Indian Import Statistics to value the raw material and packing material inputs that Since Hardware used to produce the merchandise under review during the POR, except where noted below. For a detailed description of all surrogate values used in this administrative review, *see* Factor Valuation Memo. To value water, we calculated the average rate of inside and outside industrial water rates from various regions as reported by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, *http://midcindia.org* , dated June 1, 2003. We inflated the value for water using the POR average WPI rate. See Factor Valuation Memo. We valued electricity using the 2000 electricity price in India reported by the International Energy Agency statistics for *Energy Prices& Taxes, Second Quarter 2003* . We inflated the value for electricity using the POR average WPI rate. *See* Factor Valuation Memo. We valued diesel using the rates provided by the OECD's International Energy Agency's publication: Key World Energy Statistics from 2004 and 2005. The prices are based on 2004 and 2005 first quarter prices of automotive diesel fuel retail prices. *See* Factor Valuation Memo. With respect to valuation of factory overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses, and profit, in the *AR1 Final Results* the Department relied on the 2004-2005 Infiniti Modules Pvt. Ltd. (“Infiniti Modules”) financial statements, because they represented the most specific, contemporaneous, and publicly available information. *See* AR1 Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. In the instant case, Petitioner placed on the record Infiniti Modules 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 financial statements and the 2004-2005 Agew Steel Manufacturers Private Limited (“Agew Steel”) financial statements in its April 19, 2007, submission at Exhibits 1-2, and argued that the Department should rely on the 2004-2005 Agew Steel financial statements, utilizing the 2005-2006 Infiniti Modules' profit ratio in lieu of Agew Steel's negative profit ratio to calculate factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit. Since Hardware also argued the Department should rely on the Infiniti Modules 2004-2005 financial statements. In valuing factors of production, section 773(c)(1) of the Act instructs the Department to use “the best available information” from the appropriate market economy country. As discussed above, in choosing the most appropriate surrogate value, the Department considers several factors, including the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the source information. *See* , *e.g.* , Garlic Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. For these preliminary results, the Department has determined that the 2004-2005 Infiniti Modules financial statements are complete, publicly available, and reflect merchandise comparable to ironing tables. We note that the 2004-2005 Infiniti Modules financial statements were obtained from the Indian Registrar of Companies, and are publicly available. See Petitioner's July 27, 2007, surrogate value submission. With respect to quality, we note that the 2004-2005 Infiniti Modules financial statements are complete, audited financial statements with all auditors notes and schedules, as well a complete balance sheet and P&L. Regarding specificity, we preliminarily find, consistent with the AR1 Decision Memorandum at Comment 1, Infiniti Modules manufactures merchandise that closely reflects merchandise comparable to ironing tables. Therefore, we preliminarily find that the 2004-2005 Infinity Modules financial statements are publicly available, quality, data, and specific to the merchandise under review. With respect to the Agew Steel and the 2005-2006 Infiniti Modules financial statements, the Department finds that these statements are less complete than the 2004-2005 Infiniti Modules statement. The Department notes that both the Agew Steel and 2005-2006 Infiniti Modules financial statements are missing the P&L. Irrespective of whether the same surrogate financial ratios may be derived from the schedules included in these statements, the function of an audit is to audit the balance sheet and P&L of a company, not the schedules. *See e.g.* , 2004-2005 Infiniti Modules financial statements, included in Petitioner's April 19, 2007, submission at Exhibit 2, which states “we have audited the attached balance sheet of M/s. Infiniti Modules Pvt. Limited, as at 31 st March 2005 and the P&L account for the year ended 31 st March 2005.” 3 In this case, the Department has on the record a financial statement that includes all information upon which the auditors relied to evaluate the potential surrogate company's financial reports. As a result we preliminarily find, that the Agew Steel and 2005-2006 Infiniti Modules financial statements are less complete than those of the 2004-2005 Infiniti Modules financial statements. In addition, because these statements are less complete than the 2004-2005 Infiniti Modules financial statements, we find that the Agew Steel and 2005-2006 Infiniti Modules financial statements are less reliable than the 2004-2005 Infiniti Modules financial statements. The Department has evaluated the other potential sources for valuing surrogate financial ratios placed on the record of this proceeding. None of these other potential sources is as reliable or otherwise as appropriate for surrogate value purposes as the 2004-2005 Infiniti Modules financial statements. Thus, the Department preliminarily finds, consistent with the *AR1 Final Results* , that the 2004-2005 Infiniti Modules financial statements are the best information available on the record of this review, pursuant to section 773(c)(1) of the Act, from which to value the surrogate financial ratios of factory overhead, selling, general & administrative expenses, and profit. *See* Factor Valuation Memo for detail on the calculation of these ratios. 3 *See* also 2005-2006 Infiniti Modules financial statements, included in Petitioner's July 27, 2007, submission at Exhibit 1, auditors report at page 3; and Agew Steel financial statements, included in Petitioner's April 19, 2007, submission at Exhibit 1, page 8 Because of the variability of wage rates in countries with similar levels of per capita gross domestic product, 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. Therefore, to value the labor input, we used the PRC's regression-based wage rate published by Import Administration on its website, *http://www.trade.gov/ia/* . *See* Factor Valuation Memo. To value truck freight, we calculated a weighted-average freight cost based on publicly available data from *www.infreight.com* , an Indian inland freight logistics resource website. *See* Factor Valuation Memo. To value brokerage and handling, the Department used a simple average of the publicly summarized version of the average value for brokerage and handling expenses reported in the U.S. sales listings in the submission from Essar Steel Ltd. (“Essar Steel”), dated February 28, 2005, in the antidumping duty review of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India; the submission from Agro Dutch Industries Limited (“Agro Dutch”), dated May 24, 2005, at Exhibit B-1, in the antidumping duty administrative review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India; and the submission from Kejriwal Paper Ltd. (“Kejriwal”), dated January 9, 2006, in the antidumping duty review of Lined Paper from India. While none of these sources are contemporaneous to the POR, these data represent the best information available. Further, the Department's preference is to average these data sources because they represent values for numerous transactions that are available for a range of products and minimize the potential distortions that might arise from a single price source. One value, taken in isolation, could differ significantly when compared across a range of products, values, and special circumstances of a single transaction. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision memo at Comment 5. *See also* Factor Valuation Memo. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value the factors of production until 20 days following the date of publication of these preliminary results. Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily determine that the following antidumping duty margins exist: Exporter Margin (percent) Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. 0.31 %% ( *de minimis* ) For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-average margin for Since Hardware, *see* Since Hardware Analysis Memo. A public version of this memorandum is on file in the Department's central records unit (“CRU”). Assessment Rates Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for ironing tables from the PRC via *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. 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 these reviews 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 administrative 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)for the exporters listed above, 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 157.68 percent ( *see Amended Final FR* ); 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. Schedule for Final Results of Review The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection with the preliminary results of this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing would normally be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a public hearing should contain:
(1)the party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2)the number of participants; and
(3)to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing. Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after the case brief is filed in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). If a hearing is held, an interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments included in that party's case brief and may make a rebuttal presentation only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing within 48 hours before the scheduled time. The Department will issue the final results of this review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1). Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during these review periods. 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 administrative review and this notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 31, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-17865 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-803] Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Rescissions of the 2005-2006 Administrative Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 8, 2007, the Department published the preliminary results of the 2005-2006 administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools, finished or unfinished, with or without handles, from the People's Republic of China (PRC). * See Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 2005-2006 Administrative Reviews * , 72 FR 10492 (March 8, 2007) ( *Preliminary Results* ). This review covers four classes or kinds:
(1)Axes/Adzes;
(2)Bars/Wedges;
(3)Hammers/Sledges; and
(4)Picks/Mattocks. This review covers nine exporters or producer/exporters:
(1)Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. (Iron Bull);
(2)Jafsam Metal Products (Jafsam);
(3)Shanghai Machinery Import & Export Corp. (Shanghai Machinery);
(4)Shanghai Xinike Trading Company (Xinike);
(5)Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd. (Huarong);
(6)Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Co., Ltd. (Jinma);
(7)Shandong Machinery Import and Export Corporation (SMC);
(8)Tianjin Machinery Import and Export Corporation (TMC); and
(9)Truper Herramientas S.A. de C.V. (Truper). The period of review
(POR)is February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006. Based on our analysis of the record, including factual information obtained since the *Preliminary Results* , we have reversed the decision to rescind the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on the class or kind Axes/Adzes covering SMC and have applied adverse facts available (AFA). Therefore, the final results differ from the *Preliminary Results* . *See* “Final Results of Review” section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner or Robert James at
(202)482-6312 or
(202)482-0649, respectively; Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Enforcement Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Since the *Preliminary Results* , we received a case brief from respondent SMC on April 9, 2007. Separate rebuttal briefs were received from both petitioners, Ames True Temper
(Ames)and Council Tool Company (Council Tools), on April 16, 2007. On April 24, 2007, the Department's Customs Liaison Unit forwarded certain U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)documents to the team. These were placed on the record of this review on April 24, 2007. See the Memorandum to the File from Mark Flessner, Case Analyst, entitled “Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China (A-570-803): U.S. Entry Documents and Opportunity to Comment” (April 24, 2007). SMC, Ames, and Council Tools all filed comments concerning these documents on May 9, 2007. SMC requested and was granted time to file a rebuttal to Ames' and Council Tools' comments; SMC filed its rebuttal comments on May 16, 2007. On July 6, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an extension of the time limit for the final results until August 6, 2007. *See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 36959 (July 6, 2007). On August 8, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a further extension of the time limit for the final results until September 4, 2007. *See Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 44495 (August 8, 2007). Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order The products covered by these orders are heavy forged hand tools from the PRC, comprising the following classes or kinds of merchandise:
(1)Hammers and sledges with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds);
(2)bars over 18 inches in length, track tools and wedges;
(3)picks and mattocks; and
(4)axes, adzes and similar hewing tools. Heavy forged hand tools include heads for drilling hammers, sledges, axes, mauls, picks and mattocks, which may or may not be painted, which may or may not be finished, or which may or may not be imported with handles; assorted bar products and track tools including wrecking bars, digging bars and tampers; and steel wood splitting wedges. Heavy forged hand tools are manufactured through a hot forge operation in which steel is sheared to required length, heated to forging temperature, and formed to final shape on forging equipment using dies specific to the desired product shape and size. Depending on the product, finishing operations may include shot blasting, grinding, polishing and painting, and the insertion of handles for handled products. Heavy forged hand tools are currently provided for under the following Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 8205.20.60, 8205.59.30, 8201.30.00 and 8201.40.60. Specifically excluded from these orders are hammers and sledges with heads 1.5 kg. (3.33 pounds) in weight and under, hoes and rakes, and bars 18 inches in length and under. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the briefs are addressed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised, all of which are in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is as follows:
(1)whether SMC demonstrated a lack of *de jure* and *de facto* government control to warrant receiving a separate rate;
(2)whether the Department was correct in applying AFA to SMC's sales of Bars/Wedges and Hammers/Sledges;
(3)whether the AFA rates applied to SMC's sales of Bars/Wedges, Hammers/Sledges, and Axes/Adzes were properly corroborated and reasonable;
(4)whether the Department ought to reverse its preliminary rescission of the review for Axes/Adzes;
(5)whether the Department ought to apply facts available for Axes/Adzes; and
(6)whether the Department ought to apply AFA for Axes/Adzes. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in the briefs and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based upon our analysis of the record (including factual information obtained since the *Preliminary Results* ) and upon comments received from the interested parties, we are reversing our preliminary rescission of the administrative review covering the class or kind Axes/Adzes with respect to SMC. We are also basing our margin for SMC for Axes/Adzes on AFA. For a discussion of these changes, *see* the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. The PRC-wide Rate and Application of Facts Otherwise Available The Department did not receive comments specifically pertaining to its *Preliminary Results* regarding the application of AFA to the PRC-wide entity for any of the four classes or kinds. (SMC did submit comments with regard to the rates it received as part of the PRC-wide entity for all classes or kinds except Picks/Mattocks; for details and a full discussion, *see* the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.) As a result, we have not altered our decision to apply total AFA to the PRC-wide entity for all four classes or kinds for these final results, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B), as well as section 776(b), of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). *See* “Final Results of Review” section below. As stated in the *Preliminary Results* , by failing to adequately respond to the Department's requests for information, SMC (with respect to Axes/Adzes, Bars/Wedges, and Hammers/Sledges), TMC (with respect to Picks/Mattocks), Huarong (with respect to Hammers/Sledges and Picks/Mattocks), and Jafsam (with respect to all four classes or kinds) have not demonstrated they are free of government control, and are therefore not eligible to receive a separate rate. *See* , *e.g.* , *Natural Bristle Paint Brushes and Brush Heads From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 62 FR 11823 (March 13, 1997); *Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China* , 58 FR 48833 (September 20, 1993); and *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Compact Ductile Iron Waterworks Fittings and Accessories Thereof From the People's Republic of China* , 58 FR 37908 (July 14, 1993). Consequently, consistent with the *Preliminary Results* , we continue to find that, because these companies did not qualify for separate rates, they are deemed to be part of the PRC-entity. *See Preliminary Results* at 10494. As stated above, the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests for information. Because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our request for information, we find it necessary, under sections 776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Tariff Act, to use AFA as the basis for these final results of review for the PRC-wide entity. In accordance with the Department's practice, we have assigned to the PRC-wide entity (including Jafsam and SMC) the rate of 189.37 percent as AFA for Axes/Adzes. This is the highest calculated rate of any segment in this proceeding, which was calculated in the 2004-2005 administrative review. *See Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Final Rescission and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 54269 (September 14, 2006) ( * Final Results of 14 th Review * ). We have assigned to the PRC-wide entity (including Jafsam and SMC) the rate of 139.31 percent as AFA for Bars/Wedges. This rate is the highest dumping margin from any segment of this proceeding and was calculated during the 1998-1999 administrative review. *See* the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3; *see also Notice of Final Results and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews: Heavy Forged Hand Tools From the People's Republic of China* , 65 FR 43290 (July 13, 2000); *Heavy Forged Hand Tools From the People's Republic of China; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 65 FR 50499 (August 18, 2000). We have assigned to the PRC-wide entity (including Huarong, Jafsam, and SMC) the rate of 45.42 percent as AFA for Hammers/Sledges. This rate is the highest dumping margin from any segment of this proceeding and was applied as “best information available” (the predecessor to AFA) during the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation for the sole respondent China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation, and was again corroborated and used as the PRC-wide and AFA rate in the 2004-2005 review. * See Final Results of 14 th Review * . We have assigned to the PRC-wide entity (including TMC, Huarong, and Jafsam) the rate of 98.77 percent as AFA for Picks/Mattocks. This rate is the highest dumping margin from any segment of this proceeding; it was calculated in the fifth review, became the PRC-wide and AFA rate in the seventh review, and has been used since. *Id* . This is consistent with our practice in, *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); *see also Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Taiwan: Final Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 67 FR 40914 (June 14, 2002). The U.S. Court of International Trade
(CIT)and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have consistently upheld the Department's practice to assign AFA to non-cooperative respondents in several cases. *See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States* , 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990); *see also Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States* , Slip Op. 05-22, at 16 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a previous administrative review); *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); *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). Corroboration of Secondary Information Applied as AFA Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts available. Secondary information has been interpreted as “information 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* Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc 103-316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong.
(SAA)at 870. Under section 776(c) of the Act, the Department is granted a wide discretion in its selection of secondary information, *i.e.* , the AFA rate, as long as the Department can determine, to the extent practicable, that the AFA rate has probative value. *See generally* SAA at 870. The term “corroborate” has been interpreted to mean that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* SAA at 870. Thus, to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. However, unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated dumping margins *per se* other than are administrative determinations. These rates are applied to the PRC-wide entity, *i.e.* , those companies not eligible for a separate rate with regard to the individual class or kind of merchandise. No information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of the information used for these AFA rates. Thus, the Department finds that the information is reliable. *See* the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. Reversal of Preliminary Rescission Based upon CBP information received subsequent to the publication of the *Preliminary Results* ( *see* the Memorandum to the File from Mark Flessner, Case Analyst, entitled “Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China (A-580-803): U.S. Entry Documents and Opportunity to Comment,” dated April 24, 2007), we have determined that the review for Axes/Adzes with respect to SMC should not be rescinded. We based our margin for Axes/Adzes with respect to SMC on AFA because of SMC's failure to report sales and factor information for this class or kind, which prevented the Department from being able to calculate a margin. *See* the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 4, 5, and 6. Final Rescissions In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we finally rescind the following administrative reviews:
(a)with respect to SMC for Picks/Mattocks;
(b)with respect to Iron Bull for Axes/Adzes, Hammers/Sledges, and Picks/Mattocks; and
(c)with respect to Xinike in all four classes or kinds. For rescission of these reviews with respect to Jinma (all four classes or kinds), Shanghai Machinery (all four classes or kinds), Truper (all four classes or kinds), TMC (Axes/Adzes, Hammers/Sledges, and Bars/Wedges), Huarong (Axes/Adzes and Bars/Wedges), and Iron Bull (Bars/Wedges), *see Administrative Review (02/01/2005 01/31/2006) of Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 53403 (September 11, 2006). Final Results of Review As a result of our reviews, we determine that the following antidumping margins exist for the period February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006: Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-average margin (percent) Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the PRC: Axes/Adzes PRC-Wide Rate 189.37 1 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the PRC: Bars/Wedges PRC-Wide Rate 139.31 2 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the PRC: Hammers/Sledges PRC-Wide Rate 45.42 3 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the PRC: Picks/Mattocks PRC-Wide Rate 98.77 4 1 The PRC-wide entity for Axes/Adzes includes SMC and Jafsam. 2 The PRC-wide entity for Bars/Wedges includes SMC and Jafsam. 3 The PRC-wide entity for Hammers/Sledges includes SMC, Jafsam, and Huarong. 4 The PRC-wide entity for Picks/Mattocks includes Jafsam, TMC, and Huarong. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results for this administrative review for all shipments of heavy forged hand tools, finished or unfinished, with or without handles, from the PRC, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Tariff Act:
(1)for SMC, Jafsam, Huarong, and TMC, the cash deposit rate will be the rates listed above under the “Final Results of Review” section for each class or kind and for each company as set forth in Footnotes 1-4;
(2)for previously-reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters with separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period;
(3)for all other PRC exporters (including the exporters named as part of the PRC-wide entity above), the cash deposit rates will be the PRC-wide rates established in the final results of this review; and
(4)for all other non-PRC exporters of the subject merchandise, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Assessment of Antidumping Duties The Department will determine, and CBP will assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting assessment rates against the CBP values for the subject merchandise on each of the exporter's entries during the POR. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate any entries without regard to antidumping duties for which the assessment rate is *de minimis* . The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Dated: September 4, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix—Issues in Decision Memorandum 1: SMC and *de facto* and *de jure* government control 2: Use of adverse facts available
(AFA)for Bars/Wedges and Hammers/Sledges 3: Corroboration of AFA rates for Bars/Wedges, Hammers/Sledges, and Axes/Adzes 4: Preliminary rescission of review for Axes/Adzes 5: Use of facts available if Preliminary rescission of review for Axes/Adzes is reversed 6: Use of adverse facts available if Preliminary rescission of review for Axes/Adzes is reversed [FR Doc. E7-17857 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-821-819] Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 7, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on magnesium metal from the Russian Federation. *See Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 25740 (May 7, 2007) ( *Preliminary Results* ). The review covers two respondents, PSC VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation and its affiliated U.S. reseller VSMPO-Tirus, U.S. Inc. (collectively AVISMA), and Solikamsk Magnesium Works (SMW). The period of review
(POR)is October 4, 2004, through March 31, 2006. We invited interested parties to submit comments on our *Preliminary Results* . Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to our calculations with regard to AVISMA. The final dumping margins for this review are listed in the “Final Results of Review” section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Hoadley (AVISMA and SMW), Gene Calvert (AVISMA), Jack Zhao (SMW); AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone numbers
(202)482-3148,
(202)482-3586, and
(202)482-1396, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 7, 2007, the Department published the preliminary results of this review in the **Federal Register** . *See Preliminary Results* . Since the *Preliminary Results* , the following events have occurred. On June 6, 2007, U.S. Magnesium LLC (U.S. Magnesium), one of the petitioners in the original investigation, submitted a case brief regarding the cost calculation of certain by-products internally consumed by SMW. On June 6, 2007, AVISMA submitted a case brief commenting on the calculation of AVISMA's General and Administrative (G&A) expenses and a small number of sales of cylinders in the home market. On June 15, 2007, SMW filed a rebuttal brief regarding U.S. Magnesium's case brief and U.S. Magnesium submitted a rebuttal brief regarding AVISMA's case brief. All case and rebuttal briefs were timely filed. Period of Review This review covers the period October 4, 2004 through March 31, 2006. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order is magnesium metal (also referred to as magnesium), which includes primary and secondary pure and alloy magnesium metal, regardless of chemistry, raw material source, form, shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium. Primary magnesium is produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Secondary magnesium is produced by recycling magnesium-based scrap into magnesium metal. The magnesium covered by this order includes blends of primary and secondary magnesium. The subject merchandise includes the following pure and alloy magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium, including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other shapes, and magnesium ground, chipped, crushed, or machined into raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder, briquettes, and other shapes:
(1)products that contain at least 99.95 percent magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “ultra-pure” magnesium);
(2)products that contain less than 99.95 percent but not less than 99.8 percent magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “pure” magnesium); and
(3)chemical combinations of magnesium and other material(s) in which the magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less that 99.8 percent, by weight, whether or not conforming to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy”. The scope of this order excludes:
(1)magnesium that is in liquid or molten form; and
(2)mixtures containing 90 percent or less magnesium in granular or powder form by weight and one or more of certain non-magnesium granular materials to make magnesium-based reagent mixtures, including lime, calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, carbon, slag coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline syenite, feldspar, alumina (Al203), calcium aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons, graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, ferroalloys, dolomite lime, and colemanite. 1 1 This second exclusion for magnesium-based reagent mixtures is based on the exclusion for reagent mixtures in the 2000-2001 investigations of magnesium from China, Israel, and Russia. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 49345 (September 27, 2001); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From Israel, 66 FR 49349 (September 27, 2001); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation, 66 FR 49347 (September 27, 2001). These mixtures are not magnesium alloys, because they are not chemically combined in liquid form and cast into the same ingot. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under items 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.30.00, and 8104.90.00 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise covered by this order is dispositive. On November 9, 2006, in response to U.S. Magnesium's request for scope rulings, the Department issued a final scope ruling in which we determined that the processing of pure magnesium ingots, imported from Russia by Timminco, a Canadian company, into pure magnesium extrusion billets constitutes substantial transformation. Therefore, such alloy magnesium extrusion billets produced and exported by Timminco are a product of Canada, and thus not included within the scope of the order. *See* November 9, 2006 Memorandum for Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office 6, and Wendy Frankel, Director, Office 8, China/NME Group, AD/CVD Operations: *Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China (A-570-832), Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China (A-570-896), and Magnesium Metal from Russia (A-821-819): Final Ruling in the Scope Inquiry on Russian and Chinese Magnesium Processed in Canada* . Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this proceeding are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, *Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation (Decision Memorandum)* , dated concurrently with this notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in this review in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Internet at: *http://www.trade.gov/ia.* The paper copy and the electronic version of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on the comments received from the interested parties, we have made changes to the margin calculations used in the *Preliminary Results* . These adjustments are discussed in detail in the *Decision Memorandum* . For AVISMA, we adjusted AVISMA's general and administrative (“G&A”) expense rate. For SMW, we made no change in response to petitioner's argument for rejecting SMW's claim for an offset to the magnesium products' cost for the chlorine gas generated by the magnesium production unit. The specifics of respondent's and petitioner's arguments and the Department's response to them require the reference to business proprietary information. Therefore, the parties' arguments and our position are fully discussed in a separate business proprietary memorandum. See Memorandum from Christopher Zimpo to Neal Halper, *Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final Results—Solikamsk Magnesium Works* , dated concurrently with this notice. Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted-average antidumping margins exist for the period October 4, 2004 through March 31, 2006: Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-Average Margin (percent) PSC VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation 0.41 (de minimis) Solikamsk Magnesium Works 3.77 Duty Assessment The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will issue importer-specific assessment instructions for entries of subject merchandise during the POR. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation in *Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all others rate of 21.01 percent established in the less than fair value
(LTFV)investigation. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation* , 70 FR 19930 (April 15, 2005) ( *Antidumping Duty Order* ). See also Section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, consistent with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)for the companies covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be zero for AVISMA and 3.77 percent for SMW;
(2)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, but was covered in a previous review or the original LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 21.01 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. *See Antidumping Duty Order* . These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as the final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO as explained in the APO itself. See 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of the APO is a sanctionable violation. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 04, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix List of Issues Covered in the Decision Memorandum Part I AVISMA *Comment 1:* Fiscal Year Versus POR G&A Expenses *Comment 2:* Error in Reported G&A Expenses *Comment 3:* Auxiliary Services in G&A Expenses *Comment 4:* Impact of AVIMSA's Merger with VSMPO on G&A Expense Rate *Comment 5:* Financial Expense Ratio *Comment 6:* Certain Sales of Cylinders in the Home Market Part II SMW *Comment 7:* Chlorine Gas Offset [FR Doc. E7-17859 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-825] Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, from Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests filed by U.S. Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) (the “petitioner”), SeAH Steel Corporation (“SeAH”), Husteel Co, Ltd (“Husteel”) and Nexteel Co., Ltd (“Nexteel”) (collectively, the “respondents”), the U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods, other than drill pipe (“OCTG”), from Korea. This review covers the following producers/exporters: SeAH, Husteel, and Nexteel. The period of review (“POR”) is August 1, 2005 through July 24, 2006. We preliminarily find that Husteel made sales at less than normal value (“NV”), and Nexteel and SeAH did not sell subject merchandise at less than NV during the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on Husteel's entries of merchandise during the POR, and to liquidate Nexteel's and SeAH's entries during the POR without regard to antidumping duties. The preliminary dumping margins are listed below in the section entitled “Preliminary Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Lindsay, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0780. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 11, 1995, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order on OCTG from Korea (60 FR 41058). On August 1, 2006, the Department published the notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping order on OCTG from Korea. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 43441 (August 1, 2006). On August 31, 2006, the Department received a properly filed, timely request for an administrative review of Husteel and SeAH from petitioner and a request from SeAH, Husteel, and Nexteel for a review of their sales. On September 29, 2006, the Department published a notice of initiation for this antidumping duty administrative review. *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 2006). On October 26, 2006, the Department issued questionnaires 1 to Husteel, SeAH, and Nexteel. All three companies submitted Section A responses on December 14, 2006, and submitted their Section B-D responses on January 3, 2007. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Husteel, SeAH, and Nexteel on April 11, 2007. The Department received responses from Husteel and Nexteel on May 2. 2007, and from SeAH on May 8, 2007. 1 Section A of the questionnaire requests general information concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market (this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of production of the foreign like product and the constructed value of the merchandise under investigation. Section E requests information on further manufacturing. On May 7, 2007, the Department published a notice extending the deadline for the preliminary results of this administrative review from May 3, 2007 until no later than August 31, 2007. *See Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other than Drill Pipe, from Korea: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 25745 (May 11, 2007). Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are OCTG, hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including only oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (“API”) or non-API specifications, whether finished or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG products). This scope does not cover casing or tubing pipe containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium, or drill pipe. The products subject to this order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under sub-headings: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20, 7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60, 7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30, 7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45, 7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90, 7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10, 7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50. The HTSUS sub-headings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive of the scope of the order. Analysis Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), we considered all products manufactured by SeAH and Nexteel that are covered by the description contained in the “Scope of the Order” section above and that were sold in the comparison market during the POR, to be the foreign like product for purposes of determining the appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. *See* “Selection of Comparison Market” section below. Where SeAH made no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed in Appendix V of the Department's October 26, 2005 antidumping questionnaire. Nexteel's comparison market sales were identical to its U.S. sales of subject merchandise during the POR, so we did not need to match its U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like product.. Because neither Husteel's home market sales nor its third country sales pass the viability test, we are using constructed value (“CV”) as the basis for normal value (“NV”) for Husteel. *See* “Selection of Comparison Market” section, below. Date of Sale It is the Department's practice to use the invoice date as the date of sale. However, 19 CFR 351.401(i) states that the Secretary may use a date other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale.” *See* 19 CFR 351.401(i); *see also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States* , 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087,1090-1093 (CIT 2001). *U.S. Sales* : Husteel, SeAH, and Nexteel each reported that the material terms of their respective U.S. sales are subject to change until they issue the invoice to the unaffiliated U.S. customer. However, we note that, for both HuSteel and SeAH, shipment date always precedes the date that Husteel and SeAH issue their invoice to the U.S. unaffiliated customer. We also find that for some of Nexteel's U.S. sales, shipment dates precedes invoice date. Thus, to the extent that shipment occurs prior to invoice date, we are following our practice of using shipment date as date of sale. *See, e.g., Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value* , 70 FR 9041 (February, 24, 2005), and accompanying *Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 14* . For Nexteel's sales where Nexteel issues the invoice prior to shipping the merchandise, we will use invoice date as the date of sale. *Comparison Market Sales* : Since we are using CV for purposes of NV for HuSteel, the issue of appropriate date of sale in the comparison market is moot for HuSteel. For their respective sales to Canada, Nexteel and SeAH reported that the material terms of sale are subject to change until they issue the invoice to their respective unaffiliated Canadian customers. We find that Nexteel issued its invoices to its Canadian customers prior to shipment. As such we will us invoice date as date of sale for Nexteel's Canadian sales. However, the Department finds that SeAH's shipment date always precedes the date it issues its invoice to the unaffiliated Canadian customer. Thus, because SeAH's shipment occurs prior to invoice date, we are following our practice of using shipment date as date of sale. *See, e.g., Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value* , 70 FR 9041 (February, 24, 2005), and accompanying Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation: *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 14* . Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether Husteel's, SeAH's, or Nexteel's sales of subject merchandise to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared each company's constructed export price (CEP), or export price
(EP)to the NV, as described in the"Constructed Export Price” or “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, in accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act. Selection of Comparison Market The Department determines the viability of a comparison market by comparing the aggregate quantity of comparison market sales to U.S. sales. A home market is not considered a viable comparison market if the aggregate quantity of sales of the foreign like product in that market amounts to less than five percent of the quantity of sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. *See* section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act; *see also* 19 CFR 351.404(b). Husteel, SeAH, and Nexteel each reported that the aggregate quantity of sales of the foreign like product in Korea during the POR amounted to less than five percent of the quantity of each company's sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. *Husteel* : In its January 3, 2007 questionnaire response, Husteel reported having no sales of OCTG to any other countries besides the United States during the POR. Since Husteel has no third country sales of foreign-like product during the POR, the Department is using CV for Husteel as the basis for NV for this review based on Husteel's cost of production (“COP”), in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. *SeAH* : In its January 3, 2007 questionnaire response, SeAH reported no home market sales of OCTG during the POR. It reported sales of OCTG to Canada, Indonesia, and China during the POR. Since the quantity of foreign like product sold by SeAH to Canada was more than five percent and the quantities sold to Indonesia and China were less than five percent of the quantity of subject merchandise sold to the United States, the Department determined that only Canada qualified as a viable comparison market in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, we are basing NV on sales to Canada except where there were no usable product matches. In those instances, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the Department used CV as the basis for NV. *Nexteel* : In its January 9, 2007 questionnaire response, Nexteel reported sales of OCTG to Canada and the United States during the POR. Since the quantity of foreign like product sold by Nexteel to Canada was more than five percent of the quantity of subject merchandise sold to the United States, the Department determined that only Canada qualified as a viable comparison market based on the criterion established in section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Because these sales to Canada were identical to all U.S. sales we are basing NV on sales to Canada. United States Price/Constructed Export Price and Export Price In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and
(d)of the Act. In Husteel's and SeAH's questionnaire responses, both companies classified their export sales of OCTG to the United States as CEP sales. In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is defined as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States . . . ,” as adjusted under subsection (c). For purposes of this review, Nexteel classified all of its U.S. sales as EP sales. *Husteel* : We preliminarily determine that all of Husteel's export sales of OCTG to the United States are properly classified as CEP sales because they were made for the account of Husteel by its affiliate in the U.S., Husteel USA. Husteel reported one channel of distribution in the U.S. market: “produced to order” sales, shipped directly from Korea to the unaffiliated U.S. customers. The Department calculated Husteel's starting price as its gross unit price to its unaffiliated U.S. customers, taking into account, where necessary, billing adjustments and discounts, pursuant to section 772(c)(1) of the Act. The Department made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses, including foreign inland freight, foreign and U.S. brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance and U.S. customs duties in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act. *See Memorandum from Scott Lindsay, Case Analyst, to the File: Analysis of Husteel Co., Ltd. (“Husteel”) for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe from Korea* , dated August 31, 2007 (“ *Husteel's Preliminary Analysis Memo* ”), on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), which can also be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov.* In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department also deducted U.S. credit expenses, inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses to derive Husteel's net U.S. price. We also deducted CEP profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. *SeAH* : We preliminarily determine that all of SeAH's export sales of OCTG to the United States are properly classified as CEP sales because they were made for the account of SeAH by SeaAH's affiliate in the U.S., PPA. SeAH reported one channel of distribution in the U.S. market: merchandise was shipped by SeAH to PPA, then sold out of inventory by PPA to the unaffiliated customers. Many of SeAH's sales to the United States are further manufactured by an affiliated U.S. company. The Department calculated SeAH's starting price as its gross unit price to its unaffiliated U.S. customers, taking into account, where necessary, billing adjustments and early payment discounts, pursuant to section 772(c)(1) of the Act. Where applicable, the Department made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses, including foreign inland freight, foreign and U.S. brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance and U.S. customs duties in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act. *See Memorandum from Scott Lindsay, Case Analyst, to the File: Analysis of SeaH Steel Corporation (“SeAH”) for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe from Korea* , dated August 31, 2007 (“ *SeAH's Preliminary Analysis Memo* ”), on the record of this review and on file in the CRU. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department also deducted U.S. credit expenses, inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States. We also deducted the cost of further manufacturing, where applicable, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act. In addition, we deducted CEP profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. *Nexteel* : Nexteel has reported that it sold subject merchandise to importers directly to unaffiliated customers in the U.S. and to unaffiliated resellers, and that it did not make any U.S. sales through an affiliated U.S. importer. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Nexteel's transactions were EP sales. We calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We based EP on Nexteel's CNF price to its unaffiliated U.S. customers. We then made appropriate deductions for domestic inland freight from warehouse to port, domestic brokerage and handling, and international freight pursuant to section 772(c) of the Act. *See Memorandum from Scott Lindsay, Case Analyst, to the File: Analysis of Nexteel Co., Ltd. (“Nexteel”) for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe from Korea* , dated August 31, 2007 (“ *Nexteel's Preliminary Analysis Memo* ”), on the record of this review and on file in the CRU. Normal Value *SeAH* : Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. From the starting price, we deducted movement expenses, including foreign inland freight, third country brokerage, international freight, and marine insurance as well as direct selling expenses, such as credit expenses, and comparison market packing expenses. We made further adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in physical characteristics of merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. We also made a CEP offset in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act ( *see* “Level of Trade/CEP Offset” section below). 2 Finally, the Department added U.S. packing expenses to calculate the foreign unit price in dollars (“FUPDOL”) to use as the NV. 2 The CEP offset is equal to the lesser of the total weighted average comparison market inventory carrying costs and indirect selling expenses or the sum of indirect selling expenses and inventory carrying costs for U.S. sales. Nexteel: Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. From the starting price, we deducted movement expenses, including inland freight from plant to port of export; international freight; and domestic brokerage and handling, direct selling expenses such as credit expenses and bank charges, as well as comparison market packing expenses. Finally, the Department added U.S. packing expenses to calculate the foreign unit price in dollars (“FUPDOL”) to use as the NV. Cost Of Production Analysis Because we are using CV for Husteel's NV, and there has been no cost allegation for Nexteel, we are only examining whether SeAH's sales to its comparison third country market are below the cost of production. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we examined whether SeAH's sales in the comparison market were made at prices below the COP. We compared sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market with model-specific COP figures in the POR. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and financial expenses and packing. In our sales-below-cost analysis, we used comparison market sales and COP information provided by SeAH in its questionnaire responses. *See* SeAH's January 3, 2007 section D Questionnaire Response. We compared the weighted-average COPs to third country sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard third-country sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made
(1)within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and
(2)at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and
(B)of the Act. 3 On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to third-country prices, less any movement charges, discounts and rebates, and direct and indirect selling expenses. * See Treatment of Adjustments and Selling Expenses in Calculating the Cost of Production and Constructed Value * Import Policy Bulletin (March 25, 1994). 3 Section 773(b)(2)(ii)(B-C) of the Act defines extended period of time as a period that is normally 1 year, but not less than 6 months, and substantial quantities as sales made at prices below the cost of production that have been made in substantial quantities if
(i)the volume of such sales represents 20 percent or more of the volume of sales under consideration for the determination of normal value, or
(ii)the weighted average per unit price of the sales under consideration for the determination of normal value is less than the weighted average per unit cost of production for such sales. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given model were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time. Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given model were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because they were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C)of the Act. Because we compared prices to average costs in the POR, we also determined that the below-cost prices did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. In certain instances, we found that more than 20 percent of SeAH's third country sales of a given model(s) during the POR were at prices below the COP, and, in addition, the below-cost sales of the product were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We therefore excluded the below-cost sales and used the remaining sales, if any, or went to CV, as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Constructed Value *Husteel* : We used CV as the basis for NV for all sales because, as discussed above, Husteel had no viable comparison market in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We added the costs of materials, labor, and factory overhead to calculate the cost of manufacturing (“COM”) in accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act. We then added interest expenses; selling, general and administrative expenses (“SG&A”); profit; and U.S. packing expenses to COM to calculate the CV in accordance with sections 773(e)(2) and
(3)of the Act. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act, we calculated profit and selling expenses based on SeAH's 2005 public financial statements. *See, e.g., Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 9924 (March 6, 2007). *SeAH* : We used CV as the basis for NV for sales in which there were no usable contemporaneous sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We added reported materials, labor, and factory overhead costs to derive the COM, in accordance with 773(e)(1) of the Act. We then added interest expenses, SG&A, profit, and U.S. packing expenses to derive the CV, in accordance with sections 773(e)(2) and
(3)of the Act. We calculated profit based on the total value of sales and total COP reported by SeAH in its questionnaire response, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. Finally, we deducted comparison market credit expenses from CV to calculate the FUPDOL, pursuant to section 773(e)(2)(b) of the Act. Level of Trade/CEP Offset In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determined NV based on sales made in the comparison market at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the CEP sales. The NV LOT is based on the starting price of the sales in the comparison market. In *Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States* , 243 F.3d 1301, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“ *Micron Technology* ”), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the statute unambiguously requires Commerce to remove the selling activities set forth in section 772(d) of the Act from the CEP starting price prior to performing its LOT analysis. As such, for CEP sales, the U.S. LOT is based on the starting price of the sales, as adjusted under section 772(d) of the Act. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than the CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. If the comparison market sales are at different levels of trade, and the difference in levels of trade affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(A)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). *See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997) (“ *South African Plate Final* ”). Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. *Id* . In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( *i.e.* , the channel of distribution), 4 including selling functions, 5 class of customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. 4 The marketing process in the United States and in the comparison markets begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final user or consumer. The chain of distribution between the two may have many or few links, and the respondents' sales occur somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered the narrative responses of each respondent to properly determine where in the chain of distribution the sale occurs. 5 Selling functions associated with a particular chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a particular market. For purposes of this preliminary determination, we have organized the common selling functions into four major categories: sales process and marketing support, technical service, freight and delivery, and inventory maintenance. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for CEP and comparison market sales ( *i.e.* , NV based on either home market or third country prices), we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. Consistent with *Micron Technology* , 243 F.3d at 1315, the Department will adjust the U.S. LOT, pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act, prior to performing the LOT analysis, as articulated by 19 CFR 351.412. When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the CEP sales, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing CEP sales to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. In determining whether separate LOTs exist, we obtained information from SeAH regarding the marketing stages for the reported U.S. and comparison market sales, including a description of the selling activities performed for each channel of distribution. Generally, if the reported LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the seller at each level should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports that LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the selling functions and activities of the seller for each group should be dissimilar. In the current review, SeAH reported one channel of distribution in the Canadian comparison market. All sales to the Canadian market were made between PPA and the unaffiliated customer and shipped directly to the customer from Korea. The selling functions performed by SeAH and PPA for the Canadian market were identical for each customer. As such, we preliminarily find that all of SeAH's sales in the Canadian market were made at one LOT. SeAH reported one channel of distribution for its sales to the United States. We examined the selling functions performed by SeAH and PPA for the U.S. sales and found that all sales of the subject merchandise were inventoried and most were further manufactured by PPA in the United States before being sold to the unaffiliated customer. The selling functions performed by SeAH and PPA in the U.S. market were identical for each customer. Therefore, we preliminarily find that SeAH made its U.S. sales at one LOT. SeAH claimed that once adjustments for PPA's activities for U.S. sales are made, pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act, the LOT in the U.S. market is less advanced than the Canadian LOT. To determine whether NV is at a different LOT than the U.S. transactions, the Department compared SeAH's selling activities for the Canadian market with those for the U.S. market. We grouped SeAH's selling activities for the Canadian market and U.S. market into the following categories: selling and marketing, technical service, freight, and inventory. *See* SeAH's Section A questionnaire response at Exhibit A-15. In accordance with *Micron Technology* , we removed the selling activities set forth in section 772(d) of the Act from the U.S. LOT prior to performing the LOT analysis. *See SeAH's Preliminary Analysis Memo* . After removing the appropriate selling activities, we compared the U.S. LOT to the Canadian LOT. Based on our analysis, we find that the U.S. sales are at a less advanced LOT than the Canadian sales. *See SeAH's Preliminary Analysis Memo* . Therefore, because the sales in Canada are being made at a more advanced LOT than the sales to the United States, an LOT adjustment is appropriate for the Canadian sales in this review. However, as SeAH sold only through one channel of distribution to Canada, there is not sufficient data to evaluate whether an LOT adjustment is warranted. Therefore, we made a CEP offset in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f). This offset is equal to the amount of indirect selling expenses and inventory carrying costs incurred in the comparison market up to but not exceeding the sum of indirect selling expenses and inventory carrying costs from the U.S. price in accordance with section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act. Level of Trade/EP Sales To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer in the comparison market. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. In this current review, Nexteel claims a single LOT in the comparison market and a single LOT in the U.S. market. In our original questionnaire, we asked Nexteel to provide a complete list of all the selling activities performed and services offered in the U.S. market and the comparison market for each claimed LOT. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2), substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary condition for determining there is a difference in the stage of marketing. While Nexteel reported two U.S. distribution channels, we find that there are not significant differences in selling functions offered in the two U.S. distribution channels. As such, we find that a single LOT exists in the United States. *See Nexteel's Preliminary Analysis Memo* . Currency Conversions We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily find that the following weighted average dumping margins exist: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin SeAH Steel Corporation 0.30% ( *de minimis* ) Husteel Co., Ltd 0.64% Nexteel Co., Ltd. 0.00% Cash Deposit Requirements Pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the Department revoked this order and notified U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to discontinue suspension of liquidation and collection of cash deposits on entries of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse on or after July 25, 2006, the effective date of revocation of this antidumping duty AD order. *See Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Mexico; Revocation of Antidumping Duty Orders Pursuant to Second Five-year (Sunset) Reviews* , 72 FR 34442-34443 (June 22, 2007). Duty Assessment Upon publication of the final results of this review, the Department shall determine and CBP shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries made prior to the effective date of the revocation, July 25, 2006. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise for each respondent. HuSteel and SeAH each made all their sales to the United States through an affiliated importer. HuSteel and SeAH have reported entered values for all of their respective sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We have compared the entered values reported by HuSteel and SeAH with the entered values that they reported to CBP on their customs entries and preliminarily find that HuSteel's and SeAH's reported entered values are reliable. *See Husteel's Preliminary Analysis Memo* and *SeAH's Preliminary Analysis Memo* . Therefore, for Husteel, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and the total entered value of the examined sales. These rates will be assessed uniformly on all entries the respective importers made during the POR if these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review. For SeAH, if the preliminary results remain unchanged in the final results, we will instruct CBP to liquidate SeAH's entries of subject merchandise during the POR without regard to antidumping duties. Nexteel did not act as importer of record on its sales to the United States and thus did not report the entered value for any of their respective sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Therefore, for Nexteel we have calculated an entered value. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(s), if the preliminary results remain unchanged in the final results, we will instruct CBP to liquidate Nexteel's entries of subject merchandise during the POR without regard to antidumping duties. *See Nexteel's Preliminary Analysis Memo* . The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Notice of Policy Concerning Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies included in these final results of reviews for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary ( *e.g.* , a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. *See* the *Assessment Policy Notice* for a full discussion of this clarification. Public Comment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to any party to the proceeding the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of publication of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless extended by the Department, case briefs are to be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issues; 2) a brief summary of the argument; and 3) a table of authorities. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Parties will be notified of the time and location. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case brief, rebuttal brief, or hearing no later than 120 days after publication of these preliminary results, unless extended. *See* 19 CFR 351.213(h). Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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. These preliminary results of administrative review and this notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(I)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 31, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-17850 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-840] Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Orange Juice from Brazil AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: Fischer S/A—Agroindustria (Fischer Agroindustria) has requested a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on certain orange juice from Brazil pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216(b). The Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating this changed circumstances review and issuing this notice of preliminary results pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii). We have preliminarily determined that Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria and Agricultura (Fischer Comercio) is the successor-in-interest to Fischer Agroindustria. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-3874. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 9, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order on certain orange juice from Brazil. On May 21, 2007, Fischer Agroindustria requested an expedited changed circumstances review to determine that Fischer Comercio is the successor-in-interest to Fischer Agroindustria and, therefore, that Fischer Comercio is subject to the antidumping duty order on certain orange juice from Brazil. On May 29, 2007, we requested additional information from Fischer Agroindustria regarding the factors the Department examines when conducting a changed circumstances review. On June 27, 2007, Fischer Agroindustria submitted this requested information, indicating that assets of Fischer Agroindustria were spun off and merged with Fischer Comercio. On August 2, 2007, we requested additional supporting documentation from Fischer Agroindustria to substantiate its assertions that the management, suppliers, and customers of the company had not changed as a result of the merger. On August 9 and 13, 2007, Fischer submitted this requested information. According to Fischer Agroindustria, it is necessary for the Department to determine that Fischer Comercio is the successor-in-interest to Fischer Agroindustria so that Fischer Comercio's entries of subject merchandise continue to receive Fischer Agroindustria's antidumping duty rate from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Scope of the Order The scope of this order includes certain orange juice for transport and/or further manufacturing, produced in two different forms:
(1)frozen orange juice in a highly concentrated form, sometimes referred to as FCOJM; and
(2)pasteurized single-strength orange juice which has not been concentrated, referred to as NFC. At the time of the filing of the petition, there was an existing antidumping duty order on FCOJ from Brazil. *See Antidumping Duty Order; Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil* , 52 FR 16426 (May 5, 1987). Therefore, the scope of this order with regard to FCOJM covers only FCOJM produced and/or exported by those companies which were excluded or revoked from the pre-existing antidumping order on FCOJ from Brazil as of December 27, 2004. Those companies are Cargill Citrus Limitada (Cargill), Coinbra-Frutesp S.A. (Coinbra-Frutesp), Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. (Cutrale), Fischer Agroindustria, and Montecitrus Trading S.A. (Montecitrus). Excluded from the scope of the order are reconstituted orange juice and frozen concentrated orange juice for retail (FCOJR). Reconstituted orange juice is produced through further manufacture of FCOJM, by adding water, oils and essences to the orange juice concentrate. FCOJR is concentrated orange juice, typically at 42[deg] Brix, in a frozen state, packed in retail-sized containers ready for sale to consumers. FCOJR, a finished consumer product, is produced through further manufacture of FCOJM, a bulk manufacturer's product. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 2009.11.00, 2009.12.25, 2009.12.45, and 2009.19.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive. Rather, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Initiation and Preliminary Results Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act, the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. As indicated in the “Background” section, we have received information indicating that assets of Fischer Agroindustria were spun off and merged with Fischer Comercio. This constitutes changed circumstances warranting a review of the order. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a changed circumstances review based upon the information contained in Fischer Agroindustria's submissions. Section 351.221(c)(3)(ii) of the Department's regulations permits the Department to combine the notice of initiation of a changed circumstances review and the notice of preliminary results if the Department concludes that expedited action is warranted. In this instance, because we have on the record the information necessary to make a preliminary finding, we find that expedited action is warranted and have combined the notice of initiation and the notice of preliminary results. In making a successor-in-interest determination, the Department examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in:
(1)management;
(2)production facilities;
(3)supplier relationships; and
(4)customer base. *See* , *e.g.* , *Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan* , 67 FR 58 (Jan. 2, 2002); *Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 57 FR 20460, 20462 (May 13, 1992). While no single factor or combination of these factors will necessarily provide a dispositive indication of a successor-in-interest relationship, the Department will generally consider the new company to be the successor to the previous company if the new company's resulting operation is not materially dissimilar to that of its predecessor. *See* , *e.g.* , *Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway; Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 64 FR 9979 (Mar. 1, 1999); *Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel; Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review* , 59 FR 6944 (Feb. 14, 1994). Thus, if the evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as the former company, the Department will accord the new company the same antidumping treatment as its predecessor. In its May 21, 2007, submission, Fischer Agroindustria states that the operational functions of Fischer Agroindustria were collapsed into Fischer Comercio. According to Fischer Agroindustria's June 27, 2007, submission, the company's management, production facilities and customer/supplier relationships have not changed as a result of the merger. To support its claims, Fischer Agroindustria submitted the following documents:
(1)organizational charts from before and after the date of the merger;
(2)minutes from the special meeting of shareholders for Fischer Agroindustria held December 31, 2006;
(3)minutes from the special meeting of shareholders for Fischer Comercio held December 31, 2006;
(4)the “Protocol for Justification of Spin-Off Followed by Merger” (the Protocol);
(5)the list of shareholders of Fischer Comercio before and after the merger, as filed with the Register of Commerce in Brazil;
(6)approval from the Register of Commerce of the minutes of the December 31, 2006, special meetings of Fischer Agroindustria and Fischer Comercio and of the Protocol;
(7)a list of the managers of Fischer Agroindustria before the merger and Fischer Comercio after the merger;
(8)a list of the suppliers of Fischer Agroindustria before the merger and Fischer Comercio after the merger; and
(9)a list of the customers of Fischer Agroindustria before the merger and Fischer Comercio after the merger. Based on the information submitted by Fischer Agroindustria, we preliminarily find that Fischer Comercio is the successor-in-interest to Fischer Agroindustria. Based on the evidence reviewed, we find that Fischer Comercio operates as the same business entity as Fischer Agroindustria and that the production facilities, supplier relationships, and customers have not changed as a result of the merger. Further, the companies' senior management is largely the same. Thus, we preliminarily find that Fischer Comercio should receive the same antidumping duty cash-deposit rate ( *i.e.* , 12.46 percent) with respect to the subject merchandise as Fischer Agroindustria, its predecessor company. However, because cash deposits are only estimates of the amount of antidumping duties that will be due, changes in cash deposit rates are not made retroactive. If Fischer Comercio believes that the deposits paid exceed the actual amount of dumping, it is entitled to request an administrative review during the anniversary month of the publication of the order of those entries to determine the proper assessment rate and receive a refund of any excess deposits. *See Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From the United Kingdom: Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 64 FR 66880 (Nov. 30, 1999). As a result, if these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this changed circumstances review, we will instruct CBP to suspend shipments of subject merchandise made by Fischer Comercio at Fischer Agroindustria's cash deposit rate ( *i.e.* , 12.46 percent). Public Comment Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). A hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, which must be limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument:
(1)a statement of the issue;
(2)a brief summary of the argument; and
(3)a table of authorities. Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we will issue the final results of this changed circumstances review no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated, or within 45 days if all parties agree to our preliminary finding. We are issuing and publishing this finding and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216. Dated: September 5, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-17873 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-878] Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 4, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published *Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2005 2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 25247 (May 4, 2007) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). The period of review (“POR”) is July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. The administrative review covers one respondent, Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Fortune”). We invited interested parties to comment on our *Preliminary Results* . Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes to our calculations. The final dumping margin for the administrative review is listed in the “Final Results of the Review” section, below. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Veith or Blanche Ziv, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th St. and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4295 or
(202)482-4207, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 4, 2007, the Department published the *Preliminary Results* of the 2005-2006 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on saccharin from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). Since the publication of the *Preliminary Results* , the following events have occurred. On May 24, 2007, the Department received a submission on surrogate value data from Shanghai Fortune. 1 In the *Preliminary Results* , we stated that any interested party may request a hearing and may submit briefs or written comments within 30 days of publication of the *Preliminary Results* notice in the **Federal Register** , and may submit rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, five days subsequent to the due date of the case briefs. See *Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 25252. On June 4, 2007, the Department received a case brief from Shanghai Fortune. 2 However, we did not receive any hearing requests or rebuttal briefs on the *Preliminary Results* . 1 *See* Letter from Shanghai Fortune regarding, “Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Submission of Publicly Available Data For Use As Surrogate Values,” dated May 24, 2007. 2 *See* Letter from Shanghai Fortune regarding, “Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Case Brief of Shanghai Fortune Chemical Company, Ltd.,” dated June 4, 2007. We conducted this review in accordance with sections 751 and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221. Period of Review The POR is July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. Scope of the Order The product covered by this antidumping duty order is saccharin. Saccharin is defined as a non-nutritive sweetener used in beverages and foods, personal care products such as toothpaste, table top sweeteners, and animal feeds. It is also used in metalworking fluids. There are four primary chemical compositions of saccharin:
(1)Sodium saccharin (American Chemical Society Chemical Abstract Service (“CAS”) Registry 128-44-44);
(2)calcium saccharin (CAS Registry 6485-34-34);
(3)acid (or insoluble) saccharin (CAS Registry 81-07-07); and
(4)research grade saccharin. Most of the U.S.-produced and imported grades of saccharin from the PRC are sodium and calcium saccharin, which are available in granular, powder, spray-dried powder, and liquid forms. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheading 2925.11.00 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”) and includes all types of saccharin imported under this HTSUS subheading, including research and specialized grades. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope of this order remains dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case brief filed by Shanghai Fortune in this review are addressed in the Memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 2005-2006 Administrative Review of Saccharin From the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with this notice (“ *Issues and Decision Memo* ”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised by Shanghai Fortune and to which we have responded in the *Issues and Decision Memo* follows as an appendix to this notice. The *Issues and Decision Memo* is a public document which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in room B-099 of the main Department building, and is also accessible on the Web at <http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/>. The paper copy and electronic version of the *Issues and Decision Memo* are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received from Shanghai Fortune and information on the record of this review, we made changes to the margin calculations as noted below. For the final results, we have made changes to the surrogate values for aqueous ammonia and steam coal. For further details, *see* the *Issue and Decision Memo* at Comments 1 and 3, the *Shanghai Fortune Analysis Memo* 3 and the *Final Surrogate Value Memo* . 4 3 *See* Memorandum to the file through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, NME Group/Office 8, Import Administration, from Ann Fornaro, International Trade Analyst, NME Group/Office 8, Import Administration, regarding, “Analysis for the Final Results of the 2005-2006 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd.,” dated concurrently with this notice (“ *Shanghai Fortune Analysis Memo* ”). 4 *See* Memorandum to the file through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, from Frances Veith, International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, regarding, “2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Order Administrative Review of Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Final Results,” dated concurrently with this notice (“ *Final Surrogate Value Memo* ”). Final Results of the Review We determine that the final weighted-average dumping margin for Shanghai Fortune for the period July 1 2005, through June 30, 2006, is zero percent. The Department will disclose calculations performed for the final results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Assessment Rates The Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of the review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for Shanghai Fortune, we calculated an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate for the merchandise subject to this review. We calculated a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the antidumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or customer). *See* 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an importer's ad valorem rate or a customer-specific per-unit rate is zero or *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. *See* 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). Cash-Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative 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 for Shanghai Fortune, which has a separate rate, is zero percent;
(2)the cash deposit rate for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding (which were not reviewed in this segment of the proceeding) will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding;
(3)the cash deposit rate for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 329.33 percent; and
(4)the cash deposit rate for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Interested Parties This notice serves as a final 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. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.402(f)(3), failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and as explained in the APO itself. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This notice of final results of the administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 4, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix List of Comments and Issues in the Issues and Decisions Memorandum Comment 1 Valuation of Aqueous Ammonia Comment 2 Valuation of Sulfur Dioxide Comment 3 Valuation of Steam Coal [FR Doc. E7-17851 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration University of Southern California, et al.; Notice of Consolidated Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Electron Microscopes This is a decision consolidated pursuant to section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 2104, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue., NW., Washington, DC. *Docket Number:* 07-047. *Applicant:* University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. *Instrument:* Electron Microscope, Model JEM-1400. *Manufacturer:* JEOL, Ltd., Japan. *Intended Use:* See notice at 72 FR 46037, August 16, 2007. *Docket Number:* 07-050. *Applicant:* University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA. *Instrument:* Electron Microscope, Model Quanta 200 FEG. *Manufacturer:* FEI, Company, Czech Republic. *Intended Use:* See notice at 72 FR 46037, August 16, 2007. *Docket Number:* 07-049. *Applicant:* Indiana University. *Instrument:* Electron Microscope, Model JEM-3200FS. *Manufacturer:* JEOL Ltd., Japan. *Intended Use:* See notice at 72 FR 46037, August 16, 2007. *Docket Number:* 06-042. *Applicant:* The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL. *Instrument:* Electron Microscope, Model JEM-2200FS. *Manufacturer:* JEOL, Ltd., Japan. *Intended Use:* See notice at 72 FR 46037, August 16, 2007. *Docket Number:* 07-052. *Applicant:* Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA. *Instrument:* Electron Microscope, (2), Tecnai G2 Spirit TWIN and Morgagni TEM. *Manufacturer:* FEI Company, Czech Republic. *Intended Use:* See notice at 72 FR 46037, August 16, 2007. *Comments:* None received. *Decision:* Approved. No instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such purposes as these instruments are intended to be used, was being manufactured in the United States at the time the instruments were ordered. *Reasons:* Each foreign instrument is an electron microscope and is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring an electron microscope. We know of no electron microscope, or any other instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in the United States at the time of order of each instrument. Faye Robinson, Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff, Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-17867 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration University of Colorado; Notice of Consolidated Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 2104, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. *Comments:* None received. Decision: Approved. We know of no instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instruments described below, for such purposes as each is intended to be used, that was being manufactured in the United States at the time of its order. *Docket Number:* 07-051. *Applicant:* Colorado College, Department of Physics, Colorado Springs, CO. *Instrument:* Low Temperature Ulta-High Vacuum Scanning Tunneling Microscope. *Manufacturer:* Omicron Nanotechnology GmbH, Germany. *Intended Use:* See notice at 72 CFR 46037, August 16, 2007. *Reasons: The instrument provides:*
(a)A scanning tunneling microscope mounted inside a 4 K liquid helium reservoir (with a 22-hour liquid helium refill time);
(b)Operation at an equilibrium temperature of 4 K (with in-situ sample preparation and tip transfer capability);
(c)Low drift rates of 1 angstrom/hour;
(d)RMS vibration amplitudes of <0.005 angstrom in a 300 Hz bandwidth; and
(e)Sample registry after deposition. There are no domestically manufactured low temperature ultra-high vacuum scanning tunneling microscopes. *Docket Number:* 07-053. *Applicant:* University of Kentucky, Dept. Civil Engineering, Lexington, KY. *Instrument:* Soil Stiffness Testing System. *Manufacturer:* GDS Instruments, Ltd., UK. *Intended Use:* See notice at 72 CFR 46037, August, 16, 2007. *Reasons:* The instrument provides a vertically propagating S-wave transmitter and a P-wave receiver along with a vertically propagating P-wave transmitter and S-wave receiver and a master signal conditioning unit along with GDSBES software to control data acquisition and drive signal generation for S and P wave velocity tests as well as a Hall effect local strain set (2 axial, 1 radial) and mid-plane pore pressure kit. No domestic sources making similar devices provide an integrated system of this type of testing with the resolution required for advanced geotechnical research. Faye Robinson, Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff, Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-17868 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of closed meeting. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, notice is hereby given that the Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award will meet Thursday, September 19, 2007. The Judges Panel is composed of twelve members prominent in the fields of quality, innovation, and performance excellence and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The purpose of this meeting is to review applicant consensus scores and select applicants for site visit review. The applications under review by Judges contain trade secrets and proprietary commercial information submitted to the Government in confidence. DATES: The meeting will convene September 19, 2007 at 8:15 a.m. and adjourn at 4:30 p.m. on September 19, 2007. The entire meeting will be closed. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Administration Building, Lecture Room B, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Harry Hertz, Director, National Quality Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, telephone number
(301)975-2361. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, formally determined on December 27, 2005, that the meeting of the Judges Panel will be closed pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, as amended by section 5(c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409. The meeting, which involves examination of Award applicant data from U.S. companies and other organizations and a discussion of this data as compared to the Award criteria in order to recommend Award recipients, may be closed to the public in accordance with section 552b(c)(4) of Title 5, United States Code, because the meetings are likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person which is privileged or confidential. Dated: August 30, 2007. James M. Turner, Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E7-17863 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XC44 Endangered Species; File No. 1557-03 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit modification. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Molly Lutcavage has been issued a modification to scientific research Permit No. 1557. ADDRESSES: The modification and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office: 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Opay or Kate Swails,
(301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 3, 2007, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 24565) that a modification of Permit No. 1557 had been requested by the above-named individual. The requested modification has been granted 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 222-226). The researchers will attach satellite-linked data recorders to the leatherback sea turtle's carapace and feed stomach temperature pills to the animals. These pills will record stomach temperatures and transmit them to the satellite-linked data recorder for transmission to the researchers. Researchers will also attach diary tags using suction cups. This research will help better understand where, when, and under what environmental conditions leatherback sea turtles forage so as to better predict their movements. This information will be used to help predict leatherback movements and potential interactions with fisheries and other human activities to allow resource managers to design management strategies to protect this species. Issuance of this modification, 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: September 5, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-17899 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XC41 Endangered Species; File No. 10037 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Dr. Douglas Peterson, Warnell School of Forest Resources (Fisheries Division), University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, has applied in due form for a permit to take shortnose sturgeon ( *Acipenser brevirostrum* ) for purposes of scientific research on the Ogeechee River, GA. DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before October 11, 2007. ADDRESSES: The applications 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 Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; phone
(727)824-5312; fax
(727)824-5309. Written comments or requests for a public hearing on these applications should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on the particular request would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at
(301)427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing email comments is *NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: File No. 10037. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Malcolm Mohead or Kate Swails,
(301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject permit is requested 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 222-226). Dr. Peterson seeks permission to conduct research on shortnose sturgeon for five years to assess the abundance, age structure, distribution, movement, and critical habitat and will also investigate the adverse effects of estrogenic compounds. Researchers propose to capture 300 shortnose sturgeon yearly using gill and trammel nets and to anesthetize, measure, weigh, tissue and fin-ray sample, and scan for PIT tags. A subset of 10 sturgeon annually (40 during permit) would be laparoscoped and implanted with internal radio tags; a subset of 5 sturgeon annually (20 during permit), would be laparoscoped and fitted with external radio tags; and a subset of 12 sturgeon would be health evaluated using laparoscopy and venipuncture annually. Up to 40 shortnose sturgeon eggs would be collected annually using buffer pads to document spawning. The unintentional mortality of 2 shortnose sturgeon annually is also requested. Dated: September 5, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-17900 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XC42 Marine Mammals; File No. 10040 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Gary Matson, Matson's Laboratory, LLC, PO Box 308, 8140 Flagler Road, Milltown, MT 59851, has applied in due form for a permit to receive, import and export specimens for scientific research. DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before October 11, 2007. ADDRESSES: The application and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment 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 Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone
(206)526-6150; fax
(206)526-6426. Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: File No. 10040. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Skidmore or Amy Sloan, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 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.* ), the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 *et seq.* ). The applicant is requesting authorization for the receipt, import and export of teeth and prepared microscope slides obtained from seal and sea lion species, expect walrus (Order Pinnipedia). The Matson Laboratory provides age related data to researchers and biologists. Age data are used in population modeling, with age structure an indicator of population condition. Teeth are sent to the laboratory for cementum age analysis. The number of teeth varies depending upon the nature of the project, from a single tooth to several hundred from a legal harvest; no more than 2000 teeth will be analyzed annually. Import and export authority is requested for all locations wherever pinnipeds occur and are the subject of government-authorized research and/or harvest. Principally, these locations are expected to be those within the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada. There will be no incidental takes of non-target species. A permit is requested for five years. Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors. Dated: September 6, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-17895 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN: 0648-XC25 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting/Workshop AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: A Groundfish Stock Assessment Review
(STAR)Panel will hold a work session which is open to the public. The STAR Panel will review new assessments for the southern portion of the black rockfish stock and blue rockfish off California, as well as rebuilding analyses for seven overfished West Coast rockfish species. DATES: The STAR Panel meeting will begin at 12:30 p.m. on October 1, 2007 and will continue through October 5, 2007. The meeting will start at 8:30 a.m. each day (except October 1, when the panel convenes at 12:30 p.m.) and end at 5 p.m. each day, or as necessary to complete business. ADDRESSES: The STAR Panel meeting will be held at the NOAA Western Regional Center's Sand Point Facility, Building 4, Jim Traynor Seminar Room, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Seattle, WA 98115-6349. *Council address* : Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Stacey Miller, Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC); telephone:
(206)437-5670; or Mr. John DeVore, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(503)820-2280. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the STAR Panel meeting is to review draft stock assessments for the southern portion of the black rockfish stock in waters off California and Oregon, the blue rockfish stock in waters off California, and draft rebuilding analyses for bocaccio, canary rockfish, cowcod, darkblotched rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, widow rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish; work with the Stock Assessment Teams and rebuilding analysis authors to make necessary revisions; and produce STAR Panel reports for use by the Council family and other interested persons. No management actions will be decided by this STAR Panel. The STAR Panel's role will be development of recommendations and reports for consideration by the Council at its November meeting in San Diego, CA. Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the STAR Panel participants for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal STAR Panel action during these meetings. STAR Panel action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the STAR Panel participants' intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at
(503)820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: September 6, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-17839 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN: 0648-XB99 Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting; Addendum AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Addendum to Earlier Notice - A Meeting of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Agenda modification. SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council has modified its meeting agenda for its September 17-21, 2007 meeting to be held in N. Myrtle Beach, SC. DATES: The meeting will take place September 17-23, 2007. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Avista Resort, 300 N. Ocean Blvd, N. Myrtle Beach, SC 29582; telephone:
(800)968-8986 or
(843)249-2521. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; telephone:
(843)571-4366 or toll free
(866)SAFMC-10; fax:
(843)769-4520; email: *kim.iverson@safmc.net* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The original notice published on August 14, 2007 (72 FR 45419). The legal briefing on litigation (Closed Session) originally scheduled during the Council meeting on September 21, 2007 at 8 a.m. has been moved to September 18, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. as part of the Snapper Grouper Committee meeting. Because of this move, the Snapper Grouper Committee report to the Council originally scheduled for 8:15 a.m. on September 21, 2007 will begin instead at 8 a.m. on September 21, 2007. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see ADDRESSES ) 3 days prior to the meetings. Note: The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change. Dated: September 6, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-17833 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XC39 U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product Draft Report 4.3: “The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity” AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability and request for public comments. SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publishes this notice to announce a 45-day public comment period for the draft report titled, U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3: “The effects of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity.” This draft document is being released solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency policy or determination. After consideration of comments received on the draft report, a revised version along with the comments received will be published on the CCSP web site. DATES: Comments must be received by October 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: The draft Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3: “The effects of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity” is posted on the CCSP Web site at: *www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-3/public-review-draft/default.htm* Detailed instructions for making comments on the draft Report are provided on the SAP 4.3 webpage (see link here). Comments should be prepared and submitted in accordance with these instructions. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Fabien Laurier, Climate Change Science Program Office, 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 250, Washington, DC 20006, Telephone:
(202)419-3481. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CCSP was established by the President in 2002 to coordinate and integrate scientific research on global change and climate change sponsored by 13 participating departments and agencies of the U.S. Government. The CCSP is charged with preparing information resources that promote climate-related discussions and decisions, including scientific synthesis and assessment analyses that support evaluation of important policy issues. Dated: September 5, 2007. Thomas L. Laughlin, Deputy Director, Office of International Affairs. [FR Doc. E7-17893 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-12-S COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Determination under the Textile and Apparel Commercial Availability Provision of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR Agreement); Correction September 5, 2007. In the notice published in the Federal Register on August 20, 2007 (72 FR 46445), CITA provided specifications for the subject woven fabrics. On page 46446, first column, in the table providing specifications for the 75% cotton, 25% nylon woven fabric, classified under the HTS number 5211.31.0020, under “Filling Yarn Size,” please change the specifications from “35.5/1 metric (slub yarn of cotton wrapped around a 45 metric filament nylon)” to “35.5/1 metric (slub yarn of cotton alternating with a 45 metric filament nylon).” R. Matthew Priest, Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. [FR Doc. E7-17894 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Open Meeting of the Secretary of the Navy's Advisory Subcommittee on Naval History AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Navy's Advisory Subcommittee on Naval History, a subcommittee of the Department of Defense Historical Advisory Committee will meet to review naval historical activities since the last meeting of the Advisory Subcommittee on Naval History, which was conducted on September 27 and September 28, 2007 and to make comments and recommendations on these activities to the Secretary of the Navy. The meetings will be open to the public. DATES: The meetings will be held on Thursday, September 27, 2007, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and Friday, September 28, 2007, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Navy Museum of the Naval Historical Center, 805 Kidder Breese Street, SE., Building 70, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5060. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rear Admiral Paul E. Tobin, USN (Ret.), Director of Naval History, 805 Kidder Breese Street, SE., Bldg. 57, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5060, telephone: 202-433-2210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice of open meeting is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The purpose of these meetings is to review naval historical activities since the last meeting of the Advisory Subcommittee on Naval History and to make comments and recommendations on these activities to the Secretary of the Navy. Dated: September 5, 2007. T.M. Cruz, Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E7-17841 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Recognition of Accrediting Agencies, State Agencies for the Approval of Public Postsecondary Vocational Education, and State Agencies for the Approval of Nurse Education AGENCY: National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, Department of Education (The Advisory Committee). What Is the Purpose of This Notice? This notice invites written comments on the interim report and request for an expansion of scope of recognition submitted by The Association for Biblical Higher Education that will be reviewed at the Advisory Committee meeting to be held on December 17-19, 2007. The agency was not included in the list of accrediting agencies to be reviewed in the original notice inviting written comments published in the **Federal Register** on August 1, 2007. Interim Report/Request for an Expansion of Scope of Recognition 1. The Association for Biblical Higher Education, Commission on Accreditation (Current scope of recognition: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidate for Accreditation”) of Bible colleges and institutes in the United States offering undergraduate programs.) (Requested scope of recognition: The accreditation and preaccreditation of institutions of biblical higher education in the United States offering undergraduate programs through both campus-based instruction and distance education.) Where Should I Submit My Comments? Please submit your written comments by mail, fax, or e-mail no later than September 28, 2007 to Ms. Robin Greathouse, Accreditation and State Liaison. You may contact her at the U.S. Department of Education, Room 7126, MS 8509, 1990 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, telephone:
(202)219-7011, fax:
(202)219-7005, or e-mail: *Robin.Greathouse@ed.gov.* Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339. What is the Authority for the Advisory Committee? The National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity is established under section 114 of the Higher Education Act (HEA), as amended, 20 U.S.C. 1011c. One of the purposes of the Advisory Committee is to advise the Secretary of Education on the recognition of accrediting agencies and State approval agencies. Will This Be My Only Opportunity to Submit Written Comments? Yes, this notice announces the only opportunity you will have to submit written comments. However, another **Federal Register** notice will announce the meeting and invite individuals and/or groups to submit requests to make oral presentations before the Advisory Committee on the agencies that the Committee will review. That notice, however, does not offer an opportunity to submit written comment. What Happens to the Comments That I Submit? We will review your comments, in response to this notice, as part of our evaluation of The Association for Biblical Higher Education's compliance with the Secretary's Criteria for Recognition of Accrediting Agencies. The Criteria are regulations found in 34 CFR Part 602 (for accrediting agencies). We will also respond to your comments, as appropriate, in the staff analysis we present to the Advisory Committee at its December 2007 meeting. Therefore, in order for us to give full consideration to your comments, it is important that we receive them by September 28, 2007. In all instances, your comments regarding The Association for Biblical Higher Education must relate to the Criteria for the Recognition cited in the Secretary's letter that requested the interim report. You may obtain a copy of the Secretary's letter by calling
(202)219-7011. What Happens to Comments Received After the Deadline? We will treat any negative comments received after the deadline as complaints. If such comments, upon investigation, reveal that the accrediting agency is not acting in accordance with the Criteria for Recognition, we will take action either before or after the meeting, as appropriate. We will also notify the commentors of the disposition of those comments. Where Can I Inspect Petitions and Third-Party Comments Before and After the Meeting? All petitions and those third-party comments received in advance of the meeting will be available for public inspection at the U.S. Department of Education, Room 7126, MS 8509, 1990 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, telephone
(202)219-7011 between the hours of 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, until November 19, 2007. They will be available again after the December 17-19, 2007 Advisory Committee meeting. An appointment must be made in advance of such inspection. Authority: 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2. Dated: September 5, 2007. Diane Auer Jones, Assistant Secretary, Office of Postsecondary Education. [FR Doc. E7-17824 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Agency Information Collection Extension AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for 3 years, an information collection request
(ICR)with the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)concerning the Occupational Radiation Protection program, OMB Control Number 1910-5105. The Office of Worker Safety and Health Policy ensures that adequate policies are in place for the protection of workers at DOE sites and operations. The Office of Worker Safety and Health Policy uses the information collected from the contractors to evaluate the adequacy of DOE policies for the protection of workers from exposure to ionizing radiation. Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the extended collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this Notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. DATES: Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before November 13, 2007. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be sent to: Dr. Judith D. Foulke, Office of Worker Safety and Health Policy (HS-11), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, or by fax at
(301)903-7773 or by e-mail at *judy.foulke@hq.doe.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to the person listed above in ADDRESSES . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This ICR contains:
(1)*OMB No:* 1910-5105;
(2)*Package Title:* Occupational Radiation Protection Program;
(3)*Type of Review:* Renewal;
(4)*Purpose:* The recordkeeping and reporting requirements that comprise this information collection will permit DOE and its contractors to provide management control and oversight over health and safety programs concerning worker exposure to ionizing radiation;
(5)*Respondents:* 50;
(6)*Estimated Number of Burden Hours:* 50,000. *Statutory Authority:* Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, part 835. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Agency Information Collection Extension. Issued in Washington, DC, on August 24, 2007. Lesley A. Gasperow, Director, Office of Resource Management, Office of Health, Safety and Security. [FR Doc. E7-17843 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Amended Record of Decision: Storage of Surplus Plutonium Materials at the Savannah River Site AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Amended Record of Decision. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE)is amending the Record of Decision
(ROD)for the *Storage and Disposition of Weapons—Usable Fissile Materials Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement* (DOE/EIS-0229, 1996; Storage and Disposition PEIS). Specifically, DOE has decided to take the actions necessary to transfer approximately 2,511 additional 3013-compliant packages 1 containing surplus non-pit weapons-usable plutonium metals and oxides to the Savannah River Site (SRS), near Aiken, South Carolina. Approximately 2,300 containers will be transferred from the Hanford Site (Hanford) near Richland, Washington; 115 containers will be transferred from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
(LLNL)in California; and 96 containers will be transferred from the Los Alamos National Laboratory
(LANL)in New Mexico. All 3013 containers will be shipped inside Type B shipping packages (e.g., 9975 packages) in Safe Secure Transports (SSTs). In addition, DOE could transfer the equivalent of about one thousand 3013 containers, in the form of unirradiated fuel assemblies originally intended for the Fast Flux Test Facility
(FFTF)at Hanford, and miscellaneous fuel pins that that were not put into fuel assemblies, to the SRS. 2 At a lower priority and only if adequate storage space is available, DOE will transfer approximately five hundred additional 3013 containers from LLNL and LANL to provide operational flexibility in the laboratories and to alleviate the demands there on storage capacity needed to support nuclear weapons research missions. Surplus plutonium in 3013-compliant containers will be stored in the K-Area Material Storage
(KAMS)facility and FFTF fuel will be stored in the K-Area complex. 1 A container that complies with DOE-STD-3013, Stabilization, Packaging, and Storage of Plutonium-Bearing Materials. 2 The use of FFTF and the unirradiated fuel currently at Hanford is being considered in conjunction with the evaluation of reasonable alternatives in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP)Programmatic EIS. The planned shipment of the FFTF unirradiated fuel to SRS is scheduled for the second half of Fiscal Year 2009. If FFTF is still being considered as part of GNEP following completion of the PEIS (expected in 2008), DOE may choose not to ship the unirradiated FFTF fuel to SRS. This action will consolidate storage of surplus, non-pit weapons-usable plutonium from Hanford, LANL, and LLNL at SRS, pending disposition. 3 DOE has prepared a Supplement Analysis (SA), *Storage of Surplus Plutonium Materials at the Savannah River Site* (DOE/EIS-0229-SA-4, August 2007), in accordance with DOE National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)regulations (10 CFR 1021.314) to determine whether consolidated storage of this plutonium is a substantial change to the proposed action or whether there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns such that a supplemental EIS or a new EIS would be needed. Based on the SA, DOE has determined that no further review under NEPA is required. 3 Based on DOE's current surplus plutonium disposition plans, DOE expects to disposition the surplus plutonium stored in KAMs in less than 20 years. DOE has analyzed the potential environmental impacts of storage of such plutonium in KAMs for up to 50 years. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of NEPA documents related to this decision, including this Amended ROD, are available on DOE's NEPA Web site at: *http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa.* To request copies of these documents, please contact: The Center for Environmental Management Information, P.O. Box 23769, Washington, DC 202-586-3769, Telephone: 800-736-3282 (in Washington, DC: 202-863-5084). For further information concerning the storage of surplus, non-pit plutonium at the SRS, contact: Andrew R. Grainger, NEPA Compliance Officer, Savannah River Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box B, Aiken, South Carolina 29802, Telephone:
(803)952-8001, E-mail: *drew.grainger@srs.gov.* For information on DOE's NEPA process, contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, GC-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0119,
(202)586-4600, or leave a message at
(800)472-2756. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background At the end of the Cold War, the United States declared large quantities of plutonium and uranium surplus to the defense needs of the nation. At that time, materials were in various forms and various stages of the material manufacturing and weapons fabrication processes and located at several weapons complex sites that DOE had operated in the preceding decades. DOE began the process of placing these materials in safe, stable configurations suitable for storage until disposition strategies could be developed and implemented. Through a series of decisions supported by appropriate NEPA analyses, DOE has decided to store surplus, non-pit, weapons-usable plutonium materials at SRS facilities pending disposition. DOE's Supplement Analysis, *Storage of Surplus Plutonium Materials at the Savannah River Site,* (DOE/EIS-0229-SA-4, August 2007), describes the NEPA reviews and DOE's decisions regarding transportation and storage of plutonium materials. Prior NEPA reviews and accompanying decisions that are directly related to today's decision are described in the following paragraphs. In an April 19, 2002 (67 FR 19432), Amended Record of Decision (ROD), DOE announced its decision to immediately consolidate long-term storage in the K-Area Material Storage
(KAMS)facility at SRS of surplus, non-pit plutonium from the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS). In addition, DOE noted that cancellation of the then-planned immobilization facility for surplus plutonium disposition and the selection of the long-term storage alternative at SRS removed the basis for the contingency contained in previous RODs (which conditioned transport of surplus, non-pit plutonium from RFETS to SRS on the selection of SRS as the site for the immobilization facilities), and amended those RODs accordingly. DOE also stated that long-term storage of surplus plutonium and the ultimate disposition of that plutonium were separate actions, and that combining long-term storage and disposition was not required to implement either decision, and served no significant programmatic objective. Transfer of plutonium materials from RFETS to SRS was completed in 2003 and these materials are stored in 3013 containers inside 9975 shipping packages in the KAMS facility. In the 2002 Amended ROD, DOE left unchanged it's prior decision to store surplus, non-pit plutonium at Hanford, Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and LANL, pending disposition (or movement to lag storage at the disposition facility). 4 4 DOE indicated in the Storage and Disposition PEIS ROD (DOE, 1997) that 0.3 metric tons of plutonium stored at LLNL was primarily research and development and operational feedstock material not surplus to government needs, and that the material would continue to be stored for use at LLNL. DOE has since determined that there is no programmatic need for this material, and that transferring the material to SRS for long-term storage would reduce surveillance costs at LLNL. In 1999, DOE determined that 3 to 4 metric tons of plutonium material will be retained at the Idaho National Laboratory for potential future use. Following the events of September 11, 2001, DOE revised the threat criteria and the postulated capabilities of those who might perpetrate acts of violence against DOE assets. As a result of this new threat guidance, DOE determined that the consolidation of plutonium at SRS into one location—KAMS—and enhancement of the security of that location, would provide the most advantageous means to meet this challenge and assure the safety and security of the stored material. Therefore, DOE cancelled a project to install stored surveillance and stabilization capability to ensure compliance with DOE-STD-3013 in F-Area and decided to construct the K-Area Interim Surveillance
(KIS)project and the Container Surveillance and Storage Capability
(CSSC)project in the K-Area complex. DOE prepared an environmental assessment, *Safeguards and Security Upgrades for Storage of Plutonium Materials at the Savannah River Site* (DOE/EA-1538, December 2005) and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in December of 2005, to address the impacts of these and related security projects. The EA addressed surplus plutonium materials in the SRS inventory as of December 2005. The KIS Project, which became operational in June 2007, and the CSSC project, which is currently scheduled for operations in 2010, will provide surveillance and stabilization capability and capacity for storage of 3013 containers outside of KAMS (but in the K-Area complex) adequate to support the surveillance program required by DOE-STD-3013. *Decision:* Consistent with DOE's prior decision to reduce over time the number of locations where the various forms of plutonium are stored, DOE has decided to consolidate storage of surplus, non-pit, weapons-usable plutonium from Hanford, LANL, and LLNL at SRS, pending disposition. Following appropriate congressional notification, in accordance with section 3155 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Pub. L. 107-107), DOE will transfer, over a period of about two to three years, approximately 2,511 additional 3013-compliant packages 5 containing plutonium metals and oxides to SRS. Approximately 2,300 containers will be transferred from Hanford, 115 containers will be transferred from LLNL, and 96 containers will be transferred from LANL. All 3013 containers will be shipped inside Type B shipping packages (e.g., 9975 packages) in Safe Secure Transports (SSTs). All containers will be certified compliant with DOE-STD-3013 and Department of Transportation requirements prior to shipment, and DOE will acquire and obtain certification of additional shipping containers, if needed. 5 A 3013 container has a maximum capacity of about 4.4 kilograms of plutonium. However, few containers have the maximum amount of plutonium. In addition, DOE could transfer the equivalent of about one thousand 3013 containers, in the form of unirradiated fuel assemblies and miscellaneous fuel pins originally intended for the Fast Flux Test Facility
(FFTF)at Hanford, to the SRS. 6 This material will be shipped in Type B shipping packages, in SSTs, and stored in the K-Area Complex in the Type B shipping packages, pending disposition. DOE will monitor the condition of the shipping packages while in storage to insure their integrity, including inspection of seals to monitor for corrosion or leakage. DOE will continue to store RFETS and SRS surplus, non-pit plutonium in approximately 2,800 containers inside Type B shipping packages at SRS. Storage will be in compliance with applicable Technical Safety Requirements
(TSRs)and Safety Analysis Reports (SARs), and the total mass of stored plutonium will be significantly less than 15 metric tons. DOE has previously evaluated storage of non-pit surplus plutonium from RFETS and other DOE sites, as needed, in KAMS ( *Supplement Analysis for Storing Plutonium in the Actinide Packaging and Storage Facility and the Building K-105 at the Savannah River Site.* (DOE/EIS-0229-SA-1, July 1998). 6 See footnote 2. In addition, DOE will transfer approximately five hundred 3013 containers from LLNL and LANL to remove surplus inventory, provide operational flexibility, and to alleviate the demands there on storage capacity needed to support nuclear weapons research missions. This transfer will take place only if storage space is available in KAMS. Space is limited by the number of storage positions allowed in recognition of the spacing requirements dictated by the TSRs and SARs. DOE could increase the number of storage spaces by modifying the storage configuration after review, and revision as necessary, of the safety authorization basis. DOE will use the KAMS facility for consolidated storage. Nearby areas of the K-Area complex, where the KIS is and CSSC will be located, will be used for surveillance and restabilization activities. Storage spaces necessary to support surveillance activities are available in the K-Area complex. Unirradiated FFTF fuel will also be stored in the K-Area complex. *Basis for Decision:* DOE's decision to consolidate surplus plutonium at SRS will reduce the number of sites with special nuclear material; enhance the security of these materials; reduce the risk plutonium poses to the public and environment; reduce or avoid the costs associated with plutonium storage, surveillance and monitoring, and security at multiple sites; and relocate the material to DOE's planned site for surplus plutonium disposition. Plutonium consolidation has been encouraged by independent reviews of DOE's activities, including the Government Accountability Office
(GAO)in its July 2005 report entitled *Securing U.S. Nuclear Materials: DOE Needs to Take Action to Safely Consolidate Plutonium* (GAO-05-665) and recently by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB). In its June 26, 2007, report to Congress, the DNFSB stated: “The Board believes consolidation of excess plutonium into a single, robust facility suitable for extended retrievable storage is logical from a safety perspective. DOE should aggressively pursue consolidation of its excess plutonium.” Furthermore, transferring within the next two to three years all the surplus plutonium currently at Hanford to SRS would enhance security and avoid the expenditure of about $200 million for security upgrades to be compliant with DOE's 2005 Design Basis Threat
(DBT)guidance, as well as tens of millions of dollars more each year for security and monitoring to continue storing the material at Hanford. Separately from the consolidation and storage activities DOE is announcing today, DOE is preparing a *Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Surplus Plutonium Disposition at the Savannah River Site* to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of alternative methods to disposition surplus, non-pit plutonium materials. The action alternatives identified in the Notice of Intent (72 FR 14543; March 28, 2007) for this Supplemental EIS involve:
(1)A glass can-in-canister approach that would be installed in K-Area;
(2)a ceramic can-in-canister approach that would be installed in K-Area; and
(3)the Mixed Oxide
(MOX)Fuel Fabrication Facility, currently under construction at SRS. In conjunction with any of these alternatives, DOE would utilize the existing H-Canyon and Defense Waste Processing Facility
(DWPF)for the disposition of up to about four metric tons of surplus, non-pit plutonium materials. DOE's selection of one or more of these alternatives would ensure that surplus, weapons-usable plutonium that is currently at SRS, or that would be shipped to SRS as a result of the actions evaluated in this SA, would be placed in a form that would facilitate a disposition path out of South Carolina. *Supplement Analysis:* DOE prepared a Supplement Analysis ( *Storage of Surplus Plutonium Materials at the Savannah River Site,* (DOE/EIS-0229-SA-4, August 2007) to determine if consolidating storage at SRS of surplus, non-pit, weapons-usable plutonium from Hanford, LLNL, and LANL represented new circumstances or information requiring preparation of a supplemental EIS or a new EIS. The environmental impacts discussed in the SA are described in the following paragraphs. Transportation DOE will ship plutonium materials compliant with the DOE-STD-3013 in 3013 packages inside Type B shipping containers (e.g., 9975 containers) from Hanford, LLNL, and LANL to KAMS at SRS using SSTs. DOE will ship unirradiated FFTF fuel from Hanford to SRS in Type B shipping packages (e.g., the Hanford Un-irradiated Fuel Package) in SSTs. At KAMS, the 9975 containers will be received and stored; the 3013 packages will not be removed from the 9975 shipping containers. The Type B shipping packages containing the unirradiated FFTF fuel will be stored in the K-Area complex at SRS. DOE previously evaluated the impacts of transporting 17 metric tons of non-pit, surplus plutonium to SRS in the *Surplus Plutonium Disposition*
(SPD)EIS (DOE/EIS-0283, 1999), which addressed alternatives for disposition and was tiered from the Storage and Disposition PEIS. In the SPD EIS Alternative 3, DOE analyzed the transportation of surplus pit and non-pit plutonium to SRS. Table L-1 of the SPD EIS summarized the material shipments; included were surplus non-pit weapons-usable plutonium materials from Hanford, LLNL, LANL, RFETS, and INL (Argonne National Laboratory—West). The Hanford material specifically included FFTF fuel pins and assemblies. Alternative 3 included shipment of a greater quantity of surplus, non-pit plutonium materials to SRS than does the consolidation decision DOE is announcing today. In the SPD EIS, DOE estimated that normal (incident-free) transportation operations could result in 0.024 latent cancer fatalities
(LCF)among transportation workers and 0.034 LCF in the total affected population over the duration of the transportation activities. In preparing the SPD EIS, DOE used a dose conversion factor of 5 × 10 − 4 deaths per rem of dose to the affected population. Currently, DOE recommends a dose conversion factor of 6 × 10 − 4 deaths per rem. Using the currently recommended dose conversion factor, the estimated risk would be about 0.029 LCF among transport workers and about 0.041 LCF in the total affected population. In addition, DOE estimated that 0.019 nonradiological fatalities could occur as a result of vehicular emissions. DOE also estimated the impacts of accident scenarios, and in all cases the risk of a fatality is less than one. No accidents occurred during shipment of the RFETS plutonium to the SRS. DOE has analyzed the impacts of transporting plutonium from Hanford, LLNL, and LANL (as well as INL and RFETS) to SRS in the SPD EIS. That analysis assumed that surplus non-pit plutonium would be transported in Type B containers in SSTs, just as DOE will do for the consolidation action announced today. DOE will make all shipments in shipping packages with current certificates, consistent with Department of Transportation requirements and DOE's prior NEPA reviews. The transportation required to implement this action is a subset of the transportation activities evaluated in the SPD EIS. Storage The KAMS facility requires no physical modification to accommodate the proposed storage of surplus, non-pit, weapons-usable plutonium from Hanford, LLNL, and LANL. The environmental impacts of storage of fissile material at SRS were presented in the *Interim Management of Nuclear Materials EIS* (DOE/EIS-0220, October 1995) and the *Storage and Disposition PEIS.* These two EISs contain calculated annual impacts presented over specific time periods. DOE also evaluated storage of surplus plutonium materials from RFETS and other sites, as needed, in 3013 containers inside Type B shipping containers in KAMS, and concluded that KAMS storage for up to 50 years did not represent significant new information relevant to environmental concerns, and that additional NEPA review was not required (DOE/EIS-0229-SA-01, 1998). The consolidated storage action DOE is announcing today involves the same forms of surplus plutonium and the same shipping and storage containers (which would be certified Type B containers), as DOE has previously analyzed. DOE has initiated two projects to provide the stored plutonium surveillance and restabilization capability required as part of the monitoring program that is an integral part of DOE-STD-3013. The KIS project, which became operational in June 2007, provides limited, temporary surveillance capability until the CSSC project is completed. Current plans call for the CSSC to be operational in 2010. DOE completed an EA (DOE/EA-1538, December 2005) evaluating the impacts of construction and operation of KIS and CSSC in the K-Area complex (near but not in KAMS), and related security upgrades in K-Area. Storage space adequate for the needs of the KIS and CSSC surveillance activities are provided outside of KAMS and a limited number of 3013 containers will be temporarily stored without Type B shipping containers when CSSC becomes operational. DOE evaluated the impacts of these actions in the EA, and determined the impacts would not be significant (Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), (DOE/EA-1538, December 2005). While the inventory in KAMS will increase as a result of the transfer and storage of surplus non-pit plutonium from Hanford, LLNL, and LANL, the number of 3013 containers stored outside of KAMS, or undergoing surveillance activities requiring opening of the cans, will not increase. The number of cans undergoing surveillance activities is limited by the facility safety analysis and technical safety requirements, and neither would change as a result of storing more material in KAMS. Therefore, DOE's action is not different in regard to surveillance actions than those DOE has previously evaluated and found to be insignificant. DOE has found no anomalous conditions in either the 3013 containers or the stored plutonium material in the DOE-STD-3013 surveillance program. Similarly, performance of the Type B shipping containers has been as expected, with no instances of unacceptable performance. The K-Area Structural Assessment Program, mentioned in the 2002 ROD, has not revealed any condition or degradation that would affect the structural integrity of the facility. Unirradiated fuel from the FFTF facility at Hanford will be stored in Type B shipping packages in the K-Area transfer bay in the K-Area complex. Storage of FFTF fuel in Type B shipping containers in the K-Area transfer bay will provide a level of safety equivalent to that resulting from storage of plutonium in 3013 containers inside 9975 shipping packages in KAMS. In addition, DOE evaluated the storage of irradiated tritium-producing burnable absorber rods in Type B shipping containers (the same configuration for the storage of FFTF fuel) in the K-Area transfer bay (DOE/EA-1528, *Storage of Tritium-Producing Burnable Absorber Rods in K-Area Transfer Bay at SRS* , June 2005) and found the environmental impacts to be insignificant (FONSI, DOE/EA-1528, June 2005). Intentional Destructive Acts DOE provides substantial safeguards and security measures for both transportation and storage of plutonium. Safeguards and security are designed to prevent theft or diversion of materials, and to prevent exposure of workers and the public to radiation from the material during transportation and storage. DOE recognizes that an attack against surplus plutonium cargo may cause very undesirable consequences, such as release of radionuclides into the environment. Following the events of September 11, 2001, DOE is continuing to consider and implement measures to minimize the risk and consequences of potential terrorist attacks on DOE facilities and activities. DOE conducts vulnerability assessments and risk analyses in accordance with DOE Order 470.3A, *Design Basis Threat Policy* and DOE Order 470.4A, *Safeguards and Security Program.* The safeguards applied to protecting the K-Area complex involve a dynamic process of enhancement to meet threats, and those safeguards will evolve over time. It is not possible to predict whether intentional destructive acts would occur at these locations, or the nature or types of attacks. Nevertheless, DOE has evaluated security scenarios involving malevolent or terrorist acts in an effort to assess potential vulnerabilities and identify improvements to security procedures and response measures. The physical security protection strategy is based on a graded and layered approach supported by a guard force trained to detect, deter, and neutralize adversary activities. Facilities are protected by staffed and automated access control systems, barriers, surveillance systems and intrusion detection systems. Plutonium materials intended for consolidated storage would be received and stored in the K-Area Complex. DOE evaluated accident scenarios during storage of plutonium materials in the *Interim Management of Nuclear Materials EIS* (DOE/EIS-0220, October 1995). DOE finds that the accident impacts are representative of the potential impacts of intentional destructive acts against the facilities proposed for consolidated storage, particularly in light of the robust nature of the facilities themselves and the improved security and response measures that have been put in place in recent years. In the SPD EIS, DOE evaluated the impacts of a severe accident while transporting plutonium oxide material in Type B shipping containers in Safe Secure Transports (SSTs). The hypothetical accidents modeled for the impact assessment involve either a long-term fire or tremendous impact of crushing forces. In the case of crushing forces, a fire would have to be burning in order to spread the plutonium as modeled. These accidents were assumed to cause a ground-level release of 10 percent of the radioactive material in the SST. These accidents fall within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's severity Category VIII, with an accident frequency in rural areas of about 1 × 10 − 7 per year (once in 10 million years). DOE estimated that if such an accident were to occur in an urban area as many as 114 cancer fatalities could result. In addition, the accident itself would cause a number of non-radiological fatalities, depending upon the specific circumstances. In reviewing the nature and consequences of the accident scenarios described in the SPD EIS, DOE finds that the consequences bound the consequences of a hypothetical terrorist attack on an SST carrying surplus non-pit plutonium. Because of the robust nature of the Type B containers and the SSTs, and because shipments are protected, DOE finds it unlikely that an attack could generate the forces required to release as much material as postulated for a severe accident. Therefore, DOE expects the potential consequences of a terrorist attack on a shipment of surplus, non-pit plutonium to be equal to or less than those of a severe accident. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Report to Congress In December 2003, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) issued a Report to Congress on Plutonium Storage at the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site. The DNFSB is an independent Federal agency chartered by Congress to provide recommendations to the Department of Energy on the safety of defense nuclear facilities. The Board's report contains proposals for enhancing the safety, reliability, and functionality of plutonium storage at SRS; one proposal concerns KAMS and four concern F-Area. However, subsequent to issuance of the Board's report, DOE decided to utilize only KAMS and the K-Area complex for storage of plutonium and for future stabilization and packaging operations, and to deinventory F-Area of all plutonium prior to the end of 2006. With respect to KAMS, the Board proposed that fire protection systems be installed and that unnecessary combustibles be eliminated. In response to this proposal, the Department determined that fire suppression equipment would be installed in the Neutron Multiplicity Counting Room of KAMS, fire detection equipment would be installed throughout KAMS, and the cable combustible load in the actuator tower above KAMS would be removed. DOE completed removal of the actuator tower cables in August 2006. DOE plans to begin installation of a fire detection system in KAMS in 2007 and complete it in 2008. DOE also plans to begin installation of a fire suppression system in the Neutron Multiplicity Counting Room in 2008 and complete the installation in 2009. In addition, the fire protection posture designed into KAMS was to minimize both transient and fixed combustibles within the facility such that the remaining worst possible fire could not cause a release of plutonium. The walls separating the KAMS facility from the remainder of the K-Reactor building were fabricated into a two-hour fire boundary. Combustibles outside the facility fire boundaries were minimized, contained, or mitigated to ensure the KAMS facility fire boundaries were rated longer than any credible fire would burn. *Supplement Analysis Conclusion And Determination:* DOE has fully evaluated transportation of surplus, non-pit plutonium materials for SRS and storage at SRS of such materials from Hanford and LANL in the Storage and Disposition PEIS and SPD EIS. The action announced today, consolidated storage of surplus, non-pit plutonium materials at SRS, including transportation of the materials to SRS, is addressed in the Storage and Disposition PEIS, the SPD EIS, and other NEPA reviews addressed above. DOE evaluated the potential impacts of conducting plutonium surveillance and stabilization activities required by DOE-STD-3013 in the *Environmental Assessment for the Safeguards and Security Upgrades for Storage of Plutonium Materials at the Savannah River Site,* and found the impacts to be insignificant. Some of these documents are now 10 or more years old. However, DOE has reviewed the analyses and assumptions relevant to the potential environmental impacts of the actions described herein and found any changes to be insignificant. DOE's 2007 SA shows that the potential environmental impacts associated with the further consolidation of surplus non-pit, weapons-usable plutonium from Hanford, LLNL and LANL would not be a significant change from the potential environmental impacts associated with the alternatives analyzed in previous NEPA reviews. DOE is not proposing a substantial change that is relevant to environmental concerns. No significant new circumstances or information bearing on the proposed action and relevant to environmental concerns are presented by the proposed consolidation of plutonium storage. Therefore, DOE does not need to conduct additional NEPA review prior to transferring surplus non-pit plutonium materials from Hanford, LLNL, and LANL to SRS for consolidated storage pending disposition, as described above. Issued in Washington, DC, this 5th day of September, 2007. James A. Rispoli, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. [FR Doc. E7-17840 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER07-1222-000; Docket No. ER07-1223-000] CR Clearing, LLC; Cow Branch Wind Power, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order September 4, 2007. CR Clearing, LLC and Cow Branch Wind Power, LLC (collectively, “the Applicants”) filed applications for market-based rate authority, with accompanying market-based rate tariffs. The proposed market-based rate tariffs provide for the sale of energy and capacity at market-based rates. The Applicants also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, the Applicants requested that the Commission grant blanket approvals under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by the Applicants. On August 31, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development-West, granted the requests for blanket approval under part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the **Federal Register** establishing a period of time for the filing of protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by the Applicants, should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004). Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is October 1, 2007. Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket approvals by the deadline above, the Applicants are authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the Applicants, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes. The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of the Applicants' issuance of securities or assumptions of liability. Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions 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. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-17855 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER07-1246-000] Harvest Windfarm, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order September 4, 2007. Harvest Windfarm, LLC (Harvest) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying tariff. The proposed market-based rate tariff provides for the sale of energy and capacity at market-based rates. Harvest also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, Harvest requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Harvest. On August 31, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development-West, granted the requests for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the **Federal Register** establishing a period of time for the filing of protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Harvest, should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004). Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is October 1, 2007. Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket approvals by the deadline above, Harvest is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Harvest, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes. The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of Harvest's issuance of securities or assumptions of liability. Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's web site at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions 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. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-17854 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RR07-16-000] North American Electric, Reliability Corporation; Notice of Amendment to the File September 4, 2007. Take notice that on August 31, 2007, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation submitted an amendment to their August 24, 2007 filing of the 2008 Business Plans and Budgets of Regional Entities, and the 2008 funding request of the Western Interconnection Regional Advisory Body. 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. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding. 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 September 21, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-17852 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. DI07-12-000] Ken Howard; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order and Soliciting Comments, Motions to Intervene, and Protests September 4, 2007. Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Application Type* : Petition for Declaratory Order. b. *Docket No.:* DI07-12-000. c. *Date Filed:* August 15, 2007. d. *Applicant:* Ken Howard. e. *Name of Project:* Keene Channel/Howard Micro-Hydro Project. f. *Location:* The Keene Channel/Howard Micro-Hydro Project is located on an unnamed stream on Kupreanof Island, near Petersburg, Alaska, affecting T. 6 S., R. 80 E., sec. 6, Copper River Meridian. The project does not occupy any tribal or federal lands. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 817(b). h. *Applicant Contact:* Ken Howard, P.O. Box 2067, Petersburg, Alaska, 99833; Telephone:
(907)518-1886; e-mail: *howardak@starband.net.* i. *FERC Contact:* Any questions on this notice should be addressed to Henry Ecton
(202)502-8768, or E-mail: *henry.ecton@ferc.gov.* j. *Deadline for filing comments and/or motions:* October 4, 2007. *All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:* Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. Any questions, please contact the Secretary's Office. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at: *http://www.ferc.gov.* Please include the docket number (DI07-12-000) on any protests, comments and/or motions filed. k. *Description of Project:* The existing project consists of:
(1)A 30-inch-long weir in the unnamed stream, forming a small reservoir;
(2)a 6-inch-diameter, 550-foot-long PVC pipe;
(3)a 1-kW Stream Engine turbine, connected to a battery bank through a Zantex 4848 inverter; and
(4)appurtenant facilities. The facility is not connected to an interstate grid. When a Petition for Declaratory Order is filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to investigate and determine if the interests of interstate or foreign commerce would be affected by the project. The Commission also determines whether or not the project:
(1)Would be located on a navigable waterway;
(2)would occupy or affect public lands or reservations of the United States;
(3)would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or
(4)if applicable, has involved or would involve any construction subsequent to 1935 that may have increased or would increase the project's head or generating capacity, or have otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-1935 design or operation. l. *Locations of the application:* Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may 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, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at
(866)208-3676, or TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Comments, Protests, and/or Motions to Intervene* —Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. o. *Filing and Service of Responsive Documents* —Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTESTS”, AND/OR “MOTIONS TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Docket Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. p. *Agency Comments* —Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the applicant's representatives. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. 3 DI07-12-000 [FR Doc. E7-17856 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER07-521-000] New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Agenda and Procedures for Staff Technical Conference September 4, 2007. This notice establishes the agenda and procedures for the staff technical conference to be held on September 10, 2007. 1 The technical conference will be held from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. (EDT), in conference room 3M-2A/B at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. All interested persons are invited to attend and registration is not required; however, active participation will be limited to those parties who have previously requested to intervene in this proceeding. 1 The initial notice establishing the date of this technical conference was issued on August 7, 2007. A subsequent notice, issued on August 15, 2007, changed the date to September 10, 2007. The technical conference was directed by Commission order issued on July 27, 2007. *See New York Independent System Operator, Inc.* , 120 FERC ¶ 61,099
(2007)(July 27 Order). The Commission's July 27, 2007 order in this proceeding directed its staff to hold a technical conference to address the issues raised by New York Independent System Operator, Inc.'s (NYISO) February 5, 2007 compliance filing submitted in response to Order Nos. 681 and 681-A. 2 In accordance with the July 27 Order, staff will conduct the conference according to the following agenda: 2 *Long-Term Firm Transmission Rights in Organized Electricity Markets* , Order No. 681, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,226, *order on reh'g and clarification* , Order No. 681-A, 117 FERC ¶ 61,201 (2006). Item 1—Guideline
(5)• NYISO presentation illustrating the amount of load municipal systems are able to hedge with long-term firm transmission rights (FTRs). • Discussion regarding the manner by which load-serving entities are able to meet their reasonable needs with long-term FTRs in a non-discriminatory manner. Item 2—Guideline
(7)• Discussion of the price certainty in issues relating to the allocation of long-term FTRs and computational issues relating to the crediting of transmission congestion contract revenues directly to the holders of the rights. • Discussion of valuation and cost shifting issues that may arise relating to long-term FTRs. • Discussion of alternative methods of allocating long-term FTRs. • Discussion of related matters arising from the previous issues. Commission staff has arranged for telephone conferencing should any party wish to listen to the proceeding remotely. Any parties that plan to attend by phone should contact Elizabeth Slease by e-mail at *elizabeth.slease@ferc.gov* no later than September 6, 2007 to request the call-in instructions. The technical conference will be transcribed. Those interested in obtaining a copy of the transcript immediately for a fee should contact Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc., at 202-347-3700, or 1-800-336-6646. Two weeks after the technical conference, the transcript will be available for free on the Commission's e-library system. FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an e-mail to *accessibility@ferc.gov* or call toll free 1-866-208-3372 (voice) or 202-208-1659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-17853 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [DA 07-3842] Consumer Advisory Committee AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Commission announces the next meeting date and agenda of its Consumer Advisory Committee (“Committee”). The purpose of the Committee is to make recommendations to the Commission regarding consumer issues within the jurisdiction of the Commission and to facilitate the participation of all consumers in proceedings before the Commission. DATES: The meeting of the Committee will take place on Thursday, September 27, 2007, 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., at the Commission's Headquarters Building, Room 3-B516. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Marshall, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau,
(202)418-2809 (voice),
(202)418-0179 (TTY), or e-mail *scott.marshal@fcc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 5, 2007, the Commission released document DA 07-3842, which announced the agenda, date and time of the Committee's next meeting. At its September 27, 2007 meeting, the Committee will receive and consider draft comments prepared by members of its DTV Working Group in connection with the DTV Consumer Education Initiative, MB Docket No. 07-148. The Committee will have an opportunity to debate, amend, reject, or adopt these comments prior to their transmittal to the Commission. A limited amount of time on the agenda will be available for oral comments from the public. The Committee is organized under and operates in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 (1988). The meeting is open to the public. Members of the public may address the Committee or may send written comments to: Scott Marshall, Designated Federal Officer of the Committee, at the address indicated on the first page of this document. The meeting site is accessible to people with disabilities. Meetings are sign language interpreted with real-time transcription and assistive listening devices available. Meeting agendas are provided in accessible formats. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY). Federal Communications Commission. Thomas Wyatt, Deputy Bureau Chief, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau. [FR Doc. E7-17870 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Thrift Supervision Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request AGENCIES: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); and Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), Treasury. ACTION: Joint notice and request for comment. SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the OCC, the Board, the FDIC, and the OTS (the “agencies”) may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)control number. The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), of which the agencies are members, has approved the agencies' publication for public comment of a proposal to extend, with revision, the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) for banks and the Thrift Financial Report
(TFR)for savings associations, which are currently approved collections of information. At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the FFIEC and the agencies should modify the proposed revisions prior to giving final approval. The agencies will then submit the revisions to OMB for review and approval. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to any or all of the agencies. All comments, which should refer to the OMB control number(s), will be shared among the agencies. *OCC:* Communications Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Public Information Room, Mailstop 1-5, Attention: 1557-0081, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to
(202)874-4448, or by electronic mail to *regs.comments@occ.treas.gov.* You may personally inspect and photocopy the comments at the OCC's Public Information Room, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling
(202)874-5043. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments. *Board:* You may submit comments, which should refer to “Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income, 7100-0036, March 2008” by any of the following methods: • *Agency Web Site:* *http://www.federalreserve.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the *http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm.* • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: regs.comments@federalreserve.gov.* Include docket number in the subject line of the message. • *FAX:* 202-452-3819 or 202-452-3102. • *Mail:* Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20551. All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at *http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm* as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper in Room MP-500 of the Board's Martin Building (20th and C Streets, NW.) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays. *FDIC:* You may submit comments, which should refer to “Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income, 3064-0052,” by any of the following methods: • *http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal/notices.html.* • *E-mail: comments@FDIC.gov.* Include “Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income, 3064-0052” in the subject line of the message. • *Mail:* Steven F. Hanft (202-898-3907), Clearance Officer, Attn: Comments, Room MB-2088, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429. • *Hand Delivery:* Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located on F Street) on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Public Inspection: All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/notices.html* including any personal information provided. Comments may be inspected at the FDIC Public Information Center, Room E-1002, 3501 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22226, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on business days. *OTS:* You may submit comments, identified by “1550-0023 (TFR: Schedule DI Revisions),” by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail address: infocollection.comments@ots.treas.gov.* Please include “1550-0023 (TFR: March 2008 Revisions)” in the subject line of the message and include your name and telephone number in the message. • *Fax:*
(202)906-6518. • *Mail:* Information Collection Comments, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552, Attention: “1550-0023 (TFR: March 2008 Revisions).” • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Guard's Desk, East Lobby Entrance, 1700 G Street, NW., from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on business days, Attention: Information Collection Comments, Chief Counsel's Office, Attention: “1550-0023 (TFR: March 2008 Revisions).” *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and OMB Control Number for this information collection. All comments received will be posted without change to the OTS Internet Site at *http://www.ots.treas.gov/pagehtml.cfm?catNumber=67&an=1* , including any personal information provided. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.ots.treas.gov/pagehtml.cfm?catNumber=67&an=1.* In addition, you may inspect comments at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, NW., by appointment. To make an appointment for access, call
(202)906-5922, send an e-mail to *public.info@ots.treas.gov* , or send a facsimile transmission to
(202)906-7755. (Prior notice identifying the materials you will be requesting will assist us in serving you.) We schedule appointments on business days between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. In most cases, appointments will be available the next business day following the date we receive a request. Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB desk officer for the agencies by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to
(202)395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about the revisions discussed in this notice, please contact any of the agency clearance officers whose names appear below. In addition, copies of the Call Report forms can be obtained at the FFIEC's Web site ( *http://www.ffiec.gov/ffiec_report_forms.htm* ). Copies of the TFR can be obtained from the OTS's Web site ( *http://www.ots.treas.gov/main.cfm?catNumber=2&catParent=0* ). *OCC:* Mary Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officer, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. *Board:* Michelle E. Shore, Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer,
(202)452-3829, Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf
(TDD)users may call
(202)263-4869. *FDIC:* Steven F. Hanft, Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)898-3907, Legal Division, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429. *OTS:* Ira L. Mills, OTS Clearance Officer, at *Ira.Mills@ots.treas.gov* ,
(202)906-6531, or facsimile number
(202)906-6518, Litigation Division, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The agencies are proposing to revise and extend for three years the Call Report and the TFR, which are currently approved collections of information. 1 1 The proposed changes to the Call Report and the TFR that are the subject of this notice would take effect March 31, 2008. The banking agencies (the OCC, the Board, and the FDIC) are also considering a separate proposal to incorporate the FDIC's Summary of Deposits report (OMB No. 3064-0061) into the Call Report effective June 30, 2008. If the FFIEC and the banking agencies approve the proposed inclusion of the Summary of Deposits in the Call Report, the banking agencies will publish a request for comment on this proposal in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 1. *Report Title:* Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report). *Form Number:* Call Report: FFIEC 031 (for banks with domestic and foreign offices) and FFIEC 041 (for banks with domestic offices only). *Frequency of Response:* Quarterly. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit. *OCC:* *OMB Number:* 1557-0081. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,750 national banks. *Estimated Time per Response:* 45.42 burden hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 317,967 burden hours. *Board:* *OMB Number:* 7100-0036. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 885 state member banks. *Estimated Time per Response:* 52.07 burden hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 184,328 burden hours. *FDIC:* *OMB Number:* 3064-0052. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 5,218 insured state nonmember banks. *Estimated Time per Response:* 36.16 burden hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 754,732 burden hours. The estimated time per response for the Call Report is an average that varies by agency because of differences in the composition of the institutions under each agency's supervision (e.g., size distribution of institutions, types of activities in which they are engaged, and existence of foreign offices). The average reporting burden for the Call Report is estimated to range from 16 to 635 hours per quarter, depending on an individual institution's circumstances. 2. *Report Title:* Thrift Financial Report (TFR). *Form Number:* OTS 1313 (for savings associations). *Frequency of Response:* Quarterly; Annually. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit. OTS: *OMB Number:* 1550-0023. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 838 savings associations. *Estimated Time per Response:* 36.50 burden hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 193,881 burden hours. General Description of Reports These information collections are mandatory: 12 U.S.C. 161 (for national banks), 12 U.S.C. 324 (for state member banks), 12 U.S.C. 1817 (for insured state nonmember commercial and savings banks), and 12 U.S.C. 1464 (for savings associations). Except for selected data items, these information collections are not given confidential treatment. Abstract Institutions submit Call Report and TFR data to the agencies each quarter for the agencies' use in monitoring the condition, performance, and risk profile of individual institutions and the industry as a whole. Call Report and TFR data provide the most current statistical data available for evaluating institutions' corporate applications, for identifying areas of focus for both on-site and off-site examinations, and for monetary and other public policy purposes. The agencies use Call Report and TFR data in evaluating interstate merger and acquisition applications to determine, as required by law, whether the resulting institution would control more than ten percent of the total amount of deposits of insured depository institutions in the United States. Call Report and TFR data are also used to calculate all institutions' deposit insurance and Financing Corporation assessments, national banks' semiannual assessment fees, and the OTS's assessments on savings associations. Current Actions I. Overview The four agencies are proposing to revise the Call Report and TFR instructions for reporting daily average deposit data by newly insured institutions for deposit insurance assessment purposes to conform the instructions with the FDIC's assessment regulations (12 CFR Part 327). These revisions are discussed in Section II.A of this notice. In addition, the OCC, the Board, and the FDIC (the banking agencies) propose to implement a number of other changes to the Call Report requirements, which are discussed in detail in Sections II.B through II.F of this notice. The OTS may issue a separate notice and request for comment if it determines that the TFR should be revised to include some or all of the proposed changes to the Call Report. The Call Report changes include several related to 1-4 family residential mortgage loans such as reporting interest and fee income on and the quarterly average for such mortgages separately from income on and the quarterly average for all other real estate loans and the addition of new items for restructured troubled mortgages and mortgage loans in process of foreclosure. Call Report Schedule RC-P on closed-end 1-4 family residential mortgage banking activities, which is completed by larger banks and smaller banks with a significant level of such activities, would be expanded to include originations, purchases, and sales of open-end mortgages as well as closed-end and open-end mortgage loan repurchases and indemnifications during the quarter. The Call Report's trading account definition would be modified in response to the creation of a fair value option in generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Call Report Schedule RC-Q, which collects data on fair value measurements for trading assets and liabilities and other assets and liabilities accounted for under a fair value option, and certain other schedules, including the loan schedule (Schedule RC-C), would also be revised to enhance the information available on instruments accounted for under this option. Revisions would also be made to the schedule on trading assets and liabilities (Schedule RC-D). The Call Report instructions would be clarified for reporting credit derivative data in the risk-based capital schedule (Schedule RC-R) and a corresponding change would be made to the schedule itself. The threshold for reporting significant items of other noninterest income and expense in the explanations schedule (Schedule RI-E) would also be changed. The instructions for reporting fully insured brokered deposits in Schedule RC-E, Deposit Liabilities, would be revised to conform to the instructions for reporting time deposits in this schedule. The preceding proposed revisions to the Call Report and the TFR, which have been approved for publication by the FFIEC and are discussed in more detail below, would take effect as of March 31, 2008. The specific wording of the captions for the new or revised Call Report data items discussed in this proposal and the numbering of these data items should be regarded as preliminary. Finally, the banking agencies request comment on a plan to discontinue the mailing of paper Call Report forms and instructions to banks, which is discussed in Section III of this notice. *Type of Review:* Revision and extension of currently approved collections. II. Discussion of Proposed Revisions A. Reporting of Data for Deposit Insurance Assessments in the Call Report and TFR by Newly Insured Institutions Section 327.5(a)(1) of the FDIC's assessment regulations (12 CFR 327.5(a)(1)) states that “[a]n institution that becomes newly insured after the first report of condition allowing for average daily balances shall have its assessment base determined using average daily balances.” For purposes of these regulations, the term “report of condition” includes the Call Report and the TFR. Both of these reports first allowed an institution to report average daily balances for the deposit data used to determine its assessment base as of the March 31, 2007, report date. This change was introduced as of that date in conjunction with a revision and reduction in the overall reporting requirements related to deposit insurance assessments in Call Report Schedule RC-O and TFR Schedule DI that was intended to simplify regulatory reporting. As part of these revised overall reporting requirements, the agencies provided an interim period covering the March 31, 2007, through December 31, 2007, report dates during which each institution has the option to submit its Call Reports or TFRs using either the current or revised formats for reporting the data used to measure their assessment base. The revised reporting format will take effect for all institutions on March 31, 2008, at which time the current reporting format will be eliminated. The instructions issued in March 2007 for the revised reporting format state that an institution that becomes newly insured on or after April 1, 2008, would be required to report daily average balances beginning in the first quarterly Call Report or TFR that it files. However, these instructions do not conform to the previously cited language in the FDIC's assessments regulations with respect to their treatment of institutions that become insured between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008. Therefore, the agencies are revising the instructions to Call Report Schedule RC-O and TFR Schedule DI to require an institution that becomes insured after March 31, 2007, but on or before March 31, 2008, to begin reporting daily average balances in its Call Report or TFR for the March 31, 2008, report date. The requirement for an institution that becomes insured on or after April 1, 2008, to report daily average deposit data beginning in its first quarterly Call Report or TFR would remain in effect. B. Call Report Revisions Related to 1-4 Family Residential Mortgage Loans Since year-end 2000, commercial bank holdings of 1-4 family residential mortgage loans in domestic offices have increased nearly 108 percent to more than $1.9 trillion. Nearly 98 percent of all banks hold such mortgages. 1-4 family residential mortgages now represent the single largest category of loans held by commercial banks, surpassing commercial and industrial loans as the largest category in 2002. As a percentage of total loans and leases at commercial banks, 1-4 family residential mortgages have grown from 24 percent at year-end 2000 to 32 percent at year-end 2006. Similarly, 1-4 family residential mortgages have increased from less than 15 percent of total assets to nearly 19 percent of total assets during this period. During the first quarter of 2007, bank originations and purchases of closed-end 1-4 family residential mortgages for resale exceeded $287 billion. There has been a growing use of nontraditional residential mortgage products and an increasing number of banks offering such products. In addition, the volume of 1-4 family residential mortgage loans extended to subprime borrowers has increased. At the same time, home prices have stagnated or even declined in many areas of the country. The higher concentration of 1-4 family residential mortgages across the industry and the changing risk profile of the loans with which banks are associated in some capacity has led the banking agencies to evaluate the information they collect about such loans in the Call Report. As a result, the banking agencies are proposing several Call Report changes that are intended to enhance their ability to monitor the nature and extent of banks' involvement with 1-4 family residential mortgage loans as originators, holders, sellers, and servicers of such loans. 1. Interest and Fee Income and Quarterly Average At present, banks report the total amount of interest and fee income on their “Loans secured by real estate” (in domestic offices) in the Call Report income statement (Schedule RI, item 1.a.(1)(a) on the FFIEC 031 and item 1.a.(1) on the FFIEC 041) and the quarterly average for these loans (in domestic offices) in the quarterly averages schedule (Schedule RC-K, item 6.a.(2) on the FFIEC 031 and item 6.b on the FFIEC 041). The banking agencies are proposing to split these existing income statement and quarterly average items into separate items for the interest and fee income on and the quarterly averages of “Loans secured by 1-4 family residential properties” and “All other loans secured by real estate.” 2. Restructured Mortgages Banks currently report information on the amount of loans whose terms have been modified, because of a deterioration in the financial condition of the borrower, to provide for a reduction of either interest or principal. When such restructured loans are past due 30 days or more or are in nonaccrual status in relation to their modified terms as of the report date, they are reported in Schedule RC-N, Memorandum item 1. In contrast, when such restructured loans are less than 30 days past due and are not otherwise in nonaccrual status, that is, when they are deemed to be in compliance with their modified terms as discussed in the Call Report instructions, banks report the amount of these loans in the Call Report loan schedule (Schedule RC-C, part I, Memorandum item 1). However, the instructions advise banks to exclude restructured loans secured by 1-4 family residential properties from these Memorandum items. This exclusion was incorporated into the Call Report instructions because the original disclosure requirements for troubled debt restructurings under GAAP provided that creditors need not disclose information on restructured real estate loans secured by 1-4 family residential properties. 2 However, this exemption from disclosure under GAAP has since been eliminated. 3 Accordingly, the banking agencies are proposing to add a new Memorandum item to Schedule RC-C, part I, for “Loans secured by 1-4 family residential properties (in domestic offices)” that have been restructured and are in compliance with their modified terms and a new Memorandum item to Schedule RC-N, for restructured “Loans secured by 1-4 family residential properties (in domestic offices)” that are past due 30 days or more or in nonaccrual status. 2 See Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 15, *Accounting by Debtors and Creditors for Troubled Debt Restructurings* , footnote 25. 3 See Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 114, *Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan,* paragraph 22(f). 3. Mortgages in Foreclosure The banking agencies currently collect data on the amount of loans secured by 1-4 family residential properties that are past due 30 days or more or are in nonaccrual status (Schedule RC-N, item 1.c) and on the amount of foreclosed 1-4 family residential properties held by the bank (Schedule RC-M, item 3.b.(3)). However, regardless of whether the bank owns the loans or services the loans for others, banks do not report the volume of 1-4 family residential mortgage loans that are in process of foreclosure, an indicator of potential additions to the bank's “other real estate owned” in the near term. The banking agencies propose to add two new Memorandum items for the amount of 1-4 family residential mortgage loans owned by the bank and serviced by the bank that are in foreclosure as of the quarter-end report date. Mortgage loans in foreclosure would be those for which the legal process of foreclosure has been initiated, but for which the foreclosure process has not yet been resolved at quarter-end. 4 These Memorandum items would be added to the Call Report loan schedule (Schedule RC-C, part I) and the servicing, securitization, and asset sale activities schedule (Schedule RC-S), with the carrying amount (before any applicable allowance for loan and leases losses) reported in the former Memorandum item and the principal amount reported in the latter Memorandum item. Reporting mortgage loans as being in process of foreclosure will not exempt those loans owned by the bank from being reported as past due or nonaccrual, as appropriate, in Call Report Schedule RC-N, and will not exempt those loans serviced by the bank that are reported in Schedule RC-S, item 1, from being reported as past due, as appropriate, in that schedule. 4 For banks that participate in the Mortgage Bankers Association's
(MBA)National Delinquency Survey, the time at which mortgage loans would become reportable as being in process of foreclosure for Call Report purposes would be the same time at which mortgage loans become reportable as being in “foreclosure inventory” for MBA survey purposes (although the dollar amount of such loans would be reported in the Call Report while the number of such loans are reported for MBA survey purposes). 4. Open-end 1-4 Family Residential Mortgage Banking Activities Banks with $1 billion or more in total assets and smaller banks that meet certain criteria currently provide data on originations, purchases, and sales of closed-end 1-4 family residential mortgage loans during the quarter arising from their mortgage banking activities in domestic offices in Call Report Schedule RC-P. These banks also report the amount of closed-end 1-4 family residential mortgage loans held for sale at quarter-end as well as the noninterest income for the quarter from the sale, securitization, and servicing of these mortgage loans. Data (other than for noninterest income) is provided separately for first lien and junior lien mortgages in Schedule RC-P. About 650 banks complete Schedule RC-P, less than 300 of which have total assets of less than $1 billion. However, this information does not provide a complete picture of banks' mortgage banking activities since it excludes open-end 1-4 family residential mortgages extended under lines of credit. From year-end 2001 to year-end 2006, bank holdings of 1-4 family residential mortgage loans extended under lines of credit more than tripled to nearly $470 billion. Accordingly, the banking agencies are proposing to expand the scope of Schedule RC-P to include separate items for originations, purchases, and sales of open-end 1-4 family residential mortgages during the quarter; the amount of such mortgages held for sale at quarter-end; and noninterest income for the quarter from the sale, securitization, and servicing of open-end residential mortgages. When reporting the originations, purchases, sales, and mortgages held for sale, banks would report both the total commitment under the line of credit and the principal amount funded under the line. For banks with less than $1 billion in total assets, the criteria used to determine whether Schedule RC-P must be completed would be modified to include both closed-end and open-end 1-4 family residential mortgage bank activities. 5. Mortgage Repurchases and Indemnifications As a result of its 1-4 family residential mortgage banking activities, a bank may be obligated to repurchase mortgage loans that it has sold or otherwise indemnify the loan purchaser against loss because of borrower defaults, loan defects, other breaches of representations and warranties, or for other reasons, thereby exposing the bank to additional risk. Such information is not currently captured in Call Report Schedule RC-P. Therefore, the banking agencies propose to add four new items to Schedule RC-P to collect data on mortgage loan repurchases and indemnifications during the quarter. For both closed-end first lien and closed-end junior lien 1-4 family residential mortgages, banks would report the principal amount of mortgages repurchased or indemnified. For open-end 1-4 family residential mortgages, banks would report both the total commitment under the line of credit and the principal amount funded under the line for mortgages repurchased or indemnified. C. Call Report Data on Trading Assets and Liabilities and Other Assets and Liabilities Accounted for Under a Fair Value Option 1. Reporting of Assets and Liabilities Under the Fair Value Option as Trading On February 15, 2007, the Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB)issued Statement No. 159, *The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities* (FAS 159), which is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007. Earlier adoption of FAS 159 was permitted as of the beginning of an earlier fiscal year, provided the bank
(i)Also adopts all of the requirements of FASB Statement No. 157, *Fair Value Measurements* (FAS 157) at the early adoption date of FAS 159;
(ii)has not yet issued a financial statement or submitted Call Report data for any period of that fiscal year; and
(iii)satisfies certain other conditions. Thus, a bank with a calendar year fiscal year may have voluntarily adopted FAS 159 as of January 1, 2007. Changes in the fair value of financial assets and liabilities to which the fair value option is applied are reported in current earnings as is currently the case for trading assets and liabilities. Since the fair value option standard allows a bank to elect fair value measurement through earnings for financial assets and financial liabilities, the banking agencies understand that some institutions would like to reclassify certain loans elected to be accounted for under the fair value option as trading assets. The Call Report instructions currently do not allow loans held for sale to be reported as trading assets. Under FAS 159, all securities within the scope of FASB Statement No. 115, *Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities* (FAS 115), that a bank has elected to report at fair value under a fair value option should be classified as trading securities. Recognizing the provisions of FAS 159, the banking agencies are proposing the following clarification to the Call Report instructions, including the Call Report Glossary entry for “Trading Account.” Banks may classify assets (other than securities within the scope of FAS 115 for which a fair value option is elected) and liabilities as trading if the bank applies fair value accounting, with changes in fair value reported in current earnings, *and* manages these assets and liabilities as trading positions, subject to the controls and applicable regulatory guidance related to trading activities. For example, a bank would generally not classify a loan to which it has applied the fair value option as a trading asset unless the bank holds the loan, which it manages as a trading position, for one of the following purposes:
(1)For market making activities, including such activities as accumulating loans for sale or securitization;
(2)to benefit from actual or expected price movements; or
(3)to lock in arbitrage profits. 2. Revision of Certain Fair Value Measurement and Fair Value Option Information in the Call Report Effective for the March 31, 2007, report date, the banking agencies started collecting information on certain assets and liabilities measured at fair value on Call Report Schedule RC-Q, Financial Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value. Schedule RC-Q was intended to be consistent with the disclosure and other requirements contained in FAS 157 and FAS 159. Based on the banking agencies' review of initial industry practice and inquiries from banks, the agencies have determined that industry practice for preparing and reporting FAS 157 disclosures has evolved differently than the process for the information collected on Schedule RC-Q. This divergence has resulted in unnecessary burden and less transparency for the affected banks in two material respects. First, Schedule RC-Q does not allow banks to separately identify each of the three levels of fair value measurements prescribed by FAS 157. The banking agencies included Level 1 fair value measurements in the total fair value amount in column A of Schedule RC-Q as a means of minimizing reporting burden. However, the omission of a separate column on Schedule RC-Q for Level 1 fair value measurements has increased the time bank managements spend preparing and reviewing Schedule RC-Q because the fair value disclosures on Schedule RC-Q differ from those in the banks' other financial statements. Second, Schedule RC-Q does not allow banks to separately identify any amounts by which the gross fair values of assets and liabilities reported for Level 2 and 3 fair value measurements included in columns B and C have been offset (netted) in the determination of the total fair value reported on the Call Report balance sheet (Schedule RC), which is disclosed in column A of Schedule RC-Q. Based on a review of industry practice, these disclosures are commonly made in the banks' other financial statements. To reduce confusion related to the differences in industry practice and the Call Report, the banking agencies propose to add two columns to Schedule RC-Q to allow banks to report any netting adjustments and Level 1 fair value measurements separately in a manner consistent with industry practice. The new columns would be captioned column B, Amounts Netted in the Determination of Total Fair Value Reported on Schedule RC, and column C, Level 1 Fair Value Measurements. Existing column B, Level 2 Fair Value Measurements, and column C, Level 3 Fair Value Measurements, of Schedule RC-Q would be recaptioned as columns D and E, respectively. Column A would remain unchanged. The banking agencies have also given further consideration to the information that will be necessary to effectively assess the safety and soundness of banks that utilize the fair value option pursuant to FAS 159. Based on this assessment, the banking agencies propose to amend certain other Call Report schedules to improve the agencies' ability to make comparisons among entities that elect a fair value option and those that do not. The primary focus of these proposed changes is to enhance the information provided by banks that elect the fair value option for loans. The proposed changes are based on the principal objectives for disclosures and the required disclosures in FAS 159, which were intended to provide “information to enable users to understand the differences between fair value and contractual cash flows”' and to provide information “that would have been disclosed if the fair value option had not been elected.” Specifically, the banking agencies propose to add items to Schedule RC-C, part I, Loans and Leases, to collect data on the loans reported in this schedule that are measured at fair value under a fair value option:
(1)The fair value of such loans measured by major loan category,
(2)the unpaid principal balance of such loans by major loan category, and
(3)the aggregate amount of the difference between the fair value and the unpaid principal balance of such loans that is attributable
(a)to changes in the credit risk of the loan since its origination and
(b)to all other factors. Comments are invited on:
(1)The availability of information necessary to separately report the aggregate difference between fair value and the unpaid principal that is attributable to changes in credit risk since origination,
(2)the reliability of estimating the amount attributable to changes in credit risk since origination, and
(3)ways to minimize the burden of collecting information regarding the effect of changes in credit risk on the carrying amount of loans measured at fair value. Because Schedule RC-C, part I, provides data on loans held for investment and for sale, the banking agencies propose to add the same items to Schedule RC-D, Trading Assets and Liabilities, for loans measured at fair value under a fair value option that are designated as held for trading. The banking agencies also propose to add a new item to Schedule RC-D for “Other trading liabilities” in recognition of a bank's ability to elect to measure certain liabilities at fair value in accordance with FAS 159 and designate them as held for trading. The banking agencies propose to add two items to Schedule RC-N, Past Due and Nonaccrual Loans, Leases, and Other Assets, to collect data on the fair value and unpaid principal balance of loans measured at fair value under a fair value option that are past due or in nonaccrual status. The items would follow the existing three column breakdown on Schedule RC-N that banks utilize to report all other past due and nonaccrual loans. Since trading assets are not currently reported on Schedule RC-N, the banking agencies propose to add similar items to Schedule RC-D to collect the total fair value and unpaid principal balance of loans 90 days or more past due that are classified as trading. Finally, the banking agencies propose to add items to Schedule RI, Income Statement, to collect information on:
(1)Net gains (losses) recognized in earnings on assets that are reported at fair value under a fair value option;
(2)estimated net gains (losses) on loans attributable to changes in instrument-specific credit risk;
(3)net gains (losses) recognized in earnings on liabilities that are reported at fair value under a fair value option;
(4)estimated net gains (losses) on liabilities attributable to changes in the instrument-specific credit risk. 3. Other Revisions to the Call Report Information on Trading Assets and Liabilities Since 2000, the total trading assets reported by banks has increased approximately 124 percent to $682 billion or 7 percent of total industry assets as of March 31, 2007. In terms of concentrations, approximately 64 percent of total trading assets now are either reported in the category of “Trading assets held in foreign offices” (approximately 53 percent of total trading assets) or “Other trading assets in domestic offices” (approximately 11 percent of total trading assets). Schedule RC-D, Trading Assets and Liabilities, currently does not provide any specific detail on the trading assets held in foreign offices or other trading assets in domestic offices. This limits the banking agencies' ability to assess bank exposures to market, liquidity, credit, operational, and other risks posed by these assets. To appropriately assess the safety and soundness of banks with these exposures and banks with significant concentrations in trading assets, the banking agencies propose three revisions to Schedule RC-D. First, the banking agencies propose to eliminate the single line item for trading assets in foreign offices on the FFIEC 031 Call Report form and revise the schedule to include separate columns for the consolidated bank and for domestic offices. This will provide detail on the assets in foreign offices in a manner consistent with disclosures about trading assets throughout the bank. Second, the banking agencies propose to change the reporting threshold for Schedule RC-D. At present, a bank must complete Schedule RC-D each quarter during a calendar year if the bank reported a quarterly average for trading assets of $2 million or more in Schedule RC-K, item 7, for any quarter of the preceding calendar year. 5 As proposed, Schedule RC-D would be completed in any quarter when the quarterly average for trading assets was $2 million or more in any of the four preceding quarters. 6 This change will enable the banking agencies to more quickly and readily monitor the composition and risk exposures of the trading accounts of banks that become more significantly involved in trading activities. During 2006, 118 banks reported average trading assets of $2 million or more in any quarter of the year. 5 This same reporting threshold applies to Schedule RI, Memorandum item 8, in which banks report a breakdown of trading revenue by risk exposure, but the banking agencies are not proposing to change the threshold for this Memorandum item. 6 For example, if a bank reported a quarterly average for trading assets of $2 million or more for the first time in its March 31, 2008, Call Report, it would begin to complete Schedule RC-D in its June 30, 2008, Call Report. At present, the bank would not begin to complete Schedule RC-D until its March 31, 2009, Call Report. Third, the banking agencies propose to require banks with average trading assets of $1 billion or more in any of the four preceding quarters to provide additional detail on trading assets and liabilities currently included in the “other” trading asset and liability categories. These banks would provide additional breakouts for asset-backed securities by major category, collateralized debt obligations (both synthetic and non-synthetic), retained interests in securitizations, equity securities (both with and without readily determinable fair values), and loans held pending securitization. In addition, these banks would be required to provide a description of and report the fair value of any type of trading asset or liability in the “Other trading assets” and “Other trading liabilities” categories that is greater than $25,000 and exceeds 25 percent of the amount reported in that trading category. This threshold is comparable to the threshold that all banks use for providing additional detail on other assets and other liabilities reported in Schedules RC-F and RC-G, respectively. D. Reporting Credit Derivative Data for Risk-Based Capital Purposes in the Call Report Approximately 50 banks report that they have entered into credit derivative contracts either as a guarantor or beneficiary. For credit derivative contracts that are covered by the banking agencies' risk-based capital standards, the Call Report instructions require banks to report these credit derivatives in item 52, “All other off-balance sheet liabilities,” of Schedule RC-R, Regulatory Capital, unless the credit derivatives represent recourse arrangements or direct credit substitutes, which are reported in one of the preceding items in the Derivatives and Off-Balance Sheet Items section of the schedule. This reporting approach was developed to enable banks that sold credit protection and held the credit derivative to apply a 100 percent risk weight to the notional amount consistent with the risk-based capital treatment of standby letters of credit and guarantees. At present, Schedule RC-R, item 54, “Derivative contracts,” specifically excludes credit derivatives and does not include a 100 percent risk weight column because the maximum risk weight on the counterparty credit risk charge for other types of derivatives is 50 percent. However, this reporting approach does not consider that some credit derivative positions are subject to a counterparty credit risk charge, which is calculated for other derivative positions in item 54, even if the credit derivatives are held by a bank that is subject to the market risk capital rules. The banking agencies also understand that credit derivatives often are included in bilateral netting arrangements. When derivatives are subject to such an arrangement, the instructions to Schedule RC-R, item 54, permit a bank to report a net amount representing its exposure to a counterparty for all derivative transactions under the bilateral netting arrangement with that counterparty. However, by instructing a bank not to report its counterparty credit risk exposure for credit derivatives in Schedule RC-R, item 54, the banking agencies are, in effect, requiring the bank to separate its exposures resulting from credit derivatives from its net exposure to a counterparty. As a consequence, the bank is unable to recognize the netting benefit in its risk-based capital calculation. The banking agencies are proposing to modify the Call Report instructions for Schedule RC-R to allow the reporting of the credit equivalent amount of credit derivatives subject to the counterparty credit risk charge in item 54 of the schedule. In addition, the banking agencies would extend the existing 100 percent risk weight column in Schedule RC-R to item 54, “Derivative contracts.” E. Revision of Reporting Threshold for Other Noninterest Income and Other Noninterest Expense in the Call Report In 2001, the banking agencies changed the threshold for reporting detail on the components of “Other noninterest income,” included in Schedule RI, item 5.l, and “Other noninterest expense,” reported in Schedule RI, item 7.d, to require banks separately to disclose on Schedule RI-E, Explanations, the description and amount of any component included in other noninterest income and other noninterest expense that exceeded 1 percent of the sum of interest income and noninterest income. Since that time, the banking agencies have monitored bank disclosures of the types of noninterest income and noninterest expenses in excess of this threshold to assess the safety and soundness considerations associated with the changing sources of these income and expense streams. Based on this review, the banking agencies have determined that the current threshold does not provide sufficient information on the sources of bank noninterest income and noninterest expenses to adequately address their safety and soundness concerns. As a result, the banking agencies are proposing to change the threshold for reporting detail information on the components of other noninterest income and other noninterest expense. Prior to 2001, banks were required to separately disclose the description and amount of any item included in other noninterest income that exceeded 10 percent of other noninterest income and any item included in other noninterest expense that exceeded 10 percent of other noninterest expense. The banking agencies have determined that thresholds based on a percentage of other noninterest income and other noninterest expense are more relevant criteria for determining when a bank should provide more detail. The banking agencies propose to change the threshold to require banks to separately disclose the description and amount of any item included in other noninterest income that exceeds 3 percent of other noninterest income and any item included in other noninterest expense that exceeds 3 percent of other noninterest expense. This percentage is intended to initially result in a reporting threshold that is comparable to the current 1 percent of interest income plus noninterest income threshold. It is also expected to provide more relevant disclosures than the current threshold as the amounts reported in noninterest income and noninterest expense change over time. In addition, based on a review of recent bank disclosures of components of other noninterest income and other noninterest expense reported in Schedule RI-E, the banking agencies plan to add one new preprinted caption for other noninterest income and four new preprinted captions for other noninterest expense to help banks comply with the disclosure requirements. As with the existing preprinted captions for other noninterest income and other noninterest expense, banks are only required to use these descriptions and provide the amounts for these components when the amounts included in other noninterest income or other noninterest expense exceed the reporting threshold. The new preprinted other noninterest income caption is bank card/credit card interchange fees. The new preprinted noninterest expense captions are:
(1)Accounting and auditing expenses,
(2)consulting and advisory expenses,
(3)automated teller machine
(ATM)and interchange expenses, and
(4)telecommunications expenses. F. Reporting Brokered Time Deposits Participated Out by the Broker in the Call Report The banking agencies revised the instructions for Schedule RC-E, Memorandum items 2.b, “Total time deposits of less than $100,000,” and 2.c, “Total time deposits of $100,000 or more,” in March 2007. This was done so that brokered time deposits issued in denominations of $100,000 or more that are participated out by the broker in shares of less than $100,000 would be reported in the former rather than the latter Memorandum item. However, the banking agencies did not make a conforming instructional revision to Schedule RC-E, Memorandum items 1.c.(1) and 1.c.(2), on fully insured brokered deposits. This means that these participated brokered time deposits continue to be reported as brokered deposits of greater than $100,000 rather than brokered deposits of less than $100,000. Consistent reporting of these brokered time deposits across these Schedule RC-E Memorandum items is needed for purposes of measuring a bank's non-core liabilities. Therefore, the banking agencies are proposing to revise Schedule RC-E, Memorandum items 1.c.(1) and 1.c.(2), so that brokered time deposits issued in denominations of $100,000 or more that are participated out by the broker in shares of less than $100,000 are reported in Memorandum item 1.c.(1) as fully insured brokered deposits of less than $100,000. III. Discontinuance of Mailing of Call Report Forms and Instructions The banking agencies are planning to discontinue the mailing of report forms and instructions for the FFIEC 031 and FFIEC 041. In March 2006, the banking agencies advised banks that beginning in June 2006 they would no longer mail sample Call Report forms to banks each quarter. At that time, the agencies stated that they planned to mail sample forms to banks only in those quarters when significant revisions are made to the report forms. The banking agencies have continued to mail updates to the Call Report instruction book in those quarters when such updates have been issued. Based on their current practice, the banking agencies' next mailing would take place in March 2008. The Call Report forms and their instructions are available on the FFIEC's Web site ( *http://www.ffiec.gov/ffiec_report_forms.htm* ) and the FDIC's Web site ( *http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/resources/call/index.html* ) each quarter before any mailings of the paper forms and instructions are completed. A paper copy of the report forms and instructions can be printed from the Web sites. In addition, banks that use Call Report software generally can print paper copies of blank forms from their software. The banking agencies request comment on this issue. IV. Request for Comment Public comment is requested on all aspects of this joint notice. Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed revisions to the Call Report and TFR collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b)The accuracy of the agencies' estimates of the burden of the information collections as they are proposed to be revised, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)Ways to minimize the burden of information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Comments submitted in response to this joint notice will be shared among the agencies and will be summarized or included in the agencies' requests for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Dated: September 4, 2007. Stuart E. Feldstein, Assistant Director, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 5, 2007. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Board. Dated at Washington, DC, this 31st day of August, 2007. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary. Dated: August 30, 2007. Deborah Dakin, Senior Deputy Chief Counsel, Regulations and Legislation Division, Office of Thrift Supervision. [FR Doc. 07-4420 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 32
Traces to 32 documents
CFR
28 references not yet in our index
  • 36 CFR 212
  • 36 CFR 215.2
  • 36 CFR 215
  • 435 U.S. 519
  • 803 F.2d 1016
  • 490 F. Supp. 1334
  • 40 CFR 1503.3
  • 40 CFR 1501.7
  • 19 USC 81a-81u
  • 15 CFR 400
  • 115 F.3d 965
  • 117 F.3d 1401
  • 899 F.2d 1185
  • 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312
  • 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087
  • 243 F.3d 1301
  • Pub. L. 89-651
  • 15 CFR 301
  • Pub. L. 106-36
  • 72 CFR 46037
  • Pub. L. 94-409
  • 50 CFR 222
  • 50 CFR 216
  • 34 CFR 602
  • 10 CFR 1021.314
  • Pub. L. 107-107
  • 18 CFR 34
  • 12 CFR 327
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.415
C.F.R.§ 351.408
C.F.R.§ 351.301
C.F.R.§ 351.212
C.F.R.§ 351.224
C.F.R.§ 351.310
C.F.R.§ 351.309
C.F.R.§ 351.402
SCOTUS435 U.S. 519
F. App'x803 F.2d 1016
F. Supp.490 F. Supp. 1334
Cites 60 · 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.