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 · 2007-09-19 · Manti-La Sal National Forest, USDA Forest Service · Notices

Notices. Notice of proposed new fee sites

40,040 words·~182 min read·/register/2007/09/19/07-4643·

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 Notice of Proposed New Fee Sites; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108-447) AGENCY: Manti-La Sal National Forest, USDA Forest Service. ACTION: Notice of proposed new fee sites. SUMMARY: The Manti-La Sal National Forest is planning to charge fees at eleven recreation sites. All sites have recently been reconstructed or amenities added to improve services and experiences. Fees are assessed based on the level of amenities and services provided, cost of operation and maintenance, market assessment, and public comment.
The fees listed are only proposed and will be determined upon further analysis and public comment. Funds from fees would be used for the continued operation and maintenance of these sites. Indian Creek Guard Station and Seeley Guard Station will be available for overnight rental. A financial analysis is being completed to determine the rental fee but may range between $30 and $50 per night. Guard Stations rentals offer a unique experience and are a widely popular offering on National Forests.
These Guard Stations have recently been restored. Fees would continue to help protect and maintain the Guard Stations. The Manti-La Sal National Forest is proposing to charge a fee of $5 per vehicle per night at Twin Reservoir Fishing/Camping and an overnight fee of $5 per site at Mason Draw Campground, Oowah Lake Campground and Sand Flats Camping Area (Maloy Park). A $7 overnight fee per site is proposed at Fish Creek Campground and Trailhead. These sites are eligible under the Recreation Fee Enhancement Act to collect fees for continued operation and maintenance.
A financial analysis is being completed to determine fee rates. DATES: New fees would begin after April 2008 once a final decision is made and is listed with the National Reservation Service. ADDRESSES: Rod Player, Acting Forest Supervisor, Manti-La Sal National Forest, 599 West Price River Drive, Price, UT 84501. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann King, Public Service Staff Officer, 435-636-3535. Information about proposed fees is posted at the individual campgrounds. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VIII, Pub. L. 198-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the **Federal Register** whenever new recreation fee areas are established. This new fee will be reviewed by the Regional Recreation Fee Board and by the Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation. Dated: September 6, 2007. Rod Player, Acting Supervisor, Manti-La Sal National Forest . [FR Doc.
E7-18402 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Information Collection Activity; Comment Request AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended), the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency delivering the United States Department of Agriculture's
(USDA)Rural Development Utilities Programs, hereinafter referred to as Rural Development and/or the Agency, invites comments on this information collection for which Rural Development intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by November 19, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele L. Brooks, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, USDA Rural Development, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., STOP 1522, Room 5159 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone:
(202)720-0784 FAX:
(202)720-8435. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB)regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that the Agency is submitting to OMB for extension. Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will 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 those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Michele L. Brooks, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, USDA Rural Development, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., STOP 1522, Room 5159 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone:
(202)690-1078, FAX:
(202)720-8435. *Title:* 7 CFR Part 1783, “Revolving Fund Program”. *OMB Control Number:* 0572-0138. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* Rural Development supports the sound development of rural communities and the growth of our economy without endangering the environment. Rural Development provides financial and technical assistance to help communities bring safe drinking water and sanitary, environmentally sound waste disposal facilities to rural Americans in greatest need. The Revolving Fund Program
(RFP)has been established to assist communities with water or wastewater systems. Qualified private non-profit organizations will receive RFP grant funds to establish a lending program for eligible entities. Eligible entities for the revolving loan fund will be the same entities eligible to obtain a loan, loan guarantee, or grant from Rural Development Water and Waste Disposal and Wastewater loan and grant programs. As grant recipients, the non-profit organizations will set up a revolving loan fund to provide loans to finance predevelopment costs of water or wastewater projects, or short-term small capital projects not part of the regular operation and maintenance of current water and wastewater systems. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 8.24 hour per response. *Respondents:* Non-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 5. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 7.6 *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 313 Hours. Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Gale Richardson, Management Analyst, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at
(202)720-0992; FAX:
(202)720-8435. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Dated: September 12, 2007. Curtis M. Anderson, Deputy Administrator, Rural Utilities Service. [FR Doc. E7-18384 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service East Kentucky Power Cooperative: Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of finding of no significant impact. SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency delivering the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA)Rural Development Utilities Programs, hereinafter referred to as Rural Development, has made a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) with respect to a request for possible financing assistance to East Kentucky Power Cooperative
(EKPC)for the construction of two new Smith Station combustion turbine electric generating units (CTs), two new electric switching stations, and the 36-mile, Smith-West Garrard 345 kilovolt
(kV)electric transmission line located in Clark, Madison, and Garrard Counties, Kentucky (Proposal). ADDRESSES: The Environmental Assessment
(EA)and FONSI are available for public review at USDA Rural Development, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1571; and at EKPC's headquarters office located at 4775 Lexington Road, Winchester, Kentucky 40391. To obtain copies of the EA, or for further information, contact: Stephanie Strength, Environmental Protection Specialist, USDA, Rural Development, Utilities Programs, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 1571 Washington, DC 20250-1571, Telephone:
(202)720-0468 or e-mail: *stephanie.strength@wdc.usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EKPC proposes to construct 2 new CTs at EKPC's existing J. K. Smith Electric Generating Station in southern Clark County, Kentucky. The proposed CTs would be fueled by natural gas and would each have a net electrical output of between 82 and 98 megawatts. The proposed new units are needed to provide additional electric generating capacity that would allow EKPC to meet its projected electrical peaking demand for 2009-2011. The Proposal also includes the construction of 2 new electric switching stations, 1 at its existing J. K. Smith Generating Station (utilizing approximately 8 acres) and 1 in western Garrard County, Kentucky (disturbing between 5 and 10 acres), and a 36-mile, 345-kV electric transmission line (on a 150-foot right-of-way) that would extend through Clark, Madison, and Garrard Counties, Kentucky. The proposed new transmission facilities are needed to provide an outlet for the additional electric power that would be generated at the J. K. Smith Generating Station as a result of the installation of the proposed new CTs. The new transmission line would be supported by vertical H-frame steel pole structures that would range in height from 90 to 130 feet above ground. The construction of the Proposal is tentatively scheduled to begin in the fall of 2007 with estimated construction duration of 2 years. Alternatives considered by Rural Development and EKPC include:
(a)No action,
(b)alternative generation technology,
(c)alternative transmission improvements,
(d)alternative sites, and
(e)alternate transmission line corridors. The alternatives are discussed in the Smith Station CT Units 9 & 10 and the Smith-West Garrard Transmission Line Project Environmental Report (ER). Rural Development has accepted the ER as its EA for the proposed project. Rural Development held an agency meeting and a public scoping meeting in an open house format on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 in Richmond, Kentucky. Approximately 22 people attended the meeting. EKPC held 2 additional public open houses, and, as a result of the 3 meetings, 117 comments were received. The comments were subsequently addressed in the EA. The notice of availability of the EA for public review was published in the **Federal Register** Vol. 72, No. 122, Tuesday, June 26, 2007, and was also published in the local papers *Lexington Herald Leader* , Lexington, Kentucky; *Richmond Register* , Richmond, KY; *Garrard Central Record* , Lancaster, KY; and the *Winchester Sun* , Winchester, Kentucky. The EA was distributed for public and agency review. The 30-day comment period on the EA ended July 26, 2007. Comments were received from 2 parties and the concerns were addressed. Rural Development has determined that the Proposal will have no significant impact to water quality, wetlands, the 100-year floodplain, land use, aesthetics, transportation, or human health and safety. The Proposal will have an adverse effect on 1 historic property eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and 1 currently listed historic property. Mitigation measures for the Proposal are stipulated in a Memorandum of Agreement signed on July 23, 2007 by Rural Development, the Kentucky State Historic Preservation Officer, and EKPC. Rural Development has also concluded that the Proposal is not likely to affect federally listed threatened and endangered species or designated critical habitat. The Proposal will not disproportionately affect minority and/or low-income populations. No other potential significant impacts resulting from the Proposal have been identified. Therefore, Rural Development has determined that this finding of no significant impact fulfills its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), and USDA Rural Development's Environmental Policies and Procedures (7 CFR Part 1794). Since Rural Development's Federal action would not result in significant impacts to the quality of the human environment, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared for its action related to the Proposal. Dated: September 13, 2007. James R. Newby, Assistant Administrator, Electric Programs, Rural Utilities Service. [FR Doc. E7-18385 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economics and Statistics Administration Bureau of Economic Analysis Advisory Committee AGENCY: Bureau of Economic Analysis. ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463 as amended by Pub. L. 94-409, Pub. L. 96-523, Pub. L. 97-375 and Pub. L. 105-153), we are announcing a meeting of the Bureau of Economic Analysis Advisory Committee. The meeting's agenda focuses on prototypes estimates of quarterly GDP by industry and GDP by metro area, aspects involved with measuring R&D by industry and the treatment of exports and imports of R&D and intellectual property. In addition, there will be discussion of the bureau's long term plans. DATE: Friday, November 2, 2007, the meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and adjourn at approximately 3:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Bureau of Economic Analysis at 1441 L St. NW., Washington DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Wehausen, Communications Program Analyst, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; telephone number:
(202)606-9687. *Public Participation:* This meeting is open to the public. Because of security procedures, anyone planning to attend the meeting must contact Robert Wehausen of BEA at
(202)606-9687 in advance. The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for foreign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Robert Wehausen at
(202)606-9687. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee was established September 2, 1999. The Committee advises the Director of BEA on matters related to the development and improvement of BEA's national, regional, industry, and international economic accounts, especially in areas of new and rapidly growing economic activities arising from innovative and advancing technologies, and provides recommendations from the perspectives of the economics profession, business, and government. This will be the Committee's sixteenth meeting. Dated: September 12, 2007. J. Steven Landefeld, Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis. [FR Doc. E7-18453 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-06-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-552-801] Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”). *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,* 68 FR 47909 (August 12, 2003) (“ *Order* ”). We preliminarily find that QVD Food Company Ltd. (“QVD”) sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (“NV”) during the period of review (“POR”), August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. We also preliminarily determine that East Sea Seafoods Joint Venture Co., Ltd. (“East Sea”) has not made sales in the United States at prices below normal value. We continue to find that certain frozen fish fillets produced during the expanded POR 1 by Lian Heng Investment Co., Ltd. and Lian Heng Trading Co., Ltd. (collectively “Lian Heng”) were made from Vietnamese-origin fish and therefore, are covered by this review. In addition, we are preliminarily rescinding the review for nine companies 2 which reported having no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We are also preliminarily rescinding the review for an affiliate of QVD, QVD Dong Thap Food Co., Ltd. (“QVD Dong Thap”), because QVD reported that QVD Dong Thap did not ship any subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 3 Finally, we continue to apply an adverse facts available rate of 80.88 percent to Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Products Import Export Company (“CATACO”) because it failed to respond to the Department's two quantity and value questionnaires. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific assessment rates are above *de minimis* . 1 Lian Heng has an expanded POR which covers the period October 22, 2004, through July 31, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews,* 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 2006) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). 2 The nine companies are: Ben Tre Forestry and Aquaproduct Import-Export Company (“FAQUIMEX”); Hung Vuong Co., Ltd.; Nam Viet Company Limited (“NAVICO”); Phu Thuan Company; Sadec Aquatic Products Import Enterprise (“DOCIFISH”); Thuan Hung Co., Ltd. (“Thuan Hung”); United Seafood Packers Co., Ltd.; Van Duc Foods Export Joint Stock Co.; Viet Hai Seafood Company Limited (“Vietnam Fish-One”). 3 *See* QVD's Separate-Rate Certification dated December 11, 2006. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 19, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Lai Robinson (Respondent East Sea), Michael Holton (Respondent QVD), and Paul Walker (Respondent Lian Heng), 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)482-3797,
(202)482-1324 and
(202)482-0413, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History General On August 1, 2006, the Department published a notice of an opportunity to request an administrative review of the *Order.* *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review,* 71 FR 43441 (August 1, 2006). On August 31, 2006, the Department received a request from the Catfish Farmers of America and individual U.S. catfish processors (collectively, “Petitioners”) for a review covering 51 exporters/ manufacturers. 4 Additionally, on August 31, 2006, the following four exporters/manufacturers separately requested a review: Cantho Import Export Seafood Joint Stock Company (“CASEAMEX”); East Sea; 5 QVD; and Vinh Hoan. 6 4 Petitioners requested a review on the following companies:
(1)Alphasea Co., Ltd. (“Alphasea”);
(2)An Giang Agriculture and Foods Import Export Company (“Afiex”);
(3)An Giang Agriculture Technology Service Company (“ANTESCO”);
(4)An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company (“Agifish”);
(5)An Lac Seafood Co., Ltd. (“An Lac”);
(6)ANHACO;
(7)Bamboo Food Co., Ltd.;
(8)Basa Co., Ltd.;
(9)FAQUIMEX;
(10)Binh Dinh Import Export Company (“Imex Binhdinh”);
(11)Blue Sky Co., Ltd.;
(12)Cam Ranh Seafood Processing Seaprodex Company (“Cam Ranh”);
(13)CATACO;
(14)Cantho Seafood Export (“CASEAFOOD”);
(15)Can Tho Animal Fishery Products Processing Export Enterprise (“Cafatex”);
(16)Da Nang Seaproducts Import-Export Corporation (“Da Nang”);
(17)Dragon Waves Frozen Food Factory Co. (“Dragon”);
(18)Duyen Hai Foodstuffs Processing Factory (“COSEAFEX”);
(19)Geologistics Ltd.;
(20)Gepimex 404 Company;
(21)Hai Thach Trading Services Co., Ltd.;
(22)Hai Vuong Co., Ltd.;
(23)Hung Vuong Co., Ltd.;
(24)Kien Giang Ltd.;
(25)Mekongfish Company (aka Mekong Fisheries Joint Stock Company) (“Mekonimex”);
(26)Nam Duong Co., Ltd. (aka KP Khanh Loi or Nam Duong Trading Co.);
(27)Nam Hai Co., Ltd.;
(28)NAVICO;
(29)Nhan Hoa Co., Ltd.;
(30)Phan Quan Trading Co., Ltd.;
(31)Phu Thanh Frozen Factory;
(32)Phu Thuan Company;
(33)Phuoc My Seafoods Processing Factory;
(34)Phuong Dong Seafood Co., Ltd.;
(35)Quang Dung Food Co., Ltd.;
(36)QVD;
(37)QVD Dong Thap;
(38)DOCIFISH;
(39)Thanh Viet Co. Ltd.;
(40)Thuan Hung;
(41)Tin Thinh Co. Ltd.;
(42)Tuan Anh Company Limited;
(43)United Seafood Packers Co., Ltd.;
(44)Van Duc Foods Export Joint Stock Co.;
(45)Vietnam Fish-One;
(46)Vinh Hiep Co., Ltd.;
(47)Vinh Hoan Company, Ltd. (“Vinh Hoan”);
(48)Vinh Long Import-Export Company (“Imex Cuu Long”);
(49)VN Seafoods Co., Ltd.; and (50-51) Lian Heng. 5 On August 31, 2006, East Sea also separately requested a new shipper review (“NSR”), but it withdrew its NSR request on November 13, 2006. The Department rescinded East Sea's NSR request on January 23, 2007. *See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,* 72 FR 2857 (January 23, 2007). 6 On August 29, 2006, H&N Foods International (“H&N”), a U.S.-based importer of the merchandise subject to this administrative review, also requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of H&N's entries of subject merchandise produced and exported by Vinh Hoan. On September 29, 2006, the Department initiated this antidumping duty administrative review covering all 53 companies. *See Initiation Notice* . At the request of Petitioners and pursuant to the Department's recent partial affirmative final determination of circumvention of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, we included Lian Heng, a Cambodian producer and reseller of the merchandise under review, in this proceeding with an expanded POR. *See Circumvention and Scope Inquiries on the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order, Partial Final Termination of Circumvention Inquiry and Final Rescission of Scope Inquiry,* 71 FR 38608 (July 7, 2006) (“ *Circumvention Inquiry* ”). *See, also, Initiation Notice* . Period of Review With the exception of Lian Heng, the POR is August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. In accordance with the *Circumvention Inquiry* , the POR for Lian Heng is October 22, 2004, through July 31, 2006. Quantity and Value (“Q&V”) Responses On October 12, 2006, the Department issued questionnaires requesting the total Q&V of subject merchandise exported to the United States during the POR to all 53 companies subject to the administrative review. In the same letter, the Department also provided information for respondents to submit a Separate-Rate Application or Separate-Rate Certification. 7 7 *See* Letter with Attachments from Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, to All Interested Parties (October 12, 2006). The Q&V questionnaire response was originally due on October 26, 2006. The due date for the Separate-Rate Application was December 11, 2006, and the due date for the Separate-Rate Certification was November 11, 2006. On October 25, 2006, Lian Heng submitted a letter to the Department arguing that it was inappropriate for Lian Heng to respond to the Q&V questionnaire response because its exports of frozen fish fillets are products of Cambodia, not Vietnam. On November 6, 2006, the Department instructed Lian Heng to separately identify the Q&V of those exports that were accompanied by a certificate and those that were not. Lian Heng submitted its Q&V response on November 17, 2006. On November 3, 2006, the Department issued a letter to all initiated companies who had not submitted a Q&V response granting them a second opportunity to submit the Q&V of any exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR by November 17, 2006. *See* Letter from Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, to All Interested Parties, Re: Second Opportunity to Respond to the Quantity and Value Questionnaire for Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (November 3, 2006). Between October 19, 2006, and November 17, 2006, the Department received Q&V questionnaire responses from the following 17 companies: Alphasea; Agifish; FAQUIMEX; Seaprodex Da Nang; East Sea; Hung Vuong Co., Ltd.; NAVICO; Phu Thuan Company; QVD; DOCIFISH; Thanh Viet Co. Ltd.; Thuan Hung; United Seafood Packers Co., Ltd.; Van Duc Foods Export Joint Stock Co.; Vietnam Fish-One; Vinh Hoan; and Lian Heng (which consists of Lian Heng Investment Co., Ltd., and Lian Heng Trading Co., Ltd.). Of the 17 companies, the following nine companies stated that they did not have sales, shipments, or entries of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR: FAQUIMEX; Hung Vuong Co., Ltd.; NAVICO; Phu Thuan Company; DOCIFISH; Thuan Hung; United Seafood Packers Co., Ltd.; Van Duc Foods Export Joint Stock Co.; and Vietnam Fish-One. Between November 8, 2006, and December 11, 2006, the Department received Separate-Rate Certifications from the following five companies: Agifish; QVD; Da Nang; Thuan Hung; and Vinh Hoan, and a Separate-Rate Application from East Sea. In its letter dated December 11, 2006, Lian Heng indicated that it would not respond to the Separate-Rate Application/Certification in this proceeding because it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. On November 22, 2006, the Department issued a letter to Alphasea rejecting its Q&V response due to a filing deficiency and instructed it to resubmit its Q&V questionnaire response by December 1, 2006. *See* Letter from Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, to Day N. Ton, Alphasea Co., Ltd., Re: Third Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (November 22, 2006). Alphasea resubmitted its Q&V questionnaire response on December 1, 2006. Withdrawal Requests and Partial Rescission On October 25, 2006, CASEAMEX withdrew its request for an administrative review. On December 8, 2006, Vinh Hoan withdrew its request for an administrative review. On December 26, 2006, H&N withdrew its request for the review of its entries of subject merchandise produced and exported by Vinh Hoan. Also on December 26, 2006, Petitioners withdrew their request for 37 exporters/manufacturers. 8 Additionally, on December 27, 2006, Petitioners withdrew their review request for QVD. However, QVD still has an active review request. 8 The 37 companies are: Alphasea; Afiex; ANTESCO; Agifish; An Lac; ANHACO; Bamboo Food Co., Ltd.; Basa Co., Ltd.; Imex Binhdinh; Blue Sky Co., Ltd.; Cam Ranh; CASEAFOOD; Cafatex; Da Nang; Dragon; COSEAFEX; Geologistics Ltd.; Gepimex 404 Company; Hai Thach Trading Services Co., Ltd.; Hai Vuong Co., Ltd.; Kien Giang Ltd.; Mekonimex; Nam Duong Co., Ltd.; Nam Hai Co., Ltd.; Nhan Hoa Co., Ltd.; Phan Quan Trading Co., Ltd.; Phu Thanh Frozen Factory; Phuoc My Seafoods Processing Factory; Phuong Dong Seafood Co., Ltd.; Quang Dung Food Co., Ltd.; Thanh Viet Co. Ltd.; Tin Thinh Co. Ltd.; Tuan Anh Company Limited; Vinh Hiep Co., Ltd.; Vinh Hoan; Imex Cuu Long; and VN Seafoods Co., Ltd. On March 12, 2007, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we rescinded the administrative review with respect to 38 companies. *See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial Rescission and Notice of Intent to Rescind, in Part, and Partial Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 10981 (March 12, 2007) (“ *Partial Rescission and Extension of Preliminary Results* ”). Therefore, this review covers 15 producers/exporters 9 of the subject merchandise and the Vietnam-wide entity. 9 *See* “Preliminary Partial Rescission of No-Shipment Companies and QVD Dong Thap” section below. Respondent Selection On December 26, 2006, Petitioners submitted comments regarding respondent selection. Specifically, Petitioners requested that the Department conduct a review of the entries of subject merchandise during the POR for the remaining 15 companies. On January 5, 2007, the Department issued a letter to all interested parties informing them of its decision to select the two largest of the remaining 15 exporters/producers of subject merchandise during the POR as mandatory respondents: East Sea and QVD. Although the Department did not select Lian Heng as a mandatory respondent in this review, because of its claim that its U.S. exports were not harvested in Vietnam, the Department sent Lian Heng a questionnaire regarding its reported Q&V. For the other 12 remaining companies, *see* “Preliminary Partial Rescission of No-Shipment Companies and QVD Dong Thap” section, and “Application of Adverse Facts Available (“AFA”)” section (“CATACO” subsection) below. Mandatory Respondents and Lian Heng On January 12, 2007, the Department issued the standard non-market economy questionnaires to East Sea and QVD. On January 17, 2007, the Department issued a “no shipment questionnaire” to Lian Heng requesting additional information regarding its shipments to the United States. 1. East Sea On January 24, 2007, East Sea requested a one-week extension until February 8, 2007, to submit its original section A questionnaire response. On January 29, 2007, the Department granted East Sea the extension, and East Sea submitted its original section A questionnaire response on February 8, 2007. On February 12, 2007, East Sea submitted a letter requesting a nineteen-day extension to submit its original sections C and D questionnaire response. On February 15, 2007, the Department granted East Sea a sixteen-day extension from February 18, 2007, to March 6, 2007. East Sea submitted its original sections C and D questionnaire response on March 6, 2007. On March 23, 2007, Petitioners submitted its comments on East Sea's original sections A, C and D questionnaire responses. On April 3, 2007, the Department issued its first sections A, C and D supplemental questionnaire to East Sea. On April 13, 2007, East Sea requested a two-week extension to respond to the Department's first sections A, C and D supplemental questionnaire. On April 19, 2007, the Department granted East Sea an eight-day extension until May 2, 2007. On April 27, 2007, East Sea requested a two-day extension to submit its first sections A, C and D supplemental questionnaire response. On April 30, 2007, the Department granted East Sea the extension, and East Sea submitted its first sections A, C and D supplemental questionnaire response on May 4, 2007. On June 13, 2007, the Department issued its second sections A, C and D supplemental questionnaire to East Sea. On June 20, 2007, East Sea requested a five-day extension to respond to the Department's second sections A, C and D supplemental questionnaire. The Department granted East Sea' request on June 22, 2007. On June 25 and 27, 2007, the Department issued its third and fourth sections A, C and D supplemental questionnaires, respectively, to East Sea. On July 2, 2007, East Sea requested a three-day extension to respond to the Department's second, third and fourth sections A, C and D supplemental questionnaires. On July 2, 2007, the Department granted East Sea a one-day extension to submit its second sections A, C and D supplemental questionnaire responses, and a three-day extension to submit the remaining second, third and fourth supplemental questionnaire responses. East Sea submitted its responses to the Department's second, third, and fourth supplemental questionnaires on July 3 and 5, 2007, accordingly. On August 14, 2007, Petitioners submitted pre-preliminary results comments with respect to East Sea. On August 20, 2007, East Sea submitted its rebuttal comments. 2. QVD On January 30, 2007, QVD requested a three-week extension to submit its original section A questionnaire response, which was due on February 2, 2007. On February 1, 2007, the Department granted QVD a ten-day extension until February 12, 2007, to submit its original section A questionnaire response. On February 12, 2007, QVD submitted its original section A questionnaire response. QVD also requested a four-week extension to submit its original sections C and D questionnaire response, which was due February 18, 2007. On February 15, 2007, the Department granted QVD an extension from February 18, 2007, to March 16, 2007. On March 2, 2007, QVD requested a one-week extension to submit its original section D questionnaire response. On March 6, 2007, Department granted QVD the extension. Also, on March 6, 2007, QVD submitted its original section C questionnaire response. On March 13, 2007, QVD submitted its original section D questionnaire response. On March 27, 2007, Petitioners submitted their comments on QVD's original sections A, C and D questionnaire responses, to which QVD filed a response on April 6, 2007. On May 8, 2007, the Department issued its first supplemental questionnaire (sections A, C and D) to QVD. On May 17, 2007, QVD requested a one-week extension to submit its first supplemental questionnaire response (sections A and C). On May 18, 2007, the Department granted QVD a one-week extension to submit its first supplemental questionnaire responses (sections A and C) to May, 29, 2007 and June 5, 2007, respectively. On May 29, 2007, the Department issued a revised version of its first sections A, C and D supplemental questionnaire since the Department had already considered several of QVD's affiliations with certain parties in the final results of the second administrative review of this case. The Department also extended the deadline for QVD's first section A supplemental questionnaire response to June 1, 2007. On May 29, 2007, QVD requested a one-week extension to submit its first section D supplemental questionnaire response. On May 31, 2007, the Department granted QVD the extension. On June 1, 2007, QVD submitted its first section A supplemental questionnaire response. On June 5, 2007, QVD submitted its first section A supplemental questionnaire response. On June 7, 2007, QVD requested a one week extension to submit its first section D supplemental questionnaire response. On June 8, 2007, the Department granted QVD the extension, and QVD submitted its first section D supplemental questionnaire response on June 12, 2007. On June 29, 2007, the Department issued a second sections C and D supplemental questionnaire to QVD. On July 11, 2007, QVD requested a one-week extension to submit its second sections C and D supplemental questionnaire response. On July 12, 2007, the Department granted QVD a three-day extension to submit its second section C supplemental questionnaire response and a one-week extension to submit its second section D supplemental questionnaire response to July 18, 2007, and July 20, 2007, respectively. On July 18 and 20, 2007, QVD submitted its second sections C and D supplemental questionnaire response, respectively. On August 6, 2007, Petitioners submit pre-preliminary results comments with respect to QVD, to which QVD submitted rebuttal comments on August 14, 2007. We issued a supplemental questionnaire on August 7, 2007, and QVD responded on August 14, 2007. 3. Lian Heng On November 17, 2006, Lian Heng submitted a Q&V response. On January 17, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire, which Lian Heng responded to on February 21, 2007. On January 17, 2007, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire, which Lian Heng responded to on May 11, 2007. Verification Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), we conducted a verification of Lian Heng from June 19, 2007, through June 22, 2007. See Memorandum to the file through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Paul Walker, Senior Analyst, Office 9: 3rd Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Verification of Lian Heng Trading Co., Ltd. Preliminary Partial Rescission of No-Shipment Companies and QVD Dong Thap No-Shipment Companies As noted above, after the withdrawal requests, there are 15 remaining companies: FAQUIMEX; CATACO; East Sea; Hung Vuong Co. Ltd.; NAVICO; Phu Thuan Company; QVD; QVD Dong Thap; DOCIFISH; Thuan Hung; United Seafood Packers Co., Ltd.; Van Duc Foods Export Joint Stock Co.; Vietnam Fish-One; and Lian Heng (which consists of Lian Heng Investment Co., Ltd and Lian Heng Trading Co., Ltd.). Nine of these 15 remaining companies reported in their Q&V questionnaire responses that they made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Our examination of shipment data from CBP for these nine companies confirmed that there were no entries of subject merchandise from them during the POR. Consequently, because there is no evidence on the record to indicate that these nine companies had sales of subject merchandise under this *Order* during the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to these nine respondents: FAQUIMEX; Hung Vuong Co., Ltd.; NAVICO; Phu Thuan Company; DOCIFISH; Thuan Hung; United Seafood Packers Co., Ltd.; Van Duc Foods Export Joint Stock Co.; and Vietnam Fish-One. QVD Dong Thap We are also preliminarily rescinding the review of QVD Dong Thap in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). QVD Dong Thap did not respond to the Department's first and second Q&V questionnaires dated October 12, 2006, and November 3, 2006, respectively. However, on December 11, 2006, QVD submitted a separate-rate certification in which it indicated that it had two affiliated entities 10 which were involved in the production of subject merchandise:
(1)QVD Dong Thap; and
(2)Thuan Hung. Moreover, QVD indicated that neither company exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 10 *See* “Affiliations” section above. Our examination of shipment data from CBP for QVD Dong Thap confirmed that there were no entries of subject merchandise from it during the POR. Consequently, because there is no evidence on the record to indicate that QVD Dong Thap had sales of subject merchandise under this *Order* during the POR, we are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to QVD Dong Thap. Based on withdrawals and subsequent rescissions, and the Department's preliminary determination to rescind the review with respect to an additional ten companies which reported having no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, five companies remain respondents in this review: East Sea; QVD; Lian Heng (which consists of Lian Heng Investment Co., Ltd. and Lian Heng Trading Co., Ltd.); and CATACO. Scope of the Order The product covered by this *Order* is frozen fish fillets, including regular, shank, and strip fillets and portions thereof, whether or not breaded or marinated, of the species *Pangasius Bocourti, Pangasius Hypophthalmus* (also known as *Pangasius Pangasius* ), and *Pangasius Micronemus.* Frozen fish fillets are lengthwise cuts of whole fish. The fillet products covered by the scope include boneless fillets with the belly flap intact (“regular” fillets), boneless fillets with the belly flap removed (“shank” fillets), boneless shank fillets cut into strips (“fillet strips/finger”), which include fillets cut into strips, chunks, blocks, skewers, or any other shape. Specifically excluded from the scope are frozen whole fish (whether or not dressed), frozen steaks, and frozen belly-flap nuggets. Frozen whole dressed fish are deheaded, skinned, and eviscerated. Steaks are bone-in, cross-section cuts of dressed fish. Nuggets are the belly-flaps. The subject merchandise will be hereinafter referred to as frozen “basa” and “tra” fillets, which are the Vietnamese common names for these species of fish. These products are classifiable under tariff article codes 1604.19.4000, 11 1604.19.5000, 12 0305.59.4000, 13 0304.29.6033 14 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species Pangasius including basa and tra) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). 15 This *Order* covers all frozen fish fillets meeting the above specification, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the *Order* is dispositive. 11 *See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Third Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number* , (March 1, 2007). This HTS went into effect on March 1, 2007. 12 *See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Third Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number* , (March 1, 2007). This HTS went into effect on March 1, 2007. 13 *See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Second Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number* , (February 2, 2007). This HTS went into effect on February 1, 2007. 14 *See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number* , (January 30, 2007). This HTS went into effect on February 1, 2007. 15 Until July 1, 2004, these products were classifiable under tariff article codes 0304.20.60.30 (Frozen Catfish Fillets), 0304.20.60.96 (Frozen Fish Fillets, NESOI), 0304.20.60.43 (Frozen Freshwater Fish Fillets) and 0304.20.60.57 (Frozen Sole Fillets) of the HTSUS. Until February 1, 2007, these products were classifiable under tariff article code 0304.20.60.33 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species *Pangasius* including basa and tra) of the HTSUS. Extension of Preliminary Results On March 12, 2007, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this review by 90 days, to August 1, 2007. *See Partial Rescission and Extension of Preliminary Results.* On July 26, 2007, the Department further extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this review by an additional 30 days, to August 31, 2007. *See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of the 3rd Administrative Review* , 72 FR 43235 (August 3, 2007). Application of Adverse Facts Available (“AFA”) Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”), provides that, if an interested party:
(A)Withholds information that has been requested by the Department;
(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and
(e)of the Act;
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party “promptly after receiving a request from {the Department} for information, notifies {the Department} that such party is unable to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner, together with a full explanation and suggested alternative form in which such party is able to submit the information,” the Department may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on that party. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If that person submits further information that continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not decline to consider information deemed “deficient” under section 782(d) if:
(1)The information is submitted by the established deadline;
(2)the information can be verified;
(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;
(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and
(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department “finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority or the Commission, the administering authority or the Commission * * *, in reaching the applicable determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.” *See also* , Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1 at 870 (1994). Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* SAA; *Mannesmannrohren-Werke AG* v. *United States* , 77 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (CIT 1999). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”), in *Nippon Steel Corporation* v. *United States* , 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“ *Nippon Steel* ”), provided an explanation of the “failure to act to the best of its ability” standard, stating that the ordinary meaning of “best” means “one's maximum effort,” and that the statutory mandate that a respondent act to the “best of its ability” requires the respondent to do the maximum it is able to do. *Id.* The CAFC acknowledged, however, that “deliberate concealment or inaccurate reporting” would certainly be sufficient to find that a respondent did not act to the best of its ability, although it indicated that inadequate responses to agency inquiries “would suffice” as well. *Id.* Compliance with the “best of the ability” standard is determined by assessing whether a respondent has put forth its maximum effort to provide the Department with full and complete answers to all inquiries in an investigation. *Id.* The CAFC further noted that while the standard does not require perfection and recognizes that mistakes sometimes occur, it does not condone inattentiveness, carelessness, or inadequate record keeping. *Id.* 1. Lian Heng For these preliminary results, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(B)(C) and
(D)of the Act, we have determined that the use of AFA is appropriate for exports of subject merchandise for a certain period from Lian Heng. On July 7, 2006, the Department found that application of AFA to Lian Heng, pursuant to section 781(b)(1) of the Act, was appropriate. *See Circumvention Inquiry.* Specifically, the Department found that under section 781(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the frozen fish fillets exported to the United States by Lian Heng were the same class or kind of merchandise subject to the *Order.* In addition, the Department found that under sections 781(b)(1), (2), and
(3)of the Act, Lian Heng circumvented the *Order* by importing Vietnamese-origin whole live fish into Cambodia, where it was subsequently processed and completed into frozen fish fillets for export to the United States. Thus, pursuant to section 781(b) of the Act, frozen fish fillets processed in Cambodia by Lian Heng from Vietnamese-origin whole, live fish for export to the United States were included in the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. *Id.* Furthermore, the Department found that, under section 781(b)(1)(D) of the Act, based on Petitioners' record evidence, and as AFA due to Lian Heng's failure to provide data that could be verified, the value of the Vietnamese-origin whole, live fish is significant compared to the value of the frozen fish fillets. *Id.* Therefore, pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(E) of the Act, the Department determined that it was appropriate and necessary to take action to prevent Lian Heng from circumventing the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. *Id.* In its determination in the *Circumvention Inquiry* , the Department also stated that, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, the Department would continue to direct CBP to suspend liquidation and to require a cash deposit of estimated duties, at the Vietnam-wide rate, on all unliquidated entries of frozen fish fillets produced by Lian Heng that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from October 22, 2004, the date of initiation of the circumvention inquiry, through July 15, 2005. However, for all entries of frozen fish fillets produced by Lian Heng entered on or after July 16, 2005, the Department would direct CBP to allow Lian Heng to certify that no Vietnamese-origin fish was used in the production of the frozen fish fillets. For any entries of frozen fish fillets accompanied by such certification, CBP would not be requested to suspend liquidation, or require a cash deposit of estimated duties at the Vietnam-wide rate. Without such certification, however, CBP would be requested to suspend liquidation the entries of frozen fish fillets and to require a cash deposit of estimated duties, at the Vietnam-wide rate of 63.88 percent. *See Circumvention Inquiry.* i. Period 1: October 22, 2004 through July 31, 2005 During the course of this review and at verification, Lian Heng was unable to provide verifiable data supporting the country of origin of the whole fish used in its production of frozen fish fillets for the time period October 22, 2004 through July 31, 2005 (“Period 1”). At verification, the Department examined Lian Heng's Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point 16 program documents, and other records Lian Heng maintained in its normal course of business supporting its whole fish country of origin. 16 Details regarding this program can be found at *http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/lrd/haccp.html.* With respect to the frozen fish fillets produced by Lian Heng during Period 1, because Lian Heng was unable, throughout the course of this review, to provide data to support the country of origin of the fish used in its production of frozen fish fillets, the Department finds that Lian Heng failed to provide the information in a timely manner and in the form requested and significantly impeded this proceeding, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(B) and
(C)of the Act. Furthermore, Lian Heng's data regarding the country of origin of its whole fish consumption during Period 1 could not be supported at verification. By Lian Heng providing export data which could not be affirmed at verification regarding the country of origin of its whole fish consumption during Period 1, the Department also finds that the application of facts available is warranted, in accordance with 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for these preliminary results, with respect to the frozen fish fillets produced by Lian Heng for Period 1, the Department determines that it is appropriate to use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(B),
(C)and
(D)of the Act. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of that party as facts otherwise available. An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on the record. *See* section 776(b) of the Act. For these preliminary results, the Department finds that Lian Heng has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Specifically, the Department finds that Lian Heng claimed that the whole fish it purchased and used in its production of frozen fish fillets for Period 1 were not from Vietnam, but it could not provide verifiable data at verification to support its claim regarding the country of origin of the purchased whole fish at issue. Thus, the Department finds that Lian Heng “deliberately concealed or inaccurately reported” the country of origin for its purchased whole fish during Period 1 and, therefore, Lian Heng did not put forth its maximum effort to provide the Department with full and complete answers to all inquiries in this proceeding. Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act and *Nippon Steel* , the Department finds that Lian Heng did not act to the best of its ability. Because Lian Heng asserted in its Q&V questionnaire response that it had no sales of subject merchandise during Period 1, it did not report its U.S. sales or factors of production information. Because Lian Heng was not able at verification to demonstrate that its sales in Period 1 were not subject merchandise, the Department has once again determined as AFA that these sales are of subject merchandise for which a dumping margin must be determined. In the absence of Lian Heng's sales data, and Lian Heng's failure to cooperate to the best of its ability, the Department is forced to resort to AFA. As AFA, the Department has selected the rate of 63.88 percent established in the investigation of this *Order.* This rate was the highest margin calculated based on the information in the petition adjusted by the Department to be used as the AFA rate and applied to the Vietnam-wide entity in the investigation. *See Notice of Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003) (“ *FFF Final Results* ”). *See* , *also* , Memorandum to Edward C. Yang, Director, Office IX, AD/CVD Enforcement III, through James C. Doyle, Program Manager, Office IX, from Alex Villanueva, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Subject: Preliminary Determination in the Investigation of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”)—Corroboration Memorandum, dated January 24, 2003 (“Investigation Corroboration Memo”). Since this is secondary information, section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts available. Secondary information is defined 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* SAA at 870 and 19 CFR 351.308(d). The SAA further provides that the term “corroborate” means 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. During the original investigation of this case, we found that the information supplied by Petitioners was reliable and relevant because it was based upon information from public sources including government publications regarding the processing of live fish into fish fillets from Vietnam. In addition, Petitioners provided information from Agifish, the largest fish fillets exporter from Vietnam, which the Department verified in the underlying investigation as well as information used by the International Trade Commission in making its final injury determination. In this review, we found that this rate (63.88 percent) falls below the highest calculated transaction-specific dumping margin of one of the mandatory respondents, and thus within the range of margins in this review. *See* Memorandum to File, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Cindy Lai Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Subject: Corroboration of the Adverse Facts Available Rate for the Preliminary Results in the 3rd Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“AR3 Coroboration Memo”), dated August 31, 2007. In the absence of contrary evidence, the Department continues to find the information relevant and reliable. This rate was also selected as an AFA rate in the first and the second reviews of this case. *See FFF Final Results. See* , *also* , *Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the First Administrative Review* , 71 FR 14170 (March 21, 2006) (“ *FFF1 Final Results* ”); *Notice of Final Results of the Second Administrative Review: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets and Socialist Republic of Vietnam,* 72 FR 13242 (March 21, 2007) (“ *FFF2 Final Results* ”); and *Investigation Corroboration Memo.* As this rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value, and is thus in accordance with section 776(c), requiring that secondary information be corroborated to the extend practicable ( *i.e.* , that it has probative value). ii. Period 2: August 1, 2005 Through July 31, 2006 For the frozen fish fillets produced by Lian Heng during August 1, 2005 through July 31, 2006 (“Period 2”), Lian Heng was able to demonstrate at verification that the origin of the whole fish Lian Heng used to produce fish fillets was from Cambodia. Accordingly, for Period 2, the Department will continue to allow Lian Heng to certify that no Vietnamese-origin fish was used in the production of the frozen fish fillets. For any entries of frozen fish fillets accompanied by such certification, CBP will continue to not suspend liquidation, or require a cash deposit of estimated duties. Without such certification, however, CBP will suspend liquidation the entries of frozen fish fillets and require a cash deposit of estimated duties, at Lian Heng's AFA rate of 63.88 percent. *See Circumvention Inquiry.* 2. CATACO For these preliminary results, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, we have determined to continue to apply the individual AFA rate of 80.88 percent to CATACO. On October 12, 2006, the Department sent CATACO a Q&V questionnaire with a response deadline of October 26, 2006. 17 CATACO did not respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire by October 26, 2006. On November 3, 2006, the Department granted CATACO a second opportunity and sent CATACO a second Q&V questionnaire with a new response deadline of November 17, 2006. In this letter, the Department also extended the Separate-Rate Certification deadline to coincide with the Separate-Rate Status Application deadline of December 11, 2006. 18 CATACO did not submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire by November 17, 2006, nor did it submit the Separate-Rate Certification/Application by December 11, 2006. 17 In this letter, the Department indicated that a full and accurate response to the Q&V questionnaire from all participating respondents was necessary to ensure that the Department had the requisite information to appropriately select mandatory respondents. The Department also stated that if a firm had no exports during the POR, it should submit a statement to that effect, or the Department may have to assign a margin based on AFA. In this letter, the Department further stated that if a firm wished to be considered for a separate rate, it must respond to the Q&V questionnaire as well as provide the Department's Separate-Rate Certification, or Separate-Rate Status Application, as appropriate, by the appropriate deadline. In other words, the Department will not give consideration to any Separate-Rate Status request made by parties that failed to respond to the Q&V questionnaire within the established deadlines. 18 In this letter, the Department reiterated that in order to receive consideration for a separate rate, a firm must respond to the Q&V questionnaire in addition to providing the Department's Separate-Rate Certification, or Separate-Rate Status Application. Moreover, the Department stated that if a firm failed to cooperate with the Department by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the requested information, the Department may use information that is adverse to the company's interest in conducting its analysis. Despite the fact that CATACO was given two opportunities to submit its Q&V questionnaire response and Separate-Rate Certification/Application, CATACO did not respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire, nor did it submit a Separate-Rate Certification/Application. 19 Furthermore, at no point in the administrative review did CATACO submit comments regarding its status in this proceeding. Based upon CATACO's refusal to submit any Q&V response and Separate-Rate Certification/Application, the Department finds that CATACO failed to provide the information in a timely manner and in the form requested and significantly impeded this proceeding, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(B) and
(C)of the Act. The Department explicitly stated that a full and accurate response to the Q&V Questionnaire from all participating respondents was needed to ensure that it had the requisite information to appropriately select mandatory respondents. Because CATACO failed to respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire, it significantly impeded this proceeding. Therefore, the application of facts available is warranted, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(B) and 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act. In addition, by failing to submit a Separate-Rate Certification/Application, CATACO failed to demonstrate an absence of government control with respect to its export operations. 19 For both Q&V letters sent out by the Department on October 12 and November 3, 2006, the Department did not receive any undeliverable notice from the mail carrier, FEDEX. For these preliminary results, the Department finds that the Vietnam-wide entity, including CATACO, has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability by its refusal to respond to the Department's two Q&V questionnaires, which was needed for purposes of selecting mandatory respondents in this review. Therefore, we are applying an adverse inference to the Vietnam-wide entity and CATACO 20 in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act. 20 As discussed in the “Separate Rates Determination” section below, because CATACO did not provide a Q&V response and a Separate-Rate Application/Certification, CATACO is not eligible for a separate rate. While it would be consistent with the Department's normal practice for CATACO to be subject to the same rate as all other exporters that are part of the Vietnam-wide entity, the Department determined, as AFA, it is appropriate to continue to apply CATACO's individual rate of 80.88 percent calculated in the first and the second administrative reviews of this *Order* to account for the the Department's prior findings regarding reimbursement. In the first administrative review of this *Order,* the Department found at the verification that CATACO had reimbursement agreements that had no expiration date with its importer(s) and therefore, the Department assigned to CATACO's sales of subject merchandise an individual rate of 80.88 percent as an AFA rate, based on the highest established rate on the record of that proceeding. *See FFF1 Final Results* at Comments 1 and 2. In addition, in that review, to ensure proper assessment, the Department adjusted the total volume of the examined sales for CATACO as outlined in the memorandum “Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”): Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Products Import Export Company (“CATACO”) Analysis for the Final Results of the Administrative Review,” dated March 13, 2006 (“CATACO Analysis Memo”). During the course of the second administrative review, CATACO withdrew from participation in the review. Because the agreements had no expiration date, as AFA, the Department presumed that CATACO's agreement to reimburse its importer(s) continued throughout the POR. *See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 71 FR 53387 (September 11, 2006). *See, also, FFF2 Final Results.* In this third administrative review, CATACO did not respond to the Department's two Q&V questionnaires dated October 12 and November 3, 2006, respectively. Consistent with the Department's findings in *FFF1 Final Results* and *FFF2 Final Results,* CATACO will continue to receive, as AFA, the individual rate of 80.88 percent, which is the highest established rate on the record of this proceeding ( *i.e.* , the Vietnam-wide rate plus an amount to account for the reimbursement). Therefore, inclusive in our adverse inference is a presumption that CATACO continued to reimburse antidumping duties during this POR. This AFA rate (80.88 percent) was calculated partly based on information in the investigation and partly based on information in the first administrative review. During the investigation, the Department calculated an AFA rate of 63.88 percent 21 based on the information in the petition. During the first administrative review, the Department determined that, based on its verification findings at CATACO, it is appropriate to add an amount to the Vietnam-wide rate ( *i.e.* , 63.88 percent) to account for CATACO's reimbursement. The 80.88 percent rate was applied to CATACO as an AFA rate in the first and second administrative reviews. *See FFF1 Final Results* and *FFF2 Final Results.* 21 As stated above in the “Lian Heng” section, this rate was also used as the Vietnam-wide rate in the investigation, and first and second administrative reviews. As explained in the “Lian Heng” section, above, the Department finds that the 63.88 percent AFA rate (and Vietnam-wide rate) calculated in the investigation is still relevant and reliable in this review. With respect to the reimbursement rate, the Department also finds it relevant and reliable because the Department found that CATACO's reimbursement scheme had no expiration date. Absent any evidence to the contrary, following the Department's past practice, the Department continues to find this rate relevant and reliable. *See VN Shrimp.* As both the Vietnam-wide rate and the reimbursement rate are both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value, and is thus in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, requiring that secondary information be corroborated to the extent practicable ( *i.e.* , that it has probative value). Non-Market Economy Country Status In every case conducted by the Department involving Vietnam, Vietnam has been treated as a non-market economy (“NME”) country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,* 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). *See, also, FFF2 Final Results.* None of the parties to this proceeding have contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated normal value (“NV”) in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries. Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values On February 8, 2007, the Department sent interested parties a letter requesting comments on surrogate country selection and information pertaining to valuing factors of production (“FOP”). On March 12, 2007, Petitioners requested a four-week extension and QVD requested a two-month extension of time to file comments on surrogate country selection, information to value FOPs, and submission of factual information. On March 14, 2007, the Department granted a six-week extension to all interested parties for submitting their comments, factual information, and information pertaining to valuing FOPs, to April 30, 2007. On April 13, 2007, East Sea requested a two-week extension for submitting surrogate country, surrogate values, and factual information. On April 19, 2007, the Department granted a full extension until May 14, 2007, to all interested parties for submitting their comments, factual information, and information pertaining to valuing FOPs. East Sea, QVD, and the Petitioners submitted surrogate country comments and surrogate value data between May 14, 2007, and June 4, 2007. On July 20, 2007, East Sea submitted pre-preliminary results of review comments on surrogate value data for certain packing materials. On July 27, 2007, Petitioners also submitted pre-preliminary results of review comments regarding certain surrogate value information. Separate Rates Determination Designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. *See* section 771(18)(C) of the Act. Accordingly, there is a rebuttable presumption that all companies within Vietnam are subject to government control and, thus, should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject to review in NME countries a single 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 exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country under the test established in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* (“Sparklers”), 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by the *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China,* 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ *Silicon Carbide* ”). A. 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; and
(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies. It is the Department's policy to evaluate separate rates questionnaire responses each time a respondent makes a separate rate claim, regardless of whether the respondent received a separate rate in the past. *See Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 63 FR 12440 (March 13, 1998). For these preliminary results, we only examined the Separate-Rate Certification/Application for the two mandatory companies, East Sea and QVD. 22 The evidence submitted by the two mandatory respondents includes business licenses, financial statements, and narrative information regarding government laws and regulations on corporate ownership, and the companies' operations and selection of management. The evidence provided by them supports a finding of a *de jure* absence of governmental control over their export activities. Thus, we believe that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of an absence of *de jure* government control based on:
(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the exporter's business license; and
(2)the legal authority on the record decentralizing control over the respondents. 22 As explained above, the Department is applying rate of 80.88 percent (the Vietnam-wide rate plus an amount to account for reimbursement) to CATACO in this review because CATACO failed to respond to the Department's Q&V Questionnaire and failed to submit Separate-Rate Application/Certification. Accordingly, CATACO is not eligible for a separate rate. As discussed above, Lian Heng, the third-country reseller in Cambodia, received a company-specific AFA rate of 63.88 percent of its sale of merchandise under review during Period 1 (October 22, 2004 through July 31, 2005), because it failed to provide verifiable information regarding the country of origin of its purchased whole fish input used to produce frozen fish fillets, in accordance with the Department's past practice. *See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China,* 69 FR 35312 (June 24, 2004) (the Department does not conduct further separaterates test for respondents wholly owned by companies outside the PRC). B. Absence of De Facto Control The absence of *de facto* governmental control over exports is based on whether a company:
(1)Sets its own export prices independent of the government and other exporters;
(2)retains the proceeds from its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses;
(3)has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and
(4)has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. *See Silicon Carbide,* 59 FR at 22587 and Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589; *see, also, Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China,* 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). In their questionnaire responses and Separate-Rate Certification and Separate-Rate Application, where applicable, QVD and East Sea submitted evidence indicating an absence of *de facto* governmental control over their export activities. Specifically, this evidence indicates that:
(1)Each company sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority;
(2)each company retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses;
(3)each company has a general manager, branch manager or division manager with the authority to negotiate and bind the company in an agreement;
(4)the general manager is selected by the board of directors or company employees, and the general manager appoints the deputy managers and the manager of each department; and
(5)there is no restriction on any of the companies use of export revenues. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that East Sea and QVD have established *prima facie* that they qualify for separate rates under the criteria established by *Silicon Carbide* and *Sparklers.* East Sea and QVD participated fully in this review and are receiving a preliminary antidumping duty rate of 0 percent and 14.59 percent, respectively. As noted above, Agifish, Da Nang, Thuan Hung, and Vinh Hoan have preliminarily been rescinded and therefore, they are not eligible for a separate rate. In addition, CATACO is not eligible for a separate rate because it failed to provide the information necessary to conduct a separate rate analysis and is receiving an AFA rate in this review. Surrogate Country When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most circumstances, on the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a surrogate market economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market economy countries that are:
(1)At a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and
(2)significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the “Normal Value” section below and in the Memorandum to the File through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9 from Paul Walker, Senior Analyst, Office 9: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results, August 31, 2007 (“Factor Valuation Memo”). As discussed in the “Separate Rates” section, above, the Department considers Vietnam to be an NME country. The Department has treated Vietnam as an NME country in all previous antidumping proceedings. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. None of the parties to this proceeding contested such treatment. Accordingly, we treated Vietnam as an NME country for purposes of this review and calculated NV, pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act, by valuing the FOPs in a surrogate country. The Department determined that Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka are countries comparable to Vietnam in terms of economic development. 23 Once it has identified economically comparable countries, the Department's practice is to select an appropriate surrogate country from the list based on the availability and reliability of data from the countries. *See Department Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process* (March 1, 2004). In this case, we have found that Bangladesh is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. We find Bangladesh to be a reliable source for surrogate values because Bangladesh is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and has publicly available and reliable data. *See* Memorandum to the File, through James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, Import Administration, and Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Michael Holton, Senior Analyst, Re: 3rd Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Selection of a Surrogate Country (August 31, 2007). Thus, we have selected Bangladesh as the primary surrogate country for this administrative review. However, in certain instances where Bangladeshi data was not available, we used data from Indian sources. 23 *See* Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, China/NME Group, Office 9: Antidumping Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets (“Frozen Fish”) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries (January 22, 2007). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in an antidumping administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. Affiliations Section 771(33) of the Act provides that: The following persons shall be considered to be ‘affiliated’ or ‘affiliated persons’:
(A)Members of a family, including brothers and sisters (whether by the whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal descendants.
(B)Any officer or director of an organization and such organization.
(C)Partners.
(D)Employer and employee.
(E)Any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, 5 percent or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of any organization and such organization.
(F)Two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, any person.
(G)Any person who controls any other person and such other person. Additionally, section 771(33) of the Act stipulates that: “For purposes of this paragraph, a person shall be considered to control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person.” East Sea Piazza's Seafood World, LLC. (“Piazza”) is a U.S. importer and reseller of seafood products. During the POR, Piazza imported, then resold, the subject merchandise which it purchased from East Sea to its unaffiliated customers. Piazza is also East Sea's principal owner. In addition, the President and a board member of East Sea was also employed as an operations consultant and acted as a manager for Piazza during seven months of the POR. Because Piazza directly owns, controls, and holds with power to vote, more than 5 percent of the outstanding shares of East Sea, Piazza and East Sea are affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act. In addition, because Piazza and East Sea share a common officer who is in a position to exercise control over both companies, the Department finds that Piazza and East Sea are affiliated, pursuant to section 771(33)(G) of the Act. Therefore, the Department based U.S. price on the constructed export price (“CEP”) for East Sea's sales through Piazza to its first unaffiliated U.S. customer. QVD In the final results of the second antidumping duty administrative review, the Department determined that QVD, QVD Dong Thap, Thuan Hung, and QVD Choi Moi Farming Cooperative (“QVD Choi Moi”) should be collapsed as a single entity pursuant to sections 771(33)(A), (B), (E), (F), and
(G)of the Act and 19 CFR 351.401(f). *See FFF2 Final Results; see, also,* Supplemental Questionnaire at Attachment II (Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Julia Hancock, International Trade Analyst, Office 9, Subject: 2nd Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Affiliation & Collapsing (“AR2 Affiliation & Collapsing Memo”), dated August 31, 2006) and Attachment III (referencing the *FFF2 Final Results I&D* ). The Department also determined that QVD USA LLC (“QVD USA”) is affiliated with QVD, QVD Dong Thap, Thuan Hung, and QVD Choi Moi, pursuant to sections 771(33)(A), (B), (E), (F), and
(G)of the Act. Therefore, the Department determined to calculate a CEP for QVD, QVD Dong Thap, Thuan Hung, QVD Choi Moi, and QVD USA's sales through QVD USA to its first unaffiliated U.S. customer. *See FFF2 Final Results. See, also,* Supplemental Questionnaire at Attachment III (referencing the *FFF2 Final Results I&D* ). In QVD's supplemental section A response, it stated that “{d}uring the {3rd administrative review} POR there were no changes in corporate structures of any of the QVD companies or affiliates. There were no changes from the 2nd administrative review in the capital structure, scope of operations, affiliations, production capacity, ownership or management.” *See* Section A Supplemental Questionnaire Response of QVD Food Co. (“SAQR1”) at 12, dated June 1, 2007. For these preliminary results, based on the information on the record of this proceeding, the Department continues to find that QVD, QVD Dong Thap, Thuan Hung and QVD Choi Moi should be collapsed and treated as a single entity. *See, e.g.,* FFF2 Final Results; *See, e.g.,* also, Supplemental Questionnaire at Attachment II ( *AR2 Affiliation & Collapsing Memo* ) and Attachment III ( *FFF2 Final Results I&D* ). See, also, SAQR1 at 12. Similarly, for these preliminary results, based on the information on the record of this proceeding, the Department continues to find that QVD and QVD USA are affiliated pursuant to sections 771(33)(A), (B), (E), (F), and
(G)of the Act. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise made by East Sea or QVD to the United States were at prices below NV, we compared each company's export price (“EP”) or CEP, where appropriate, to NV, as described below. East Sea: Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used the CEP methodology when the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser occurred after importation of the merchandise into the United States. In this instance, we calculated CEP for all East Sea's U.S. sales through its U.S. affiliate, Piazza, to unaffiliated U.S. customers. We made adjustments to the gross unit price for rebates, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling charges, international freight, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. customs duties. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including commissions, credit expenses, advertising expenses, indirect selling expenses, and inventory carrying costs. We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Where movement expenses were provided by NME-service providers or paid for in NME currency, we valued these services using either Bangladeshi or Indian surrogate values. *See* Memorandum to the File, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Paul Walker, Senior Analyst, Subject: 3rd Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”): Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results, (August 31, 2007) (“Surrogate Value Memo”). Where applicable, we used the actual reported expense for those movement expenses provided by market economy (“ME”) suppliers and paid for in ME currency. QVD: Export Price For QVD's EP sales, we used the EP methodology, pursuant to section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation and CEP was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on the free-on-board foreign port price to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. For this EP sale, we also deducted foreign inland freight, foreign cold storage, and international ocean freight from the starting price (or gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. QVD: Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used the CEP methodology when the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser occurred after importation of the merchandise into the United States. We calculated CEP for certain U.S. sales made by QVD through its U.S. affiliates to unaffiliated U.S. customers. For QVD's CEP sales, we made adjustments to the gross unit price for billing adjustments, rebates, foreign inland freight, international freight, foreign cold storage, U.S. marine insurance, U.S. inland freight, U.S. warehousing, U.S. inland insurance, other U.S. transportation expenses, and U.S. customs duties. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including commissions, credit expenses, advertising expenses, indirect selling expenses, inventory carry costs, and U.S. re-packing costs. We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Where movement expenses were provided by NME-service providers or paid for in NME currency, we valued these services using either Bangladeshi or Indian surrogate values. *See Surrogate Value Memo.* Where applicable, we used the actual reported expense for those movement expenses provided by ME suppliers and paid for in ME currency. Normal Value Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME, the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. Because information on the record does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value and no party has argued otherwise, we calculated NV based on FOPs reported by East Sea and QVD, pursuant to sections 773(c)(3) and
(4)of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). As the basis for NV, East Sea and QVD provided FOPs used in each of the stages for processing frozen fish fillets. QVD also reported that it is an integrated producer ( *i.e.* , it farms and processes the whole fish input). QVD provided its affiliated farm (Choi Moi)'s FOP information used in each of the production stages, from the fingerling stage to the frozen fish fillet processing stage, separately. Our general policy, consistent with section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act, is to value the FOPs that a respondent uses to produce the subject merchandise. If the NME respondent is an integrated producer, we take into account the factors utilized in each stage of the production process. For example, in a previous aquaculture case, one of the respondents, Zhanjiang Guolian, was a fully integrated firm, and the Department valued both the farming and processing FOPs because Zhanjiang Guolian bore all the costs related to growing the shrimp. *See Notice of Final Determination at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China,* 69 FR 70997 (December 8, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9(e). In this case, we are valuing those inputs reported by QVD that were used to produce the main input to the processing stage (whole fish) when calculating NV, whether they were farmed from Choi Moi or purchased by QVD. To calculate NV, we valued East Sea's and QVD's reported per-unit factor quantities using publicly available Bangladeshi, Indian, and Indonesian surrogate values. In selecting surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the available values. As appropriate, we adjusted the value of material inputs to account for delivery costs. Specifically, we added surrogate freight costs to surrogate values using the reported distances from the Vietnam port to the Vietnam factory, or from the domestic supplier to the factory, where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the CAFC in *Sigma Corp.* v. *United States,* 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For those values not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted for inflation using data published in the International Monetary Fund's *International Financial Statistics.* Import data from South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia were excluded from the surrogate country import data due to generally available export subsidies. *See China Nat'l Mach. Import & Export Corp.* v. *United States,* CIT 01-1114, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 2003), *aff'd* 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and *Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Notice of Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 70 FR 12651, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4 (March 15, 2005). Additionally, we excluded prices from NME countries and imports that were labeled as originating from an “unspecified” Asian country. The Department excluded these imports because it could not ascertain whether they were from either an NME country or a country with general export subsidies. We converted the surrogate values to U.S. dollars as appropriate, using the official exchange rate recorded on the dates of sale of subject merchandise in this case, obtained from Import Administration's website at *http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.* For further detail, *see Surrogate Values Memo.* Preliminary Results of the Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily find that the following margins exist for the period August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From Vietnam Manufacturer/exporter Weighted- average margin (percent) CATACO 80.88 East Sea 0 Lian Heng 24 63.88 QVD 14.59 Vietnam-wide Rate 25 63.88 Public Comment The Department will disclose to parties of this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within ten days of the date of announcement of the preliminary results. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties may submit written comments (case briefs) within 20 days of publication of the preliminary results and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument:
(1)A statement of the issue;
(2)a brief summary of the argument; and
(3)a table of authorities. Further, the Department requests that parties submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing the public version of those comments. Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results. The assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review and future deposits of estimated duties shall be based on the final results of this review. 24 This AFA rate is applied only to the merchandise under review exported by Lian Heng from October 22, 2004, through July 31, 2005, because it is considered to be produced from Vietnam-origin fish. *See* “Application of Adverse Facts Available” section above. 25 The Vietnam-wide rate includes all entries of frozen fish fillets of the species *Pangasius Bocourti, Pangasius Hypophthalmus* (also known as *Pangasius Pangasius* ), and *Pangasius Micronemus* produced by CATACO during the POR. As stated above in the “CATACO” section, CATACO continues to receive an AFA rate of 80.88 percent which is the Vietnam-wide rate plus an amount to account for reimbursement. Assessment Rates Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all appropriate entries. For the two mandatory respondents, East Sea and QVD, we will calculate importer-specific duty assessment rates on a per-unit basis. 26 Where the assessment rate is *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. For the respondents receiving dumping rates based upon AFA ( *i.e.* , CATACO, and Lian Heng for the period October 22, 2004, through July 31, 2005), the Department, upon completion of these reviews, will instruct CBP to liquidate entries for the POR as specified above in the “Period of Review” section of this notice pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP upon the completion of the final results of these administrative reviews. 26 We divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between NV and EP or CEP) for each importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise sold to that importer during the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment amount. We will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit ( *i.e.* , per-kilogram) rates by the weight in kilograms of each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. 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 that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or *de minimis* , no cash deposit will be required);
(2)for previously investigated or reviewed Vietnam and non-Vietnam 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 Vietnam exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the Vietnam-wide rate of 63.88 percent, and
(4)for all non-Vietnam exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Vietnam exporters that supplied that non-Vietnam exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Interested Parties This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. 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. We are issuing and publishing this determination 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. E7-18490 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments 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), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States. Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and
(4)of the regulations and be postmarked on or before October 9, 2007. Address written comments to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 2104, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Room 2104. *Docket Number: 07-059* . Applicant: Northwestern University, 633 Clark St., Evanston, IL 60208. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used by students at all levels of instruction, from academic courses to PhD candidates and will provide an analytical characterization instrumentation resource for hands-on microscope training and academic instruction. It will be used in courses such as microelectronic technology, mechanical engineering nanotechnology and for material science and engineering courses. The instrument will allow simultaneous FIB milling and SEM imaging. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: August 29, 2007. *Docket Number: 07-061.* Applicant: University of Pennsylvania, 415 South University Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19104. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model JEM-1011. Manufacturer: Jeol, Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used to investigate a broad range of biological samples, such as animal and plant tissues, eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells, subcellular organelles, macromolecular complexes and individual biomolecules. Electron microscopy is needed to obtain structural information of biological samples at a high resolution level. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: August 29, 2007. Faye Robinson, Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-18471 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Record of Decision for Restoration of Clear Zones and Stormwater Drainage Systems at Boca Chica Field, Naval Air Station, Key West, FL AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Notice of Record of Decision. SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy announces its decision to restore clear zones and stormwater drainage systems at Boca Chica Field, Naval Air Station, Key West, Florida. Restoration actions include a combination of controlled woody vegetation removal, salt marsh conversion, and future vegetation maintenance. Stormwater drainage system restoration includes the installation of aprons and wing walls on culverts and the replacement of several damaged undersized culverts. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jim Reed, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southeast (Code EVc2), 2155 Eagle Drive, North Charleston, SC 29406, telephone 843-820-5543. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the entire Record of Decision
(ROD)is provided as follows: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c), and the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality that implement NEPA procedures, Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)Title 40, Parts 1500-1508, the Department of the Navy
(Navy)announces its decision to restore the clear zones and stormwater drainage systems at Boca Chica Field, Naval Air Station Key West (NAS Key West). The proposed restoration activities will be accomplished as set out in Alternative 2, described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) as the Preferred Alternative. The Navy proposes to restore clear zones and stormwater drainage systems on Boca Chica Field to bring the airfield into compliance with Navy and Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)Safety Regulations. NAS Key West's primary mission is to provide pilot training facilities and services as well as access to superior airspace and training ranges for tactical aviation squadrons. As such, NAS Key West serves as the Navy's premier East Coast pilot training facility for tactical aviation squadrons. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to ensure the safety of flight operations at Boca Chica Field. The need for the Proposed Action is to ensure continued Department of Defense
(DoD)operation of Boca Chica Field through compliance with *Airfield Safety Clearances* (Naval Facilities P-80.3), *Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design* (Unified Facilities Criteria 3-260-01), and *Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace* (Federal Aviation Regulation 14 CFR Part 77). Because of the size and complexity of this action, the Navy will use a phased approach for the completion of this project, implementing it over several years and utilizing an adaptive management approach as the project goes forward. This phased approach will enable the Navy to incorporate lessons learned as the project evolves, and is consistent with natural resources management goals and objectives identified in the NAS Key West Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. The project involves both restoration and long-term maintenance that will be completed in various locations at Boca Chica Field. Maintenance measures include trimming and/or removal of vegetation that protrudes into vertically controlled airfield surfaces or that should not be present in laterally controlled surfaces, clearing and grubbing, grading, filling low areas, replanting select areas with native salt marsh vegetation, and supplemental improvements to drainage conditions. Restoration methods will include the use of hand-clearing or mechanized methods (i.e., traditional construction equipment or specialized equipment). Maintenance methods may include mowing, hand-clearing, and prescribed burning where feasible. Use of the adaptive management approach will allow the Navy to restore and maintain safety of flight conditions in a manner that also provides protection to the Lower Keys marsh rabbit
(LKMR)and minimizes impacts to wetland communities. The alternatives for analysis in the Final EIS were developed through a planning process and several internal Navy meetings involving pilots, airfield managers, public works, and environmental staff, as well as stakeholder meetings with the NAS Key West Natural Resources and Environmental Compliance Partnering Team (Partnering Team). The Partnering Team was created in order to protect and conserve the Florida Keys' natural resources, maintain environmental compliance, and enhance the Navy's ability to meet its mission critical objectives. Partnering Team members include representatives from the Navy, as well as from Federal, State, and local government agencies. Specifically, these include: NAS Key West; Commander Navy Region Southeast; Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southeast; United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary; Florida Department of Environmental Protection; Monroe County; and City of Key West. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), Florida Department of Community Affairs, South Florida Water Management District, and the U.S. Coast Guard are also part of this team, but are not core members. The Partnering Team will serve as an integral source of information prior to design and construction for each phase of the project. At the conclusion of each phase, the Partnering Team will discuss the effectiveness of the specific components of the project and provide suggestions and input relative to the success of each phase based on the proposed monitoring plans. The Partnering Team was briefed on the Proposed Action during NAS Key West Partnering Team meetings and their input and concerns were solicited. These meetings included discussions on vegetation and wildlife present within the airfield safety clearance zones, specific airfield safety criteria, airfield safety waivers, and the identification of selection criteria to be used to determine the full range of alternatives to be analyzed in the EIS. The Navy determined that the project alternatives would be evaluated based on the following criteria:
(1)Meets applicable airfield criteria for Class B runways to include permanent Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) waivers;
(2)minimizes disturbance to wetlands and threatened and endangered species and their habitats;
(3)is economically feasible; and
(4)minimizes the amount of off-site mitigation. Initially the Navy identified four action alternatives for bringing Boca Chica Field into compliance with Navy and FAA criteria. Two of the potential alternatives (fill areas within airfield clearance zones, and dredge and fill select areas within airfield clearance zones) were eliminated from further consideration as candidate alternatives because they did not fulfill all of the aforementioned alternative evaluation criteria. A Draft and Final EIS were prepared to assess the impacts of the remaining two alternatives. The comparative analysis of the two alternatives was accomplished by evaluating the impacts associated with each approach. The EIS also evaluated the No-Action Alternative, which involves the continued performance of routine airfield grounds maintenance in mowed areas and maintenance of drainage features adjacent to runways and taxiways. *Public Involvement:* Public involvement commenced with the scoping process in August 2004 that included publication in the **Federal Register** of a Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS and one scoping meeting to actively solicit input from the public, local governments, Federal and State agencies, and environmental groups. The Draft EIS was filed with the EPA on November 9, 2006, followed by an extended 60-day public comment period. A public hearing was held in December 2006 which provided an opportunity for the public to evaluate the proposal and analyses contained in the Draft EIS. The Final EIS was filed with the EPA on August 3, 2007, followed by a 30-day no action period to allow public review of the Final EIS. The Final EIS included identification of the Preferred Alternative, conservation measures to reduce environmental consequences, and public and agency comments on the Draft EIS as well as responses to those comments. *Alternatives Analyzed:* Two action alternatives were identified and carried forward for detailed analysis in the EIS. Alternative 1, Restoration of Original Clear Zones, would return the airfield condition as originally constructed, including removal of all vegetation within clear zones and restoring drainage and elevations to meet existing safety criteria. NAVAIR-issued waivers would not be required. Alternative 2, Restoration of Clear Zones to Meet Permanent Waivers, would provide vegetation and drainage maintenance to meet permanent safety criteria waivers issued by NAVAIR, and would include management and conservation activities such as the conversion of mangrove wetlands to salt marsh wetlands. Use of the permanent waivers allows the Alternative 2 project footprint to be substantially smaller than the Alternative 1 footprint. The Navy identified Alternative 2, Restoration of Clear Zones to meet Permanent Waivers, as its Preferred Alternative in the Draft and Final EIS. Under Alternative 2, restoration measures would be completed in clear zones to meet airfield safety clearance criteria taking into account the permanent waivers, and including the conversion of 37.59 acres of area within LKMR habitat to high quality salt marsh (preferred habitat of the LKMR) and other conservation measures. As a result, fewer environmental impacts would result under implementation of this alternative than from Alternative 1. The No-Action Alternative would have the least potential for adverse environmental consequences, and therefore is the environmentally preferred alternative. Implementation of the No-Action Alternative, however, would only solve site-specific safety concerns for a short duration and would ultimately be labor and cost prohibitive. Consequently, the purpose of the Proposed Action, to ensure the safety of flight operations at Boca Chica Field, while at a minimum complying with NAVAIR permanent waivers, would not be met. *Decision:* After considering the potential environmental consequences of both Alternatives 1 and 2, and the No-Action Alternative, the Navy has decided to implement the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, to restore clear zones and stormwater drainage systems on Boca Chica Field. *Environmental Consequences:* In the EIS, the Navy analyzed the environmental impacts that could occur as a result of implementing each of the alternatives, as well as the No-Action Alternative. Chapter 4 of the Final EIS provides a detailed discussion of impacts and mitigation measures. This ROD, however, will focus on the impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, Restoration of Clear Zones to Meet Permanent Waivers. The EIS analyzed environmental impacts and the potential magnitude of those impacts relative to nine categories of environmental resources: biological resources; Earth resources; water resources; air quality; noise; cultural resources; Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH); socioeconomics; and environmental contamination. The Preferred Alternative presents no significant impacts to air quality, noise, BASH, socioeconomics or environmental contamination. Therefore, no mitigation or conservation measures are offered in those areas. A discussion of those resource categories where the potential for significant impacts was identified, or that were the subject of substantial comments, follows. *Biological Resources:* Approximately 260 acres of total wetland communities would be affected by the proposed action under the Preferred Alternative. Woody vegetation that is incompatible with airfield operations and airfield safety would experience the greatest impact, and includes 132.6 acres of mangrove forest, 25.4 acres of scrub mangrove, 27 acres of buttonwoods, and 5 acres of freshwater hardwoods. Grassy salt marsh, low salt marsh, and freshwater marsh would experience minimal impacts overall. Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in no loss of wetland habitat within the project area. This will be accomplished through the conversion of mangrove wetlands to salt marsh wetlands. Effects to the 15 species listed (including one candidate species) under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA)that may occur or are known to occur at NAS Key West are addressed in the No Jeopardy Biological Opinion
(BO)issued by the USFWS on March 7, 2007. Two of the 15 species addressed are plant species, the Garber's spurge (a listed species), and the Blodgett's wild mercury (a candidate species). The USFWS concluded the Navy's Proposed Action would have “no effect” on either plant. The BO also addressed thirteen listed animal species that may occur or are known to occur in the vicinity of Boca Chica Field. Of these, the USFWS concluded the Navy's Proposed Action will have “no effect” on Eastern indigo snake, loggerhead sea turtle, green sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, Kemp's Ridley sea turtle, and Stock Island tree snail. The USFWS BO determined that the Navy's Proposed Action “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” Florida manatee, silver rice rat, bald eagle, roseate tern, and American crocodile. USFWS reached a determination of “may affect, likely to adversely affect” for the LKMR. In an Incidental Take Statement to the BO, the USFWS authorized incidental take of this species resulting from implementation of the Preferred Alternative. No significant adverse impacts to migratory birds or non-listed wildlife species are expected. Although there would be no net loss of wetland habitat with the conversion of mangrove wetland to salt marsh wetlands, the Preferred Alternative would result in the loss of 185.14 acres of mangrove habitat classified as Essential Fish Habitat. The Navy submitted an EFH Assessment in March of 2006 as part of consultation with NOAA Fisheries. NOAA Fisheries has provided programmatic comments on the overall project, noting they would continue to review and provide additional recommendations for each future phase of the project. The expanded consultation with NOAA Fisheries will continue through the remaining phases of the project. On March 30, 2007, NOAA Fisheries Protected Resources Division
(PRD)concluded consultation regarding the impacts to the smalltooth sawfish and sea turtles (the ESA-listed species that fall under NOAA Fisheries PRD's purview). Considering the Navy's commitment to conduct advance mitigation of mangrove habitat and complete the remainder of the mitigation concurrent with each phase of the proposed mangrove removal in areas that are accessible to smalltooth sawfish, NOAA Fisheries PRD believed that smalltooth sawfish in or near the project area would have available refuge habitat during and after project completion. Therefore, NOAA Fisheries PRD believed indirect effects on smalltooth sawfish due to habitat loss would be insignificant. NOAA Fisheries PRD concurred with the Navy's determination that the proposed activity is not likely to adversely affect any ESA-listed species under NOAA Fisheries PRD purview. *Mitigation and Conservation Measures:* Specific conservation measures have been identified for the following biological resources: Wetlands, the LKMR, EFH and the smalltooth sawfish. For wetlands, the following measures have been identified:
(1)Maintain permanent waivers at Boca Chica Field, which reduces the overall project footprint by 77.73 acres and reduces the effects to wetlands by 58.83 acres;
(2)no loss of wetland habitat including 37.59 acres of area within LKMR habitat to be converted to high quality salt marsh; and
(3)approximately 109 acres of select mangroves outside of LKMR habitat to be filled and converted to maintainable wetlands (e.g., salt marsh wetlands to be maintained by mowing, thereby retaining the hydrologic wetland function on Boca Chica Field while eliminating the flight hazard currently present on the airfield). For the LKMR, the following measures have been identified in addition to reducing the project footprint as described above:
(1)Retain and enhance LKMR habitat;
(2)utilize specialized equipment in select areas (i.e., customized or modified equipment that would minimize the amount of disturbance to the substrate, vegetation and wildlife);
(3)utilize hand-held equipment in some areas (with a focus on LKMR habitat) which will eliminate heavy machinery and vehicles from those areas, minimizing impacts to substrate and existing herbaceous vegetation, and reducing the potential for wildlife mortality due to vehicular traffic; and
(4)in total, convert 37.59 acres of area within LKMR habitat to high quality salt marsh vegetation planted to include species that are known to be preferred food sources of the LKMR, and that can be used as escape cover. Other wildlife found on Boca Chica Field would potentially utilize this marsh habitat as well, including shorebirds and small mammals. For EFH, the following conservation measures have been identified in addition to reduction in project footprint described above:
(1)In some areas where mangrove forests must be removed to meet airfield safety requirements, create high salt marsh which will retain wetland functions and provide episodic support for marine species during periods of inundation;
(2)several advanced mitigation projects are proposed on Big Coppitt Key and Geiger Key that will provide creation or enhancement of approximately 60 acres of mangrove habitat; and
(3)the Navy has agreed to trim within the transitional surface of the airfield clear zone in an area that will not pose a safety of flight issue (south of the Runway 25 approach), thereby reducing impacts to EFH by 2.47 acres. For the smalltooth sawfish, conservation measures previously listed for “wetlands” and “EFH” (including reduction of project footprint and trimming of 2.47 acres south of the Runway 25 approach) have been identified. These conservation measures, while created specifically for each of these biological resources, will be beneficial to all other biological resources found on Boca Chica Field, including, but not limited to, listed and non-listed wildlife and plant species, seagrasses, and migratory birds. *Earth Resources:* Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in moderate short-term adverse impacts to existing Earth resources (topography, geology and soil resources) during clearing, grading, grubbing, and dredging and filling activities. No geologic features would be impacted. The Preferred Alternative would result in the disturbance of greater than 1 acre of soil, requiring a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) *Generic Permit for Storm Water Discharge from Large Construction Activities, Florida Administrative* Code
(FAC)62-621.300(4)(a). Under the Preferred Alternative, the Navy would impact a total of 438.14 acres. This alternative would also use a combination of clearing and grading equipment and techniques to minimize soil disturbance within specific areas. *Mitigation and Conservation Measures:* Under the provisions of the Clean Water Act, the Navy would be required to apply for permits pursuant to sections 401 and 404. Prior to issuing its section 404 permit, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) would require the Navy to conduct turbidity and construction management and monitoring. Under the provisions of the NPDES permit, FAC 62-621.300(4)(a), the Navy would be required to complete a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to reduce pollution at the construction site. The SWPPP would be used to identify and implement Best Management Practices
(BMPs)and measures to minimize erosion and sedimentation and properly manage stormwater. BMPs include, but are not limited to: Turbidity screens, silt fences, sediment traps, and storm drain inlet protection. These same measures would be used in order to prevent potential impacts to water resources, as discussed below. *Water Resources:* Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in short-term minor adverse impacts on existing water resources (hydrology and water quality) during clearing, grading, and grubbing activities. No impacts on groundwater resources or floodplains would be expected. The Preferred Alternative would likely result in short-term erosion due to the removal of vegetation during clearing activities. As a result, loose sediments may migrate into local coastal waters via stormwater runoff, thereby increasing the potential for turbidity. The proposed phasing of the project would minimize the amount of impacts at any one time. Additionally, during any clearing activities the Navy would implement BMPs to reduce the turbidity associated with this project. Over the long-term, the proposed drainage restoration activities to be completed would result in an overall improvement to airfield drainage and safety. Nearly all of the stormwater conveyances on Boca Chica Field drain into natural areas, wetland areas, and stormwater ponds prior to discharging to surrounding water bodies. This provides natural storage which results in increased retention times and functions to minimize stormwater and sedimentation impacts to surrounding surface water bodies. *Cultural Resources:* Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not result in any impacts to historical or archaeological resources. The State Historic Preservation Official
(SHPO)concurred with the Navy that the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, was the most appropriate option. In a January 5, 2007 letter, the SHPO identified 4 archaeological sites in and around the Area of Potential Effect. Although these 4 areas are located on the Boca Chica installation, none are within the project footprint. The Navy agreed in a letter dated February 8, 2007 to avoid all sites mentioned by the SHPO. Additionally, the Navy agreed to create contingency plans to stop ground disturbing work in case of inadvertent discoveries and to follow Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and 36 CFR part 813: *Post-Review Discoveries;* Chapter 267, *Florida Statutes,* in the event of any inadvertent discovery during the construction phases. *Response To Comments Received On the Final EIS:* The Navy received comments on the Final EIS from one Federal agency and two state agencies. The Florida Department of Transportation's comments on the Draft EIS were resolved in the Final EIS. EPA Region 4 recommended inclusion in the ROD of a commitment by the Navy to include turbidity and construction monitoring in the project's SWPPP. This comment has been addressed within the Earth Resources section of this ROD by clarifying that the USACE permitting process requires turbidity and construction monitoring. The South Florida Water Management District indicated concern with turbidity and wetland impacts, including secondary wetland impacts. Such concerns are typically addressed through the permitting process, and accordingly the Final EIS indicates that the Navy will comply with permit requirements that implement appropriate pollution prevention techniques to minimize erosion and sedimentation and properly manage stormwater. Additionally the Final EIS states that Best Management Practices and the conditions of the NPDES and other permits will be followed and will limit potential adverse impacts. As part of the permitting process, Navy will apply for an Environmental Resource Permit from the State of Florida, and will be required to demonstrate that a reduction and elimination analysis of proposed wetland impacts has been conducted pursuant to the requirements of the appropriate state agency. Any potential mangrove habitat loss and conversion will be offset through Navy's monitoring and mitigation plan, using a functional analysis (Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology) to determine, numerically, the existing wetland functions and proposed mangrove functional loss in affected areas. Specific mitigation will be identified concurrent with each phase of construction and discussed in meetings with the Partnering Team for appropriate input. The Navy's monitoring and mitigation plan will address any secondary impacts that may occur. SUMMARY: In determining how best to restore the clear zones and stormwater drainage systems on Boca Chica Field, I considered impacts to the following areas: Biological resources; Earth resources; water resources; air quality; noise; cultural resources; BASH; socioeconomics; and environmental contamination. I have also taken into consideration the Navy's consultation with the USFWS regarding endangered species, NOAA Fisheries regarding EFH, and NOAA Fisheries PRD regarding the smalltooth sawfish and sea turtles. I have also considered the comments sent to the Navy by the regulatory community, state and local governments, and the public. After carefully weighing all of these factors, I have determined that the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, Restoration of Clear Zones to Meet Permanent Waivers, will best meet the needs of the Navy while also minimizing the environmental impacts associated with airfield restoration. Dated: September 12, 2007. BJ Penn, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment). [FR Doc. E7-18383 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Closed Meeting of the Chief of Naval Operations
(CNO)Executive Panel AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The CNO Executive Panel will report on the findings and recommendations of the Iran Subcommittee to the Chief of Naval Operations. The meeting will consist of discussions of current and future Navy strategy, plans, and policies with respect to Iran, and discussions of future operating environments and force posture implications. DATES: The meeting will be held on November 29, 2007 from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in CNA Corporation Building, 4825 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311, Boardroom. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR Lester Brown, CNO Executive Panel, 4825 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311, telephone: 703-681-4939. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), these matters constitute classified information that is specifically authorized by Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense and are, in fact, properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Navy has determined in writing that the public interest requires that all sessions of this meeting be closed to the public because they will be concerned with matters listed in section 552b(c)(1) of title 5, United States Code. Individuals or interested groups interested may submit written statements for consideration by the Chief of Naval Operations Executive Panel at any time or in response to the agenda of a scheduled meeting. All requests must be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer at the address detailed below. If the written statement is in response to the agenda mentioned in this meeting notice then the statement, if it is to considered by the Panel for this meeting, must be received at least five days prior to the meeting in question. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the Chief of Naval Operations Executive Panel Chairperson, and ensure they are provided to members of the Chief of Naval Operations Executive Panel before the meeting that is the subject of this notice. To contact the Designated Federal Officer, write to Executive Director, CNO Executive Panel (NOOK), 4825 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, Alexandria, VA 22311-1846. Dated: September 12, 2007. T. M. Cruz, Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E7-18477 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or via fax to
(202)395-6974. Commenters should include the following subject line in their response “Comment: [insert OMB number], [insert abbreviated collection name, e.g., “Upward Bound Evaluation”]. Persons submitting comments electronically should not submit paper copies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. Dated: September 12, 2007. Delores J. Barber, Acting Leader, Information Management Case Services Team, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Institute of Education Sciences *Type of Review:* New. *Title:* Assessment Accommodations for English Language Learners. *Frequency:* Annually. *Affected Public:* Individuals or household. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 3,667. *Burden Hours:* 397. *Abstract:* This study will examine the effect of a test accommodation and its impact on the validity of assessments for English language learners (ELLs). Specifically, it will examine the ways in which linguistic students' ability to access content (e.g. math) during testing. Linguistic modification is theory-based process in which the language in test items, directions, and/or response options are modified in ways that clarify and simplify the text without simplifying or significantly altering the construct tested. By comparing the effects of linguistic modification on the performance of ELL students with that of English language proficient general education students without disabilities (non-ELL/non-SD), this study aims to increase understanding of the effects of an accommodation—one that holds promise as a means of decreasing the achievement gap between non-ELL/non-SD and ELL students—on construct validity, differential validity, and incremental validity of achievement test scores. While the initial phase of this study focuses on instrument refinement and validation, the second phase uses experimental design to examine the effectiveness of this accommodation for ELLs on tests of mathematics achievement. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3412. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E7-18454 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or via fax to
(202)395-6974. Commenters should include the following subject line in their response “Comment: [insert OMB number], [insert abbreviated collection name, e.g., “Upward Bound Evaluation”]. Persons submitting comments electronically should not submit paper copies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. Dated: September 13, 2007. James Hyler, Acting Leader, Information Management Case Services Team, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of the Chief Financial Officer *Type of Review:* New Collection. *Title:* ED-524 Budget Information Non-Construction Programs Form and Instructions. *Frequency:* New Awards. *Affected Public:* Individuals or household; Businesses or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 17,000. *Burden Hours:* 297,500. *Abstract:* The ED-524 Budget Information Non-Construction Programs Form and Instructions were previously part of another collection, OMB control number 1890-0004. The 1890-0004 collection currently includes three distinct information collection instruments, the ED 524 Budget Form, the ED 524B Grant Performance Report and the administrative requirements in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). As part of the renewal of these instruments, we are requesting that each of the instruments be approved under separate OMB control numbers. Separating these instruments into three information collections will make it easier to make additional deletions, revisions or other needed changes to each instrument throughout the approval period and eliminate any potential confusion when changes are made to only one of the instruments. We are requesting a new OMB control number for the ED 524, Budget Form and a three-year approval. Please note that the ED 524B, Grant Performance Report will retain the 1890-0004 number. The ED 524 form and instructions are included in U.S. Department of Education
(ED)discretionary grant application packages and are needed in order for applicants to submit summary-level budget data by budget category, as well as a detailed budget narrative, to request and justify their proposed grant budgets which are part of their grant applications. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov,* by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3372. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments " to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov.* Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E7-18516 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or via fax to
(202)395-6974. Commenters should include the following subject line in their response “Comment: [insert OMB number], [insert abbreviated collection name, e.g., “Upward Bound Evaluation”]. Persons submitting comments electronically should not submit paper copies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. Dated: September 13, 2007. James Hyler, Acting Leader, Information Management Case Services Team, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of the Chief Financial Officer *Type of Review:* New. *Title:* EDGAR Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements. *Frequency:* On occasion; as needed or required. *Affected Public:* Individuals or household; businesses or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 7,835. *Burden Hours:* 33,395. *Abstract:* The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements are currently part of another collection, OMB Control Number 1890-0004. The 1890-0004 collection currently includes three distinct information collection instruments, the ED 524 Budget Form, the ED 524B Grant Performance Report and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements that carry burden in EDGAR. As part of the renewal of these instruments, we are requesting that each of the instruments be approved under separate OMB Control numbers. Separating these instruments into three information collections will make it easier to make additions, deletions, revisions, or other needed changes to each instrument throughout the approval period and eliminate any potential confusion when changes are made to only one of the instruments. We are requesting a new OMB Control number for the EDGAR Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements and a three-year approval for this collection. Please note that the ED 524B, Grant Performance Report will retain the 1890-0004 number. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3381. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view.” Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E7-18568 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Energy Information Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy (DOE). ACTION: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request. SUMMARY: The EIA has submitted the forms EIA-63A, “Annual Solar Thermal Collector Manufacturers Survey,” EIA-63B, “Annual Photovoltaic Module/Cell Manufacturers Survey,” and the EIA-902, “Annual Geothermal Heat Pump Manufacturers Survey,” to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and a three-year extension under section 3507(h)(1) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* , at 3507(h)(1)). DATES: Comments must be filed by October 19, 2007. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within that period, you should contact the OMB Desk Officer for DOE listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Send comments to OMB Desk Officer for DOE, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. To ensure receipt of the comments by the due date, submission by FAX at 202-395-7285 or e-mail to *Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov* is recommended. The mailing address is 726 Jackson Place, NW., Washington, DC 20503. The OMB DOE Desk Officer may be telephoned at
(202)395-7345. (A copy of your comments should also be provided to EIA's Statistics and Methods Group at the address below.) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to Grace Sutherland. To ensure receipt of the comments by the due date, submission by FAX (202-586-5261) or e-mail ( *grace.sutherland@eia.doe.gov* ) is also recommended. The mailing address is Statistics and Methods Group (EI-70), Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585-0670. Ms. Sutherland may be contacted by telephone at
(202)586-6264. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section contains the following information about the energy information collection submitted to OMB for review:
(1)The collection numbers and title;
(2)the sponsor (i.e., the Department of Energy component);
(3)the current OMB docket number (if applicable);
(4)the type of request (i.e., new, revision, extension, or reinstatement);
(5)response obligation (i.e., mandatory, voluntary, or required to obtain or retain benefits);
(6)a description of the need for and proposed use of the information;
(7)a categorical description of the likely respondents; and
(8)an estimate of the total annual reporting burden (i.e., the estimated number of likely respondents times the proposed frequency of response per year times the average hours per response). 1. EIA-63A, “Annual Solar Thermal Collector Manufacturers Survey,” EIA-63B, “Annual Photovoltaic Module/Cell Manufacturers Survey,” and the EIA-902, “Annual Geothermal Heat Pump Manufacturers Survey.” 2. Energy Information Administration 3. OMB Number 1905-0196 4. Three-year extension 5. Mandatory 6. EIA's Forms EIA-63A and EIA-63B collect data on the manufacture, shipment, and importation of solar thermal collectors and photovoltaic modules/cells. The data are used by the private sector, the renewable energy industry, the DOE, and other government agencies. Respondents are U.S. companies that manufactured, shipped, and/or imported solar thermal collectors and/or photovoltaic modules and cells. The EIA-902 is used to collect data about the manufacture and distribution of geothermal heat pumps and the status of the industry. The information collected will be used by public and private analysts that are interested in geothermal heat pumps and related energy issues. 7. Business or other for-profit 8. 563 hours Please refer to the supporting statement as well as the proposed forms and instructions for more information about the purpose, who must report, when to report, where to submit, the elements to be reported, detailed instructions, provisions for confidentiality, and uses (including possible nonstatistical uses) of the information. For instructions on obtaining materials, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Statutory Authority: Section 3507(h)(1) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* , at 3507(h)(1)) Issued in Washington, DC, September 13, 2007. Jay Casselberry, Agency Clearance Officer, Energy Information Administration. [FR Doc. E7-18414 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Energy Information Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy (DOE). ACTION: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request. SUMMARY: The EIA has submitted the “Annual Survey of Alternative Fueled Vehicles” to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for a three-year extension under section 3507(h)(1) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., at 3507(h)(1)). DATES: Comments must be filed by October 19, 2007. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within that period, you should contact the OMB Desk Officer for DOE listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Send comments to OMB Desk Officer for DOE, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. To ensure receipt of the comments by the due date, submission by Fax at 202-395-7285 or e-mail to *Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov* is recommended. The mailing address is 726 Jackson Place, NW., Washington, DC 20503. The OMB DOE Desk Officer may be telephoned at
(202)395-7345. (A copy of your comments should also be provided to EIA's Statistics and Methods Group at the address below.) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to Grace Sutherland. To ensure receipt of the comments by the due date, submission by FAX (202-586-5271) or e-mail ( *grace.sutherland@eia.doe.gov* ) is also recommended. The mailing address is Statistics and Methods Group (EI-70), Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585-0670. Ms. Sutherland may be contacted by telephone at
(202)586-6264. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section contains the following information about the energy information collection submitted to OMB for review:
(1)The collection numbers and title;
(2)the sponsor (i.e., the Department of Energy component;
(3)the current OMB docket number (if applicable);
(4)the type of request (i.e., new, revision, extension, or reinstatement);
(5)response obligation (i.e., mandatory, voluntary, or required to obtain or retain benefits);
(6)a description of the need for and proposed use of the information;
(7)a categorical description of the likely respondents; and
(8)an estimate of the total annual reporting burden (i.e., the estimated number of likely respondents times the proposed frequency of response per year times the average hours per response). 1. Forms EIA-886, “Annual Survey of Alternative Fueled Vehicles” 2. Energy Information Administration 3. OMB Number 1905-0191 4. Three-year extension of a currently approved collection 5. Mandatory 6. EIA's “Annual Survey of Alternative Fueled Vehicle Suppliers and Users” collects basic data necessary to meet EIA's legislative mandates as well as the needs of EIA's public and private customers. Data collected include the number and type of Alternative Fueled Vehicles
(AFVs)that vehicle suppliers made available in the previous calendar year and plan to make available in the following calendar year; the number, type and geographic distribution of AFVs in use in the previous calendar year; and the amount and distribution of each type of Alternative Transportation Fuel
(ATF)consumed in the previous calendar year. The data are used for analyses and publications. 7. Federal, State and Local governments; fuel providers; Original Equipment Manufacturers; and Conversion facilities. 8. 10,812.50 hours Statutory Authority: Section 3507(h)(1) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-13) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Issued in Washington, DC, September 13, 2007. Jay H. Casselberry, Agency Clearance Officer, Energy Information Administration. [FR Doc. E7-18421 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator or Foreign Utility Company Status September 12, 2007. Bethlehem Renewable Energy, LLC (EG07-53-000); El Segundo Power II LLC (EG07-57-000); Forward Energy LLC (EG07-58-000); Kleen Energy Systems, LLC (EG07-59-000); Hopewell Cogeneration Limited Partnership (EG07-60-000); Peetz Table Wind Energy, LLC (EG07-62-000); NRG Texas Power LLC (EG07-63-000); Jamaica Private Power Company Limited and Private Power Operators Limited (FC07-51-000) Take notice that during the month of August 2007, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a). Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-18444 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. NJ07-8-000] Bonneville Power Administration; Notice of Filing September 12, 2007. Take notice that on September 6, 2007, pursuant to 18 CFR 35.28(e) and 18 CFR 385.207, Bonneville Power Administration filed a petition for declaratory order granting reciprocity approval for certain terms and conditions of its Open Access Transmission Tariff and a request for an exemption of the filing fee. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible online 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 October 9, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-18441 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 1005] City of Boulder; Notice Soliciting Applications September 13, 2007. On August 30, 2004, the City of Boulder (City), the licensee for the Boulder Canyon Hydroelectric Project No.1005, filed a notice of intent to file an application for a small conduit exemption for a reconfigured Boulder Canyon Project, pursuant to section 15(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act (FPA). The current license for Project No. 1005 expires on August 31, 2009. The project is located on Boulder Creek, in Boulder County, near the City of Boulder, Colorado. The project occupies about 36 acres of U.S. Forest Service lands within Roosevelt National Forest. The licensed project consists of:
(a)A concrete gravity dam about 720 feet long having a maximum height of 175 feet, including a spillway about 127 feet long with a crest elevation of 8,181.5 feet mean sea level (msl), creating the Barker Reservoir which has a surface area of 200 acres and a gross storage capacity of 11,687 acre-feet at normal pool elevation 8,180 feet msl;
(b)an outlet gate control structure;
(c)a 5-foot-by-5-foot concrete tunnel, about 225 feet long and connecting by way of a valve house to an 11.7-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter concrete gravity pipeline;
(d)the Kossler Reservoir, a reregulating reservoir having a surface area of 12.25 acres and a gross storage capacity of 165 acre-feet at maximum pool elevation 7,717.6 feet msl and formed by three earth embankment structures:
(i)Southwest Dam, an earth-concrete core structure about 450 feet long and about 18 feet high;
(ii)Northeast Dam, an earth embankment structure about 20 feet high and 180 feet long; and
(iii)West Dam, an earth embankment structure 420 feet long, having a maximum height of about 5 feet;
(e)a concrete outlet structure with trash screens and a gate connecting to a 9,340-foot-long steel penstock varying in diameter from 56 to 44 inches;
(f)a powerhouse containing two generating units having a total installed capacity of 20 megawatts;
(g)a 13-kV generator bus and two 13/115-kV step-up transformers; and
(h)appurtenant facilities. The City did not file an application for a new license or an exemption application for the project. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.25 (2007), the Commission is soliciting license applications from potential applicants other than the existing licensee. This is necessary because the deadline for filing an application for new license or exemption and any competing applications, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.9
(2007)was August 31, 2007, and no other applications for license for this project were filed. The licensee is required to make available certain information described in 18 CFR 16.7 (2007). Such information is available by contacting the City of Boulder, Director of Public Water Works for Utilities, P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791, or by phone at
(303)441-3266. A potential applicant that files a notice of intent within 90 days from the date of issuance of this notice:
(1)May apply for a license under Part I of the FPA and Part 4 (except section 4.38) of the Commission's Regulations within 18 months of the date on which it files its notice; and
(2)must comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 16.8 and 16.10 of the Commissions regulations. Questions concerning this notice should be directed to Gaylord Hoisington,
(202)502-6032 or by e-mail at *Gaylord.hoisington@ferc.gov* . Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-18424 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. ER07-1193-000] CPV Liberty, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order September 13, 2007. CPV Liberty, LLC (CPV Liberty) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule. The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of energy, capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. CPV Liberty also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, CPV Liberty requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by CPV Liberty. On September 10, 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 CPV Liberty, 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 10, 2007. Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket approvals by the deadline above, CPV Liberty 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 CPV Liberty, 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 CPV Liberty'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)
(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. E7-18425 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AC07-204-000] Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership; Notice of Filing September 13, 2007. Take notice that on August 28, 2007, Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership (“Great Lakes LP”) submitted a filing requesting approval of its accounting treatment for changes in deferred tax balances as the result of a sale and purchase of an existing general partner interest, and a corresponding Internal Revenue Code section 754 election. Great Lakes LP's accounting treatment writes off 46.45 percent of its deferred tax liabilities to equity. In addition, Great Lakes LP proposes to write off to equity deferred tax liabilities associated with retirement plans provided by the seller of the general partner interest. These adjustments reduce Great Lakes LP's deferred tax balances and increase its equity by approximately $135 million. 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 or 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 online 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 27, 2007. Kimberly Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-18430 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-669-000] National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Tariff Filing September 13, 2007. Take notice that on August 31, 2007, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation, (National) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, 105th Revised Sheet No. 9, to be effective September 1, 2007. National states that Article II, sections 1 and 2 of the settlement provide that National will recalculate the maximum Interruptible Gathering
(IG)rate semi-annually and monthly. 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 and 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 date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 pm Eastern Time September 18, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-18422 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP07-446-000] Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization September 12, 2007. Take notice that on September 6, 2007, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (Natural), 747 East 22nd Street, Lombard, Illinois 60148, filed in Docket No. CP07-446-000, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.210 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act for authorization to increase the horsepower of one of the existing gas turbine compressor units at Compressor Station 342 (CS 342), located in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at *http://www.ferc.go* v using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or call toll-free,
(886)208-3676 or TYY,
(202)502-8659. Natural states that in order to create a degree of operational flexibility, compressor Unit #5 at CS 342 will be upgraded from 4,200 horsepower to 5,280 horsepower at the same time it will be undergoing a routine overhaul. Natural asserts that the increase in horsepower will not increase mainline capacity nor will it change the design throughput capacity of CS 342. Natural estimates the cost of construction to be $545,000. Any questions regarding the application should be directed to Bruce H. Newsome, Vice President, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, 747 East 22nd Street, Lombard, Illinois 60148-5072, or call at
(630)691-3526. Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act
(NGA)(18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)
(iii)and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( *www.ferc.gov* ) under the “e-Filing” link. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-18445 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP06-45-005] Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Application September 13, 2007. Take notice that on August 24, 2007, Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Northwest), filed in the above referenced docket, an abbreviated application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to amend the certificate of public convenience and necessity that was issued for its Parachute Lateral project by Commission order dated August 16, 2006 in Docket Nos. CP06-45-000 and CP06-45-001. Northwest requests the Commission to amend the existing certificate of public convenience and necessity issued in Docket Nos. CP06-45-000 and 001 authorizing Northwest to transfer the ownership of the facilities constructed in Docket Nos. CP06-45-000 and 001 to Parachute Pipeline LLC (Parachute) and lease back the Parachute Lateral Facilities from Parachute and continue to operate them as part of Northwest's jurisdictional pipeline system. Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests 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 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 September 19, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-18427 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP (Docket Nos. CP07-441-000, CP07-442-000, and CP07-443-000) and Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. (Docket No. CP07-444-000); Notice of Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and Section 3 Authorization September 13, 2007. Take notice that on September 4, 2007, Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP, 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108, filed in Docket Nos. CP07-441-000, CP07-442-000, and CP07-443-000, an application under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA)and Parts 157 and 284 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations for, respectively, a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing the construction and operation of the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (Pacific Connector); a blanket certificate to perform certain routine activities and operations; and a blanket certificate to provide open access firm transportation services. The proposed pipeline is approximately 230-miles long and 36 inches in diameter which will transport up to 1 Billion cubic feet
(Bcf)per day of regasified liquefied natural gas
(LNG)from the Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P.'s Jordan Cove LNG Import Terminal (Jordan Cove LNG) in Coos County, Oregon to interconnects with Northwest Pipeline Company in Douglas County, Oregon, Avista Corporation in Jackson County, Oregon and with Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation and Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company at the terminus of the system in Klamath County, Oregon. Also take notice that on September 4, 2007, Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P., 125 Central Avenue, Suite 380, Coos Bay, Oregon 97402, filed with the Commission, in Docket No. CP07-444-000, an application under section 3 of the NGA and Part 153 of the Commission's regulations for authorization to site, construct, and operate a liquefied natural gas import terminal and associated storage facilities in Coos County, Oregon, for the purpose of importing LNG into the United States. The Pacific Connector and Jordan Cove LNG projects are more fully described as set forth in the applications that are on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The instant filings may be also viewed on the Web at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call
(866)208-3676 or TTY,
(202)502-8659 Any questions regarding the applications should be directed to: Beth L. Webb, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, 1825 Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006,
(202)420-2200 for Jordan Cove LNG; and Teresa Silcox Torrey/Lynn Dahlberg, Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LLC, P.O. Box 58900, Salt Lake City, Utah 84158-0900,
(801)584-7051. On May 1, 2006, the Commission staff granted Jordan Cove LNG's and Pacific Connector's requests to utilize the Pre-Filing process and assigned Docket No. PF06-25-000 to staff activities involving the Jordan Cove LNG project and Docket No. PF06-26-000 to Pacific Connector project. Now, as of the filing of the September 4, 2007 applications, the Pre-Filing Process for these projects has ended. From this time forward, these proceedings will be conducted in Docket Nos. CP07-441-000, CP07-442-000, CP07-443 -000, and CP07-444-000 as noted in the caption of this Notice. Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, and to ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, the Commission staff will issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review within 90 days of the date of this Notice. The Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement
(FEIS)for the proposal. The Notice will also alert other agencies of the requirement to complete necessary reviews and authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS. There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding. However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest. Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order. Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *Comment Date:* October 4, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-18426 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. NJ07-7-000] Southwest Transmission Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Filing September 12, 2007. Take notice that on September 5, 2007, Southwest Transmission Cooperative, Inc. filed a request for a declaratory order and submit its Safe Harbor Reciprocity Open Access Transmission Tariff, in order to update its rates, effective September 1, 2007, pursuant to the Arizona Corporation Commission's rate increase. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 5, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-18442 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP06-34-003] Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Filing September 13, 2007. Take notice that on September 7, 2007, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco), Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, filed an abbreviated application, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA)and Part 157 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations to amend its Leidy to Long Island certificate issued on May 18, 2006 in Docket No. CP06-34-000, as amended by order issued on January 11, 2007. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may 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 field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at
(866)208-3676, or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. Transco requests authorization to amend its certificate to
(i)adjust the estimated cost of facilities to capture increase in the estimated cost of materials and labor for certain of the project facilities, and
(ii)revise the initial recourse rates for the project to reflect the increased estimated cost. Any questions regarding the application are to be directed to Bill Hammons, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251-1396; phone number
(713)215-2130. Any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding. Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper, see 18 CFR 385.2001 (a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *Comment Date:* September 27, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-18428 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 September 12, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* EC06-166-001. *Applicants:* Legg Mason, Inc. *Description:* Legg Mason, Inc. submits its Second Amended and Restated Request for Blanket Authorization to Acquire Securities under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act. *Filed Date:* 09/10/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070912-0070. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 20, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings: *Docket Numbers:* EG07-79-000. *Applicants:* NRG Texas Power, LLC. *Description:* NRG Texas Power, LLC. Notice of Self Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status. *Filed Date:* 08/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070831-5087. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* EG07-80-000. *Applicants:* NRG Cedar Bayou Development Company, LLC. *Description:* NRG Cedar Bayou Development Company, LLC. submits its Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status. *Filed Date:* 09/07/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070907-5079. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 28, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER97-324-010; ER97-3834-016. *Applicants:* Detroit Edison Company; DTE Energy Trading, Inc. *Description:* The Detroit Edison Co. and DTE Energy Trading, Inc. submits amendments to their market-based rate tariffs in compliance with the Commission's Order 697. *Filed Date:* 09/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070907-0052. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 25, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER98-1150-010; ER07-964-001. *Applicants:* Tucson Electric Power Company; UNS Electric, Inc. *Description:* Tucson Electric Power Company and UNS Electric, Inc. submit amendments to their market-based rate tariffs in compliance with Order 697. *Filed Date:* 09/07/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070910-0126. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 19, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER00-3614-006; ER06-1351-001. *Applicants:* BP Energy Company; BP West Coast Products, LLC. *Description:* BP Energy Company et al submit a Notice of Change in Status with respect to its market-based rate wholesale power sales authority. *Filed Date:* 09/06/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070910-0160. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 27, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER02-2330-048. *Applicants:* New England Power Pool. *Description:* ISO New England Inc. submits report in compliance with FERC's 9/20/02 order. *Filed Date:* 09/10/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070912-0066. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 01, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-647-010. *Applicants:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Response of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. to Comments on the ICAP Demand Curve Compliance Filing. *Filed Date:* 09/07/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070907-5093. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 28, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-522-005. *Applicants:* Bluegrass Generation Company, LLC. *Description:* Bluegrass Generation Company, LLC submits its Refund Report. *Filed Date:* 08/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070831-5011. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-1232-005; ER05-283-006. *Applicants:* JPMorgan Ventures Energy Corporation; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. *Description:* Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., *et al.* *Filed Date:* 09/11/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070911-5050. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1022-001. *Applicants:* Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC. *Description:* Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC submits the Fifth Revised Volume 3 and Third Revised Volume 5 to comply with FERC's 8/7/07 Order and Order 697. *Filed Date:* 09/06/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070911-0061. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 27, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1263-001. *Applicants:* High Sierra Power Marketing, LLC. *Description:* High Sierra Power Marketing, LLC submits Substitute Original Sheets 2 and 3 to its FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1 pursuant to Order 697 under ER07-1263. *Filed Date:* 09/10/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070912-0065. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 20, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1264-001. *Applicants:* Sierra Power Asset Marketing, LLC. *Description:* Sierra Power Asset Marketing, LLC submits Substitute Original Sheet 2 and 3 to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1 pursuant to Order 697. *Filed Date:* 09/10/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070912-0064. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 20, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1303-001. *Applicants:* PS Energy Group, Inc. *Description:* PS Energy Group, Inc. submits an amendment to its 8/23/07 filing of its Petition for Acceptance of Initial Tariff, etc. PS Energy Group, Inc. also amended this filing on 9/12/07. *Filed Date:* 09/10/2007; 09/12/07. *Accession Number:* 20070911-0060. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 19, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1349-001. *Applicants:* Cheyenne Light Fuel & Power Company. *Description:* Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power Co. requests that FERC accept the Test Power Rate Schedule effective as of 10/1/07. *Filed Date:* 09/07/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070911-0062. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 28, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1351-000. *Applicants:* York Generation Company, LLC. *Description:* York Generation Co., LLC submits its Rate Schedule FERC 2 re charges and revenue requirements. *Filed Date:* 09/05/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070907-0051. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 26, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1352-000. *Applicants:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company. *Description:* Pacific Gas & Electric Company submits document entitled “PG&E Wholesale Distribution Tariff-Service Agreement for Wholesale Distribution Service to Western Area Power Administration, etc.” *Filed Date:* 09/07/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070911-0066. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 28, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1353-000. *Applicants:* Vermont Transco, LLC. *Description:* Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc. submits the Hydro-Quebec Participation Agreement, etc. *Filed Date:* 09/07/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070911-0067. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 28, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1354-000. *Applicants:* Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc.; Hydro-Québec Transénegie. *Description:* Vermont Electric Power Co., Inc., *et al.* , submit their final English-French translated version of the Highgate Asset Owners Agreement. *Filed Date:* 09/07/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070911-0059. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 28, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1355-000. *Applicants:* Avista Energy, Inc. *Description:* Avista Energy, Inc. submits a Notice of Cancellation of its First Revised Rate Schedule FERC 1. *Filed Date:* 09/07/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070911-0058. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 28, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1356-000. *Applicants:* BE Alabama, LLC. *Description:* BE Alabama, LLC submits a notification of succession and a change of name from BE Tenaska, LLC. *Filed Date:* 09/07/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070911-0057. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 28, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1357-000. *Applicants:* Glacial Holdings. *Description:* Petition of Glacial Holdings for acceptance of Initial Rate Schedule, Waivers and Blanket Authority. *Filed Date:* 09/07/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070911-0056. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 28, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1358-000. *Applicants:* BE Louisiana, LLC. *Description:* BE Louisiana, LLC submits a notification of succession and a change of name from BE Cleco, LLC. *Filed Date:* 09/07/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070911-0055. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 28, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1359-000. *Applicants:* Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. *Description:* Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. submits Seventh Revised Sheet 9 et al to its Rate Schedule FERC 202. *Filed Date:* 09/07/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070911-0054. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 28, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1360-000. *Applicants:* Westar Energy, Inc. *Description:* Westar Energy, Inc submits Service Agreement 206 to FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume 6 with the City of Alma, Kansas. *Filed Date:* 09/10/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070911-0053. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 01, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1361-000. *Applicants:* Westar Energy, Inc. *Description:* Westar Energy, Inc submits Service Agreement 207 to FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume 6 with the City of Wathena, Kansas. *Filed Date:* 09/10/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070911-0052. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 01, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1362-000. *Applicants:* Southern California Edison Company. *Description:* Southern California Edison submits a revised Amended and Restated Service Agreement for Wholesale Distribution Service. *Filed Date:* 09/10/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070911-0051. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 01, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1363-000. *Applicants:* Upper Peninsula Power Company. *Description:* Upper Peninsula Power Co. submits a notice of termination and rate schedule sheet terminating the Emergency Capacity Sales Agreement with Escanaba Municipal Electric Utility. *Filed Date:* 09/10/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070911-0050. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 01, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1364-000. *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corp. *Description:* American Electric Power Service Corp submits fully executed generation interconnection agreements between AEP Texas Central Company and Texas Gulf Wind, LLC. *Filed Date:* 09/11/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070912-0068. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 02, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings: *Docket Numbers:* ES07-57-000. *Applicants:* Northeast Utilities Service Company. *Description:* Northeast Utilities Service Company submits its Application to Issue Securities pursuant to section 204 and on 9/10/07 submit a supplement to this filing. *Filed Date:* 08/31/2007; 9/10/07. *Accession Number:* 20070831-5054; 20070910-5007. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ES07-59-000. *Applicants:* Louisville Gas & Electric Company. *Description:* Application for an order pursuant to Section 204 of the Federal Power Act authorizing LG&E to issue debt securities in an amount not exceeding $400 million. *Filed Date:* 09/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070906-0135. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 25, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ES07-60-000. *Applicants:* Kentucky Utilities Company. *Description:* Kentucky Utilities Company submits an application for an order pursuant to Section 204 of the Federal Power Act authorizing them to issue debt securities in an amount not exceeding $400 million at a time. *Filed Date:* 09/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070906-0136. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 25, 2007. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Acting Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-18413 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project Nos. 12495-000, 12619-000, 12621-000] Cascade Creek LLC; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the Alternative Licensing Procedures September 13, 2007. a. *Type of Filing:* Notice of Intent to File License Application and Request to Use the Alternative Licensing Procedures. b. *Project Nos.:* 12495, 12619, and 12621. c. *Dated Filed:* August 3, 2007. d. *Submitted By:* Cascade Creek LLC. e. *Name of Projects:* Cascade Creek, Ruth Lake, and Scenery Lake Hydroelectric Projects. f. *Location:* The Cascade Creek Project would be located on Swan Lake and Cascade Creek; the Ruth Lake Project would be located on Ruth Lake and Delta Creek; and Scenery Lake would be located on Scenery Lake and Scenery Creek. All three projects would be located in Petersburg-Wrangle Borough, Alaska, within the Tongass National Forest. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* 18 CFR 5.3(b)(2) of the Commission's regulations h. *Applicant Contact:* Mr. Steven C. Marmon, Cascade Creek, LLC, 3633 Alderwood Avenue, Bellingham, WA 98225; phone:
(360)738-9999. i. *FERC Contact:* David Turner at
(202)502-6091; or e-mail at *david.turner@ferc.gov* . j. Cascade Creek LLC filed its request to use the Alternative Licensing Procedures on August 3, 2007. Cascade Creek LLC provided public notice of its request on August 9, 2007. In a letter dated September 13, 2007, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects approved Cascade Creek LLC's request to use the Alternative Licensing Procedures. k. Cascade Creek LLC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations. l. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ), using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCONlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in paragraph h. m. Register online at *http://ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm* to be notified via e-mail of new filing and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-18423 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No.: 2677-019] City of Kaukauna, WI; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission, Soliciting Additional Study Requests, and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and a Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments September 12, 2007. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection. a. *Type of Application:* New Major License. b. *Project No.:* 2677-019. c. *Date Filed:* August 29, 2007. d. *Applicant:* City of Kaukauna, Wisconsin. e. *Name of Project:* Badger-Rapide Croche Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* On the Fox River in Outagamie County, near the city of Kaukauna, Wisconsin. The project does not affect federal lands. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r). h. *Applicant Contact:* Mike Pedersen, Kaukauna Utilities, 777 Island Street, P.O. Box 1777, Kaukauna, WI 54130-7077, 920-462-0220, or Arie DeWaal, Mead & Hunt, Inc., 6501 Watts Road, Madison, WI 53719, 608-273-6380. i. *FERC Contact:* John Smith
(202)502-8972 or *john.smith@ferc.gov.* j. *Cooperating Agencies:* We are asking Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the environmental document. Agencies who would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing such requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene. *See* , 94 FERC ¶ 61,076 (2001). k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant. l. *Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status:* October 29, 2007. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) under the “e-Filing” link. m. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time. n. The existing project works consists of the following two developments: The existing Badger Development utilizes the head created by the 22-foot-high Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Kaukauna dam and consists of:
(1)A 2,100-foot-long, 100-foot-wide power canal that bifurcates into a 260-foot-long, 200-foot-wide canal and a 250-foot-long, 80-foot-wide canal leading to;
(2)the Old Badger powerhouse containing two 1,000-kilowatt
(kW)generating units for a total installed capacity of 2,000 kW; and
(3)the New Badger powerhouse containing two 1,800-kilowatt
(kW)generating units for a total installed capacity of 3,600 kW; and
(4)appurtenant facilities. The existing Rapide Croche Development utilizes the head created by the 20-foot-high Corps Rapide Croche dam, located approximately 4.5 miles downstream from the Badger Development and consists of:
(1)A powerhouse, located on the south end of the dam, containing four 600-kW generating units for a total installed capacity of 2,400 kW;
(2)the 5-mile-long, 12-kV transmission line; and
(3)appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would include decommissioning the Old Badger and New Badger plants and constructing a new 7-MW powerhouse about 150 feet upstream from the existing New Badger plant site. Proposed project works would consist of:
(1)A modified power canal leading to;
(2)a new powerhouse with integral intake; and
(3)two identical 3.5-to 3.6-MW horizontal Kaplan “S” type turbines. The Old Badger development would be converted to an alternative use. The New Badger development would be decommissioned, demolished, and removed. The existing service road would be demolished and removed. The tailrace area associated with the existing Old Badger development would be filled with soil. A new service road would be constructed over the filled area. No significant changes are proposed for the Rapide Croche development. The existing Badger and Rapide Croche developments currently operate in run-of-river mode and as proposed, the new project would continue to operate in a run-of-river mode. o. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may 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 field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. You may also register online at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp* to be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. p. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required by 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR at 800.4. q. *Procedural schedule and final amendments:* The application will be processed according to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate. The Commission staff proposes to issue one environmental assessment
(EA)rather than issue a draft and a final EA. Comments, terms and conditions, recommendations, prescriptions, and reply comments, if any, will be addressed in an EA. Staff intends to give at least 30 days for entities to comment on the EA, and will take into consideration all comments received on the EA before final action is taken on the license application. A more detailed processing schedule will be included in the next notice issued for this project. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-18438 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 12862-000] FFP Project 5, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests September 12, 2007. Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection: a. *Type of Application:* Preliminary Permit. b. *Project No.:* P-12862-000. c. *Date Filed:* July 25, 2007. d. *Applicant:* FFP Project 5, LLC. e. *Name of the Project:* Twelve Mile Point Project. f. *Location:* The project would be located on the Mississippi River in St. Bernard and Orleans Parishes, Louisiana. The project uses no dam or impoundment. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r. h. *Applicants Contact:* Mr. Dan Irvin, FFP Project 5, LLC, 69 Bridge Street, Manchester, MA 01944, phone
(978)232-3536. i. *FERC Contact:* Patricia W. Gillis,
(202)502-8735. j. * Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene:* 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. 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; 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. Please include the project number (P-12862-000) on any comments or motions filed. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. k. *Description of Project:* The proposed project would consist of:
(1)5,000 proposed 20-kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total installed capacity of 100-megawatts,
(2)a proposed transmission line, and
(4)appurtenant facilities. The project would have an average annual generation of 438-gigawatt-hours and be sold to a local utility. l. *Location of Application:* A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling
(202)502-8371. This filing 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 field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Competing Preliminary Permit:* Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36). Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36. o. *Competing Development Application:* Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36. p. *Notice of Intent:* A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice. q. *Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit:* A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project. r. *Comments, Protests, 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, 385.211, 385.214. 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. 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 at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the “e-Filing” link. s. *Filing and Service of Responsive Documents:* Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “PROTEST”, and “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. t. *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. [FR Doc. E7-18439 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 12855-000] FFP Project 11, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions to Intervene, and Protests September 12, 2007. Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection: a. *Type of Application:* Preliminary Permit. b. *Project No.:* P-12855-000. c. *Date Filed:* July 25, 2007. d. *Applicant:* FFP Project 11, LLC. e. *Name of the Project:* Kenner Bend Project. f. *Location:* The project would be located on the Mississippi River in St. Charles and Jefferson Parishes, Louisiana. The project uses no dam or impoundment. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r. h. *Applicants Contact:* Mr. Dan Irvin, FFP Project 11, LLC, 69 Bridge Street, Manchester, MA 01944, phone
(978)232-3536. i. *FERC Contact:* Patricia W. Gillis,
(202)502-8735. j. *Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene:* 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. *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; 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. Please include the project number (P-12855-000) on any comments or motions filed. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. k. *Description of Project:* The proposed project would consist of:
(1)2,250 proposed 20-kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total installed capacity of 45-megawatts,
(2)a proposed transmission line; and
(4)appurtenant facilities. The project would have an average annual generation of 197.1-gigawatt-hours and be sold to a local utility. l. *Location of Application:* A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling
(202)502-8371. This filing 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 field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Competing Preliminary Permit:* Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36). Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36. o. *Competing Development Application:* Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36. p. *Notice of Intent:* A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice. q. *Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit:* A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project. r. *Comments, Protests, 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, 385.211, 385.214. 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. 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 at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the “e-Filing” link. s. *Filing and Service of Responsive Documents:* Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “PROTEST”, and “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. t. *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. [FR Doc. E7-18440 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD07-12-000] Reliability Standard Compliance and Enforcement in Regions With Independent System Operators and Regional Transmission Organizations; Final Notice and Agenda for the Technical Conference September 13, 2007. As announced on June 15, 2007 and August 2, 2007, the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will hold a technical conference in the above-referenced proceeding on September 18, 2007, at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC. It will be held in the Commission Meeting Room (Room 2C) from 9:30 a.m. until 1 p.m. (EDT). All interested persons are invited, and there is *no* registration fee to attend. The conference will explore issues associated with the cost recovery of penalties for Reliability Standard violations assessed against independent system operators
(ISOs)and regional transmission organizations (RTOs), as set forth in *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.,* 119 FERC ¶ 61,222 (May 31, 2007) in Docket Nos. ER07-701-000 and AD07-12-000. In that Order, the following topics were identified for discussion: 1. How each ISO's or RTO's regional tariffs and other operational agreements and protocols allocate reliability responsibilities among the parties; 2. What provisions exist in those tariffs, agreements, and protocols to establish responsibility for penalty costs associated with Reliability Standard violations; 3. What provisions exist that may prevent an entity from being registered for compliance with relevant Reliability Standards if its failure to perform under such tariffs, agreements, and protocols leads to a violation of Reliability Standards; and 4. What policies for any pass-through of penalty costs associated with Reliability Standard violations by ISOs and RTOs would both best provide due process for entities that would ultimately be required to pay these penalty costs and also avoid redundant investigations and litigation of Reliability Standard violations. The agenda, panelists and topics for the conference will be as follows: Welcome and Introduction to the conference: 9:30-9:45 a.m. *Panel One:* 9:45-10:45 a.m. New York ISO: Mark Lynch, Chief Executive Officer. PJM Interconnection, LLC. (PJM): Steven Pincus, Senior Counsel for PJM. ERCOT: Mike Grable, Assistant General Counsel. California ISO: Anthony Ivancovich, Assistant General Council—Regulatory. Southwest Power Pool (SPP): Les Dillahunty, Vice President, Regulatory Policy. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (MISO): Stephen G. Kozey, Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary. Panelists should be prepared to address Commission Topics 1, 2, 3 and 4 above. In addition, panelists are requested to consider the following topics: A. Should an RTO or ISO be permitted to allocate to its customers or members reliability penalties assessed against it pursuant to section 215 of the FPA? If so, should this be handled by tariff or by contract? What allocation method would fairly apportion the cost burden? B. If an RTO or ISO is permitted to pass on to its customers or members the reliability penalties assessed against it, how should the Commission ensure that the RTO/ISO has adequate incentives to comply with the Reliability Standards? C. Should an RTO or ISO be permitted to directly assign to specific customers, market participants or members reliability penalties assessed against it, and if so, how should duplicative proceedings be avoided and due process ensured? Break: 10:45-11a.m. *Panel Two:* 11 a.m.-12 p.m. Dale Landgren, Vice President and Chief Strategic Officer, American Transmission Company. Brian F. Thumm, P.E., Manager, ERO/Regional Affairs, ITC Holdings. Maureen Borkowski, Vice President of Transmission, Ameren Services. Tamara Linde, Vice President—Regulatory, PSEG Services Corporation. Bary K. Warren, Director of Transmission Policy and Compliance, Empire District Electric Company. John A. Anderson, President and CEO, Electricity Consumers Resource Council (ELCON). Panelists should be prepared to address Commission Topics 1, 2, 3 and 4 above. In addition, panelists are requested to consider the following topics: A. Should an RTO or ISO be permitted to allocate to its customers or members reliability penalties assessed against it pursuant to section 215 of the FPA? If so, should this be handled by tariff or by contract? What allocation method would fairly apportion the cost burden? B. If an RTO or ISO is not permitted to pass on reliability penalty costs assessed against it, what source of funds is suggested for payment? C. Should an RTO or ISO be permitted to directly assign to specific customers, market participants or members reliability penalties assessed against it, and if so, how should duplicative proceedings be avoided and due process ensured? *Panel Three:* 12-1 p.m. NERC: David Whiteley, Executive Vice President. ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RFC): Raymond Palmieri, Vice President and Director of Compliance. Texas Regional Entity (TRE): Larry Grimm, Director of Compliance. Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC): Edward Schwerdt, President and CEO. Midwest Reliability Organization (MRO): Dan Skaar, President. Panelists should be prepared to address Commission Topics 3 and 4 above. In addition, panelists are requested to consider the following topics: A. How would Regional Entities and NERC address in enforcement proceedings assessment of penalties for matters in which an RTO or ISO and one or more customers or members violated the same Reliability Standard or different Reliability Standards? B. If an RTO or ISO asserts that an entity that is not listed in NERC's compliance registry is responsible for the RTO's or ISO's violation of a Reliability Standard, in an enforcement hearing pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, will Regional Entities or NERC inquire if the root cause of the violation lies with that entity and provide the entity an opportunity to participate in the proceeding? Closing Remarks: 1 p.m. A free Web cast of this event will be available through *www.ferc.gov.* Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this event can do so by navigating to *www.ferc.gov's* Calendar of Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to its Web cast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the Web casts and offers access to the meeting via a phone bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit *www.CapitolConnection.org* or contact Danelle Perkowski or David Reininger at 703-993-3100. Transcripts of the meeting will be available immediately for a fee from Ace Reporting Company (202-347-3700 or 1-800-336-6646). They will be available for free on the Commission's eLibrary system and on the events calendar approximately one week after the conference. FERC conferences and meetings 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
(866)208-3372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY), or send a fax to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations. Questions about the conference should be directed to Don LeKang by e-mail at *donald.lekang@ferc.gov* or by phone at 202-502-8127. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-18429 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Sunshine Act Meeting Notice September 13, 2007. The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b: Agency Holding Meeting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Date and Time: September 20, 2007, 10 a.m. Place: Room 2C, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Status: Open. Matters to be Considered: Agenda. *Note—Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further notice. Contact Person for More Information: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Telephone
(202)502-8400. For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the meeting, call
(202)502-8627. This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on-line at the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the eLibrary link, or may be examined in the Commission's Public Reference Room. 922ND—Meeting Regular Meeting [September 20, 2007, 10 a.m.] Item No. Docket No. Company ADMINISTRATIVE A-1 AD02-1-000 Agency Administrative Matters. A-2 AD02-7-000 Customer Matters, Reliability, Security and Market Operations. A-3 AD06-3-000 Energy Market Update. ELECTRIC E-1 RR06-1-008 North American Electric Reliability Council North American Electric Reliability Corporation. RR07-1-001 Delegation Agreement Between the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and Texas Regional Entity, a division of ERCOT. RR07-2-001 Delegation Agreement Between the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and Midwest Reliability Organization. RR07-3-001 Delegation Agreement Between the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and Northeast Power Coordinating Council: Cross Border Regional Entity, Inc. RR07-4-001 Delegation Agreement Between the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and ReliabilityFirst Corporation. RR07-5-001 Delegation Agreement Between the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and SERC Reliability Corporation. RR07-6-001 Delegation Agreement Between the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and Southwest Power Pool, Inc. RR07-7-001 Delegation Agreement Between the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and Western Electricity Coordinating Council. RR07-8-001 Delegation Agreement Between the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and Florida Reliability Coordinating Council. RR06-3-003 North American Electric Reliability Corporation. E-2 RR06-1-009 North American Electric Reliability Corp. E-3 EL07-56-000 EL07-58-000 Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc., et al. v. PJM Interconnection LLC; Organization of PJM States, Inc., et al. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. E-4 RM01-8-006 Revised Public Utility Filing Requirements for Electric Quarterly Reports. E-5 ER07-1192-000 Wisconsin Electric Power Company. E-6 ER07-1142-000 Arizona Public Service Company. E-7 EF07-2021-000 United States Department of Energy—Bonneville Power Administration. E-8 ER02-2330-047 ISO New England Inc. E-9 EL07-81-000 NSTAR Electric Company v. ISO New England Inc. E-10 EL01-93-012 Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, L.P., Mirant New England, LLC, Mirant Kendall, LLC and Mirant Canal, LLC v. ISO New England Inc. ER03-631-003 ISO New England Inc. E-11 EL00-66-007 Louisiana Public Service Commission and the Council of the City of New Orleans v. Entergy Corporation. E-12 QM07-4-001 American Electric Power Service Corporation, Appalachian Power Company, Columbus Southern Power Company, Indiana Michigan Power Company, Kentucky Power Company, Kingsport Power Company, Ohio Power Company and Wheeling Power Company. E-13 ER07-543-001 Linden VFT, LLC. E-14 OMITTED E-15 ER06-274-005 Southwestern Public Service Company. E-16 OMITTED E-17 ER06-615-007 ER02-1656-033 California Independent System Operator Corporation. E-18 EL07-33-001 California Independent System Operator Corporation. E-19 EL06-97-001 Wisconsin Public Service Corp., Upper Peninsula Power Co., WPS Energy Services, Inc. and WPS Power Development, LLC v. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. E-20 EL05-19-002 Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc., Lyntegar Electric Cooperative, Inc., Farmers' Electric Cooperative, Inc., Lea County Electric Cooperative, Inc., Central Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Roosevelt County Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Southwestern Public Service Company. ER05-168-001 Southwestern Public Service Company. GAS G-1 RM07-20-000 Fuel Retention Practices of Natural Gas Companies. G-2 RM07-9-000 Revisions to Forms, Statements, and Reporting Requirements for Natural Gas Pipelines. G-3 IS06-356-003 SFPP, L.P. HYDRO H-1 P-7267-017 Joseph M. Keating. H-2 P-2216-068 New York Power Authority. H-3 P-12734-002 Midwest Hydraulic, Inc. H-4 P-2539-033 Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. H-5 P-2426-206 California Department of Water Resources and the City of Los Angeles. CERTIFICATES C-1 RM06-7-002 Revisions to the Blanket Certificate Regulations and Clarification Regarding Rates. C-2 CP07-90-000 CP07-91-000 CP07-92-000 Tres Palacios Gas Storage, LLC. C-3 CP07-44-000 Southeast Supply Header, LLC. CP07-44-001 Southern Natural Gas Company. CP07-45-000 Southeast Supply Header, LLC. CP07-46-000 CP07-47-000 C-4 CP06-470-000 Southern LNG, Inc. CP06-471-000 Elba Express Company, LLC CP06-471-001 CP06-472-000 CP06-472-001 CP06-473-000 CP06-473-001 CP06-474-000 CP06-474-001 Southern Natural Gas Company. C-5 CP05-91-000 Calhoun LNG, L.P. CP05-380-000 Point Comfort Pipeline Company, L.P. CP05-381-000 CP05-382-000 A free webcast of this event is available through *http://www.ferc.gov.* Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this event can do so by navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the free webcasts. It also offers access to this event via television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit *http://www.CapitolConnection.org* or contact Danelle Springer or David Reininger at 703-993-3100. Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol Connection service. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-18387 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Western Area Power Administration Wind Hydropower Integration Feasibility Study AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE. ACTION: Notice of a Draft Study Work Plan. SUMMARY: The Western Area Power Administration (Western) is publishing this notice to inform interested parties of the draft Study Work Plan for performing the Wind Hydropower Integration Feasibility Study (WHFS). The WHFS involves a study on the integration of wind energy generated by Indian tribes and hydropower generated by the Army Corps of Engineers on the Missouri River to supply power to Western. This study applies only to Western's Upper Great Plains Region (UGPR). DATES: The comment period begins today and will end October 19, 2007. Western will hold a public meeting on the draft Study Work Plan associated with the WHFS on September 27, 2007, and will commence at 9 a.m. CDT. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Mr. Robert J. Harris, Regional Manager, Upper Great Plains Region, Western Area Power Administration, 2900 4th Avenue North, Billings, MT 59101-1266, or e-mail *UGPWindHydroFS@wapa.gov* . The public meeting location is the Comfort Inn, 1030 East Interstate Avenue, Bismarck, North Dakota. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael A. Radecki, Energy Services Specialist, Upper Great Plains Region, Western Area Power Administration, 2900 4th Avenue North, Billings, MT 59101-1266, telephone
(406)247-7442, e-mail *radecki@wapa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Energy Policy Act of 2005, section 2606 (EPAct 2005, Sec 2606), Public Law 109-058, requires that: The Secretary of Energy, in coordination with the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary, shall conduct a study of the cost and feasibility of developing a demonstration project that uses wind energy generated by Indian tribes and hydropower generated by the Army Corps of Engineers on the Missouri River to supply firming power to the Western Area Power Administration. EPAct 2005, Sec. 2606 also directed the formation of a study team to include an independent tribal engineer and a Western customer representative. In March 2007, through written correspondence, Western requested nominations for an independent tribal engineer from each of the 25 Indian tribes in the UGPR. Three Indian tribes and one tribal organization responded to this request and are serving as WHFS study team members. Western solicited non-tribal customer representation through the Mid-West Electric Consumers Association, which represents the majority of Western's customers in the UGPR. Three UGPR customers serve as customer representative project team members. Objectives The objectives of the WHFS as required by EPAct 2005, Sec. 2606, include:
(1)Determine the economic and engineering feasibility of blending wind energy and hydropower generated from the Missouri River dams operated by the Army Corps of Engineers, including an assessment of the costs and benefits of blending wind energy and hydropower compared to current sources used for firming power to Western;
(2)review historical and projected requirements for patterns of availability and use and reasons for historical patterns concerning the availability of firming power;
(3)assess the wind energy resource potential on tribal land and projected cost savings through a blend of wind and hydropower over a 30-year period;
(4)determine the seasonal capacity needs and associated transmission upgrades for integration of tribal wind generation and identify costs associated with these activities; and
(5)incorporate to the extent appropriate the results of the Dakotas Wind Transmission Study. WHFS Work Scope Western seeks public comment on the proposed scope of work. The draft WHFS work plan has been structured to address the requirements of EPAct 2005, Sec. 2606, as well as incorporate and make best use of previous wind integration and transmission studies. The WHFS work plan consists of six work elements, which have been summarized below. The complete work plan can be found at *http://www.wapa.gov/ugp/Power_Marketing/WindHydro/Default.htm.* Work Element 1: WHFS Work Plan Develop a final work plan that will communicate the overall approach to the WHFS Project Team and the general public. A proposed WHFS work plan was initially developed and reviewed by the study team and is now available for public review and comment. Work Element 2: Analysis of Historical Western Purchase Requirements This work element will assess a broad range of historical requirements and costs for additional capacity and energy required to meet Western's firm power obligations. Specific objectives of this work element include the identification of historical purchase power patterns as compared to availability of hydropower system load characteristics and other system requirements. The results of this work element will serve as a foundation for determining an appropriate quantity of tribal wind energy integration and the best possible locations for tribal wind energy projects. Work Element 3: Wind Project Identification A standard questionnaire will be developed to obtain information on proposed projects to demonstrate potential costs and benefits associated with the use of wind power to displace energy that would otherwise be purchased. It is expected that potential projects will be in various stages of development and may, therefore, result in less than complete information. Work Element 4: Transmission System Evaluation Potential tribal wind energy projects identified in Work Element 3 will be assessed for potential impacts to the UGPR transmission system, including the scope and costs of any transmission system improvements or modifications required to integrate potential tribal wind energy projects. Work Element 5: Assessment of UGPR Impacts This work element will consist of two major components:
(1)Long-term economics and
(2)operational feasibility. Both components will be assessed through the use of PROMOD IV software. The long-term economics are predominantly driven by the market price of purchased power as compared to the cost of displacement energy generated by tribal energy projects. The operational feasibility study will assess various degrees of wind energy integration and the resulting impacts on UGPR's overall system operations and transmission constraints. Work Element 6: WHFS Report The resulting WHFS report will address the efforts and conclusions of each work element as well as contain:
(1)A comparison of the potential energy cost or benefits to the customers of Western through the use of combined wind and hydropower;
(2)a description of the economics and engineering/ operational characteristics of the combined wind and hydropower system on Western's UGPR, including potential reductions of reservoir fluctuation, enhanced efficient and reliable energy production, and identified Missouri River management flexibility;
(3)recommendations and general criteria for a project to be carried out by Western in partnership with an Indian tribal government or tribal energy resource development organization and Western customers to demonstrate the feasibility and potential of using wind energy produced on Indian land to supply firming energy to Western;
(4)a discussion of identified economic and environmental cost of, or benefits to be realized through, a Federal-tribal-customer partnership; and
(5)an identification of the manner in which a Federal-tribal-customer partnership could contribute to the energy security of the United States. Study Guidelines All models and system data will be coordinated with and consistent with existing Mid-Continent Area Power Pool and Midwest Independent System Operator models and databases. Wind turbine models will reflect specifications identified per each tribal energy project. Availability of Information The WHFS work plan will be available for inspection and copying at the UGPR office located at 2900 4th Ave. North, Billings, Montana. This document is also available for viewing at *http://www.wapa.gov/ugp/Power_Marketing/WindHydro/Default.htm.* Work Plan Procedure Requirements Determination Under Executive Order 12866 Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required. Environmental Compliance In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, *et seq.* ); Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); and DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures and Guidelines (10 CFR part 1021), Western is in the process of determining whether an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement should be prepared or if this action can be categorically excluded from those requirements. Dated: September 12, 2007. Timothy J. Meeks, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-18480 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0177; FRL-8148-5] Experimental Use Permit; Receipt of Application AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of an application 56228-EUP-GO from the United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA APHIS) requesting an experimental use permit
(EUP)for the mammalian gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH). This is a new active ingredient. The Agency has determined that the application may be of regional and national significance. Therefore, in accordance with 40 CFR 172.11(a), the Agency is soliciting comments on this application. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0177, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington,VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0177. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington,VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanne Edwards, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)305-6736; e-mail address: *edwards.joanne@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background USDA APHIS is applying for an EUP for the use of GonaCon TM Immunocontraceptive Vaccine, containing the active ingredient GnRH, to investigate the efficacy of reproductive control in female elk ( *Cervus elaphus* ) at the Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. There are approximately 265,000 acres in the park, although the treated area will be much less than this. Maximum quantity of active ingredient to be used is 36 milligrams (120 milliliters of formulated product). III. What Action is the Agency Taking? Following the review of the USDA APHIS application and any comments and data received in response to this notice, EPA will decide whether to issue or deny the EUP request for this EUP program, and if issued, the conditions under which it is to be conducted. Any issuance of an EUP will be announced in the **Federal Register** . IV. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? The Agency's authority for taking this action is under FIFRA section 5. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Experimental use permits. Dated: September 11, 2007. Kathy S. Monk, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E7-18361 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0903, FRL-8469-7] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Requirements and Exemptions for Specific RCRA Wastes; EPA ICR No. 1597.08, OMB Control No. 2050-0145 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection Request
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is scheduled to expire on February 29, 2008. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. The Agency is considering combining the Used Oil Management Standards Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements ICR (EPA ICR No. 1286.07, OMB Control No. 2050-0124) into this ICR. That ICR is not scheduled to expire until March 31, 2009. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0903, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: rcra-docket@epa.gov.* • *Fax:* 202-566-9744. • *Mail:* RCRA Docket (5305T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. • *Hand Delivery:* 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0903. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tab Tesnau, Office of Solid Waste (mail code 5303P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-605-0636; fax number: 703-308-8617; E-mail address: *tesnau.tab@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments? EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0903, which is available for online viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov,* or in person viewing at the RCRA Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for RCRA Docket is
(202)566-0270. Use *http://www.regulations.gov* to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document. What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in? Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
(i)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii)Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection. What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity. 6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES . 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and **Federal Register** citation. What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply To? *Affected entities:* Entities potentially affected by this action are Business, Farms, State, Local, or Tribal Governments. *Title:* Requirements and Exemptions for Specific RCRA Wastes. *ICR numbers:* EPA ICR No. 1597.08, OMB Control No. 2050-0145. *ICR status:* This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on February 29, 2008. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* In the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, Congress directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)to develop and administer a comprehensive program for the safe management and disposal of hazardous waste. In 1980, EPA promulgated regulations in 40 CFR parts 261-265 to comply with RCRA. EPA has since added to these regulations on many occasions. This ICR concerns two such additions. In 1995, EPA promulgated regulations in 40 CFR part 273 that govern the collection and management of widely-generated hazardous wastes known as “Universal Wastes”. Universal Wastes are wastes that are generated in non-industrial settings by a vast community, and are present in non-hazardous waste management systems. Examples of Universal Wastes include certain batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing lamps and thermostats. The part 273 regulations are designed to separate Universal Waste from the municipal wastestream by encouraging individuals and organizations to collect these wastes and to manage them in an appropriate hazardous waste management system. EPA distinguishes two types of handlers of Universal Wastes: Small quantity handlers of Universal Waste (SQHUW) and large quantity handlers of Universal Waste (LQHUW). SQHUWs do not accumulate more than 5,000 kg of any one category of Universal Waste at one time, while LQHUWs may accumulate quantities at or above this threshold. More stringent requirements are imposed on LQHUWs because of greater potential environmental risks. In 2001, EPA promulgated regulations in 40 CFR part 266 that provide increased flexibility to facilities managing wastes commonly known as “Mixed Waste”. Mixed Waste are low-level mixed waste (LLMW), and naturally occurring and/or accelerator-produced radioactive material
(NARM)containing hazardous waste. These wastes are also regulated by the Atomic Energy Act. As long as specified eligibility criteria and conditions are met, LLMW and NARM are exempt from the definition of hazardous waste as defined in part 261. Although these eligible wastes are exempted from RCRA manifest, transportation, and disposal requirements, they must still comply with the manifest, transportation, and disposal requirements under the NRC (or NRC-Agreement State) regulations. There are two conditional exemptions. The Storage and Treatment Conditional Exemption applies to any generator of LLMW who is licensed by NRC or an NRC Agreement State to manage radioactive materials. This exemption is available only to LLMW generated under a single NRC or NRC Agreement State license. LLMW generators must notify EPA of the LLMW storage units for which they are claiming an exemption, and must meet the conditions listed in § 266.230. This exemption is valid as long as the Mixed Waste meets the conditions, remains in a conditionally exempt storage unit, and is subject to NRC regulation. The Transportation and Disposal Conditional Exemption from the definition of hazardous waste applies to generators and treaters who send their treated waste to a commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal facility (LLRWDF) licensed by NRC or NRC Agreement State. The eligible LLMW or NARM waste would be exempted from RCRA Subtitle C once it is placed on the transportation vehicle bound for disposal at the LLRWDF. The waste could then be transported to the LLRWDF as strictly radioactive waste using an NRC Uniform LLW Manifest. Generators and treaters under the exemption must undertake the information collection requirements listed in § 266.345. In 1992, EPA finalized management standards for used oils destined for recycling (see 40 CFR part 279). To document and ensure proper handling of used oil, these regulations establish notification, testing, tracking and recordkeeping requirements for used oil transporters, processors, re-refiners, marketers, and burners. They also set standards for the prevention and cleanup of releases to the environment during storage and transit, and for the safe closure of storage units and processing and re-refining facilities to mitigate future releases and damages. EPA believes these requirements minimize potential hazards to human health and the environment from the potential mismanagement of used oil by used oil handlers, while providing for the safe recycling of used oil. Information from these information collection requirements is used to ensure compliance with the Used Oil Management Standards in 40 CFR part 279. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here: *Estimated total number of potential respondents:* 121,422. *Frequency of response:* On occasion. *Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:* 1.02. *Estimated total annual burden hours:* 653,520. *Estimated total annual costs:* $34,208,000. This includes an estimated labor burden cost of $24,193,000 and an estimated cost of $10,015,000 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs. What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR? EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another **Federal Register** notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Dated: September 11, 2007. Matthew Hale, Director, Office of Solid Waste. [FR Doc. 07-4643 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 36
Traces to 36 documents
CFR
35 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 108-447
  • Pub. L. 198-447
  • 5 CFR 1320
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 5 CFR 1320.8(d)
  • 7 CFR 1783
  • 40 CFR 1500
  • 7 CFR 1794
  • Pub. L. 92-463
  • Pub. L. 94-409
  • Pub. L. 96-523
  • Pub. L. 97-375
  • Pub. L. 105-153
  • 77 F. Supp. 2d 1302
  • 337 F.3d 1373
  • 117 F.3d 1401
  • 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334
  • Pub. L. 89-651
  • Pub. L. 106-36
  • 15 CFR 301
  • 14 CFR 77
  • 36 CFR 813
  • 18 CFR 34
  • 42 USC 4321-4347
  • 16 USC 791a-825r
  • Pub. L. 109-058
  • 10 CFR 1021
  • 40 CFR 172.11(a)
  • 40 CFR 2
  • 40 CFR 9
  • 40 CFR 273
  • 40 CFR 266
  • 40 CFR 279
  • 5 CFR 1320.12
  • 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv)
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of proposed new fee sites
U.S.C.§ 4321
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.307
C.F.R.§ 351.308
C.F.R.§ 351.301
C.F.R.§ 351.401
C.F.R.§ 351.408
C.F.R.§ 351.310
C.F.R.§ 351.309
F. Supp.77 F. Supp. 2d 1302
F. App'x337 F.3d 1373
F. App'x117 F.3d 1401
Cites 71 · 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.