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 · 2007-10-26 · Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) · Notices

Notices. Direct final rule

47,684 words·~217 min read·/register/2007/10/26/07-5301

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

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0192; FRL-8486-6] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Michigan; Consumer Products Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a request submitted by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ)on February 13, 2007, to revise the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP). The state has requested approval of two rules in two areas of Part 6, Emission Limitations and Prohibitions-Existing Sources of Volatile Organic Compound
(VOC)Emissions by adding R 336.1660, Standards for VOC Emissions from Consumer Products, by adopting by reference the Ozone Transport Commission's Model Rule with some modifications, and adding R 336.1661, Definitions for Consumer Products, to define VOC. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective December 26, 2007, unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 26, 2007. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0192, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.* 3. *Fax:*
(312)886-5824. 4. *Mail:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 5. *Hand Delivery:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0192. 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.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *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. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Douglas Aburano, Environmental Engineer, at
(312)353-6960 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Aburano, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312)353-6960, *aburano.douglas@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. Background A. When did the State submit the requested rule revisions to EPA? B. Did Michigan hold public hearings for each of these rule revisions? II. What are the revisions that the State is requesting for incorporation into the SIP? A. Standards for Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions from Consumer Products B. Definitions for Consumer Products III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background A. When did the State submit the requested rule revisions to EPA? MDEQ submitted the requested rule revisions on February 13, 2007. B. Did Michigan hold public hearings for each of these rule revisions? MDEQ held hearings on July 10, 2006 and August 17, 2006, and did not receive any adverse comments. II. What are the revisions that the State is requesting for incorporation into the SIP? The State has requested the following revisions in Part 6, Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Existing Sources of VOC Emissions:
(1)Changes to R 336.1660, Standards for VOC Emissions from Consumer Products; and
(2)changes to R 336.1661, Definitions for Consumer Products. The revisions are described in more detail below. A. Standards for Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions from Consumer Products MDEQ is requesting the addition of Part 6, R 336.1660, in which the state has adopted by reference the provisions in the Ozone Transport Commission's “Model Rule for Consumer Products,” dated March 6, 2001, with some modifications. The modifications are related to implementation dates that are updated from the Model Rule and include several other minor changes. The rules limit the VOC content of consumer products, including personal care products, household products, automotive after-market products, adhesives and sealants, insecticides, coatings and related products (except architectural and maintenance coatings), and other miscellaneous products. The rules require that no person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, or manufacture for sale, in the state of Michigan, any of the affected consumer products (mostly aerosols and sprays), unless the VOC content limits specified in the Table of Standards of the rules are adhered to. Additionally, the rule has several other related requirements. B. Definitions for Consumer Products MDEQ is requesting the addition of Part 6, R 336.1661, in order to define VOC. R 336.1661 contains definitions used exclusively in R 336.1660. III. What action is EPA taking? We are approving revisions to the Michigan SIP in two portions of Part 6:
(1)To add R 336.1660, Standards for VOC Emissions from Consumer Products, in which Michigan has adopted by reference the Ozone Transport Commission's Model Rule with some modifications, and
(2)to add R 336.1661, Definitions for Consumer Products, to define VOC. Michigan has adopted the Model Rule by reference with two exceptions. Michigan did not adopt the sections that address violations and severability. It was not necessary for Michigan to adopt these two specific sections of the Model Rule as there are Michigan specific rules that already address these issues. Michigan Act 348, which is approved into the Michigan SIP, addresses violations. Section 324.9122 of Michigan Act 451 provides for severability of the State's rules. We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this **Federal Register** publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective December 26, 2007 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by November 26, 2007. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective December 26, 2007. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and, therefore, is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant energy action,” this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). Regulatory Flexibility Act This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal Standard. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 26, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: October 11, 2007. Walter W. Kovalick Jr., Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart X—Michigan 2. In § 52.1170, the table in paragraph
(c)entitled “EPA-Approved Michigan Regulations” is amended by adding entries in part 6 for “R 336.1660” and “R 336.1661” to read as follows: § 52.1170 Identification of plan.
(c)* * * EPA-Approved Michigan Regulations Michigan citation Title State effective date EPA approval date Comments * * * * * * * Part 6. Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Existing Sources of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions * * * * * * * R 336.1660 Standards for Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions from Consumer Products 1/29/07 10/26/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] R 336.1661 Definitions for Consumer Products 1/29/07 10/26/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E7-20948 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0631; FRL-8486-4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Michigan; Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Abnormal Conditions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: The EPA is approving Michigan's June 29, 2007, request to revise recordkeeping and reporting requirements for abnormal conditions, start-up, shutdown, and malfunction of a source, process, or process equipment. The revised rule contains more specific and complete recordkeeping and reporting requirements than are currently approved into the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP). In the proposed rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is proposing approval of and soliciting public comment on this requested SIP revision. If adverse comments are received on this action, EPA will withdraw this final rule and address the comments received in response to this action in a final rule on the related proposed. A second public comment period will not be held. Parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective December 26, 2007, unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 26, 2007. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0631, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov* . 3. *Fax:*
(312)886-5824. 4. *Mail:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR 18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 5. *Hand Delivery:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR 18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0631. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental Engineer, at
(312)886-1767 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312)886-1767, *dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the following, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” are used, we mean the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Table of Contents I. What Has Michigan Submitted? II. What Action is EPA Taking? III. Statutory and Executive Order Review I. What Has Michigan Submitted? On June 29, 2007, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ)submitted a revision to the Michigan SIP. The submittal revises recordkeeping and reporting requirements for abnormal conditions, start-up, shutdown, and malfunction of a source, process, or process equipment contained in R 336.1912 of the Michigan Administrative Code. The revised rule contains more specific and complete recordkeeping and reporting requirements than are currently approved into the SIP. The rule requires the owner or operator of a source to: 1. Operate in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions during periods of abnormal conditions, start-up, shutdown, and malfunctions; 2. Provide notice of an abnormal condition, start-up, shutdown, or malfunction that results in the emission of a hazardous air pollutant or toxic air contaminant in excess of an emission standard which continues for more than one hour; 3. Provide notice and a written report of an abnormal condition, start-up, shutdown, or malfunction that results in emissions of any air contaminant continuing for more than two hours in excess of a standard or limitation; 4. Certify the truth, accuracy, and completeness of written reports; and 5. Incorporate into a preventative maintenance and malfunction abatement plan actions taken to correct and to prevent a reoccurrence of an abnormal condition or malfunction. Notices, which can be by any reasonable means, including electronic, telephonic, or oral communication, are required to be submitted to the MDEQ no later than two business days after the start-up or shutdown or after discovery of the abnormal conditions or malfunction. Written reports are required to be submitted to the MDEQ within ten days after the start-up or shutdown occurred, within ten days after the abnormal conditions or malfunction has been corrected, or within thirty days of discovery of the abnormal conditions or malfunction, whichever is first. Written reports must include the time and date, probable causes and duration of the abnormal conditions, start-up, shutdown, or malfunction; identification of the source, process, or process equipment involved; the type and, where possible, quantity or magnitude of the excess emissions; and information describing the measures taken and air pollution control practices followed to minimize emissions. For abnormal conditions and malfunctions, the report must also include a summary of the actions taken to correct and to prevent a reoccurrence of the abnormal conditions or malfunction and the time taken to correct the malfunction. II. What Action Is EPA Taking? EPA is approving R 336.1912 as a revision to the Michigan SIP. We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this **Federal Register** publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective December 26, 2007 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by November 26, 2007. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective December 26, 2007. III. Statutory and Executive Order Review Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant energy action,” this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). Regulatory Flexibility Act This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal Standard. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 26, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: October 10, 2007. Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. Parts 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart X—Michigan 2. Section 52.1170(c) is amended by revising entry “R 336.1912” under part 9 to read as follows: § 52.1170 Identification of plan.
(c)* * * EPA-Approved Michigan Regulations Michigan citation Title State effective date EPA approval date Comments * * * * * * * Part 9. Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Miscellaneous * * * * * * * R 336.1912 Abnormal conditions, start-up, shutdown, and malfunction of a source, process, or process equipment, operating, notification, and reporting requirements 7/26/95, as corrected 6/1/07 10/26/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E7-20935 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0007; FRL-8485-3] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of partial deletion of sites from the Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp Edwards Superfund Site from the National Priorities List. SUMMARY: EPA New England Region
(EPA)announces the deletion of 61 source area sites on the Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp Edwards Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL). All 61 source area sites as listed in Table 1 were originally proposed for deletion (72 FR 41976) August 1, 2007, and encompass a total acreage of 482.1 acres. A source area site is defined by: soil; structures, if present; and does not include any contaminated groundwater plume that may be below the site. Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp Edwards is a Federal Facility Superfund Site known locally as the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR), so this notice will use MMR as the abbreviation to describe the entire Superfund Site. The United States Air Force is the lead agency at the MMR Superfund Site. This partial deletion pertains to only the surface area of sites investigated (and in some cases cleaned-up) for soil contamination, and does not pertain to any of the 12 groundwater plumes associated with MMR Superfund Site. All other sites (including all contaminated groundwater plumes on the Site) not included in this notice will remain on the NPL. In the northern half of the MMR, there are source area sites and groundwater plumes associated with an investigation and cleanup program known as the Impact Area Groundwater Study Program which is being conducted under the authority of Safe Drinking Water Act Administrative Orders. These sites and groundwater plumes are not the subject of this partial deletion. DATES: This partial deletion of the 61 source area sites on MMR is effective on October 26, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Lim, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (HBT), Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2023,
(617)918-1392, Fax
(617)918-1291, e-mail: *lim.robert@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp Edwards is a Federal Facility Superfund Site known locally as the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR), so this notice will use MMR as the abbreviation to describe the entire Superfund Site. MMR is located in portions of the towns of Bourne, Falmouth, Mashpee, and Sandwich. This partial deletion pertains to the soil and, if present, structures at 61 sites ranging in size from half an acre to 80.7 acres. The total proposed area is 482.1 acres. Table 1 identifies structures as being present with an asterisk next to the site name. There would be 19 source area sites remaining. Even though some of the sites appear to be above contaminated groundwater plumes, this partial deletion does not include any plumes of contaminated groundwater because data shows that the sites are not related to the plumes. Currently eleven groundwater pump and treat cleanup remedies will continue operating until cleanup goals are met. In the northern half of MMR, there is a separate, ongoing investigation and cleanup program known as the Impact Area Groundwater Study Program (IAGWSP). These sites and groundwater plumes are not the subject of this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion. On August 1, 2007, EPA published a Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 41976). EPA did not receive any comments on this proposal; therefore a Responsiveness Summary has not been prepared. EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. Any site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed actions in the unlikely event that conditions at the site warrant such action. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that Fund-financed actions may be taken at sites deleted from the NPL. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability or impede Agency efforts to recover costs associated with response efforts. This partial deletion does not alter the status of all the remaining sites and groundwater plumes of the MMR Site which are not proposed for partial deletion and remain on the NPL. Table 1.—List of Sites for Partial Deletion CS-1 * CS-12 * FS-17 CS-1
(CG)* CS-14 * FS-18 * CS-2 CS-15 FS-19 CS-2
(CG)* CS-16/CS-17/DDOU * FS-20 * CS-3 * CS-22 FS-23 CS-3
(CG)* CY-1 * FS-25 * CS-4 * CY-3 FS-26
(CG)CS-4 (CG)/FS-1
(CG)* FS-2 FS-27 CS-5 * FS-2
(CG)LF-1
(CG)CS-5
(CG)* FS-3 * LF-2
(CG)CS-6 */FS-22 FS-4 LF-3 CS-6
(CG)* FS-7 LF-3
(CG)CS-7 * FS-9 * LF-4 CS-7
(CG)* FS-13 LF-5 CS-8/FS-21 * FS-14 LF-6 CS-8
(CG)FS-15 SD-2/FS-6/FS-8 CS-9 FS-16 * SD-3/FTA-3/CY-4 CS-11 * Key: CS = Chemical Spill. CY = Coal Yard. DDOU = Drum Disposal Operable Unit. FS = Fuel Spill. FTA = Fire Training Area. LF = Landfill. SD = Storm Drain. G = U.S. Coast Guard. * Includes structure(s) at site. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply. Dated: September 25, 2007. Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator, EPA New England. For the reasons set forth in the preamble title 40 part 300 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows. PART 300—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR 1987 Comp., p. 193. Appendix B—[Amended] 2. Table 2 of appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the entry for “Otis Air National Guard (USAF), Falmouth” and adding in its place the entry for “Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp Edwards” to read as follows: Appendix B to Part 300—National Priorities List Table 2.—Federal Facilities Section State Site name City/County Notes a * * * * * * * MA Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp Edwards Sandwich, Falmouth, Bourne, Mashpee P * * * * * * * * * * * * P = Sites with partial deletion(s). [FR Doc. E7-21098 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Part 482 [CMS-3835-F2] Medicare Program; Hospital Conditions of Participation: Requirements for Approval and Re-Approval of Transplant Centers To Perform Organ Transplants AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment. SUMMARY: On March 30, 2007, we published a final rule entitled “Medicare Program; Hospital Conditions of Participation: Requirements for Approval and Re-Approval of Transplant Centers to Perform Organ Transplants.” The effective date was June 28, 2007. This correcting amendment corrects a technical error identified in the March 30, 2007 final rule. DATES: *Effective Date:* This correcting amendment is effective October 26, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeannie Miller,
(410)786-3164. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background FR Doc. 07-1435 of March 30, 2007 (72 FR 15198) contained a technical error that this rule serves to identify and correct. In amending subpart E of part 482, we inadvertently omitted existing §§ 482.60, 482.61, 482.62, and 482.66. Our intention was to retain these sections, which address psychiatric hospitals and “swing-bed” hospitals, without change. II. Summary of Errors in the Regulations Text In amending subpart E of part 482, we inadvertently omitted existing §§ 482.60, 482.61, 482.62, and 482.66. Our intention was to retain these sections, which address psychiatric hospitals and “swing-bed” hospitals, without change. III. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking and Delayed Effective Date We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the **Federal Register** to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a notice such as this take effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)(5 U.S.C. 553(b)). We also ordinarily provide a 30-day delay in the effective date of the provisions of a rule in accordance with section 553(d) of the APA (5 U.S.C. 553(d)). However, we can waive both the notice and comment procedure and the 30-day delay in effective date if the Secretary finds, for good cause, that a notice and comment process and a 30-day delay in effective date are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporates a statement of the finding and the reasons therefore in the notice. We find for good cause that it is unnecessary to undertake notice and comment rulemaking because this final rule merely provides technical corrections to the regulations. We are not making any changes to our existing regulations, but reinstating provisions that have previously been approved and were unintentionally omitted from the final rule that appeared in the March 30, 2007 **Federal Register** (72 FR 15198). Therefore, we believe that undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate these corrections into the update notice is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Further, we believe a delayed effective date is unnecessary because this correcting amendment merely reinstates provisions already approved and in effect. Therefore, we find good cause to waive notice and comment procedures, as well as the 30-day delay in effective date. List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 482 Grant programs—health, Hospitals, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 42 CFR chapter IV is corrected by making the following correcting amendments to part 482. PART 482—CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION FOR HOSPITALS 1. The authority citation for part 482 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 1102, 1871 and 1881 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1395hh, and 1395rr), unless otherwise noted. 2. Subpart E—Requirements for Specialty Hospitals is amended by adding §§ 482.60, 482.61, 482.62, and 482.66, to read as follows: Subpart E—Requirements for Specialty Hospitals Sec. 482.60 Special provisions applying to psychiatric hospitals. 482.61 Condition of participation: Special medical record requirements for psychiatric hospitals. 482.62 Condition of participation: Special staff requirements for psychiatric hospitals. 482.66 Special requirements for hospital providers of long-term care services (“swing-beds”). Subpart E—Requirements for Specialty Hospitals § 482.60 Special provisions applying to psychiatric hospitals. Psychiatric hospital must—
(a)Be primarily engaged in providing, by or under the supervision of a doctor of medicine or osteopathy, psychiatric services for the diagnosis and treatment of mentally ill persons;
(b)Meet the conditions of participation specified in §§ 482.1 through 482.23 and §§ 482.25 through 482.57;
(c)Maintain clinical records on all patients, including records sufficient to permit CMS to determine the degree and intensity of treatment furnished to Medicare beneficiaries, as specified in § 482.61; and
(d)Meet the staffing requirements specified in § 482.62. § 482.61 Condition of participation: Special medical record requirements for psychiatric hospitals. The medical records maintained by a psychiatric hospital must permit determination of the degree and intensity of the treatment provided to individuals who are furnished services in the institution.
(a)*Standard: Development of assessment/diagnostic data.* Medical records must stress the psychiatric components of the record, including history of findings and treatment provided for the psychiatric condition for which the patient is hospitalized.
(1)The identification data must include the patient's legal status.
(2)A provisional or admitting diagnosis must be made on every patient at the time of admission, and must include the diagnoses of intercurrent diseases as well as the psychiatric diagnoses.
(3)The reasons for admission must be clearly documented as stated by the patient and/or others significantly involved.
(4)The social service records, including reports of interviews with patients, family members, and others, must provide an assessment of home plans and family attitudes, and community resource contacts as well as a social history.
(5)When indicated, a complete neurological examination must be recorded at the time of the admission physical examination.
(b)*Standard: Psychiatric evaluation.* Each patient must receive a psychiatric evaluation that must—
(1)Be completed within 60 hours of admission;
(2)Include a medical history;
(3)Contain a record of mental status;
(4)Note the onset of illness and the circumstances leading to admission;
(5)Describe attitudes and behavior;
(6)Estimate intellectual functioning, memory functioning, and orientation; and
(7)Include an inventory of the patient's assets in descriptive, not interpretative, fashion.
(c)*Standard: Treatment plan.*
(1)Each patient must have an individual comprehensive treatment plan that must be based on an inventory of the patient's strengths and disabilities. The written plan must include—
(i)A substantiated diagnosis;
(ii)Short-term and long-range goals;
(iii)The specific treatment modalities utilized;
(iv)The responsibilities of each member of the treatment team; and
(v)Adequate documentation to justify the diagnosis and the treatment and rehabilitation activities carried out.
(2)The treatment received by the patient must be documented in such a way to assure that all active therapeutic efforts are included.
(d)*Standard: Recording progress.* Progress notes must be recorded by the doctor of medicine or osteopathy responsible for the care of the patient as specified in § 482.12(c), nurse, social worker and, when appropriate, others significantly involved in active treatment modalities. The frequency of progress notes is determined by the condition of the patient but must be recorded at least weekly for the first 2 months and at least once a month thereafter and must contain recommendations for revisions in the treatment plan as indicated as well as precise assessment of the patient's progress in accordance with the original or revised treatment plan.
(e)*Standard: Discharge planning and discharge summary.* The record of each patient who has been discharged must have a discharge summary that includes a recapitulation of the patient's hospitalization and recommendations from appropriate services concerning follow-up or aftercare as well as a brief summary of the patient's condition on discharge. § 482.62 Condition of participation: Special staff requirements for psychiatric hospitals. The hospital must have adequate numbers of qualified professional and supportive staff to evaluate patients, formulate written, individualized comprehensive treatment plans, provide active treatment measures, and engage in discharge planning.
(a)*Standard: Personnel.* The hospital must employ or undertake to provide adequate numbers of qualified professional, technical, and consultative personnel to:
(1)Evaluate patients;
(2)Formulate written individualized, comprehensive treatment plans;
(3)Provide active treatment measures; and
(4)Engage in discharge planning.
(b)*Standard: Director of inpatient psychiatric services; medical staff.* Inpatient psychiatric services must be under the supervision of a clinical director, service chief, or equivalent who is qualified to provide the leadership required for an intensive treatment program. The number and qualifications of doctors of medicine and osteopathy must be adequate to provide essential psychiatric services.
(1)The clinical director, service chief, or equivalent must meet the training and experience requirements for examination by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology or the American Osteopathic Board of Neurology and Psychiatry.
(2)The director must monitor and evaluate the quality and appropriateness of services and treatment provided by the medical staff.
(c)*Standard: Availability of medical personnel* . Doctors of medicine or osteopathy and other appropriate professional personnel must be available to provide necessary medical and surgical diagnostic and treatment services. If medical and surgical diagnostic and treatment services are not available within the institution, the institution must have an agreement with an outside source of these services to ensure that they are immediately available or a satisfactory agreement must be established for transferring patients to a general hospital that participates in the Medicare program.
(d)*Standard: Nursing services* . The hospital must have a qualified director of psychiatric nursing services. In addition to the director of nursing, there must be adequate numbers of registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and mental health workers to provide nursing care necessary under each patient's active treatment program and to maintain progress notes on each patient.
(1)The director of psychiatric nursing services must be a registered nurse who has a master's degree in psychiatric or mental health nursing, or its equivalent from a school of nursing accredited by the National League for Nursing, or be qualified by education and experience in the care of the mentally ill. The director must demonstrate competence to participate in interdisciplinary formulation of individual treatment plans; to give skilled nursing care and therapy; and to direct, monitor, and evaluate the nursing care furnished.
(2)The staffing pattern must insure the availability of a registered professional nurse 24 hours each day. There must be adequate numbers of registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and mental health workers to provide the nursing care necessary under each patient's active treatment program.
(e)*Standard: Psychological services* . The hospital must provide or have available psychological services to meet the needs of the patients.
(f)*Standard: Social services* . There must be a director of social services who monitors and evaluates the quality and appropriateness of social services furnished. The services must be furnished in accordance with accepted standards of practice and established policies and procedures.
(1)The director of the social work department or service must have a master's degree from an accredited school of social work or must be qualified by education and experience in the social services needs of the mentally ill. If the director does not hold a masters degree in social work, at least one staff member must have this qualification.
(2)Social service staff responsibilities must include, but are not limited to, participating in discharge planning, arranging for follow-up care, and developing mechanisms for exchange of appropriate, information with sources outside the hospital.
(g)*Standard: Therapeutic activities* . The hospital must provide a therapeutic activities program.
(1)The program must be appropriate to the needs and interests of patients and be directed toward restoring and maintaining optimal levels of physical and psychosocial functioning.
(2)The number of qualified therapists, support personnel, and consultants must be adequate to provide comprehensive therapeutic activities consistent with each patient's active treatment program. § 482.66 Special requirements for hospital providers of long-term care services (“swing-beds”). A hospital that has a Medicare provider agreement must meet the following requirements in order to be granted an approval from CMS to provide post-hospital extended care services, as specified in § 409.30 of this chapter, and be reimbursed as a swing-bed hospital, as specified in § 413.114 of this chapter:
(a)*Eligibility* . A hospital must meet the following eligibility requirements:
(1)The facility has fewer than 100 hospital beds, excluding beds for newborns and beds in intensive care type inpatient units (for eligibility of hospitals with distinct parts electing the optional reimbursement method, see § 413.24(d)(5) of this chapter).
(2)The hospital is located in a rural area. This includes all areas not delineated as “urbanized” areas by the Census Bureau, based on the most recent census.
(3)The hospital does not have in effect a 24-hour nursing waiver granted under § 488.54(c) of this chapter.
(4)The hospital has not had a swing-bed approval terminated within the two years previous to application.
(b)*Skilled nursing facility services* . The facility is substantially in compliance with the following skilled nursing facility requirements contained in subpart B of part 483 of this chapter.
(1)Resident rights (§ 483.10 (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), (d), (e), (h), (i), (j)(1)(vii), (j)(1)(viii), (l), and (m)).
(2)Admission, transfer, and discharge rights (§ 483.12 (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7)).
(3)Resident behavior and facility practices (§ 483.13).
(4)Patient activities (§ 483.15(f)).
(5)Social services (§ 483.15(g)).
(6)Discharge planning (§ 483.20(e)).
(7)Specialized rehabilitative services (§ 483.45).
(8)Dental services (§ 483.55). (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital Insurance; and Program No. 93.774, Medicare—Supplementary Medical Insurance Program) Dated: October 22, 2007. Ann C. Agnew, Executive Secretary to the Department. [FR Doc. E7-21213 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P 72 207 Friday, October 26, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. 03-002-5] RIN 0579-AC55 Importation of Nursery Stock; Postentry Quarantine Requirements for Potential Hosts of Chrysanthemum White Rust and Definition of From AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: We are reopening the comment period for our proposed rule that would amend the regulations on importing nursery stock by providing a new option for the postentry quarantine growing period for articles of *Chrysanthemum* spp., *Leucanthemella serotina* , and *Nipponanthemum nipponicum* and amending the definition of *from.* This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before November 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2005-0081 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. 03-002-4, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 03-002-4. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on Docket No. 03-002-4 in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Arnold T. Tschanz, Senior Import Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236;
(301)734-5306. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 8, 2007, we published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 44425-44433, Docket No. 03-002-4) a proposed rule that would amend the regulations on importing nursery stock by providing an option in which the postentry quarantine growing period for articles of *Chrysanthemum* spp., *Leucanthemella serotina* , and *Nipponanthemum nipponicum* that are imported from certain locations would be reduced from 6 months to 2 months, provided that the grower of those plants has implemented a systems approach to prevent the imported articles from being infected with chrysanthemum white rust. The proposed rule would also amend the definition of *from.* Comments on the proposed rule were required to be received on or before October 9, 2007. We are reopening the comment period on Docket No. 03-002-4 until November 26, 2007. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments. We will also consider all comments received between October 9, 2007, and the date of this notice. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of October 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-21136 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28956; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-068-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company Models 525, 525A, and 525B Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) Models 525, 525A, and 525B airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to inspect the lower wing skin structure, forward wing spar, lower fuselage skin, fairings, and the external fairing frames for corrosion; repair any damage found; apply a corrosion inhibitive sealant to the fuselage fairings before reinstalling; and disable the cockpit mounted pilot relief tube. This proposed AD results from leaking of the cockpit mounted pilot relief tube, which caused corrosion of the airplane structure. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct any damage from corrosion of the airplane structure. Corrosion of the airplane structure could cause structural degradation and lead to structural failure of the airplane with consequent loss of control. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Cessna Aircraft Company, Citation Marketing Division, P.O. 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone: 1-800-835-4090; fax: 1-800-517-8500. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T.N. Baktha, Aerospace Engineer, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:
(316)946-4155; fax:
(316)946-4107. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, “FAA-2007-28956; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-068-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive concerning this proposed AD. Discussion Cessna reported wing skin corrosion in a Model 525 and belly skin corrosion in several Model 525A airplanes. Cessna received information on more than 18 cases of significant corrosion. Cessna also received information on 42 cases of some corrosion on Models 525, 525A, and 525B airplanes. Corrosive fluids leaked after use of the cockpit mounted pilot relief tube and caused corrosion of the fuselage skins, fairings, fairing support structure, and wing structure. This condition, if not corrected, could result in structural degradation and lead to structural failure of the airplane with consequent loss of control. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed the following Cessna service information for this AD: • Service Bulletin SB525-53-20, dated April 30, 2007; • Service Bulletin SB525A-53-01, dated April 30, 2007; • Service Bulletin SB525B-53-01, dated April 30, 2007; • Alert Service Letter ASL525-53-04, Revision 2, dated August 19, 2007; • Alert Service Letter ASL525A-53-05, Revision 2, dated July 25, 2007; and • Alert Service Letter ASL525B-53-02, Revision 2, dated July 25, 2007. The service information describes procedures for the following actions: • Inspecting the lower wing skin structure, forward wing spars, lower fuselage skin, fairings, and external fairing frames for corrosion; • Repairing corrosion by blending within specified limits or by contacting the manufacturer to obtain an FAA-approved repair scheme if corrosion damage can not be repaired within the limits specified; • Doing a surface eddy current inspection or a dye-penetrant inspection on the repaired blended areas for cracks, and contacting the manufacturer to obtain an FAA-approved repair scheme if cracks are found; • Applying a corrosion inhibitive sealant to the fuselage fairings before reinstalling; and • Disabling the cockpit mounted relief tube. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require you to inspect the lower wing skin structure, forward wing spar, lower fuselage skin, fairings, and the external fairing frames for corrosion; repair any damage found; apply a corrosion inhibitive sealant to the fuselage fairings before reinstalling; and disable the cockpit mounted pilot relief tube. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 261 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed inspection: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 80 work-hours × $80 per hour = $6,400 Not Applicable $6,400 $1,670,400 We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need repair or further inspection based on the results of the proposed inspection, or the costs associated with such repair or inspection. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed disabling of the cockpit mounted pilot relief tube: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators .5 work-hours × $80 per hour = $40 Not Applicable $40 $10,440 Cessna will provide warranty credit to the extent specified in Cessna Citation Service Bulletin SB525-53-20, dated April 30, 2007; Service Bulletin SB525A-53-01, dated April 30, 2007; Service Bulletin SB525B-53-01, dated April 30, 2007; Alert Service Letter ASL525-53-04, Revision 2, dated August 19, 2007; Alert Service Letter ASL525A-53-05, Revision 2, dated July 25, 2007; and Alert Service Letter ASL525B-53-02, Revision 2, dated July 25, 2007. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Cessna Aircraft Company:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28956; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-068-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD)action by December 26, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the following airplane models and serial numbers that have a cockpit mounted pilot relief tube installed and are certificated in any category: Models Serial Nos.
(1)525 0001 through 0637.
(2)525A 0001 through 0347.
(3)525B 0001 through 0152. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from leaking of the pilot relief tube, which caused corrosion of the airplane structure. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct any damage from corrosion on the airplane structure. Corrosion of the airplane structure could cause structural degradation and lead to structural failure of the airplane with consequent loss of control. Compliance
(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Actions Compliance Procedures
(1)Inspect the lower wing skin structure, forward wing spars, lower fuselage skin, fairings, and external fairing frames for corrosion Within the next 90 days after the effective date of this AD Follow Cessna Citation Alert Service Letter ASL525-53-04, Revision 2, dated August 19, 2007; Alert Service Letter ASL525A-53-05, Revision 2, dated July 25, 2007; or Alert Service Letter ASL525B-53-02, Revision 2, dated July 25, 2007.
(2)If corrosion damage is found in the lower wing skin structure, forward wing spars, lower fuselage skin, fairings, and external fairing frames during the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, repair as specified in the applicable service information. If the corrosion damage can not be repaired within the limits specified in the applicable service information, contact the manufacturer at 1-800-835-4090 for an FAA-approved repair scheme and incorporate this repair Before further flight after the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD Follow Cessna Citation Alert Service Letter ASL525-53-04, Revision 2, dated August 19, 2007; Alert Service Letter ASL525A-53-05, Revision 2, dated July 25, 2007; or Alert Service Letter ASL525B-53-02, Revision 2, dated July 25, 2007.
(3)If corrosion on the lower wing skin structure, forward wing spars, and lower fuselage skin was repaired by blending within the limits specified in the service information, do a surface eddy current inspection or a dye-penetrant inspection for cracks Before further flight after the repair by blending was done as specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this AD Follow Cessna Citation Alert Service Letter ASL525-53-04, Revision 2, dated August 19, 2007; Alert Service Letter ASL525A-53-05, Revision 2, dated July 25, 2007; or Alert Service Letter ASL525B-53-02, Revision 2, dated July 25, 2007.
(4)If cracks are found during the surface eddy current inspection or the dye-penetrant inspection required in paragraph (e)(3) of this AD, contact the manufacturer for an FAA-approved repair scheme and incorporate this repair Before further flight after the inspection required in paragraph (e)(3) of this AD Contact Cessna Aircraft Company, Citation Customer Support at 1-800-835-4090.
(5)Install the fuselage fairings and apply corrosion inhibitive sealant Before further flight after the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD if no corrosion was found; or before further flight after doing the repairs and inspections required in paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(3), and (e)(4) of this AD if corrosion or cracks were found Follow Cessna Citation Alert Service Letter ASL525-53-04, Revision 2, dated August 19, 2007; Alert Service Letter ASL525A-53-05, Revision 2, dated July 25, 2007; or Alert Service Letter ASL525B-53-02, Revision 2, dated July 25, 2007.
(6)Determine the type of installation of the cockpit mounted pilot relief tube and disable the relief tube Within the next 90 days after the effective date of this AD Cessna Citation Service Bulletin SB525-53-20, dated April 30, 2007; Service Bulletin SB525A-53-01, dated April 30, 2007; or Service Bulletin SB525B-53-01, dated April 30, 2007. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(f)The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: T.N. Baktha, Wichita ACO, Aerospace Engineer, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:
(316)946-4155; fax:
(316)946-4107. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Related Information
(g)To get copies of the service information referenced in this AD, contact Cessna Aircraft Company, Citation Marketing Division, P.O. 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone: 1-800-835-4090; fax: 1-800-517-8500. To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* The docket number is Docket No. FAA-2007-28956; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-068-AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 22, 2007. James E. Jackson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-21127 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0631; FRL-8486-5] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Michigan; Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Abnormal Conditions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve, as part of the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP), Michigan's June 29, 2007, request to revise recordkeeping and reporting requirements for abnormal conditions, start-up, shutdown, and malfunction of a source, process, or process equipment. The revised rule contains more specific and complete recordkeeping and reporting requirements than are currently approved into the SIP. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0631, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail:* *mooney.john@epa.gov* . 3. *Fax:*
(312)886-5824. 4. *Mail:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR 18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 5. *Hand Delivery:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR 18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312)886-1767, *dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: October 10, 2007. Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E7-20944 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0192; FRL-8486-7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Michigan; Consumer Products Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a request submitted by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ)on February 13, 2007, to revise the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP). The state has requested approval of two rules in two areas of Part 6, Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Existing Sources of Volatile Organic Compound
(VOC)Emissions by adding R 336.1660, Standards for VOC Emissions from Consumer Products, by adopting by reference the Ozone Transport Commission's Model Rule with some modifications and R 336.1661, Definitions for Consumer Products, to define VOC. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0192, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail:* *mooney.john@epa.gov* . 3. *Fax:*
(312)886-5824. 4. *Mail:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 5. *Hand Delivery:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Aburano, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312)353-6960, *aburano.douglas@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: October 11, 2007. Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E7-20947 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 070906497-7584-01] RIN 0648-AW03 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; For-Hire Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Control Date AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS announces that it is considering, and is seeking public comment on proposed rulemaking to control future access to the South Atlantic for-hire fishery. If a management regime is developed and implemented under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the control date would limit the number of participants in the fishery. This announcement is intended, in part, to promote awareness of the potential eligibility criteria for future access so as to discourage speculative entry into the fishery while the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS consider whether and how access to the for-hire fishery should be controlled. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before 5 p.m., local time, November 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AW03, by any one of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* by clicking on “Search For Dockets” at the top of the screen, then enter the following identifier: 0648-AW03 in the “RIN” field and click the “Submit” button. • Fax: Attn: Kate Michie 727-824-5308. • Mail: Kate Michie, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, Sustainable Fisheries Division, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; toll free 1-866-SAFMC-10 or 843-571-4366; *kim.iverson@safmc.net* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the June 2007 Council meeting, the Council recommended a control date of March 8, 2007, applicable to persons who are contemplating entering any for-hire fishery (charter and headboats) in the exclusive economic zone
(EEZ)of the South Atlantic region. The Council requested that this control date be published in the **Federal Register** to notify fishermen that if they enter such a fishery after March 8, 2007, they may not be assured of future access if the Council and/or NMFS decide to limit entry or impose other measures to manage these fisheries. Establishment of the control date responds to the Council's concerns that for-hire fisheries are expanding quite rapidly and the perception that many of those new entrants lack experience and professional expertise in the subject fishery. Control dates are intended to discourage speculative entry into a fishery, as new entrants entering the fishery after the control date are forewarned that they are not guaranteed future participation in the fishery. Establishment of this control date does not commit the Council or NMFS to any particular management regime or criteria for entry into the for-hire fishery. Fishermen are not guaranteed future participation in the fishery regardless of their level of participation before or after the control date. The Council may recommend a different control date or it may recommend a management regime that does not involve a control date. Other criteria, such as documentation of landings or fishing effort, may be used to determine eligibility for participation in a limited access fishery. The Council and/or NMFS also may choose to take no further action to control entry or access to the fisheries, in which case the control date may be rescinded. Any action by the Council will be taken pursuant to the requirements for fishery management plan and amendment development established under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This notification also gives the public notice that interested participants should locate and preserve records that substantiate and verify their participation in any for-hire fishery in the South Atlantic EEZ. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: October 22, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-21099 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 207 Friday, October 26, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Office of the Chief Economist, USDA. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces that the Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist, is hereby requesting an extension of a currently approved information collection, Guidelines for Designating Biobased Products for Federal Procurement. DATES: Comments received by December 26, 2007 will be considered. *Additional Information or Comments:* Comments and questions should be directed to Marvin Duncan, USDA, Office of the Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, Room 4059, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., MS-3815, Washington, DC 20250-3815. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Guidelines for Designating Biobased Products for Federal Procurement. *OMB Control Number:* 0503-0011. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* The USDA BioPreferred Program provides that qualifying biobased products that fall under items (generic groups of biobased products) that have been designated for preferred procurement by rule making are required to be purchased by Federal agencies in lieu of their fossil energy-based counterparts, with certain limited exceptions. Further, USDA is required by section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to provide certain information on qualified biobased products to Federal agencies. To meet these statutory requirements, USDA will use a number of forms to gather that information from manufacturers and vendors of biobased products. To the extent feasible, the information sought by USDA can be transmitted electronically using the Web site *http://www.usda.gov/biopreferred.* If electronic transmission of information is not practical, USDA will provide technical assistance to support the transmission of information to USDA. The information collected will enable USDA to meet statutory information requirements that then permit USDA to designate items for preferred procurement under the BioPreferred Program. Once items are designated, manufacturers and vendors of qualifying biobased products that fall under these designated items will benefit from preferred procurement by Federal agencies. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 14.9 hours per response. *Respondents:* Manufacturers and vendors of biobased products. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 2,905 *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* One per manufacturer or vendor. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 14,387 hours one time only. Manufacturers and vendors are asked to respond only once. Therefore, there is no ongoing annual paperwork burden on respondents. Comments are invited on:
(1)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;
(2)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;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Roger Conway, Director, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, U.S. Department of Agriculture. [FR Doc. E7-21148 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-GO-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Revision to Notice of Proposed Additions The Committee is making a revision to the Procurement List Proposed Additions published on June 15, 2007 (72 FR 33200). The proposed NPA for the Maintenance Record Holder NSN 8105-00-190-9824 has changed from Bestwork Industries for the Blind, Inc., Runnemede, NJ, to Raleigh Lions Clinic for the Blind, Inc., Raleigh, NC. The Procurement List Proposed Additions notice citing Bestwork Industries for the Blind, Inc., Runnemede, NJ, is no longer under consideration. Kimberly M. Zeich, Director, Program Operations. [FR Doc. E7-21169 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions ACTION: Proposed Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List. SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List products to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and to delete products and a service previously furnished by such agencies. *Comments Must Be Received on or Before:* November 25, 2007. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259. *For Further Information or to Submit Comments Contact:* Kimberly M. Zeich, Telephone:
(703)603-7740, Fax:
(703)603-0655, or e-mail *CMTEFedReg@jwod.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions. Additions If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice for each product will be required to procure the products listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products to the Government. 2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information. End of Certification The following products are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed: Products Hat Liners, Hoods & Booties *NSN:* 8415-LL-DM1-0027—Cotton Knit Winter Liner. *NSN:* 8415-LL-DM1-0076—Cloth Hood. *NSN:* 8415-LL-DM1-0077—Cotton Canvas Overshoes. *NPA:* Community Workshops, Inc., Boston, MA. *Coverage:* C-List for the requirements of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, NH. *Contracting Activity:* Department of the Navy, Fleet Industrial Supply Center
(FISC)Norfolk, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, NH. Maintenance Record Holder *NSN:* 8105-00-190-9824—Maintenance Record Holder. *NPA:* Raleigh Lions Clinic for the Blind, Inc., Raleigh, NC. *Coverage:* B-List for the broad Government requirements as specified by the General Services Administration. *Contracting Activity:* General Services Administration, Region 2, Office Supply & Paper Products Acquisition Ctr, New York, NY. Deletions Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities. 2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and service proposed for deletion from the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information. End of Certification The following products and service are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List: Products Cup, Disposable *NSN:* 7350-00-761-7467—Cup, Disposable, 6 oz. *NSN:* 7350-00-914-5088—Cup, Disposable, 10 oz. *NSN:* 7350-00-914-5089—Cup, Disposable, 8 oz. Cup, Disposable (Foam Plastic) *NSN:* 7350-00-082-5741—Cup, Disposable (Foam Plastic), 8 oz. *NSN:* 7350-00-145-6126—Cup, Disposable (Foam Plastic), 16 oz. *NSN:* 7350-00-721-9003—Cup, Disposable (Foam Plastic), 6 oz. *NSN:* 7350-00-926-1661—Cup, Disposable (Foam Plastic), 10 oz. Lid, Plastic (Foam Cup) *NSN:* 7350-01-485-7092—Lid, Plastic (Foam Cup), 6 oz. *NSN:* 7350-01-485-7093—Lid, Plastic (Foam Cup), 10 oz. *NSN:* 7350-01-485-7094—Lid, Plastic (Foam Cup), 8 oz. *NSN:* 7350-01-485-7889—Lid, Plastic (Foam Cup), 16 oz. *NPA:* The Oklahoma League for the Blind, Oklahoma City, OK. *Contracting Activity:* General Services Administration, Southwest Supply Center, Fort Worth, TX. Cup, Drinking, Styrofoam *NSN:* M.R. 537—Cup, Drinking, Styrofoam, 8 oz., 51 ct. *NSN:* M.R. 539—Cup, Drinking, Styrofoam, 16 oz., 18 ct. *NPA:* The Oklahoma League for the Blind, Oklahoma City, OK. *Contracting Activity:* Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA), Fort Lee, VA. Towel, Machinery Wiping *NSN:* 7920-01-448-7003. *NPA:* East Texas Lighthouse for the Blind, Tyler, TX. *Contracting Activity:* General Services Administration, Southwest Supply Center, Fort Worth, TX. Protector and Sleeve Transparencies *NSN:* 7510-01-483-9754—Transparency Protector, Flip-Frame with Pre-View. *NSN:* 7510-01-484-0016—Sleeve, Transparency. *NSN:* 7510-01-484-0019—Transparency Protector, Flip-Frame. Transparency, Ink Jet *NSN:* 7530-01-484-1753. *NPA:* Industries of the Blind, Inc., Greensboro, NC. *Contracting Activity:* General Services Administration, Office Supplies & Paper Products Acquisition Ctr, New York, NY. Service *Service Type/Location:* Janitorial/Custodial, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service/PPQ, Asian Longhorn Beetle Project, 3920 N. Rockwell, Chicago, IL. *NPA:* Habilitative Systems, Inc., Chicago, IL. *Contracting Activity:* U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service, Minneapolis, MN. Kimberly M. Zeich, Director, Program Operations. [FR Doc. E7-21170 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Addition AGENCY: Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Addition to the Procurement List. SUMMARY: This action adds to the Procurement List a service to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. DATES: *Effective Date:* November 25, 2007. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly M. Zeich, Telephone:
(703)603-7740, Fax:
(703)603-0655, or e-mail *CMTEFedReg@jwod.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 31, 2007, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (72 FR 50323) of proposed additions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the service and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the service to the Government. 2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the service to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the Procurement List. End of Certification Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List: Service *Service Type/Location:* Custodial Services, Roanoke Regional Airport, Transportation Security Administration, (Break-room, hallway, office & private restroom), 5202 Aviation Drive, NW., Roanoke, VA. *NPA:* Goodwill Industries of the Valleys, Inc., Roanoke, VA. *Contracting Activity:* General Service Administration, Region 3, Philadelphia, PA. This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under those contracts. Kimberly M. Zeich, Director, Program Operations. [FR Doc. E7-21171 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Correction of Notice of Additions and Deletion In the document appearing on page 56984, FR Doc E7-19717, Procurement List Additions and Deletions, on October 5, 2007, the Committee published the following product and NSNs (Long Format Replacement Pages—FCCL 7510-00-NSH-0257; 7510-01-537-1400) with coverage as A-List for the total Government requirement as specified by the General Services Administration. This notice corrects the coverage for the above mentioned product and NSNs to B-List for the Broad Government requirement as specified by the General Services Administration. Kimberly M. Zeich, Director, Program Operations. [FR Doc. E7-21172 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-427-801, A-475-801] Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France and Italy: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Changed-Circumstances Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 2, 2007, in response to a request from an interested party, the Department of Commerce initiated a changed-circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on ball bearings and parts thereof from France. On March 9, 2007, the Department self-initiated changed-circumstances reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from Italy and the United Kingdom. We are now rescinding the changed-circumstances reviews for France and Italy because we have initiated administrative reviews covering the firms in question and intend to address any considerations arising from the changed-circumstances reviews on the orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from France and Italy in the context of the 2006/2007 administrative review of these orders. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 26, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Case or Edythe Artman, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-3174 or
(202)482-3931, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department of Commerce (the Department) published antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof (ball bearings) from France, Italy, and the United Kingdom on May 15, 1989. See *Antidumping Duty Orders: Ball Bearings, Cylindrical Roller Bearings, Spherical Plain Bearings, and Parts Thereof From France* , 54 FR 20902 (May 15, 1989), *Antidumping Duty Orders: Ball Bearings and Cylindrical Roller Bearings, and Parts Thereof From Italy* ; 54 FR 20903 (May 15, 1989), and *Antidumping Duty Orders and Amendments to the Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Ball Bearings and Cylindrical Roller Bearings, and Parts Thereof From the United Kingdom* , 54 FR 20910 (May 15, 1989). On August 11, 2000, the Department revoked the antidumping duty order on ball bearings from Italy with respect to those produced by Somecat S.p.A. (SNFA Italy) 1 and the order on ball bearings from France with respect to those produced by Societe Nouvelle de Fabrication Aeronautique S.A.S.U. (SNFA France). See *Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation of Orders in Part* , 65 FR 49219 (August 11, 2000). On July 12, 2001, the Department revoked the order on ball bearings from the United Kingdom with respect to SNFA Bearings Ltd. (SNFA UK). See * Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Sweden, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation of Orders in Part * , 66 FR 36551 (July 12, 2001). 1 The Department had determined previously that Somecat bearings were marked "SNFA Italy". See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 35590 (July 1, 1999), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 in Section 11.B. On January 9, 2007, SKF France S.A. and SKF Aerospace France S.A.S. (collectively SKF France) and SNFA France notified the Department of a change of ownership in SNFA France and requested the initiation of a changed-circumstances review of the order on ball bearings from France. In a separate filing on the same date, SKF Industries S.p.A. (SKF Italy) and SNFA Italy notified the Department of a change in ownership of SNFA Italy. On January 26, 2007, SKF UK Ltd. (SKF UK) and SNFA UK filed such a notification with respect to SNFA UK. Each notification stated that AB SKF, the parent SKF company, had purchased all outstanding shares of the SNFA companies through its subsidiary, SKF Holding France S.A., on July 4, 2006. We initiated a changed-circumstances review pursuant to the request by SKF France and SNFA France on March 2, 2007. See *Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France: Initiation of an Antidumping Duty Changed-Circumstances Review* , 72 FR 9513 (March 2, 2007). On March 9, 2007, the Department self-initiated changed-circumstances reviews of the orders on ball bearings from Italy and the United Kingdom. See *Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Italy and the United Kingdom: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed-Circumstances Reviews* , 72 FR 10643 (March 9, 2007). For each review, we have requested more detailed information from the merged SKF/SNFA entities. The entities have complied with our requests and Timken US Corporation, the petitioner in the investigations, has submitted comments on the information. On June 29, 2007, we initiated administrative reviews of the orders on ball bearings from France, Italy, and the United Kingdom for the period from May 1, 2006, through April 30, 2007. See *Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , Request for Revocation in Part and Deferral of Administrative Review, 72 FR 35690 (June 29, 2007). After analysis of the quantity and value of the sales of ball bearings from France during the period of review, we selected SKF France as a respondent for individual examination in the administrative review of the order covering that merchandise. See “Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill from Thomas Schauer regarding Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France Respondent Selection” dated August 14, 2007. After a similar analysis of sales of ball bearings from Italy, we selected SKF Italy as a respondent for individual examination in the review of the order covering ball bearings from Italy. See “Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill from Thomas Schauer regarding Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Italy Respondent Selection” dated August 14, 2007. We received no request to review the sales of SKF UK in the administrative review of the order on ball bearings from the United Kingdom. Scope of the Order The products covered by these orders are ball bearings and parts thereof. These products include all bearings that employ balls as the rolling element. Imports of these products are classified under the following categories: antifriction balls, ball bearings with integral shafts, ball bearings (including radial ball bearings) and parts thereof, and housed or mounted ball bearing units and parts thereof. Imports of these products are classified under the following *Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States* (HTSUS) subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.5010, 8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010, 8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.05, 8482.99.2580, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.6595, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.50.8040, 8483.50.90, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.60.80, 8708.70.6060, 8708.70.8050, 8708.93.30, 8708.93.5000, 8708.93.6000, 8708.93.75, 8708.99.06, 8708.99.31, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.50, 8708.99.5800, 8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and 8803.90.90. As a result of recent changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, effective February 2, 2007, the subject merchandise is also classifiable under the following additional HTS item numbers: 8708.30.5090, 8708.40.7500, 8708.50.7900, 8708.50.8900, 8708.50.9150, 8708.50.9900, 8708.80.6590, 8708.94.75, 8708.95.2000, 8708.99.5500, 8708.99.68, and 8708.99.8180. Although the HTSUS item numbers above are provided for convenience and customs purposes, written descriptions of the scope of these orders remain dispositive. For a listing of scope determinations which pertain to the orders, see the Scope Determination Memorandum from the Antifriction Bearings Team to Laurie Parkhill, dated May 29, 2007, which is on file in the Central Records Unit
(CRU)of the main Commerce building, room B-099, in the General Issues record (A-100-001) for the 2005-2006 reviews. Rescission of Reviews The mergers of the SKF/SNFA entities in France, Italy, and the United Kingdom occurred in July 2006, during the period under review in the 2006/2007 administrative reviews of the orders on ball bearings from those countries. Because SKF France and SKF Italy have been selected as respondents for individual examination in those reviews, we will be examining the impact of the mergers with respect to the sales that they, or their subsidiaries, made to the United States during the period of review and the effect that these mergers have had on the operations and management of the relevant firms for the purposes of determining, among other things, whether the SKF companies should be collapsed with their SNFA counterparts. Thus, we intend to address any considerations arising from the changed-circumstances reviews on ball bearings from France and Italy in the context of the administrative reviews for SKF France and SKF Italy. Accordingly, we are rescinding the changed-circumstances reviews with respect to the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from France and Italy. We will incorporate the records of the rescinded reviews into the records of the appropriate administrative reviews. Dated: October 19, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-21118 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-816] Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: Extension of Time Limits for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria Cho at
(202)482-5075, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 29, 2006, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Korea, covering the period August 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 2006). On September 10, 2007, the Department published the preliminary results of this review. *See Certain Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 51584 (September 10, 2007). The final results of this review are currently due no later than January 8, 2008. Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue final results within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within that time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the final results to a maximum of 180 days. *See also* 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). We determine that it is not practicable to complete the final results of this review within the original time limit. Several technical issues arose which require the collection and analyses of certain additional information after the preliminary results. Therefore, to allow sufficient time to collect and analyze the additional information, and to conduct the briefing process, the Department is fully extending the final results. The final results are now due not later than March 10, 2008, the next business day after 180 days from publication of the preliminary results. The amended schedule for interested parties to submit case briefs, written comments, and/or hearing is not later than Monday, January 14, 2008. Rebuttal briefs are limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments and may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs or comments. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Any hearing, if requested, ordinarily will be held two days after the due date of the rebuttal briefs. This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). Dated: October 22, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-21114 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-838, A-331-802, A-533-840, A-549-822, A-552-802] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of the Second Administrative Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 26, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Johnson (Brazil) at
(202)482-4929, David Goldberger (Ecuador) at
(202)482-4136, Elizabeth Eastwood (India) at
(202)482-3874, Irina Itkin (Thailand) at
(202)482-0656, and Irene Gorelik (Vietnam) at
(202)482-6905, AD/CVD Operations, Offices 2 and 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 6, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published notices of initiation of the administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, and Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam), covering the period February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007. *See Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, and Thailand* , 72 FR 17100 (April 6, 2007); and *Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 17095 (April 6, 2007). In July 2007, after issuing quantity and value questionnaires and receiving responses, the Department selected mandatory respondents in each of the above-mentioned administrative reviews. *See* the July 17, 2007, Memoranda from James Maeder to Stephen J. Claeys entitled: “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Selection of Respondents for Individual Review"; and “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Selection of Respondents for Individual Review"; the July 18, 2007, Memorandum from James C. Doyle to Stephen J. Claeys entitled: “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Selection of Respondents"; the July 19, 2007, Memoranda from James Maeder to Stephen J. Claeys entitled: “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: Selection of Respondents for Individual Review"; and “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador: Selection of Respondents for Individual Review.” In August and September 2007, the Department rescinded the Brazil, Ecuador, and Thailand administrative reviews with respect to certain companies. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: Partial Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 48616 (August 24, 2007); *Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador: Partial Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 48616 (August 24, 2007); and *Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand; Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 50931 (September 5, 2007). Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination in an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order or finding for which a review is requested. Consistent with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend the 245-day period to 365 days if it is not practicable to complete the review within a 245-day period. The deadline for the preliminary results of these reviews is currently October 31, 2007. The Department determines that completion of the preliminary results of these administrative reviews within the statutory time period is not practicable. Due to the additional time needed for respondent selection, the Department was unable to issue its initial antidumping duty questionnaires to the selected companies until July 2007 in each of these administrative reviews. The Department thus requires additional time to conduct its analysis for each company in each of these reviews. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) the Act, we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of these reviews by 120 days, until February 28, 2008. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results. This notice is published pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). Dated: October 22, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-21110 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-841/Brazil] [A-570-924/People's Republic of China] [A-549-825/Thailand] [A-520-803/The United Arab Emirates] Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) from Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 26, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Heaney (Brazil), AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Erin Begnal (the People's Republic of China) AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Stephen Bailey (Thailand), AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Douglas Kirby (the United Arab Emirates), AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4475,
(202)482-1442,
(202)482-0193, and
(202)482-3782, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petitions On September 28, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received petitions on imports of PET Film from Brazil, the People's Republic of China (PRC), Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates
(UAE)(petitions) filed in proper form by Dupont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film Inc., SKC Inc., and Toray Plastics (America) Inc., (collectively, petitioners). *See Antidumping Duty Petition: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) from Brazil, Republic of China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates* (September 28, 2007). On October 3, 2007, the Department issued a request for additional information and clarification of certain areas of the petitions. Based on the Department's request, petitioners filed supplements to the petitions for all countries on October 9, 2007, and October 10, 2007. *See Supplemental Questionnaire Response: Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the United Arab Emirates* . On October 12, 2007, and October 15, 2007, the Department requested further clarifications from petitioners by phone. *See Memorandum to the File: Telephone Call to Petitioners Regarding the Antidumping Petition on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates, dated* October 12, 2007; *see also Memorandum to the File: Telephone conversation with Petitioners' counsel in connection with the Petitions on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Brazil, the People's Republic of China (the PRC), Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates (the UAE)* , dated October 15, 2007. On October 15, 2007, petitioners submitted additional supplements to the Petitions. *See Second Supplemental Questionnaire Response: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) from Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates* , dated October 15, 2007. On October 15, 2007, Ms. Meredith Rutherford of the Department's Office of Policy, telephoned petitioners to request that they submit relevant pages from the International Trade Commission publication concerning the domestic like product. *See Memorandum to the File: Telephone conversation with Petitioners' counsel in connection with the Petitioners on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Brazil, the People's Republic of China (the PRC), Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates (the UAE)* , dated October 15, 2007. On October 16, 2007, petitioners submitted addendums to their October 15, 2007 supplements. *See Additional Exhibits to the Second Supplemental Questionnaire Response: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) from Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates* , dated October 16, 2007; *see also Supplement to the Petition Regarding Domestic-Like Product* , dated October 16, 2007. On October 16, 2007, the Department telephoned petitioners requesting further information for Brazil, Thailand, and the UAE to which petitioners submitted responses on October 17, 2007, and October 18, 2007. *See Memorandum to the File: Telephone Call to Petitioners Regarding the Antidumping Petition and October 16, 2007, Supplement to the Petition on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Thailand and the United Arab Emirates* , dated October 17, 2007; *see also Memorandum to the File: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from Brazil; Telecon with Counsel for Petitioners; Date of Home Market Prices* , dated October 16, 2007; Supplement to the Petition, dated October 17, 2007, at Exhibit 1; and Supplement to the Petition, dated October 18, 2007, at Exhibit 1. On October 17, 2007, the Department telephoned petitioners regarding their responses to our October 16, 2007, inquires for Brazil, Thailand, and the UAE. *See Memorandum to the File: Telephone Call to Petitioners Regarding Submission of Information in the Antidumping Petition on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Thailand, Brazil, and the United Arab Emirates* , dated October 17, 2007. On October 18, 2007, the Department telephoned petitioners requesting additional clarification of its October, 17, 2007, filings for Thailand and the UAE. *See Memorandum to the File: Telephone Call to Petitioners Regarding the Antidumping Petition on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Thailand and the United Arab Emirates* , dated October 18, 2007. In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), petitioners allege that imports of PET Film from Brazil, the PRC, Thailand, and the UAE are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports materially injure, or threaten material injury to, an industry in the United States. The Department finds that petitioners filed these petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because petitioners are an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and petitioners have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the investigations that petitioners are requesting the Department to initiate ( *see* “Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions” below). Scope of Investigations The products covered by these investigations are all gauges of raw, pre-treated, or primed PET Film, whether extruded or co-extruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer more than 0.00001 inches thick. Also excluded is Roller transport cleaning film which has at least one of its surfaces modified by application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR latex. Tracing and drafting film is also excluded. PET Film is classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive. Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers who support the petition account for
(i)at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and
(ii)more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall
(i)poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph
(A)or
(ii)determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method if there is a large number of producers in the industry. Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information because the Department determines industry support at the time of initiation. Although this may result in different definitions of the domestic like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. *See USEC, Inc. v. United States* , 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001); *see also Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United States* , 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), *aff'd* 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), *cert. denied* 492 U.S. 919 (1989). Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like-product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation,” *i.e.* , the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition. With regard to the domestic like product, petitioners do not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that PET Film constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like-product analysis in these cases, *see* the *Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Brazil* ( *Brazil Initiation Checklist* ) at Attachment II (Analysis of Industry Support), *Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's Republic of China (PRC)* ( *PRC Initiation Checklist* ) at Attachment II (Analysis of Industry Support), *Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Thailand (Thailand Initiation Checklist)* at Attachment II (Analysis of Industry Support), and the *Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the United Arab Emirates (UAE)* ( *UAE Initiation Checklist* ) at Attachment II (Analysis of Industry Support), on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building. In determining whether petitioners have standing ( *i.e.* , those domestic workers and producers supporting the petition account for
(i)at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and
(ii)more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition), we considered the industry support data contained in the petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in Attachment I, (Scope of these petitions), to the *Brazil Initiation Checklist* , *PRC Initiation Checklist* , *Thailand Initiation Checklist* , and *UAE Initiation Checklist* . To establish industry support, petitioners provided their production of the domestic like product for the year 2006, and compared that to production of the domestic like product for the industry. For further discussion, see the Brazil Initiation Checklist, PRC Initiation Checklist, Thailand Initiation Checklist, and UAE Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. Our review of the data provided in these petitions, supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that petitioners have established industry support. First, these petitions established support from domestic producers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support ( *e.g.* , polling). *See* section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act. Second, the domestic producers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) because the domestic producers who support these petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. Finally, the domestic producers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) because the domestic producers who support these petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, these petitions. Accordingly, the Department determines that these petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. *See* the *Brazil Initiation Checklist* , *PRC Initiation Checklist* , * Thailand Initiation Checklist * , and *UAE Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II. The Department finds that petitioners filed these petitions on behalf of the domestic industry in accordance with section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act. Petitioners are an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and have demonstrated sufficient industry support in favor of the initiation of the antidumping duty investigations. *See Brazil Initiation Checklist* , *PRC Initiation Checklist* , *Thailand Initiation Checklist* , and *UAE Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II. Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value. While the imports from the UAE do not meet the statutory requirement for cumulation on a volume basis, in its analysis for threat, petitioners allege that imports from the UAE will imminently account for more than three percent of all imports of the subject merchandise by volume and, therefore, they are not negligible. In addition, petitioners have demonstrated that imports from the UAE for the first half of 2007 do meet the statutory requirement for cumulation on a volume basis. *See* section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act; *see also Brazil Initiation Checklist* , *PRC Initiation Checklist* , *Thailand Initiation Checklist* , and *UAE Initiation Checklist* at Attachment III. Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share, lost revenue and sales, reduced production and capacity utilization, reduced shipments, underselling and price depressing and suppressing effects, reduced employment, and decline in financial performance. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. *See Brazil Initiation Checklist* , *PRC Initiation Checklist* , *Thailand Initiation Checklist* , and *UAE Initiation Checklist* at Attachment III. Periods of Investigation For Brazil, Thailand, and the UAE, in accordance with section 351.204(b) of the Department's regulations, because these petitions were filed on September 28, 2007, the anticipated period of investigation
(POI)is July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007. For the PRC, the anticipated POI is January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2007. Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department has based its decision to initiate investigations with respect to Brazil, the PRC, Thailand, and the UAE. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value are discussed in greater detail in the *Brazil Initiation Checklist* , *PRC Initiation Checklist* , **Thailand Initiation Checklist** , and **UAE Initiation Checklist** . Should the need arise to use any of this information as facts available under section 776 of the Act, we may reexamine the information and revise the margin calculation, if appropriate. Alleged U.S. Price and Normal Value: Brazil Petitioners state that Brazilian producer Terphane Ltda.'s U.S. affiliate, Terphane Inc., was the importer of record for PET Film imports from Brazil during the POI. Petitioners calculated constructed export price
(CEP)using information regarding a representative sale of 48-gauge packaging film made through Terphane Inc. to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. Petitioners deducted from U.S. price a mark-up based on the expenses and profit rate of a U.S. importer of PET Film. We adjusted petitioners' mark-up value to exclude certain expenses covered in separate deductions ( *i.e.* , inland freight from the U.S. port to the distribution warehouse and brokerage charges). Petitioners also deducted from U.S. price an amount for international freight and insurance, U.S. customs duties, inland freight from the U.S. warehouse to the customer and credit expense. *See Brazil Initiation Checklist* . International freight and insurance were calculated as the difference between the value of PET Film imports from Brazil on a CIF basis, and the value of PET Film imports from Brazil on a custom's value basis as reported on the ITC's “DataWeb” *http://usitc.gov/tata/hts/other/dataweb* . In calculating U.S. customs duties, petitioners applied U.S. duty rates to the customs value AUV for import data for the POI. U.S. inland freight was based on the freight expenses of a U.S. producer to the same customer. Petitioners calculated credit using the average U.S. prime rates available for the POI, and used what petitioners describe as the standard thirty-day credit period between shipment and payment for PET Film sales. Petitioners based normal value on a sale of 48-gauge packaging film by Terphane Ltda. to one of its home market customers in Brazil during the POI. Petitioners deducted credit and packing expenses. Petitioners calculated credit using the standard thirty-day period between shipment and payment dates for PET Film sales consistent with other countries subject to these petitions, and used average prime rates available for Brazil for the POI. Petitioners maintain packing costs in Brazil and the United States are equivalent and therefore based packing expenses on those of one petitioning firm. *See Brazil Initiation Checklist* . Petitioners made no deduction for inland freight in calculating NV, claiming the terms of sale were essentially ex-factory. See Supplement to the Brazil Petition, dated October 16, 2007, at Exhibit 4. Petitioners also allege Terphane Ltda.'s home market sale is below its cost of production. Petitioners therefore calculated constructed value for 48-gauge packaging film, basing Terphane Ltda.'s cost of production on that of a U.S. producer's experience during the POI, adjusted for known differences between the United States and Brazil. *See* “Cost of Production and Constructed Value” section, *infra* . Alleged U.S. Price and Normal Value: The People's Republic of China For U.S. price, petitioners relied on price information of a representative sale of Chinese PET Film sold by a U.S. distributor to a U.S. customer in early 2007, based on the experience of a salesperson at one of the petitioning firms. *See* PRC Petition at Exhibit 12; Supplemental Response, dated October 10, 2007, at Exhibit 1 (“October 10, 2007 Supplemental Response”); and Supplemental Response, dated October 15, 2007, at Exhibit 2 (“October 15, 2007 Supplemental Response”). The price information supplied by petitioners was for 48 gauge packaging film, which falls within the scope of these petitions. Petitioners deducted from the price the costs associated with exporting and delivering the product, including a distributor mark-up fee, ocean freight and insurance charges, U.S. duty, port and wharfage fees, and U.S. inland freight. We adjusted petitioners' mark-up value to exclude certain expenses covered in separate deductions ( *i.e.* , inland freight and brokerage charges). *See PRC Initiation Checklist* at Attachment V. Because the Department considers the PRC to be a non-market-economy country (NME), petitioners constructed normal value based on the factors-of- production methodology pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act. Recently, the Department examined the PRC's market status and determined that NME status should continue for the PRC. *See Memorandum from the Office of Policy to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Regarding the People's Republic of China Status as a Non-Market Economy* , dated August 30, 2006. (This document is available online at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nme-status/prc-lined-paper-memo-08302006.pdf* .). In addition, in two recent investigations, the Department also determined that the PRC is an NME country. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 9508 (March 2, 2007), and *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007). In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of the NME status of the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the normal value of the product is based appropriately on factors of production valued in a surrogate market-economy country in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. During the course of this investigation, all parties will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual exporters. Petitioners assert that India is the appropriate surrogate country for valuing the factors of production for the PRC because India is:
(1)a significant producer of identical merchandise; and
(2)at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC. *See* PRC Petition at 41. Based on the information provided by petitioners, we believe that petitioners' use of India as a surrogate country is appropriate for purposes of initiating this investigation. After the initiation of the investigation, we will solicit comments regarding surrogate country selection. Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), interested parties will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value factors of production within 40 days of the date of publication of the preliminary determination. Petitioners provided dumping-margin calculations using the Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 351.408. Petitioners calculated normal value for the U.S. price discussed above based on U.S. industry experience for producing PET Film, which they state is consistent with standard PET Film production methodology. Petitioners also state that Chinese producers use substantially the same material inputs and production processes as U.S. producers. *See* PRC Petition at 41-42 and Exhibit 15. Petitioners state that the primary materials used to produce PET Film are monoethylene glycol (“MEG”), terephthalic acid (“PTA”), and/or dimethyl terephthalate (“DMT”), although they believe that PRC producers utilize PTA rather than DMT. *See* PRC Petition at 42 and October 10, 2007 Supplemental Response at 7. For the normal-value calculations, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, petitioners used surrogate values from a variety of sources, including the *ASFI Monthly Bulletin* , published by the Association of Synthetic Fibre Industry of India, Indian import statistics from the *World Trade Atlas* , the International Energy Agency's (“IEA”) *Energy Prices & Taxes 2007 (First Quarter)* edition, the Department's NME Wage Rate for the PRC, and publicly available financial statements, to value the factors of production (FOP). *See* PRC Petition at 42-43 and Exhibits 16-20; October 10, 2007 Supplemental Response at Exhibits 5, 6, 7 and 9; and October 15, 2007 Supplemental Response at Exhibit 4. Petitioners converted the inputs valued in Indian rupees to U.S. dollars based on the average rupee/U.S. dollar exchange rate for the POI, as reported on the Department's website at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html* . For PTA and MEG, the main raw materials in the production of PET Film, petitioners provided surrogate values based on the *ASFI Monthly Bulletin* from 2006, inflated to the POI using a Wholesale Price Index (“WPI”) inflator. *See* PRC Petition at 42 and Exhibit 16 and October 15, 2007 Supplemental Response at Exhibit 4. In addition, petitioners state that the production of PET Film utilizes very small amounts of fillers, which petitioners did not include in the normal value calculation. Petitioners state that they were unable to determine the correct tariff numbers in order to value these inputs, and not including them in the normal value calculation is a conservative approach. *See* PRC Petition at 42 and October 10, 2007 Supplemental Response at 8. With regard to energy (electricity), petitioners provided a surrogate value using the IEA's *Energy Prices & Taxes* 2007 (First Quarter) edition, which petitioners inflated to the POI, as the electricity value is based on the price paid by industrial users in India in 2000. *See* PRC Petition at 42 and Exhibits 17-18 and October 10, 2007 Supplemental Response at 8-9 and Exhibit 6. For labor, petitioners submitted a labor usage rate which was valued using the Department's NME Wage Rate for the PRC. For packing inputs, petitioners valued flanges, two-by-fours, and cores using Indian import statistics obtained through the *World Trade Atlas* from which they excluded data pertaining to NME and subsidy countries. *See* October 10, 2007 Supplemental Response at 10 and Exhibits 8 and 9; and October 15, 2007 Supplemental Response at 3. Petitioners asserted that pallets were utilized as a packing factor of production, but stated in their October 15, 2007 Supplemental Response that since they did not know the average weight of the pallets that form the basis of this HTS number in the Indian import statistics (as the surrogate value from the *World Trade Atlas* is based on rupees per piece), they removed the pallet expense. However, in their October 10, 2007 Supplemental Response at Exhibit 8, petitioners listed the weight of a typical pallet used to pack PET Film. We have applied this weight to the pallet surrogate value to derive a rupees per kilogram value and added this expense to normal value. *See PRC Initiation Checklist* at Attachment V for a revised pallet surrogate value. For the normal-value calculations, petitioners derived the figures for factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit from the financial ratios of three large Indian producers of PET Film: Flex Industries, Garware Polyester Limited, and Polyplex Corporation. The financial statements that petitioners provided covered the period of April 2005 to March 2006. Additionally, petitioners calculated a simple average of the three companies' financial ratios for purposes of the petition. *See* PRC Petition at 43 and Exhibit 20 and October 10, 2007 Supplemental Response at Exhibit 7. We did not make any other adjustments to the NV as calculated by the petitioners, other than the inclusion of pallets as a packing input. *See* Attachment V for the revised NV calculation. Separate Rates for the Antidumping Investigation of Imports of PET Film from the PRC In 2005, the Department modified the process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations. The Department's practice is discussed further in * Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries * (April 5, 2005) (“ *Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin* ”), available on the Department's website at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf* . The process now requires the submission of a separate-rate status application. Based on our experience in processing the separate-rate applications in antidumping duty investigations, we have modified the application for this investigation to make it more administrable and easier for applicants to complete. *See* , *e.g.* , *Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 43591, 43594-95 (August 6, 2007) (“ *Tires from the PRC* ”). The specific requirements for submitting the separate-rate application in this investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which will be available on the Department's website at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html* on the date of publication of this initiation notice in the **Federal Register** . The separate-rate application is due no later than December 17, 2007. Alleged U.S. Price and Normal Value: Thailand For U.S. price, petitioners relied on a representative sale of Thai PET Film sold to a U.S. customer during the proposed POI. *See* Thailand Petition at Exhibit 22; Supplemental Response, dated October 9, 2007, at Exhibit 3. The price information supplied by petitioners was for 48 gauge packaging film, which falls within the scope of the petitions. Petitioners deducted from the price the costs associated with exporting and delivering the product, including a distributor mark-up (based on Flex America's financial statements), ocean freight and insurance charges, U.S. duty, port and wharfage fees, and U.S. inland freight. Additionally, petitioners deducted imputed credit expenses. We have adjusted the CEP price by recalculating the claimed distributor mark-up submitted by petitioners to eliminate line items which are being deducted separately from U.S. price. *See Thailand Initiation Checklist* . For normal value, petitioners submitted price information for a home market sale obtained by an employee of a Thai PET Film reseller. *See* Thailand Petition at Exhibit 23; Supplemental Response, dated October 16, 2007, at Exhibit 4; and Supplemental Response, dated October 17, 2007, at Exhibit 1. However, complete information with respect to certain home market expense(s) were not reasonably available to the petitioners. As such, adequate home market prices were not reasonably available to petitioners; therefore, we have relied on petitioners' information for constructed value to calculate normal value. We are not initiating a sales below cost investigation because there are no home/comparison market sales. According to 19 CFR 351.301(d)(2)(i)(A), this will not preclude petitioners from filing a cost allegation once information becomes available. Petitioners calculated constructed value for 48-gauge packaging film. With exception of FOH, SG&A expense, interest expense and profit rates, which were based on PTL's experience, petitioners calculated constructed value using PTL's cost of production using the experience of a U.S. producer of PET Film, adjusted for known differences between costs in Thailand and the United States. We recalculated petitioners' price-to-CV margin calculation to include an amount for packing. *See Thailand Initiation Checklist* for a detailed discussion on petitioners' calculation of CV. Alleged U.S. Price and Normal Value: UAE Petitioners calculated both a CEP and an export price (EP). Petitioners based CEP on a sale made by Flex UAE's U.S. affiliate, Flex America, to an unaffiliated customer during the proposed POI. The PET Film at issue is 92-gauge packaging film which, Petitioners explain, is a common and representative type of PET Film sold in the U.S. market and was sold on a “Delivered, Duty Paid” basis with 30 day payment terms. Petitioners deducted a distributor mark-up (based on Flex America's financial statements), international freight, U.S. Duty, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. credit. We have adjusted the CEP price by recalculating the claimed distributor mark-up submitted by petitioners to eliminate line items which are being deducted separately from U.S. price ( *i.e.* , inland freight from the U.S. port to the distribution warehouse and brokerage charges). Petitioners calculated EP on the POI weighted-average AUV customs value for PET Film imports from the UAE into the U.S. for subheading number 3920.62.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTS)based on Customs Value data collected from the USITC. *See UAE Initiation Checklist* . For normal value, petitioners submitted price information for a home market sale which took place during the POI. However, complete information with respect to certain home market expense(s) were not reasonably available to the petitioners. As such, adequate home market prices were not reasonably available to petitioners; therefore, we have relied on petitioners' information for constructed value to calculate normal value. *See UAE Initiation Checklist* for a detailed discussion on petitioners' calculation of CV. We are not initiating a sales below cost investigation because there are no home/comparison market sales. According to 19 CFR 351.301(d)(2)(i)(A), this will not preclude petitioners from filing a cost allegation once information becomes available. Petitioners calculated COM (except direct materials and fixed overhead) and packing expenses based on a U.S. producer's cost experience adjusted for known differences to manufacture PET Film in the UAE, using publicly-available data. *See* IEA publication, Energy Prices and Taxes for 2007: UAE's Regulation and Supervision Bureau publication of UAE energy costs from Industrial/Commercial rates for 2004. To calculate direct material, fixed overhead, SG&A and financial expense rates, petitioners relied on the most contemporaneous financial statements to the POI for a PET Film producer in the UAE. *See UAE Initiation Checklist* . Petitioners valued raw materials using the per pound value of purchased polyester chips divided by the production quantity reported in FY 2006 financial statements of Flex UAE, a PET Film producer in the UAE. These were the most recent statement available. *See* , *e.g.* , the Supplement to the Petition, October 10, 2007, at page 8 and Exhibit 7. Petitioners determined energy costs using the cost experience of a U.S. PET Film producer to manufacture one pound of PET Film, adjusted by the ratio of energy costs in UAE to that in the United States. Petitioners obtained the annual UAE energy costs for 2004 from the Industrial/Commercial rate published by the UAE's Regulation and Supervision Bureau and the annual U.S. energy costs for 2004 from the International Energy Agency publication, Energy Prices and Taxes for 2006. *See* , *e.g.* , the UAE Petition at page 65 and 66, and Exhibits 33 and 34. To calculate labor, fixed overhead, SG&A expense, interest expense and profit, petitioners relied on the financial statements of Flex UAE for the fiscal year end December 31, 2006. We recalculated petitioners' price-to-CV margin calculation to include an amount for packing. *See* , *e.g.* , the UAE Petition at Exhibit 35, the supplement to the Petition, dated October 10, 2007, at pages 10 and 11, and Exhibit 7 and Supplement to the Petition, dated October 15, 2007, at page 3 and Exhibit 5. Respondent Selection and Quantity and Value Questionnaire for the PRC In prior NME investigations, it has been the Department's practice to request quantity and value information from all known exporters identified in the PRC Petition. *See* , *e.g.* , *Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 43591 (August 6, 2007). For this investigation, because the HTSUS number 3920.62.00.90, as discussed above in the “Scope of the Investigation,” provides comprehensive coverage of imports of PET Film, the Department expects to select respondents in this investigation based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)data of U.S. imports under HTSUS number 3920.62.00.90 during the POI. Use of Combination Rates in an NME Investigation The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.107(b)(1). The *Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin* , at 6, describes that, while continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the POI. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the POI. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates” because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the POI. Fair-Value Comparisons Based on the data provided by petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of PET Film from Brazil, Thailand, the UAE, and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of export price/constructed export price to normal value that we revised as discussed above and calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, these are the estimated dumping margins for PET Film: 1) the estimated dumping margins for Brazil range from 13.08 percent (price-to-price) to 44.36 percent (price to CV); 2) the estimated dumping margin for the PRC is 76.72 percent; 3) the estimated dumping margin for Thailand is 80.24 percent (price-to-CV); and 4) the UAE's estimated dumping margins range from 35.44 percent (EP-to-CV) to 73.23 percent (CEP-to-CV). Initiation of Antidumping Investigations Based upon the examination of the petitions on PET Film from Brazil, the PRC, Thailand, and the UAE and other information reasonably available to the Department, the Department finds that these petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether imports of PET Film from Brazil, the PRC, Thailand, and the UAE are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation. Sales Below Cost Allegation Petitioners have provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of PET Film in Brazil were made at prices below the fully absorbed cost of production (COP), within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct a sales-below-costs investigation. We note that because petitioners were unable to provide adequate home market prices for Thailand or the UAE, we are not initiating country-wide cost investigations for those countries at this time. According to 19 CFR 351.301(d)(2)(i)(A), petitioners are not precluded from filing a cost allegation once the information becomes available. An allegation of sales below COP need not be specific to individual exporters or producers. *See* , *e.g.* , Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, Vol. 1
(1994)at 833. Thus, Commerce will consider allegations of below-cost sales in the aggregate for a foreign country. *Id* . Further, section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires that the Department have “reasonable grounds to believe or suspect” that below-cost sales have occurred before initiating such an investigation. Reasonable grounds exist when an interested party provides specific factual information on costs and prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the foreign market in question are at below-cost prices. As described in the section below on “Cost of Production and Constructed Value,” the Department calculated a country-specific COP for a certain gauge of PET Film for Brazil. Based upon a comparison of the prices of the foreign-like product in the home market to the calculated COP of the product, we find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product were made below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating a country-wide cost investigation with regard to Brazil. We note, however, that if we determine that the Brazilian home market is not viable, our initiation of a country-wide cost investigation with respect to sales in the home market will be rendered moot. *See Brazil Initiation Checklist* . Cost of Production and Constructed Value
(CV)Pursuant to section 773(a)(4) of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacturing (“COM”); selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses; financial expenses; and packing. Pursuant to section 773(a)(4) of the Act, petitioners calculated a single CV as the basis for normal value (NV). Petitioners calculated CV using the COM; SG&A expenses; financial expenses. Petitioners then added the average profit rate based on the most recent financial statements of a PET Film producer. *See Brazil Initiation Checklist* , *Thailand Initiation Checklist* , and *UAE Initiation Checklist* . Brazil Petitioners calculated COM and packing based on a U.S. producer's cost experience, adjusted for known differences ( *e.g.* , energy and labor) to manufacture PET Film in Brazil using publically-available data. To calculate SG&A and financial expense rates, petitioners relied on the financial statements most contemporaneous to the proposed POI for a thermoplastic resins (including PET Film) producer in Brazil, Braskem Ltda. See Brazilian Initiation Checklist.Petitioners determined the cost of terephthalic acid
(PTA)and mono-ethylene glycol
(MEG)based on the quantities used to manufacture one pound of PET Film as experienced by a U.S. PET Film producer. *See* Volume I of the Brazil Petition at page 32 and Volume II of the Brazil Petition at Exhibit 5. Petitioners stated the cost of the required raw material in Brazil were similar to that incurred by the U.S. PET Film producer and provided an affidavit in the Supplement to the Petition, dated October 10, 2007, at Exhibit 6 as support. Petitioners determined labor costs using the labor cost experience of a U.S. PET Film producer to manufacture one pound of PET Film, adjusted by the ratio of labor costs in Brazil to those of the United States. Petitioners obtained the annual Brazilian and U.S. labor costs from the Department's “Expected Wage Calculation: 2003,” found at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/03wages/110805-2003-Tables* for Brazil and the United States. *See* Supplement to the Petition, dated October 10, 2007, at pages 9-10 and Exhibit 7. Petitioners determined energy costs using the cost experience of a U.S. PET Film producer to manufacture one pound of PET Film, adjusted by the ratio of energy costs in Brazil to that of the United States. Petitioners obtained the annual Brazilian and U.S. energy costs from the International Energy Agency publication, Energy Prices and Taxes for 2004. *See* Volume I of the Petition at page 33 and Volume II of the Petition at Exhibits 5 and 9. Petitioners determined the fixed overhead costs (exclusive of energy and labor) using the cost experience of a U.S. PET Film producer to manufacture one pound of PET Film. Petitioners' stated this was reasonable because the one producer of PET Film in Brazil does not publish its financial statements. *See* Volume I of the Brazil Petition at pages 33 and 34 and Supplement to the Petition, dated October 10, 2007, at page 8. To calculate SG&A expense, interest expense and profit, petitioners relied on the financial statements of Braskem Ltda. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, the most recent financial statements available. *See* Volume II of the Petition at Exhibit 10. We recalculated fixed overhead costs based on the financial statements of Braskem Ltda. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, as this best reflects the cost experience in Brazil. *See* Volume II of the Petition at Exhibit 10. To calculate a price-to-CV margin, we added packing to this revised CV. *See Brazil Initiation Checklist* . Distribution of Copies of the Petitions In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the public version of these petitions have been provided to the representatives of the Governments of Brazil, the PRC, Thailand, and the UAE. We will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the petitions to the foreign producers/exporters named in the petitions. International Trade Commission Notification We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determination by the International Trade Commission The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than November 12, 2007, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of PET Film from Brazil, the PRC, Thailand, and the UAE materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination covering all classes or kinds of merchandise covered by the petitions would result in the investigations being terminated. Otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Dated: October 18, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-21120 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-428-830] Notice of Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review: Stainless Steel Bar from Germany AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has received a request for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on Stainless Steel Bar (“SSB”) from Germany published on March 7, 2002 (67 FR 10382). In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(d), we are initiating an antidumping new shipper review of Flanschenwerk Bebitz GmbH (“Flanschenwerk”). EFFECTIVE DATE: October 26, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander or Damian Felton, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0182 or
(202)482-0133, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department received a timely request from Flanschenwerk, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on SSB from Germany, which has a September semiannual anniversary month. Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Flanschenwerk, an exporter and producer of the subject merchandise, certified that it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”) (October 1, 1999, through September 30, 2000). Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Flanschenwerk also certified that since the initiation of the investigation it has not been affiliated with any exporter or producer who exported the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI, including those not individually examined during the investigation. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Flanschenwerk also submitted documentation establishing the date on which its SSB was first shipped for export to the United States, the volume of that shipment, and the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. The Department conducted a query of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) database to confirm that Flanschenwerk's shipment of subject merchandise had entered the United States for consumption and has been suspended for antidumping duties. The Department also corroborated Flanschenwerk's assertion that it made no subsequent shipments to the United States by reviewing CBP data. Scope of the Order For the purposes of this order, the term “stainless steel bar” includes articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished stainless steel bars that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process. Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products ( *i.e.* , cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), products that have been cut from stainless steel sheet, strip or plate, wire ( *i.e.* , cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes and sections. The SSB subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Initiation of Review Based on the information on the record and in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we have determined that Flanschenwerk has met the statutory and regulatory requirements for the initiation of a new shipper review. Thus, we are initiating a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on SSB from Germany (produced and exported) by Flanschenwerk. Because we are initiating this new shipper review in the month immediately following the semiannual anniversary month, this review covers the period from March 1, 2007, through August 31, 2007, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B). We intend to issue the preliminary results of this review no later than 180 days after the date on which this review is initiated, and the final results within 90 days after the date on which we issue the preliminary results. *See* section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. On August 17, 2006, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (“H.R. 4”) was signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4 temporarily suspends the authority of the Department to instruct CBP to collect a bond or other security in lieu of a cash deposit in new shipper reviews. Therefore, the posting of a bond under section 751(a)(B)(iii) of the Act in lieu of a cash deposit is not available in this case. Importers of SSB manufactured and exported by Flanschenwerk must continue to post cash deposits of estimated antidum ping duties on each entry of subject merchandise ( *i.e.* , SSB) at the current all-others rate of 15.16 percent, established in *Implementation of the Findings of the WTO Panel in US-Zeroing (EC): Notice of Determination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Revocations and Partial Revocations of Certain Antidumping Duty Orders* , 72 FR 25261, 25262 (May 4, 2007). Interested parties may submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.214(d) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: October 22, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-21109 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-808] Stainless Steel Wire Rods From India: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty New-Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 26, 2007. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a new-shipper review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rods (wire rods) from India manufactured and exported by Sunflag Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (Sunflag). The period of review
(POR)is December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006. We preliminarily determine to apply adverse facts available to Sunflag's U.S. sales. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument
(1)a statement of the issue and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Cartsos or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1757 and
(202)482-1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 1, 1993, the Department published the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rods from India. See *Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India* , 58 FR 63335 (December 1, 1993). On December 29, 2006, the Department received a timely request from Sunflag for new-shipper and administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order, under section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(c). On February 2, 2007, we published the initiation of the administrative review. On March 20, 2007, the Department published a notice of initiation of a new-shipper review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rods from India with respect to Sunflag. See *Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New-Shipper Review* , 72 FR 13088 (March 20, 2007). On September 12, 2007, we published our intent to rescind the administrative review with respect to Sunflag because we are proceeding with the new-shipper review and because the administrative review covers entries during the same period of time as the new-shipper review. *See Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part* , 72 FR 52079 (September 12, 2007). We conducted verification of Sunflag's information from July 30, 2007, through August 2, 2007. On August 8, 2007, we extended the time limit for the preliminary results of the new-shipper review to October 19, 2007. *See Stainless Steel Wire Rods From India: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty New-Shipper Review* , 72 FR 44496 (August 8, 2007). Scope of the Order The merchandise under review is stainless steel wire rods which are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils. Wire rods are made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. These products are only manufactured by hot-rolling and are normally sold in coiled form, and are of solid cross section. The majority of wire rods sold in the United States are round in cross-section shape, annealed, and pickled. The most common size is 5.5 millimeters in diameter. The wire rods subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive. Bona Fide Analysis Consistent with our practice, we investigated whether the two U.S. transactions reported by Sunflag during the POR were *bona fide* sales. Among the factors we examined was the relationship between Sunflag and its reported U.S. customer. Based on our investigation, we preliminarily determine that Sunflag's sales were made on a *bona fide* basis. For our complete analysis, see memorandum from Catherine Cartsos to the File entitled “ *Bona Fide* Nature of Sunflag Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.'s Sales in the New Shipper Review for Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India,” dated October 19, 2007, on file in room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building. Use of Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party or any other person
(A)withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority,
(B)fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782,
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. 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 shall promptly inform the person submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that person with an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency in light of the time limits established for the completion of the administrative review. Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not decline to consider information determined to be “deficient” under section 782(d) if all of the following requirements are met:
(1)the information is submitted by the established deadline;
(2)the information can be verified;
(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;
(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and
(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. Moreover, 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 an inference adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. In addition, the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103- 316, Vol. 1, at 870
(1994)(SAA), establishes that the Department may employ an adverse inference “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate to the best of its ability than if it had cooperated fully.” It also instructs the Department to consider, in employing adverse inferences, “the extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of cooperation.” *Id* . We preliminarily determine that Sunflag's questionnaire response of May 11, 2007, and supplemental questionnaire responses of June 26, 2007, and July 14, 2007, cannot serve as the basis for calculating a margin for Sunflag because we are unable to depend on the accuracy and reliability of the information in those responses. In our questionnaire we describe the form and manner in which the respondent should report its sales data. Specifically, we state, {f}or sales of merchandise that have been shipped to the customer and invoiced by the time this response is prepared, each “record” in the computer data file should correspond to an invoice line item ( *i.e.* , each unique product included on the invoice). For sales of merchandise that have not yet been shipped and invoiced (in whole or in part) to the customer, a “record” should correspond to the unshipped portion of the sale. Each computer record submitted should contain the information requested concerning the product sold, the terms of the sale, the selling expenses incurred and other information.” See *Questionnaire* , dated March 5, 2007, at B-3 and C-2. As discussed in detail in the October 19, 2007, Memorandum entitled “2005/2006 New-Shipper Review of Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India - Decision to Apply Adverse Facts Available and the Selection of an Appropriate Rate for the Preliminary Results of Review” (AFA Memorandum), we found at verification that Sunflag did not report its sales in the home market as instructed. We found that, for its home-market database, Sunflag reported each invoice as a single observation even in those instances where the invoice contained multiple sales of different products ( *i.e.* , multiple line items). Sunflag assigned the total invoice quantity and the total invoice value as the observation quantity and value, and it reported the product characteristics of only one of the line items as the product characteristics of the observation. Sunflag used the product description of the last item on the billing document (a different document from the invoice) to report the grade, diameter, further manufacturing, and gross unit price for the observation. Also at verification we found discrepancies with certain variables Sunflag reported in the home-market and U.S. databases. We have insufficient information on the record to correct all of the discrepancies related to these variables. Moreover, Sunflag did not report most home-market expenses (four types of discounts, inland freight, commissions, indirect selling expenses, and variable cost of manufacturing in the home market) on a per-unit basis, as we requested in our questionnaire but, instead, reported them based on the total invoice quantity. In addition, because in its home-market database Sunflag reported each invoice as a single aggregated observation even in those instances where the invoice contained multiple sales of different products, the information it reported in most of the expense fields is inaccurate. For a detailed discussion with respect to these deficiencies see AFA Memorandum and memorandum from Catherine Cartsos and Edythe Artman to File entitled “Verification of the Sales Response of Sunflag Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., in the Antidumping New-Shipper Review of Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India,” dated October 19, 2007 (Verification Report). Therefore, Sunflag failed to provide information in the form and manner requested in the Department's original questionnaire. *See* section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. A further flaw in Sunflag's information concerns our finding at the verification of the discrepancy between the reported value of sales for the window period and the value of sales in the general ledger for the same period; the general-ledger figure was higher than the value Sunflag reported as its total home-market sales. Company officials attributed part of the difference in the two values to returns but, while part of the difference was indeed due to reporting sales net of returns, the remainder of the difference was due to sales of foreign like product that Sunflag should have reported but did not. By not reporting all of its sales of foreign like product, Sunflag withheld information that the Department requested in its questionnaire and two supplemental questionnaires. In addition, the Department officials observed while conducting verification that Sunflag maintained detailed records containing all the information necessary to provide a complete and accurate questionnaire response. See section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. In addition to finding that Sunflag misreported and neglected to report home-market sales, Sunflag provided additional information that could not be verified. During the verification the Department officials found that Sunflag's reported sales data contained pervasive errors and much of the data remained substantially unverified due to Sunflag's lack of preparedness. Even though Sunflag officials received our Verification Agenda, which outlined in detail the steps we would follow at verification, more than a week in advance of the verification, they were not well prepared. Therefore, we experienced constant and serious delays while at verification. Because of these delays, it was impossible to verify all of the information we had identified as subject to our examination in the Verification Agenda. See section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. Sunflag significantly impeded the new-shipper review by not providing accurate and necessary information contained in its records. See section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act. Also, the Department can decline to consider information Sunflag submitted because, as demonstrated above, sections 782(e)(2) and
(3)of the Act are not met. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2) of the Act, the use of total facts available for Sunflag is justified. 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 an inference adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. See, *e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstance in Part: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From Mexico* , 68 FR 42378 (July 17, 2003), unchanged in the final determination (see *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Mexico* , 68 FR 68350 (December 8, 2003)). Sunflag had the documents necessary to report complete and correct information in the necessary and requested manner and format. Because it did not do so, we find that Sunflag did not act to the best of its ability in reporting necessary and accurate information and presenting its data in the requested manner that would enable us to calculate a margin. Therefore, we find it appropriate to use an inference that is adverse to Sunflag's interest in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. By doing so, we ensure that Sunflag will not obtain a more favorable rate by failing to cooperate. Section 776(b) of the Act states that an adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition. See also 19 CFR 351.308(c). We have preliminarily assigned Sunflag, as facts otherwise available with an adverse inference, the petition margin rate of 48.80 percent. While this is the highest margin in the history of the proceeding, it is also the all-others rate and, therefore, the rate currently applicable to entries of merchandise from Sunflag. Any rate lower than 48.80 percent would give Sunflag a more favorable rate despite its failure to cooperate to the best of its ability. Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. 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. The SAA clarifies that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870. The Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information. The SAA emphasizes, however, that the Department need not prove that the selected facts available are the best alternative information. See SAA at 869. The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. See SAA at 870. See also19 CFR 351.308(d). With respect to the reliability aspect of the corroboration, we will consider information reasonably at our disposal to determine whether a margin continues to be reliable and whether there are circumstances that would render data used as facts available unreliable. The 48.80 percent all-others rate from the investigation is the average of the rates applied to each original respondent in the investigation. In the investigation, the Department applied the highest rate among the margins in the petition to each respondent based upon a determination by the Department to use the best information available. See *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India* , 58 FR 54110, 54111 (October 20, 1993). The U.S. price in the petition, which resulted in the 48.80 percent rate, was based on a quote to a U.S. customer which was obtained through market research. See Memorandum from the analyst to the file dated October 19, 2007, entitled “Transfer to Current Record of Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties Dated December 29, 1993.” The normal value the petitioner used in the petition was based on an actual home-market price quote from an Indian producer of stainless steel wire rods. The price quote for normal value in the petition was contemporaneous with the U.S. price quote in the petition as the basis for export price. We determined that, because the home-market and U.S. price quotation reflected commercial practices of the particular industry during the period of investigation, the information was relevant to mandatory respondents which refused to participate in the investigation. No information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of this information nor has this rate been judicially invalidated. Further, the 48.80 percent rate was most recently corroborated and applied as an adverse facts-available rate to a respondent in the 2001-2002 review of this order. See *Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR70765, 70771 (December 19, 2003), unchanged in *Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR29923 (May 26, 2004). Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the rate we used in the investigation, which we corroborated in the 2001-2002 review of this order and in this review, is a reliable rate. To assess the relevance of the petition margin for purposes of this review, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act we examined the key elements of the calculations of export price and normal value upon which the petitioners based their margins for the petition, to the extent practicable. See *Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 64 FR 76, 84 (January 4, 1999). In the current new-shipper review we were able to corroborate the U.S. price in the petition, which was used as the basis of the 48.80 percent rate, by comparing this price to information from a respondent in the concurrent administrative review covering the same POR, Mukand Limited (Mukand). Mukand's reported U.S. price is significantly lower than the U.S. price in the petition, thus corroborating the petition U.S. price. See Memorandum from the analyst to the file entitled, “Placement of Mukand's Home-Market and U.S. Data on the Record,” dated October 19, 2007 (Mukand Data Memo). In the current new-shipper review, in order to corroborate normal value, we looked again at information from Mukand's response for the concurrent administrative review covering the same POR. We find that the home-market prices in Mukand's March 15, 2007, questionnaire response are similar to, and in many instances much higher than, the price provided as normal value in the 1992 petition, which contributed to the all-others rate of 48.80 percent. See Mukand Data Memo. For these reasons, the Department considers the normal value to be corroborated. Furthermore, because the 48.80 percent rate is also the all-others rate for this order, Sunflag's shipments have entered the United States at this rate such that the 48.80 percent rate is relevant to the current POR. Finally, this is a new-shipper review; hence, as the first review of Sunflag, there are no probative alternatives specific to the company. Accordingly, by using information that was applied in the less-than-fair-value investigation (LTFV), corroborated in the 2001-2002 review of this order, and preliminarily determined to be relevant to Sunflag in this review, we have corroborated the adverse facts-available rate “to the extent practicable.” See section 776(c) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.308(d). Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a dumping margin of 48.80 percent for Sunflag exists for the period December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006. Public Comment We will disclose the documents resulting from our analysis to parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . If a hearing is requested, the Department will notify interested parties of the hearing schedule. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review. The Department will consider case briefs filed by interested parties within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Interested parties may file rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs. The Department will consider rebuttal briefs filed not later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a brief summary of the argument, and a table of authorities cited. Further, we request that parties submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing an electronic copy of the public version of such comments. We intend to issue the final results of this new-shipper review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written comments, within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results are issued. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because we are relying on total adverse facts available to establish Sunflag's dumping margin, we preliminarily determine to instruct CBP to apply a dumping margin of 48.80 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR that were produced or exported by Sunflag. The Department will issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of the final results of review. Cash-Deposit Requirements The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this new-shipper review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)the cash-deposit rate for Sunflag will be the rate established in the final results of this new-shipper review;
(2)for previously investigated or reviewed companies not listed above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and
(4)the cash-deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the “all others” rate of 48.80 percent, which is the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. See *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India* , 58 FR 54110, 54111 (October 20, 1993). These cash-deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duites occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214. Dated: October 19, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-21106 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-890] Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On July 30, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) issued its preliminary results in the changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture (“WBF”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review* , 72 FR 41492 (July 30, 2007) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). For these final results, we continue to find that Tradewinds Furniture Ltd. is the successor-in-interest to Nanhai Jiantai Woodwork Co. (“Nanhai Jiantai”), and that Tradewinds International Enterprise Ltd. (“Tradewinds Intl”) is not the successor-in-interest to Nanhai Jiantai's affiliated exporter, Fortune Glory Industrial Limited (“Fortune Glory”). EFFECTIVE DATE: October 26, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juanita H. Chen or Robert A. Bolling, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-1904 or 202-482-3434, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 18, 2007, in response to a joint request by Tradewinds Furniture Ltd. and Tradewinds Intl (collectively, “Tradewinds”), the Department initiated a changed circumstances review to determine whether Tradewinds Furniture Ltd. and Tradewinds Intl are successors-in-interest to Nanhai Jiantai and Fortune Glory, respectively. *See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review* , 72 FR 2262 (January 18, 2007). On July 30, 2007, the Department issued its *Preliminary Results* , finding that Tradewinds Furniture Ltd. is the successor-in-interest to Nanhai Jiantai, and that Tradewinds Intl is not the successor-in-interest to Fortune Glory. See *Preliminary Results* , 72 FR 41492. As part of the Preliminary Results, the Department invited interested parties to submit case and rebuttal briefs, and provided the opportunity for parties to request a hearing. *See* 72 FR at 41495. On August 6, 2007, Tradewinds submitted a brief agreeing with the Department's finding for Tradewinds Furniture Ltd. but contesting the finding that Tradewinds Intl is not the successor-in-interest to Fortune Glory. No other parties submitted briefs. No interested parties submitted a rebuttal brief or requested a hearing. Scope of Order The product covered by the order is wooden bedroom furniture. Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not exclusively, designed, manufactured, and offered for sale in coordinated groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the individual pieces are of approximately the same style and approximately the same material and/or finish. The subject merchandise is made substantially of wood products, including both solid wood and also engineered wood products made from wood particles, fibers, or other wooden materials such as plywood, oriented strand board, particle board, and fiberboard, with or without wood veneers, wood overlays, or laminates, with or without non-wood components or trim such as metal, marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other resins, and whether or not assembled, completed, or finished. The subject merchandise includes the following items:
(1)wooden beds such as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds;
(2)wooden headboards for beds (whether stand-alone or attached to side rails), wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds;
(3)night tables, night stands, dressers, commodes, bureaus, mule chests, gentlemen's chests, bachelor's chests, lingerie chests, wardrobes, vanities, chessers, chifforobes, and wardrobe-type cabinets;
(4)dressers with framed glass mirrors that are attached to, incorporated in, sit on, or hang over the dresser;
(5)chests-on-chests 1 , highboys 2 , lowboys 3 , chests of drawers 4 , chests 5 , door chests 6 , chiffoniers 7 , hutches 8 , and armoires 9 ;
(6)desks, computer stands, filing cabinets, book cases, or writing tables that are attached to or incorporated in the subject merchandise; and
(7)other bedroom furniture consistent with the above list. 1 A chest-on-chest is typically a tall chest-of-drawers in two or more sections (or appearing to be in two or more sections), with one or two sections mounted (or appearing to be mounted) on a slightly larger chest; also known as a tallboy. 2 A highboy is typically a tall chest of drawers usually composed of a base and a top section with drawers, and supported on four legs or a small chest (often 15 inches or more in height). 3 A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers, not more than four feet high, normally set on short legs. 4 A chest of drawers is typically a case containing drawers for storing clothing. 5 A chest is typically a case piece taller than it is wide featuring a series of drawers and with or without one or more doors for storing clothing. The piece can either include drawers or be designed as a large box incorporating a lid. 6 A door chest is typically a chest with hinged doors to store clothing, whether or not containing drawers. The piece may also include shelves for televisions and other entertainment electronics. 7 A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest of drawers normally used for storing undergarments and lingerie, often with mirror(s) attached. 8 A hutch is typically an open case of furniture with shelves that typically sits on another piece of furniture and provides storage for clothes. 9 An armoire is typically a tall cabinet or wardrobe (typically 50 inches or taller), with doors, and with one or more drawers (either exterior below or above the doors or interior behind the doors), shelves, and/or garment rods or other apparatus for storing clothes. Bedroom armoires may also be used to hold television receivers and/or other audio-visual entertainment systems. The scope of the order excludes the following items:
(1)seats, chairs, benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds, stools, and other seating furniture;
(2)mattresses, mattress supports (including box springs), infant cribs, water beds, and futon frames;
(3)office furniture, such as desks, stand-up desks, computer cabinets, filing cabinets, credenzas, and bookcases;
(4)dining room or kitchen furniture such as dining tables, chairs, servers, sideboards, buffets, corner cabinets, china cabinets, and china hutches;
(5)other non-bedroom furniture, such as television cabinets, cocktail tables, end tables, occasional tables, wall systems, book cases, and entertainment systems;
(6)bedroom furniture made primarily of wicker, cane, osier, bamboo or rattan;
(7)side rails for beds made of metal if sold separately from the headboard and footboard;
(8)bedroom furniture in which bentwood parts predominate 10 ;
(9)jewelry armories 11 ;
(10)cheval mirrors 12 ;
(11)certain metal parts 13 ;(12) mirrors that do not attach to, incorporate in, sit on, or hang over a dresser if they are not designed and marketed to be sold in conjunction with a dresser as part of a dresser-mirror set; and
(13)upholstered beds 14 . 10 As used herein, bentwood means solid wood made pliable. Bentwood is wood that is brought to a curved shape by bending it while made pliable with moist heat or other agency and then set by cooling or drying. *See* Customs' Headquarters' Ruling Letter 043859, dated May 17, 1976. 11 Any armoire, cabinet or other accent item for the purpose of storing jewelry, not to exceed 24″ in width, 18″ in depth, and 49″ in height, including a minimum of 5 lined drawers lined with felt or felt-like material, at least one side door (whether or not the door is lined with felt or felt-like material), with necklace hangers, and a flip-top lid with inset mirror. *See* Issues and Decision Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita to Laurie Parkhill, Office Director, Concerning Jewelry Armoires and Cheval Mirrors in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, dated August 31, 2004. *See also Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 38621 (July 7, 2006). 12 Cheval mirrors are, *i.e.* , any framed, tiltable mirror with a height in excess of 50″ that is mounted on a floor-standing, hinged base. Additionally, the scope of the order excludes combination cheval mirror/jewelry cabinets. The excluded merchandise is an integrated piece consisting of a cheval mirror, *i.e.* , a framed tiltable mirror with a height in excess of 50 inches, mounted on a floor-standing, hinged base, the cheval mirror serving as a door to a cabinet back that is integral to the structure of the mirror and which constitutes a jewelry cabinet lined with fabric, having necklace and bracelet hooks, mountings for rings and shelves, with or without a working lock and key to secure the contents of the jewelry cabinet back to the cheval mirror, and no drawers anywhere on the integrated piece. The fully assembled piece must be at least 50 inches in height, 14.5 inches in width, and 3 inches in depth. *See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Determination To Revoke Order in Part* , 72 FR 38621 (January 9, 2007). 13 Metal furniture parts and unfinished furniture parts made of wood products (as defined above) that are not otherwise specifically named in this scope ( *i.e.* , wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds) and that do not possess the essential character of wooden bedroom furniture in an unassembled, incomplete, or unfinished form. Such parts are usually classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheading 9403.90.7000. 14 Upholstered beds that are completely upholstered, *i.e.* , containing filling material and completely covered in sewn genuine leather, synthetic leather, or natural or synthetic decorative fabric. To be excluded, the entire bed (headboards, footboards, and side rails) must be upholstered except for bed feet, which may be of wood, metal, or any other material and which are no more than nine inches in height from the floor. *See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part* , 72 FR 7013 (February 14, 2007). Imports of subject merchandise are classified under subheading 9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS as “wooden . . . beds” and under subheading 9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as “other . . . wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom.” In addition, wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds may also be entered under subheading 9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS as “parts of wood” and framed glass mirrors may also be entered under subheading 7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as “glass mirrors . . . framed.” This order covers all wooden bedroom furniture meeting the above description, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Final Results Of Review As noted in the *Preliminary Results* , in a changed circumstances review involving a successor-in-interest determination, the Department typically examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in:
(1)management;
(2)production facilities;
(3)supplier relationships; and
(4)customer base. *See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 22847 (May 3, 2005). While no single factor or combination of factors will necessarily be dispositive, the Department generally will consider the new company to be the successor to the predecessor if the resulting operations are essentially the same as those of the predecessor company. *See, e.g., Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India* , 71 FR 327 (January 4, 2006). Analysis of Comments Received Due to their proprietary nature, all issues raised in the post-preliminary comments by parties in this review ( *i.e.* , whether Tradewinds Intl is the successor-in-interest to Fortune Glory) are addressed in the memorandum to the file, “Decision Memorandum for the Changed Circumstances Review of Tradewinds Furniture Ltd. and Tradewinds International Enterprise Ltd. on the Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China,” dated October 19, 2007 (“Decision Memorandum”). The Decision Memorandum is a proprietary document, for which a public version is available on file in the Central Records Unit in room B-099 of the main Department building. Tradewinds Furniture Ltd. Tradewinds concurs with the Department's preliminary findings with respect to the successorship of Tradewinds Furniture Ltd. Moreover, there has been no information submitted to the record that indicates the Department should change its finding with regards to Tradewinds Furniture Ltd. As a result, for the reasons stated in the *Preliminary Results* , we continue to find that Tradewinds Furniture Ltd. is the successor-in-interest to Nanhai Jiantai. Therefore, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to apply the cash deposit rate established for Nanhai Jiantai to all entries of merchandise exported by Tradewinds Furniture Ltd. The cash deposit determination from this changed circumstances review will apply to all entries of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this changed circumstances review. *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review; Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India* , 71 FR 31156, 31157 (June 1, 2006). This cash deposit rate shall remain in effect until further notice. Tradewinds International Enterprise Ltd. While Tradewinds asserts that its submitted documentation supports a finding that Tradewinds Intl is the successor-in-interest to Fortune Glory, and should be legally entitled to the Fortune Glory rate, we find that Tradewinds failed to provide sufficient evidence indicating that Tradewinds Intl is “essentially the same” as Fortune Glory for a successor-in-interest finding. Contrary to Tradewinds' argument, while we noted in our *Preliminary Results* that Fortune Glory has not transferred its export functions to Tradewinds Intl, it is not the sole reason we determined Tradewinds Intl is not essentially the same as Fortune Glory. Rather, the Department looks to a totality of the factors. While Tradewinds submitted some documentation to demonstrate the creation of Tradewinds Intl (including the business certification and naming of Tradewinds Intl), upon an examination of all the documentation submitted, against the factors required to support a finding of successor-in-interest, including proprietary factors that cannot be discussed in this public **Federal Register** notice, Tradewinds has failed to establish that such creation is essentially unchanged from Fortune Glory. *See* Decision Memorandum, at 3-6. Significantly, it is not possible to compare the factors the Department typically examines between the predecessor company Fortune Glory ( *i.e.* , management, production facilities, supplier relationships, sales facilities, and customer base) to those of the requesting company Tradewinds Intl because, as Tradewinds itself acknowledges, the successor-in-interest has yet to occur. Specifically, Tradewinds states that “{n}o structural, management, employee, supplier, customer, or other changes are **anticipated** as a result of the transfer” (emphasis added). Despite Tradewinds' assurances that operations will eventually be essentially the same, the Department cannot base a ruling on speculation, as it provides the Department with no record evidence to analyze. For a more detailed discussion, including relevant factors of a proprietary nature, see the Decision Memorandum. As a result, we continue to find that Tradewinds Intl is not the successor-in-interest to Fortune Glory at this time and, therefore, should not be given the same antidumping duty treatment as Fortune Glory. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 C.F.R. 351.216. Dated: October 19, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-21101 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 062006A] RIN 0648-XD10 Taking of Threatened or Endangered Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Issuance of Permit AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act, NMFS hereby issues a permit for a period of 3 years to authorize the incidental, but not intentional, taking of three stocks of endangered marine mammals by the California/Oregon (CA/OR) drift gillnet fishery. The three stocks are: fin whale, California/Oregon/Washington (CA/OR/WA) stock; humpback whale, Eastern North Pacific
(ENP)stock; and sperm whale, CA/OR/WA stock. This authorization is based in part on a determination that this incidental take will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal stocks. DATES: This permit is effective for a 3-year period beginning October 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Copies of the reference materials may be obtained from Protected Resources Division, NMFS, Southwest Region, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213. Attention: Christina Fahy. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Monica DeAngelis, NMFS, Southwest Region, Protected Resources Division,
(562)980-3232 or Christina Fahy,
(562)980-4023. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA)(16 U.S.C. 1361, *et seq.* ), NMFS is issuing a permit to authorize the taking of three stocks of endangered marine mammals (fin whale, California/Oregon/Washington (CA/OR/WA) stock; humpback whale, Eastern North Pacific
(ENP)stock; and sperm whale, CA/OR/WA stock) incidental to the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery. This fishery is the only Category I or II fishery with a recent history of taking these three stocks of marine mammals, and in recent history this fishery has taken no other stocks of threatened or endangered marine mammals. Therefore, only this fishery and these three stocks of marine mammals are affected by this permit. MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E) requires NMFS to allow the taking of marine mammals from species or stocks listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA)(16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) incidental to commercial fishing operations if NMFS determines that:
(1)incidental mortality and serious injury will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock;
(2)a recovery plan has been developed or is being developed for such species or stock under the ESA; and
(3)where required under section 118 of the MMPA, a monitoring program has been established, vessels engaged in such fisheries are registered in accordance with section 118 of the MMPA, and a take reduction plan has been developed or is being developed for such species or stock. MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E)(ii) requires NMFS to publish a list of the fisheries for which the necessary determinations have been made for the taking of threatened or endangered marine mammals incidental to the fisheries' operations. This list of fisheries currently contains the three fisheries that are the subject of this notice and identified in Table 1. The MMPA also requires NMFS, upon such determinations, to issue a permit to those fisheries in which vessels are required to be registered (Category I and II fisheries). The 2007 List of Fisheries indicates that two Category III fisheries (CA lobster, prawn, shrimp, rock crab, fish pot and CA/OR/WA crab pot) have a history of taking humpback whales. NMFS is currently in the process of characterizing the trap and pot fisheries off the west coast of the United States and assessing the impact, based on the available information, to determine if reclassifying these fisheries is warranted. As provided by the MMPA, the taking of this stock of humpback whales would be authorized, if it were to occur and the owner or master of the vessel reported the take, as required by MMPA section 118(e). MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E)(ii) states that
(1)permits are not required for Category III fisheries because participants are not required to register their vessels and
(2)that after an appropriate negligible impact determination is completed, taking threatened or endangered marine mammals would not be a violation, so long as any injury or mortality is reported in accordance with MMPA section 118. History of Applying Negligible Impact in Fisheries Among the requirements of MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E) to issue a permit to take ESA-listed marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing, NMFS must determine whether the incidental taking from commercial fisheries would have a negligible impact on the affected stock or stocks of threatened or endangered marine mammals. Negligible impact determinations are required only in MMPA section 101(a)(5), and they are used in the procedures to authorize the take of small numbers of any stock of marine mammals incidental to activities other than commercial fishing (termed the “Small Take Program”) and to permit the take of threatened or endangered marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. That is, within the MMPA's provisions for the Small Take Program, NMFS must determine if the taking (by harassment, injury, and mortality) incidental to specified activities will have a negligible impact on the affected stocks of marine mammals (MMPA sections 101(a)(5)(A)(I) and 101(A)(5)(D)(i)(I)). For permitting the take of threatened or endangered marine mammals incidental to fishing operations, NMFS must determine if mortality and serious injury incidental to commercial fisheries will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals (MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E)(i)(I)). NMFS has implemented these programs through regulations and has relied upon qualitative and quantitative approaches to determine the levels of taking that would result in a negligible impact to affected stocks of marine mammals. The quantitative approach is more appropriate for serious injury and mortality than for non-lethal takes because mortality and serious injury are considered removals from the population and can be evaluated by well-documented models of population dynamics. The MMPA does not define “negligible impact.” There is, however, a reference to negligible impact in the House of Representatives committee report for the MMPA Amendments of 1981. That report states, “'negligible' is intended to mean an impact which is able to be disregarded. In this regard, the committee notes that Webster's Dictionary defines the term 'negligible' to mean 'so small or unimportant or of so little consequence as to warrant little or no attention.'” (House of Representatives, Report 97-228, September 16, 1981). NMFS defined negligible impact in regulations for the Small Take Program (50 CFR 216.103) as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” This qualitative definition indicates that detectable population-level effects are important features in negligible impact determinations. This qualitative definition of negligible impact was the standard NMFS used to implement the Small Take Program from its inception in 1981 through 1994, when additional amendments to the MMPA required a more quantitative approach for assessing what level of removals from a population stock of marine mammals could be considered a negligible impact. It remains the only formal definition of negligible impact for implementing the MMPA, and its use was expanded in 1995 (see 50 CFR 229.2) to include determinations related to incidental taking from commercial fishing. The MMPA Amendments of 1994 were enacted primarily to establish a regime to govern the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations, including MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E). These amendments were based in large part on a legislative proposal NMFS submitted to Congress in 1992. This legislative proposal was, in turn, based in large part on recommended guidelines, required by MMPA section 114, from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) in early 1990 (Recommended Guidelines to Govern the Incidental Taking of Marine Mammals in the Course of Commercial Fishing Operations after October 1993, transmitted to NMFS on July 12, 1990). In these guidelines, the Commission recommended, among five other characteristics of a mechanism to govern the take of threatened and endangered marine mammals incidental to fishing, “ the authorized level of take would have a negligible effect on population size and recovery time...” The Commission provided initial quantitative guidance on negligible effect on population size and recovery time as the following: “an effect that
(a)will not cause or contribute to a further decline in distribution or size lasting more than twelve months; and/or
(b)will not cause greater than a 10-percent increase in the best available estimate of the time it will take the affected species or population to recover to its maximum net productivity level.” The first of the Commission's quantitative approaches is more appropriate for an activity that would have a relatively short duration relative to the life expectancy of the affected stocks of marine mammals and, in the case of commercial fishing, for the remote likelihood of serious injury or mortality by a Category III fishery. Where incidental mortality or serious injury may occur on a more regular basis, as expected for interactions with Category I or II commercial fisheries, the delay-in-recovery standard would be more appropriate. NMFS has consistently used the Commission's delay-in-recovery guideline in distinguishing negligible from non-negligible impact. To apply this criterion, however, NMFS had to estimate what annual levels of removal would cause no more than a 10 percent delay in time to recovery. Such an effort was initiated at a NMFS-convened workshop (June 1994) to develop guidelines for preparing marine mammal stock assessment reports. Among the many items considered at that workshop, participants agreed that recovery factors
(RF)used in the calculation of Potential Biological Removal
(PBR)for each stock of marine mammals should compensate for uncertainty and possible unknown estimation errors. In discussing the RF for stocks of endangered species of marine mammals, participants noted that a RF of 0.1 would preserve 90 percent of net annual production for recovery of the stock, limiting the proportion of net annual production of the stock available for authorization of mortality or serious injury incidental to human-caused mortality. Participants also stated that reserving such a high proportion of net annual production of endangered species was appropriate to “ allow stocks to recover at near maximum rates, and to minimize the probability that naturally occurring stochastic mortality would result in extinction of the stock.” (Barlow *et al.* , 1995). Workshop participants also noted, “authorized levels of human-related mortality should increase recovery time of endangered stocks by no more than 10 percent (consistent with the goal stated in NMFS legislative proposal).” (Barlow *et al.* , 1995). Consequently, participants at the workshop recommended, and NMFS accepted after public review and comment, that mortality and serious injury remaining at or below PBR for an endangered stock (with 0.1 as the RF in the PBR calculation) would have an insignificant or negligible impact on the affected stock. In applying the negligible impact criterion to determinations made initially under the MMPA Amendments of 1994, NMFS understood that total human-caused mortality and serious injury limited to a level no greater than a PBR calculated with RF of 0.1 would be negligible; however, MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E) required a determination related to the impact of mortality and serious injury incidental to commercial fishing rather than incidental to all human activities. Accordingly, NMFS proposed to use, and subsequently used, 10 percent of any stock's PBR as the upper limit of mortality and serious injury incidental to commercial fishing in making the first negligible impact determinations (60 FR 31666, June 16, 1995 (proposed) and 65 FR 45399, August 31, 1995 (interim)). A rationale supporting this approach was that a negligible (or insignificant) level of fishery-related mortality and serious injury should be only a small portion of the maximum level of mortality and serious injury a stock could sustain. NMFS noted that the threshold value was a starting point; that is, the criterion should not be used rigidly but should produce the first estimate, which, in turn, could be modified on a case-by-case basis according to existing information. Although 10 percent of PBR was used in 1995 in issuing permits to fisheries under MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E), NMFS later became concerned that 10 percent of PBR may result in a much smaller number than the 10 percent-delay criterion would require (Wade and Angliss, 1997). Later, Wade
(1998)summarized the robustness trials conducted in support of the PBR approach for marine mammal conservation, including an aspect that was missing from simulations conducted for the NMFS-convened workshop in 1994: exploring the maximum level of annual removals from a population that would result in no more than a 10-percent delay in the time a population would need for recovery to its Maximum Net Productivity Level (MNPL). Wade
(1998)found that an upper limit of annual removals equal to the value of a PBR calculation with a RF of 0.15 would allow 95 percent of simulations to equilibrate at or above MNPL, which was an initial step in quantifying the maximum number of annual removals resulting in a negligible impact. However, in some applications the negligible impact standard must also address a performance criterion for marine mammal stocks that are not necessarily depleted. Wade (1998), therefore, reported that an upper limit of annual mortality limited to a value equal to a PBR calculation with a RF of 0.1 would allow 95 percent of simulations to equilibrate within 95 percent of the carrying capacity of the affected stock of marine mammals. Wade's
(1998)performance testing included removals to the threshold level for a period of 100 years and evaluated the robustness of each case over a range of bias or uncertainty in productivity rates, abundance estimation, and mortality estimation. Thus, the limits are appropriate for use on long-term average removals and do not indicate that a short-term level of removal exceeding the threshold would delay time to recovery by more than 10 percent. In 1998, NMFS published a notice (63 FR 71894, December 30, 1998) advising the public that NMFS was extending the 3-year permit issued to fisheries in 1995 to authorize the taking of threatened or endangered marine mammals. This notice also informed the public that NMFS considered the 6-month extension of the permit an opportunity to review existing criteria for the issuance of permits and to address issues that have arisen since the permits were first issued. NMFS solicited public comments to develop alternatives to 10 percent of PBR as a criterion for determining negligible impact; however, none were received. Having received no comments upon which to develop alternatives for determining negligible impact, NMFS published a notice proposing to issue permits under MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E) in 1999 (64 FR 28800, May 27, 1999). The notice contained a statement that NMFS, through internal deliberation, had adopted the following criteria for making negligible impact determinations for such permits:
(1)The threshold for initial determination will remain at 0.1 PBR. If total human-related serious injuries and mortalities are less than 0.1 PBR, all fisheries may be permitted.
(2)If total human-related serious injuries and mortalities are greater than PBR, and fisheries-related mortality is less than 0.1 PBR, individual fisheries may be permitted if management measures are being taken to address non-fisheries-related serious injuries and mortalities. When fisheries-related serious injury and mortality is less than 10 percent of the total, the appropriate management action is to address components that account for the major portion of the total.
(3)If total fisheries-related serious injuries and mortalities are greater than 0.1 PBR and less than PBR and the population is stable or increasing, fisheries may be permitted subject to individual review and certainty of data. Although the PBR level has been set up as a conservative standard that will allow recovery of a stock, there are reasons for individually reviewing fisheries if serious injuries and mortalities are above the threshold level. First, increases in permitted serious injuries and mortalities should be carefully considered. Second, as serious injuries and mortalities approach the PBR level, uncertainties in elements such as population size, reproductive rates, and fisheries-related mortalities become more important.
(4)If the population abundance of a stock is declining, the threshold level of 0.1 PBR will continue to be used. If a population is declining despite limitations on human-related serious injuries and mortalities below the PBR level, a more conservative criterion is warranted.
(5)If total fisheries-related serious injuries and mortalities are greater than PBR, permits may not be issued. Criterion 1 is the starting point for analyses. If this criterion is satisfied, the analysis would be concluded. The remaining criteria describe alternatives under certain conditions, such as fishery mortality below the negligible threshold but other human-caused mortality above the threshold, or fishery and other human-caused mortality between the negligible threshold and PBR for a stock that is increasing or stable. If criterion 1 is not satisfied, NMFS may use one of the other criteria, as appropriate. In 2000, NMFS issued a permit to the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery to authorize the taking of threatened and endangered marine mammals incidental to its operation (65 FR 64670, October 30, 2000). For that permit, as for the current permit, NMFS used the criteria adopted in 1999 to distinguish between negligible and non-negligible impact on affected stocks of marine mammals. Current Permit Observer data, stranding records, and marine mammal reporting forms indicate the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery is the only Category I or II commercial fishery that takes the CA/OR/WA stocks of fin and sperm whales, and the ENP stock of humpback whales. However, based on stranding records, pot fisheries that operate in California (currently listed as Category III fisheries), may also take humpback whales. On July 28, 2006 (71 FR 42809), NMFS proposed the issuance of a permit under MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E), for a period of 3 years, to authorize the incidental, but not intentional, taking of three stocks of threatened or endangered marine mammals (CA/OR/WA stocks of fin and sperm whales and the ENP stock of humpback whales) by the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery. That notice summarized documentation that:
(1)a recovery plan has been developed or is being developed for the affected stocks, and
(2)where required under section 118 of the MMPA, a monitoring program has been established, vessels engaged in such fisheries are registered, and a take reduction plan has been, or is being, developed. The proposed permit indicated that recovery plans had been developed (humpback whales) or were being developed (fin and sperm whales). These recovery plans are available on the internet at the following address: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans.htm* . Accordingly, NMFS determined that recovery plans for the affected stocks are completed or being developed. Vessels active in the fishery are registered under the MMPA each year, and an observer program has been in place in the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery since 1990 (see Description of the Fishery; Carretta *et al.* , 2006, Appendix 1. Descriptions of U.S. Commercial Fisheries) . Since the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan (POCTRP) was implemented in 1997 (62 FR 51805, October 3, 1997), observer coverage has been sufficient for reliable estimates of marine mammals mortality and serious injury. No other Category I or II fisheries, which are the only commercial fisheries required to register, carry observers, or be subject to take reduction plans, have a history of taking these stocks of endangered whales. Accordingly, NMFS determined that, as required by MMPA section 118, vessels were registered under the MMPA, a monitoring program was in place, and a take reduction plan was in place for these stocks. Thus, all conditions for issuing a permit under MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E) are fulfilled. In 2005, NMFS received an application for an Exempted Fishing Permit
(EFP)for drift gillnet fishing from the Federation of Independent Seafood Harvesters to reopen the area closed in 2001 (described below) to drift gillnet fishing. The Pacific Fishery Management Council
(PFMC)reviewed the EFP and facilitated the development of the permit conditions. These included: drift gillnet EFP fishing effort in the closure area would be limited to no more than 300 sets, and 100 percent observer coverage would be required, and up to 30 vessels would be eligible to participate. The permit included limits on the number of protected species that could be incidentally entangled in the drift gillnet EFP fishery. The PFMC recommended that NMFS issue the 2006 permit, and NMFS formally began review of the EFP, which included consultation under the ESA, to consider the impacts on ESA-listed species. The proposed 2006 EFP recommended by the PFMC for issuance was not issued. However, the PFMC recommended at their April 2007 meeting that NMFS issue this EFP in 2007 with the same terms and conditions as originally recommended for the 2006 application. On June 5, 2007, in a letter from NMFS to the PFMC, NMFS determined that it would not issue the permit for the proposed 2007 drift gillnet EFP, due to the potential for leatherback sea turtle mortalities that would result if the EFP were approved. If NMFS considers the issuance of a DGN EFP during the three years of this 101(a)(5)(E) permit, taking of listed marine mammal stocks considered under this permit would be covered under the existing analysis. The data analyzed in the negligible impact determination for this permit included years prior to 2001 when the currently closed area (requested to be opened under the EFP in 2006 and 2007) was open to fishing. Therefore, any taking of these stocks of marine mammals incidental to fishing under a similarly issued EFP (if it is granted) would be authorized by this permit. All drift gillnet fishing under an EFP would be subject to applicable requirements under the HMS FMP and would have to comply with the POCTRP. In addition, any proposed EFP application would be subjected to thorough review and analysis of impacts, in order to satisfy all mandated requirements under the ESA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Description of the Fishery The CA/OR drift gillnet fishery operates primarily outside of state waters to about 150 nm offshore ranging from the U.S. Mexico border in the south to northward of the Columbia River, depending on sea surface temperature conditions. The 2007 List of Fisheries (72 FR 14466, March 28, 2007) estimated that there were 85 vessels in the fishery. This estimate of the number of vessels in the fishery is a historical reference based upon the number of vessels that indicated intent to participate in the fishery and may not be an accurate estimate of the number of vessels actively engaged in fishing in any given year. The drift gillnet fishery is a limited entry program, managed with gear, seasons, and area closures. In 2005, there were 90 fishing permits issued, and 42 vessels actively fished under their permit (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2006). More detailed information on the operation of this fishery is included in Appendix 2 of the final negligible impact determination associated with this permit. Under California State regulations, the fishery is restricted to waters outside 200 nm from February 1 through April 30, and outside 75 nm from May 1 through August 14; the fishery is allowed to fish inside 75 nm from August 15 though January 31. In the portion of the U.S. EEZ off the Oregon coast, the fishery is closed throughout the year east of a line approximating 1000 fathoms. Because of these restrictions, vessels are not active during February, March, and April, and very little fishing effort occurs during the months of May, June, and July because CA/OR drift gillnet vessels targeting swordfish tend to set on warm ocean water temperature breaks, which do not appear along the California coast until late summer. The fishery has been conducted under state and/or Federal regulations since MMPA section 118 was enacted. When the List of Fisheries under MMPA section 118 was first began, the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery was state-regulated. As a result, when NMFS promulgated regulations implementing the POCTRP (62 FR 51805, October 3, 1997), there were no other Federal actions associated with the fishery. For initial implementation of the take reduction plan, NMFS completed a consultation under ESA section 7 in September, 1997 (no jeopardy determination) and completed an Environmental Assessment under NEPA in August 1997. The regulatory requirements in the POCTRP included the use of extenders so that the upper part of the gillnet was 36 ft (10.9 m) below the surface and the use of acoustic warning devices (pingers) on nets. As part of reasonable and prudent alternatives contained in a 2000 ESA consultation on the drift gillnet fishery, in 2001, a seasonal (15 August-15 November) area closure was implemented in the drift gillnet fishery north of Point Conception, to protect leatherback turtles that feed in the area and were observed entangled in previous fishing seasons. Additional seasonal/area closures in southern California have been established in the drift gillnet fishery to protect loggerhead turtles during declared or predicted El Nino years. On February 4, 2004, NMFS partially approved the HMS FMP prepared by the PFMC. This FMP includes commercial fisheries using various gear types to target highly migratory species; however, only the drift gillnet fishery has a history of taking threatened or endangered marine mammals. Implementing regulations for the approved portions of the FMP were published on April 7, 2004 (69 FR 18444). The preamble to these regulations noted that an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)had been prepared and filed with the Environmental Protection Agency and that a formal consultation under the ESA had been completed. These documents analyzed the effects of the fishery on the human environment and on threatened or endangered species. The HMS FMP includes a permit requirement for vessels or vessel owners. Participants in the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery are also required to have a valid permit issued annually by the California Department of Fish and Game or Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, as applicable, depending upon where fishing occurs and landings are made. In accordance with MMPA section 118(c), only those vessels in the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery that have registered for a Marine Mammal Authorization Program
(MMAP)are authorized to take marine mammals incidental to their fishing operations. Vessels holding this permit must comply with the POCTRP and implementing regulations. Current Negligible Impact Determination NMFS has evaluated the best available information for the three stocks listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA addressed by this permit and has determined (using data from 1998 through 2005 and computing a yearly average), on a stock-by-stock basis, whether the mortality and serious injury incidental to the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery is having a negligible impact on such stocks (NMFS 2006). Based on this assessment, using the 1999 criteria (see History of Applying Negligible Impact in Fisheries) for the three stocks of marine mammals addressed by this permit, NMFS concludes that the estimated mortality and serious injury incidental to commercial fishing will have a negligible impact on these stocks of fin, humpback, and sperm whales. A stock-by-stock summary of the negligible impact determination follows. Fin Whale, CA/OR/WA Stock The annual average serious injury and mortality to the CA/OR/WA stock of fin whales from all human-caused sources, including commercial fisheries (0.63 animals) plus ship strikes (0.88 animals), is 1.51 animals, which is 10 percent of this stock's PBR. Although criterion 1 states the threshold is less than rather than equal to 10 percent of PBR, there are circumstances that prompt NMFS to determine that this minor deviation from the guidelines is reasonable. The abundance of this stock is increasing, the PBR calculation uses a recovery factor of 0.1, and the serious injury and mortality is far below a level that would cause more than a 10 percent delay in recovery. During the past 16 years, only one fin whale has been observed taken by the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery (1999; which is after the implementation of the POCTRP and prior to the 2001 closure off California and Oregon), indicating that the likelihood that a fin whale would be taken in the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery is very low. NMFS estimates that total human-caused mortality and serious injury of fin whales will be less than 10 percent of the PBR of this stock. Therefore, mortality and serious injury of fin whales incidental to commercial fishing will have a negligible impact on the CA/OR/WA stock of fin whales under criterion 1. Humpback Whale, ENP Stock The annual average serious injury and mortality to the ENP stock of humpback whales from all human-caused sources, including commercial fisheries (1.5 animals) plus ship strikes (0.25 animals), is 1.75 animals, which is 76.1 percent of this stock's PBR (above the 0.1 PBR threshold, but below PBR). Although several humpback whales were entangled in recent years in crab pot gear and in unknown pot/net fisheries in California, the total fisheries-related serious injury and mortality is less than this stock's PBR. Since the beginning of the NMFS observer program in 1990, no mortalities or serious injuries of humpback whales have been attributed to the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery. No other Category I or II commercial fisheries have a history of causing mortality and serious injury of this stock. In addition, after the implementation of the POCTRP, overall cetacean entanglement rates in the drift gillnet fishery dropped considerably. Finally, the population for this stock is considered to be increasing by 6-7 percent per year (Carretta *et al.* , 2006). Because fishery-caused mortality and serious injury, in combination with other sources of human-caused mortality and serious injury, are below the PBR of an increasing stock, NMFS determines that mortality and serious injury incidental to commercial fisheries will have a negligible impact on the ENP stock of humpback whales using criterion 3. Sperm Whale, CA/OR/WA Stock The annual average serious injury and mortality to the CA/OR/WA stock of sperm whales from commercial fisheries ( 0.75 animals) plus ship strikes (0.38 animals), is 1.13 animals, which is 62.5 percent of this stock's PBR (above the 0.1 PBR threshold, but below PBR). The minimum population estimate for this stock is considered to be variable, with no obvious trend (Carretta *et al.* , 2006). However, the overall population of sperm whales has increased worldwide since it was listed under the ESA in 1973. Although it is difficult to determine a trend for the CA/OR/WA stock of sperm whales, this stock does not appear to be declining; therefore, it is either stable or increasing. The average annual fisheries-related mortality and serious injury for this stock is below PBR. Since the implementation of the POCTRP, only one sperm whale was incidentally taken (1998; taken prior to the 2001 closure off central California/southern Oregon) in the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery, but the net did not have a full complement of pingers; therefore, it is difficult to evaluate whether pingers have an effect on sperm whale entanglement. However, pingers have shown to have a positive effect on other odontocetes (i.e., lower entanglement rates) (Barlow and Cameron 2003). Further, there has not been a take of sperm whales since 1998 and the likelihood that a sperm whale would be taken by the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery is very low. Because the stock is stable or increasing and total human-caused mortality and serious injury is below PBR, NMFS determines that the mortality and serious injury incidental to commercial fisheries will have a negligible impact on the CA/OR/WA stock of sperm whales using criterion 3. A permit is hereby issued to the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery authorizing the non-lethal taking of individuals from the CA/OR/WA stock of fin whales, the ENP stock of humpback whales, and the CA/OR/WA stock of sperm whales for a 3-year period. If NMFS determines at a later date that incidental mortality and serious injury from commercial fishing is having more than a negligible impact on these stocks, NMFS may use its emergency authority under MMPA section 118 to protect the affected stock or stocks and may modify the permit issued herein. In accordance with the MMPA, participants in Category III fisheries included in Table I are also authorized to take marine mammals from these three stocks of marine mammals so long as such taking is reported in accordance with MMPA section 118(d). Table 1. List of Fisheries Authorized to Take Threatened and Endangered Marine Mammals Incidental to Fishing Operations. Fishery Category Marine Mammal Stock CA/OR Drift Gillnet Fishery I Fin whale, CA/OR/WA stock Humpback whale, ENP stock Sperm whale, CA/OR/WA stock CA lobster, prawn, shrimp, rock crab, fish pot III Fin whale, CA/OR/WA stock Humpback whale, ENP stock Sperm whale, CA/OR/WA stock WA/OR/CA crab pot III Fin whale, CA/OR/WA stock Humpback whale, ENP stock Sperm whale, CA/OR/WA stock Comments and Responses NMFS received six comment letters concerning the proposal for issuance of the 101(a)(5)(E) permit under the MMPA. All of these letters were in opposition to the issuance this permit. Two commenters expressed opposition to the issuance of a permit but did not explain the basis for their opposition. Therefore, these comments are not included the following summary of comments and responses. *Comment 1:* Commenters stated that any fishing pursuant to the EFP would require a separate MMPA permit from NMFS. *Response:* NMFS disagrees. The current 101(a)(5)(E) permit authorizes the taking of marine mammals incidental to the operation of the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery as it currently operates and would include fishing under an EFP, if proposed similarly to the application in 2006 and 2007 (i.e., fishing in the currently closed leatherback conservation area). The negligible impact determination included operation prior to 2001, when the affected area was open (see Current Negligible Impact); therefore, NMFS determined that commercial fishing, including that under an EFP, had it been approved, will have a negligible impact. The monitoring program would remain in place, vessels would be registered, and the take reduction plan would remain in effect. However, just as the current operation of the fishery required analysis under the ESA and NEPA, expanding effort through approval of a proposed EFP would require additional analyses pursuant to these statutes. *Comment 2:* Commenters stated that NMFS improperly issued the October 2000 permit. *Response:* NMFS disagrees. In the October 2000 permit (65 FR 64670), NMFS made all requisite determinations and followed the procedures for public comment required by MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E); therefore, the issuance of the 2000 permit was appropriate. *Comment 3:* Commenters stated that the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery has continued to entangle ESA-listed marine mammals in the absence of a permit and, thus, has operated illegally for the past three years. *Response:* NMFS disagrees. The MMPA permit addresses only the take of ESA-listed marine mammals incidental to the fishery rather than the operation of the fishery. One entanglement of a humpback whale occurred after the previous permit expired in 2003. The entangling net was out of compliance with regulations implementing the POCTRP. Thus, the participant in this fishery was not operating lawfully and take was not authorized. The event was reported for investigation. This 101(a)(5)(E) permit was initiated to ensure any future taking of threatened or endangered marine mammals is authorized in accordance with the ESA and MMPA. *Comment 4:* Commenters expressed that NMFS cannot lawfully make a negligible impact determination for sperm whales because take is not below 10 percent of the PBR level. PBR for this stock is 1.8 whales per year, and the estimated take is 1.13 whales per year. Total mortality for sperm whales exceeds 10 percent of the PBR. The determinations for this permit are based upon the 1999 criteria, which are consistent with the objective to delay recovery by no more than 10 percent. *Response:* NMFS disagrees. The MMPA contains no reference to 10 percent of PBR nor does it define negligible impact. The determinations for this stock was based upon criterion 3 as adopted in 1999 (see Current Negligible Impact Determination), which is consistent with the objective to delay recovery by no more than 10 percent. *Comment 5:* Commenters questioned whether a permit could be issued under section 101(a)(5)(E) of the MMPA because there is insufficient evidence to support NMFS' determination that the CA/OR/WA sperm whale stock is stable or increasing because the population does not show obvious trends and since the level of mortality sustained by the stock is stated to be “unknown” or “uncertain.” NMFS cannot make a finding that the stock is stable or increasing. At best, the agency states that “this stock does not appear to be declining." *Response:* NMFS disagrees. As the comment notes, NMFS has established that the population is not decreasing; therefore, it is either stable or increasing. Although there remains some uncertainty related to the abundance of the population, the apparent trend for sperm whales in the Pacific Ocean is an increase, and this apparent increase is occurring even with current levels of mortality and serious injury. *Comment 6:* Commenters remarked that NMFS cannot lawfully make a negligible impact determination for humpback whales because take is not below 10 percent PBR. The estimated take is 1.75 whales per year, but this is a gross underestimate. The PBR estimate is 2.3 whales per year. NMFS has substantial information on file that significant unobserved and/or unreported take is occurring. Commenters stated that NMFS needs to make the finding that the humpback whale stock “is stable or increasing,” not “likely stable or increasing." *Response:* NMFS disagrees that we cannot lawfully make a negligible impact determination, as noted in the response to comment 4. Although there are uncertainties in the mortality estimates, the performance of the delay in recovery criterion (Wade, 1998) is robust from bias and variance in mortality, as well as abundance estimates. According to the 2006 SARs and the best scientific information available, the Eastern North Pacific humpback whale stock is increasing in abundance, and NMFS has modified text in the Negligible Impact Determination to be clear that the population is “stable or increasing." *Comment 7:* Commenters remarked that NMFS cannot lawfully make a negligible impact determination for fin whales because take is “at” 10 percent PBR. These commenters noted that 1.5 fin whales injured and killed per year is not “below” 10 percent PBR, but rather it is 10 percent of the stock's PBR of 15. Commenters stated that NMFS needs to make the finding that the fin whale stock “is stable or increasing,” not “likely stable or increasing.” *Response:* NMFS disagrees. As noted in the response to comment 4, a lawful determination of negligible impact does not require reference to 10 percent of PBR. Total human-caused mortality and serious injury of this stock of fin whales is 10 percent of the stock's PBR, which is the threshold for negligible impact determinations. Due to the “stable or increasing” trend and the recovery factor of 0.1 in the PBR calculation for fin whales, this minor deviation from the specific wording of criterion 1 would not affect the over-arching goal to delay recovery by no more than 10 percent (see Current Negligible Impact Determination). Therefore, NMFS considered total human-caused mortality and serious injury at, rather than below, 10 percent of the stock's PBR to be a negligible impact. According to the 2006 SARs and the best scientific information available, the CA/OR/WA fin whale stock is increasing in abundance and NMFS has worded the Negligible Impact Determination to be clear that the population is “stable or increasing.” *Comment 8:* Commenters state that NMFS' calculations of total human-caused mortality and serious injury of fin, humpback, and sperm whales, is a gross underestimate, as most ship strikes go unreported and other fisheries that are known to entangle large whales remain unobserved. *Response:* NMFS agrees that the total human-caused mortality and serious injury of fin, humpback, and sperm whales may be underestimates, but the agency used the best available data for our analysis in making the negligible impact determination. Although mortality may be underestimated, Wade
(1998)showed that NMFS' basis for negligible impact determinations is robust to certain levels of underestimated mortality; therefore, NMFS determined that mortality and serious injury incidental to commercial fishing operations will have a negligible impact on these whale stocks. *Comment 9:* Commenters stated that the deadline for Zero Mortality Rate Goal
(ZMRG)has passed, and any take above ZMRG would be unlawful. *Response:* NMFS disagrees and believes that this comment misinterprets the MMPA. The ZMRG, as described in Section 118 of the MMPA, has four parts. First, there is a threshold level of mortality and serious injury (insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate) and a deadline by which commercial fisheries should reach the threshold. Second, there is a statement that fisheries that have achieved the threshold level of mortality and serious injury are not required to further reduce incidental mortality and serious injury. Third, there is a requirement for a review of fisheries progress toward the threshold. Fourth, there is a mechanism for reducing incidental mortality and serious injury (i.e., take reduction plans). Although the threshold and deadline are stated without condition, there is no statement in the MMPA that excess removals (mortality and serious injury exceeding threshold values after the deadline) cannot be authorized. The fourth part of the ZMRG states that these excess removals must be addressed through the take reduction plan process. NMFS has implemented a POCTRP as developed by a Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team (POCTRT) convened pursuant to MMPA section 118(f) and continues to keep that team intact until the threshold level of removals under the ZMRG has been achieved. NMFS convened a meeting of the POCTRT in April 2007 to evaluate the existing removal levels, to consider the economics of the fishery, the availability of existing technology, and existing fishery management plans, and to recommend, as appropriate, additional measures to further reduce incidental removals. *Comment 10:* Commenters stated that it is unacceptable that the recovery plan for the humpback whale is 15 years old and the sperm and fin whales plan are in draft form. *Response:* NMFS disagrees. Section 101(a)(5)(E) of the MMPA requires that “a recovery plan has been developed or is being developed.” Although, the humpback whale recovery plan was completed in 1991, NMFS maintains that this recovery plan is still effective, due in part to the documented increase in humpback whale populations in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (Carretta *et al.* , 2006, Waring *et al.* , 2006, and Angliss and Outlaw, 2006). NMFS announced the availability of draft recovery plans for fin and sperm whales on July 6, 2006 (71 FR 38385). Following a 60-day public comment period, NMFS is finalizing the sperm and fin whale recovery plans. *Comment 11:* Commenters remarked that the proposed permit is inconsistent with the Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks (GAMMS) report and legislative intent (90 percent production reserved for recovery) and the proposed permit would waive the requirement that mortality not delay recovery by more than 10 percent. These commenters also stated that the proposal essentially renders the margin of safety created by the recovery factor meaningless and thereby reduces protection for listed species. In addition, commenters stated that the criteria are inconsistent with MMPA, that NMFS abandoned its previous “more conservative approach” (10 percent PBR in 1999) by adopting criteria based on internal review, and that the proposed permit further diminishes conservation for the most imperiled marine mammals. *Response:* NMFS disagrees that the approach used here is inconsistent with NMFS' guidelines for preparing stock assessment reports or with legislative intent. The approach for determining negligible impact is consistent with the guidelines prepared by the Commission and submitted to NMFS in 1990 to be used in its development of a regime to govern the mortality and serious injury of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. In the guidelines, the Commission stated that a negligible impact should cause no more than a 10 percent delay in a severely depleted stock's recovery. Although this approach is less restrictive than a strict application of 10 percent of PBR as a threshold, the criteria adopted in 1999, which were applied in 2000 and used in this determination, are appropriate for a negligible impact determination because they fulfill NMFS' original objective to allow human-caused mortality and serious injury to cause no more than a 10 percent delay in the recovery of the affected stocks of marine mammals (see History of Applying Negligible Impact in Fisheries). *Comment 12:* Commenters stated that the permit violates section 2(c) and 7(a)(1) of the ESA because the agency is required to use its authorities to further the purpose of listed species conservation. In addition, commenters noted that the ESA requires agencies to suspend activities that result in taking, and issuing a permit to continue to take without requiring additional measures to reduce bycatch violates the statutory directive to conserve listed species. *Response:* NMFS disagrees. Issuance of this 101(a)(5)(E) permit is not a violation of either section 2(c) or 7(a)(1) of the ESA because this action would authorize a level of take that would have a negligible impact on these three stocks of whales. Such an approach is consistent with the MMPA and is more restrictive than the “jeopardy” standard required in Section 7 of the ESA. The approach is also consistent with ESA section 2(c) because such a limit on mortality and serious injury promotes rapid recovery of the affected stocks; thus, NMFS is using its authority to promote the conservation and recovery of these species. *Comment 13:* Commenters stated that the Steller sea lions should be included in the analysis. *Response:* NMFS disagrees. Over the past 16 years, only two Steller sea lions have been observed taken by the drift gillnet fishery, one off southern California in 1992, and one off the CA/OR border in 1994. No Steller sea lions have been observed taken or reported entangled in drift gillnet gear since 1994. NMFS expects the entanglement of Steller sea lions in this fishery to be a rare event and not likely to occur within the next three years. Because taking Steller sea lions is not expected, this species was not included in the analysis, and no take of Steller sea lions is permitted. *Comment 14:* Commenters stated that if NMFS intends to rely on the EIS prepared for the HMS FMP for compliance with NEPA, the agency must make the document available for review. Comments were provided previously on the significant legal flaws with that EIS. *Response:* NMFS agrees that the EIS should be open to public comment. In accordance with the provisions of NEPA, NMFS solicited public comments on the Draft EIS (August 2003) for the HMS FMP and also solicited comments on the Final EIS in December 2003. *Comment 15:* Commenters noted that numerous participants in the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery regularly operate in violation of applicable law and regulations. Rather than do anything about this gross non-compliance, NMFS simply assumes that compliance will be better this year. Given the flagrant disregard of MMPA provisions by the vessels in the fishery, commenters stated that NMFS must deny the permit to the fishery, or, at a minimum, suspend all other authorizations and permits for vessels in the fishery that have either not registered with NMFS as required under section 118(c) of the MMPA, or that have fished in violation of the POCTRP regulations. These commenters also noted that there are inconsistencies in the number of permit holders and expected number of participants in the fishery. NMFS indirectly admits that over 40 percent of the vessels in the fishery are violating registration requirements. *Response:* NMFS disagrees that participants in this fishery regularly operate in violation of the law. The only specific violation described in the comment is a low proportion of the estimated number of participants are registered under the MMPA. This difference between estimated number of participants and the number of registered vessels does not reflect a violation of the law. As noted earlier in this notice (see Description of the Fishery), the estimated number of participants is based on a historical record of the number of individuals who have expressed intent to fish. Such an intent does not necessarily mean that there was active fishing by that vessel. Rather, the vessel owner or captain may have fished in the past or expressed intent to fish in the past; however, this vessel was not actively fishing in the affected year. Consequently, the number of registered vessels is lower than the estimated number of participants. *Comment 16:* One commenter stated that fishing under the proposed EFP will undoubtedly kill endangered marine mammals, and, therefore, authorization under both the ESA and MMPA is required. The proposed permit makes no mention of the EFP, while in several places it mentions the leatherback closure as a likely factor in reducing marine mammal take to levels that NMFS feels it can make a negligible impact determination. This commenter noted that NMFS cannot rely on these 2004 documents for ESA and NEPA compliance (in reference to the HMS FMP EIS and biological opinion (BO)), and that NMFS would have to carry out a new consultation on the FMP as a whole and issue and circulate a new draft EIS for public comment. In addition, the commenter stated that NMFS cannot claim that the new ESA consultation it is currently carrying out for the EFP would also be sufficient for the MMPA permit. *Response:* NMFS disagrees that expanding fishing effort, as proposed in the 2006 and 2007 EFP application, would undoubtedly result in deaths of endangered marine mammals. Takes through this fishing activity that result in mortality are rare events, and there is very limited additional effort requested under the EFP. If NMFS and/or the PFMC considers a DGN EFP in the future, as similarly proposed in 2006 and 2007, a section 7 consultation and all other applicable analyses would need to be completed before issuance. *Comment 17:* One commenter expressed that NMFS states that it will rely on the February 2004 BO for the HMS FMP. This commenter noted that no take of ESA-listed marine mammals was authorized in this BO. Nevertheless, take of humpback whales has occurred since the BO. The commenter stated that therefore, the reinitiation requirements have been triggered. *Response:* NMFS disagrees. The 2004 BO for the HMS FMP included an Incidental Take Statement which estimated the anticipated incidental take of listed species in the HMS fisheries. The estimated entanglement of fin, humpback, and sperm whales was 4 animals in 3 years, per species. The estimated mortality of fin and sperm whales was 2 animals in 3 years, per species. There were no anticipated mortalities of humpback whales. The entangled humpback whale in 2004 was released alive and uninjured. However, the net used was not in full compliance with the POCTRP (NMFS Observer Program 2006), and therefore not in compliance with the incidental take statement, which anticipates take during lawful activity. Because the take did not occur incidental to a lawful activity, the incidental take statement is not applicable, and no violation occurred. As mentioned earlier, this incident has been forwarded to the NMFS Southwest Regional Office of Law Enforcement for investigation. This permit was initiated to ensure that taking marine mammals incidental to the fishery was consistent with the MMPA as well as the ESA. *Comment 18:* One commenter expressed concern that observer coverage for the rest of the fishery would be limited and that there is no assurance that sufficient observer coverage can be maintained, due to 100 percent observer coverage required for EFP. *Response:* Observer coverage for the current drift gillnet fishery averages at least 20 percent per year. NMFS expects to maintain this level of coverage even if an EFP is issued. *Comment 19:* One commenter stated that the permit is only being issued to support the EFP. The commenter noted that NMFS should properly conduct the negligible impact analysis and should not rush its analysis for the sake of approving the EFP. *Response:* The permit is being issued to fulfill NMFS' obligations under MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E). The analysis of the CA/OR drift gillnet observer data from 1998-2005 resulted in a negligible impact determination for the CA/OR/WA stocks of fin and sperm whales and ENP stock of humpback whales. The negligible impact analysis was a deliberate process that took more than a year to complete and ensures that the DGN is operating consistent with the requirements of the ESA and the MMPA. *Comment 20:* Commenters stated that criterion 1 is not appropriate criteria to use for fin whales; therefore, it is improper to make a negligible impact determination under criterion 1 and that NMFS must move to perform analysis under criterion 2. *Response:* NMFS disagrees. In applying the 1999 criteria, NMFS uses criterion 1 as the starting point for the analyses. If this criterion is satisfied, the analysis would be concluded. If criterion 1 is not satisfied, NMFS may use one of the other criteria, as appropriate. Total human-caused mortality of this stock of fin whales does not exceed the threshold, and, as noted earlier (see History of Applying Negligible Impact in Fisheries and Current Negligible Impact Determination), there are other factors (e.g., recovery factor in the PBR calculation and the trend in abundance of the stock) supporting the use of criterion 1. *Comment 21:* Commenters stated that criterion 1 is not appropriate to use for humpback whales; therefore it is improper to find under criterion 1. Commenters questioned whether a finding under criterion 3 was appropriate because of “certainty of data.” Criterion 3 should be applied in a conservative manner, and NMFS should not overlook significant sources of uncertainty (human-cause injury and mortality). NMFS' declaration that mortality and serious injury caused by Category I and II fisheries will not delay recovery time by more than 10 percent is irrelevant, as criterion 3 looks to “total fisheries-related serious injuries and mortalities." *Response:* NMFS applied criterion 3, not criterion 1, to assess the total fisheries-related serious injury and mortality to the humpback whale and adjusted the Negligible Impact Determination accordingly. Criterion 3 is appropriate when the affected population is stable or increasing and human-caused mortality is above 10 percent of PBR but less than PBR. These conditions were satisfied in this case; therefore, criterion 3 was appropriate. *Comment 22:* Commenters remarked that with regard to the fin whale, under criterion 2, non-fisheries related mortality must have already been addressed with specific “management measures,” before a permit can be issued. *Response:* As noted earlier (see History of Applying Negligible Impact in Fisheries), criterion 1 is the starting point for negligible impact analyses, and the others are used only if this criterion is not satisfied. In this case, criterion 1 was satisfied (human-caused mortality did not exceed 10 percent of PBR); therefore, NMFS did not use criterion 2, which is premised on total human-caused mortality exceeding 10 percent of PBR. *Comment 23:* Commenters stated that management measures do not exist or are not intended to address the mortality of these three species. Pingers are not effective in preventing mysticete entanglements and have not been proven effective and/or the effectiveness of pingers is not well understood for sperm whales. *Response:* NMFS disagrees that management measures are not in place to address the mortality of these three species. The POCTRP contains many regulatory and non-regulatory measures designed to reduced mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. Since implementation of the POCTRP, mortality and serious injury of marine mammals incidental to the gillnet fishery are lower than in years prior to the POCTRP. *Comment 24:* One commenter noted that there was no plan to reduce ship strikes on the west coast. *Response:* NMFS Southwest Regional Office is working with the U.S. Coast Guard to develop a system to report sightings and location of marine mammals, large cetaceans in particular, and notify mariners of the presence and location of such marine mammals. *Comment 25:* One commenter stated that ship-related deaths of large cetaceans go largely undetected in the absence of thorough necropsies of dead stranded animals. Dead or stranded humpback whales are not routinely necropsied throughout the range of this stock. *Response:* NMFS acknowledges that there are uncertainties in assigning cause of death in many stranded marine mammals, generally due to decomposition of tissues and that necropsies are an important tool in helping to determine cause of death. Members of the marine mammal stranding network perform necropsies on marine mammals throughout the west coast region, when possible. *Comment 26:* One commenter stated that just because enforcement was lax enough that a take occurred in an illegal net, this does not obviate risk to species. *Response:* NMFS considered all mortality and serious injury, including the incident noted in this comment (the humpback whale was incidentally taken, but released alive and uninjured in 2004), in the current negligible impact determinations for the fin, sperm, and humpback whales. NMFS forwarded the incident in question to the Southwest Region's Office of Law Enforcement. *Comment 27:* Commenters expressed that issuance of the proposed permit would violate two requirements of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act: to avoid injury to Sanctuary resources and to consult with the National Ocean Service about potential effects on Sanctuary resources. The fishery overlaps the boundaries of three national marine sanctuaries. The fin, humpback, and sperm whales are all resources protected by these sanctuary designations. Fishing under the proposed permit would clearly “destroy, cause the loss, or injure” these resources. *Response:* The fishery overlaps four sanctuaries. NMFS consults with staff in the affected sanctuaries to ensure fishery operations are consistent with all relevant statutory and regulatory provisions. Dated: October 23, 2007. Helen M. Golde, Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-21091 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD61 Marine Mammals; File No. 10080 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Dr. Kathryn A. Ono, Department of Biological Sciences, University of New England, Biddeford, ME, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on marine mammals. DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before November 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: The application and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978)281-9300; fax (978)281-9394. Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: File No. 10080. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tammy Adams or Jaclyn Daly, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216). The applicant requests a 5-year permit to examine expanding populations of the Western North Atlantic stocks of harbor seals ( *Phoca vitulina concolor* ) and grey seals ( *Halichoerus grypus* ) in the Gulf of Maine. The objectives of the study are to assess the state of harbor seal population health; determine movement and diving patterns of weaned harbor seal pups; compare disease loads, survival, and behavior of rehabilitated harbor seal pups with wild pups; and assess behavior, population dynamics, and health of grey seals. The research would involve capture of up to 200 harbor seals and 500 grey seals annually for attachment of flipper tags, physical examinations, and tissue sampling to assess health, behavior, and population dynamics. Up to 10 of the 400 harbor seals captured annually would have satellite tags attached for recording data on movement and dive patterns. An additional 100 grey seals annually may be remotely marked with paint or hair dye to facilitate behavioral observations. Up to 400 harbor seals, 2500 grey seals, 150 harp seals ( *Pagophilus groenlandicus* ), and 150 hooded seals ( *Cystophora cristata* ) may be harassed annually incidental to capture and sampling. The applicant has requested authorization for the unintentional research related mortality of up to 2 harbor seals and 4 grey seals annually. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), NMFS has initially determined that issuance of the proposed permit is consistent with a category of activities identified in NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 that do not individually or cumulatively have the potential to pose significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and are therefore exempted from further environmental review and requirements to prepare environmental review documents. Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors. Dated: Ocrober 23, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-21096 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD35 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a U.S. Navy Shock Trial AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application for implementation of regulations and a letter of authorization; request for comments and information. SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy
(Navy)for implementation of regulations and an authorization for the taking of marine mammals incidental to conducting a Full Ship Shock Trial
(FSST)of the MESA VERDE (LPD-19) in the offshore waters of the Atlantic Ocean off Mayport, FL. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is announcing our receipt of the Navy's request for the development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals and inviting information, suggestions, and comments on the Navy's application and request. DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than November 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225. The mailbox address for providing email comments is *PR1.XD35@noaa.gov* . NMFS is not responsible for e-mail comments sent to addresses other than the one provided here. Comments sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. A copy of the Navy's application may be obtained by writing to the address specified above (See ADDRESSES ), telephoning the contact listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ), or visiting the internet at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Hollingshead, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
(301)713-2289, ext. 128. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and
(D)of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) if certain findings are made and regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. Authorization for incidental takings will be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for certain subsistence uses, and if the permissible methods of taking and the requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. With respect to military readiness activities, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:
(i)any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or
(ii)any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B Harassment]. Summary of Request On June 25, 2007, NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting implementation of regulations and authorization for the taking of marine mammals incidental to its conducting an FSST during a four-week period in the spring/summer of 2008 utilizing the MESA VERDE (LPD 19), a new amphibious transport dock ship. The shock trial of the MESA VERDE would consist of up to four underwater detonations of a nominal 4,536 kilogram (10,000 lb) charge at a rate of one detonation per week. The purpose of the proposed action is to generate data to assess the survivability of SAN ANTONIO Class amphibious transport dock ships. An entire manned ship must undergo an at-sea shock trial to obtain survivability data that are not obtainable through computer modeling and component testing on machines or surrogates. Navy ship design, crew training, and survivability lessons learned during previous shock trials, and total ship survivability trials, have proven their value by increasing a ship's ability to survive battle damage. Each new class of surface ships must undergo realistic survivability testing to assess the survivability of the hull and the ship's systems, and to evaluate the ship's capability to protect the crew from an underwater explosion. The Navy has developed the shock trial to meet its obligation to perform realistic survivability testing. A shock trial consists of a series of underwater detonations that propagate a shock wave through the ship's hull under deliberate and controlled conditions. The effects of the shock wave on the ship's hull, equipment, and personnel safety features are then evaluated. This information would be used by the Navy to validate or improve the survivability of the SAN ANTONIO Class, thereby reducing the risk of injury to the crew, and damage to or loss of a ship. The proposed shock trial qualifies as a military readiness activity as defined in Section 315(f) of Public Law 107-314; 16 U.S.C. 703 note. Marine Mammals A summary of the marine mammal species found in the Mayport, FL, area is presented here. For more detail on marine mammal abundance, density and the methods used to obtain this information, reviewers are requested to refer to either the Navy application or the Navy DEIS (see ADDRESSES ). Up to 29 marine mammal species may be present in the waters off Mayport, FL, including 7 mysticetes and 22 odontocetes. Mysticetes are unlikely to occur at Mayport during the spring or summer time period. Odontocetes may include the sperm whale, dwarf and pygmy sperm whale, 4 species of beaked whales, and 15 species of dolphins and porpoises. Potential Impacts Potential impacts on several marine mammal species known to occur in the area offshore of Mayport, FL from shock testing include both lethal and non-lethal injury, as well as harassment. Death or injury may occur as a result of the explosive blast, and injury may occur as a result of non-injurious physiological responses to the explosion-generated shockwave and its acoustic signature. The Navy believes it is very unlikely that injury will occur from exposure to the chemical by-products released into the surface waters, and no permanent alteration of marine mammal habitat would occur. While the Navy does not anticipate any lethal takes would result from these detonations due to mitigation and monitoring measures that are proposed to be undertaken by the Navy, marine mammal density-based calculations indicate that the Mayport site has the potential to result in up to 1 mortality, 2 Level A harassments (injuries), and 282 takings by Level B (behavioral) harassment. Mitigation The Navy's proposed action includes mitigation that would minimize risk to marine mammals and sea turtles. The Navy proposes to
(1)through pre-detonation aerial surveys, select a test area within the chosen site location with the lowest number of marine mammals and sea turtles;
(2)monitor the area visually (aerial and shipboard monitoring) before each test and postpone detonation if any marine mammal is detected within a range that has a potential to cause injury; and
(3)monitor the area after each test to locate any injured animals. If post-detonation monitoring shows that marine mammals were killed or injured as a result of the test, testing would be halted until procedures for subsequent detonations could be reviewed and changed as necessary. NMFS may propose and require additional mitigation through its rulemaking and Endangered Species Act
(ESA)consultation. NEPA The Navy has released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) for the MESA VERDE FSST to the public. This document is available for viewing and downloading at *http://www.mesaverdeeis.com* . NMFS is a cooperating agency, as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1501.6), in the preparation of this EIS. Because NMFS is a cooperating agency, NMFS staff will be present at the associated public meetings to discuss NMFS' participation in the development of the EIS as well as the MMPA process. The dates and times of the public meetings may be viewed at: *http://www.mesaverdeeis.com* . ESA The Navy will be consulting with NMFS under section 7 of the ESA on this action. This consultation will be concluded prior to a determination on issuance regulations and an MMPA authorization to the Navy for this action. Information Solicited Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning the Navy's request (see ADDRESSES ). All information, suggestions, and comments related to the Navy's FSST request and NMFS' potential development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals by the Navy in the Mayport, FL, area will be considered by NMFS in developing regulations governing the issuance of letters of authorization. Dated: October 16, 2007. Helen Golde, Deputy Office Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-21095 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN: 0648-XD62 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Summer Flounder Monitoring Committee, Scup Monitoring Committee, Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committee, and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Council's and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Advisors will hold public meetings. DATES: The meetings will be held on Thursday, November 15, 2007 beginning at 10 a.m. with the Monitoring Committees. The Advisory Panels will begin meeting at 2 p.m. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for meeting agenda. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Renaissance Philadelphia Airport, 500 Stevens Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19113, telephone:
(610)521-5900. *Council address* : Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, 300 S. New Street, Dover, DE 19904; telephone:
(302)674-2331. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(302)674-2331, extension 19. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of these meetings is to recommend the 2008 recreational management measures for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations The meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Saunders,
(302)674-2331 extension 18, at the Council Office at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: October 24, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-21197 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XC98 Vessel Monitoring Systems; Approval of Mobile Transceiver Unit AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This document provides notice of the type-approval of the Faria WatchDog 750VMS for use in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument. ADDRESSES: To obtain copies of the list of NOAA-approved Vessel Monitoring Systems
(VMS)Mobile Transceiver Unit and VMS Mobile Communications Service Providers, or to obtain information regarding the status of VMS systems being evaluated by NOAA, write to the VMS Support Center, NOAA Fisheries Service, Office for Law Enforcement (OLE), 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 415, Silver Spring, MD 20910; or call toll free 888-219-9228. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions regarding the status of VMS evaluations contact Jonathan Pinkerton, National VMS Program Manager by phone: 301-427-2300 or by fax: 301-427-2055. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The WatchDog 750VMS manufactured and sold by Faria WatchDog, Inc. has satisfied the requirements for type-approval for use in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument. Faria WatchDog 750VMS The transceiver consists of an integrated dual mode GPS/GSM/GPRS/Iridium Satellite Communicator mounted in the wheelhouse or on a console and antennas mounted atop the vessel. The MTU also includes a 7 inch color touch screen display that enables vessel operators to send and receive e-mail and electronic forms. The unit is pre-configured and tested for NOAA Fisheries Service VMS operations. Authorized dealers who are listed at *http://www.vmstracking.com* provide satellite commissioning services. Automatic GPS position reporting starts after transceiver installation and power activation onboard the vessel. The unit is a car radio sized transceiver powered by any 9 to 16 VDC power supply. The unit can be factory configured for automatic reduced position transmissions when the vessel is stationary (i.e., in port) which allows for port stays in a reduced power state and without the need for unit shut down. The unit restarts normal position transmission automatically when the vessel goes to sea. The unit has an omni-directional Iridium, GPS, and GSM/GPRS antennas, providing operation from 5 degrees above or below the horizon anywhere on earth. The GSM/GPRS capability gives the system the additional ability to communicate through the AT&T wireless network where available. Iridium only units are permitted for use in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument. A configuration option is available to automatically send daily status reports to a private e-mail address. A 2 inch user interface is included with this system that displays if the MTU is operating properly and can send emergency notification messages to up to four e-mail addresses and/or telephone numbers. A complete list of options is available from the VMS provider. A vessel owner may purchase the Faria Watchdog 750VMS and the Iridium/GSM communications service by contacting a Faria Watchdog Inc., authorized reseller. Reseller information can be found on the internet at *www.vmstracking.com* . Alternatively vessel owners may contact, Faria WatchDog Inc., 385 Norwich-New London Turnpike, Uncasville, CT 06382, 1-877-888-5569, 860 848 2704 fax, *information@fariawatchdog.com* e-mail. The owner should identify himself or herself as a vessel owner and identify which VMS required fishery they wish to participate in. Dated: October 22, 2007. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-21087 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD04 Vessel Monitoring Systems; Approved Mobile Transmitting Units for Use in the Fisheries off the West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery, Open Access Sector AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of vessel monitoring systems; type-approval. SUMMARY: This document provides notice of vessel monitoring systems
(VMS)approved by NOAA for use by vessels participating in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery, Open Access Sector and sets forth relevant features of the VMS. ADDRESSES: To obtain copies of the list of NOAA-approved VMS mobile transmitting units and NOAA-approved VMS communications service providers, please contact the VMS Support Center at phone 888-219-9228, fax 301-427-0049, or write to NOAA Fisheries Office for Law Enforcement (OLE), VMS Support Center, 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 415, Silver Spring, MD 20910. For more addresses regarding approved VMS, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, under the heading VMS Provider Address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The public may acquire this notice, installation/activation checklists, and relevant updates by calling the VMS support center, phone 888-219-9228, fax 301-427-0049. For questions regarding the status of VMS provider evaluations, contact Jonathan Pinkerton, National VMS Program Manager, phone 301-427-2300; fax 301-427-0049. For questions regarding the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery, Open Access Sector VMS requirement, contact Joe Albert, Northwest Divisional VMS Program Manager, phone 206-526-6135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. VMS Mobile Transceiver Units A. BOATRACS - FMTC/G The Boatracs satellite communications VMS transmitting units that meet the minimum technical requirements for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery, Open Access Sector is the BOATRACS - FMTC/G. The address for the Boatracs distributor dealer contact is provided under the heading “VMS Provider Address”. The FMTC/G is an integrated GPS two-way satellite communications system, consisting of two major hardware components, the Mobile Communication Transceiver
(MCT)and the Enhanced Display Unit (EDU). The MCT contains the antenna and integrated GPS which communicates with the satellite and contains the operating circuitry and memory. The EDU is a shock and splash resistant display and key board unit consisting of, a liquid crystal display, keyboard, with adjustable contrast, brightness, and audible alerts. A back light illuminates the display for night view. The EDU has message waiting, no signal, and audible message received indicators. The Mobile Communications Transceiver is 6.7 inches high, 11.4 inches wide and weighs 11 pounds. The base of the unit is 6.595 inches in diameter. The MCT draws approximately 2.3 amps of current from the power supply while transmitting and 1.2 amps when vessel is idle. The Enhanced Display Unit is a hardened and splash proof keyboard display unit with a 15-line X 40-character screen that allows for both text and graphics. It is 12.72 inches wide, 9.3 inches long, 2.21 inches in depth, and weighs 3 pounds and is holster mounted in the cabin. A vessel owner may purchase this system by contacting the entity identified in this notice under the heading “VMS Provider Address”. The owner should identify himself or herself as a vessel owner issued a permit to operate in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery, Open Access Sector, so the transceiver set can be properly configured. B. Faria WatchDog 750VMS with VTERM The Faria WatchDog 750VMS with VTERM Features: The transceiver consists of an integrated dual model GPS/GSM/GPRS/Iridium Satellite Communicator mounted in the wheelhouse and antennas mounted atop the vessel. The Faria VTERM is a touch screen display provides the capability to process electronic forms, declarations, and send e-mail. A configuration option is available to automatically send daily status reports to a private e-mail address and position reports to a secure web site where the data is provided on a map and in tabular form. A 2-inch user interface is also included with this system that displays if the MTU is operating properly and can send emergency notification messages to up to four e-mail addresses and/or telephone numbers. The unit is pre-configured and tested for NMFS VMS (non-GMDSS) operations. Authorized dealers who are listed at *http://www.vmstracking.com* provide satellite commissioning services. Automatic GPS position reporting starts after transceiver installation and power activation onboard the vessel. The unit is a car radio sized transceiver powered by any 9 to 16 VDC power supply. It is factory configured for automatic reduced position transmissions when the vessel is stationary (i.e., in port) which allows for port stays in a reduced power state and without the need for unit shut down. The unit restarts normal position transmission automatically when the vessel goes to sea. The Faria WatchDog 750VMS has an omni-directional Iridium, GPS, and GSM/GPRS antennas, providing operation from +/− 5 degrees above or below the horizon anywhere on earth. The GSM/GPRS capability gives the system the additional ability to communicate through the Cingular wireless network where available. A vessel owner may purchase this system by contacting the entity identified in this notice under the heading “VMS Provider Address”. The owner should identify himself or herself as a vessel owner issued a permit to operate in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery, Open Access Sector, so the transceiver set can be properly configured. C. The Thrane & Thrane Sailor (TT-3026D) Gold VMS The Thrane & Thrane Sailor Gold VMS(TT-3026D)have been found to meet the minimum technical requirements for vessels issued permits to operate in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery, Open Access Sector. The address for the Thrane & Thrane distributor contact is provided in this notice under the heading VMS Provider Addresses. The TT-3026D Gold VMS both feature an integrated GPS/Inmarsat-C unit. The unit is factory pre-configured for NMFS VMS operations (non-Global Maritime Distress & Safety System (non-GMDSS). The Thrane and Thrane Gold VMS includes a marine grade monitor with keyboard and integrated mouse. Satellite commissioning services are provided by Thrane & Thrane personnel. Automatic GPS position reporting starts after transceiver installation and power activation onboard the vessel. The unit is an integrated transceiver/antenna/GPS design using a floating 10 to 32 VDC power supply. The unit is configured for automatic reduced position transmissions when the vessel is stationary (i.e., in port). It allows for port stays without power drain or power shut down. The unit restarts normal position transmission automatically when the vessel goes to sea. The TT-3026D provides operation down to +/-15 degree angles. The unit has the capability of two-way communications to send electronic forms and to receive e-mail and other messages. A configuration option is available to automatically send position reports to a private address, such as a fleet management company. To use the TT-3026D the vessel owner will need to establish an Inmarsat-C system use contract with an approved Inmarsat-C communications service provider. The owner will be required to complete the Inmarsat-C Registration for Service Activation for Maritime Mobile Earth Station. The owner should consult with Thrane & Thrane when completing this form. Thrane & Thrane personnel will perform the following services before shipment:
(1)configure the transceiver according to OLE specifications for vessels issued permits to operate in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery, Open Access Sector;
(2)download the predetermined NMFS position reporting and broadcast command identification numbers into the unit;
(3)test the unit to ensure operation when installation has been completed on the vessel; and
(4)forward the Inmarsat service provider and the transceiver identifying information to OLE. A vessel owner may purchase this system by contacting the entity identified in this notice under the heading “VMS Provider Address”. The owner should identify himself or herself as a vessel owner issued a permit to operate in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery, Open Access Sector, so the transceiver set can be properly configured. II. Communications Service Providers OLE has approved the below-listed communications service providers: Faria GSM/Iridium, Stratos Global, and VIZADA satellite communications services for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery, Open Access Sector. A. Qualcomm Satellite Service Qualcomm Enterprise Services delivers integrated wireless applications and services to businesses around the world. We enable enterprises to operate at peak performance and improve the quality of life for customers in their value chain. Mobile workforce, enterprise management, and machine-to-machine communications are some of the key applications being mobilized by enterprises today. Vessel owners wishing to use Qualcomm services will need to purchase a Boatracs FMTC/G transceiver. Information regarding configuration, installation, and service activation procedures for the transceiver can be obtained from Boatracs. The contact information for Boatracs is located under the heading of VMS provider addresses. B. Faria GSM/Iridium Service The Faria Watchdog GSM/Iridium Service is a dual mode GSM/GPRS and Iridium platform to ensure that connections are highly reliable, near real time and cost effective. The primary channel is the GSM/GPRS and the secondary channel is Iridium. The owner must confirm the operation and communications service to ensure that position reports are automatically sent to and received by OLE before leaving on a fishing trip under VMS. OLE does not regard the fishing vessel as being in compliance until position reports are automatically received. For confirmation purposes, contact the VMS support center, phone 888-219-9228, fax 301-427-0049. C. INMARSAT-C Communications Providers It is recommended, for vendor warranty and customer service purposes, that the vessel owner keep for his or her records and that Stratos Global or VIZADA have on record the following identifying information:
(a)Signed and dated receipts and contracts;
(b)transceiver serial number;
(c)VIZADA or Stratos Global customer number, user name and password;
(d)e-mail address of transceiver;
(e)Inmarsat identification number;
(f)owner name;
(g)vessel name;
(h)vessel documentation or registration number; and
(i)mobile earth station license (FCC license). OLE will provide an installation and activation checklist which the vessel owner must follow. The vessel owner must sign a statement on the checklist certifying compliance with the installation procedures and return the checklist to OLE. Installation can be performed by an electronics specialist, and the installation cost is paid by the owner. The owner must confirm the operation and communications service to ensure that position reports are automatically sent to and received by OLE before leaving on a fishing trip under VMS. OLE does not regard the fishing vessel as being in compliance until position reports are automatically received. For confirmation purposes, contact the VMS support center, phone 888-219-9228, fax 301-427-0049. C1. Stratos Global Stratos Global is a provider Vessel Monitoring Services to the fishing industry. By installing an approved OLE Imarsat-C transceiver on the vessel, fishermen can send and receive E-mail, to and from land, transceiver automatically sends vessel position reports to OLE, and is fully compliant with the International Coast Guard Search and Rescue Centers. Stratos Global Vessel Monitoring System Services are being sold through Thrane and Thrane Inc. For the Thrane and Thrane and Stratos Global addresses, look under the heading “VMS Provider Address”. C2. VIZADA Satellite Services Inmarsat-C is a store-and-forward data messaging service. Inmarsat C allows users to send and receive information virtually anywhere in the world, on land, at sea, and in the air. Inmarsat-C supports a wide variety of applications including Internet e-mail, position and weather reporting, a free daily news service, and remote equipment monitoring and control. Mariners can use Inmarsat-C free of charge to send critical safety at sea messages as part of the U.S. Coast Guard's Automated Mutual-Assistance Vessel Rescue system and of the NOAA Shipboard Environmental Acquisition System programs. VIZADA Vessel Monitoring System Services is being sold through Thrane & Thrane, Inc. For the Thrane & Thrane and VIZADA addresses, look under the heading “VMS Provider Address”. VIZADA and Stratos Global Features offered through Thrane & Thrane: Customer Service supports the security and privacy of vessel accounts and messages with the following:
(a)password authentication for vessel owners or agents and for OLE to prevent unauthorized changes or inquiries; and
(b)separation of private messages from OLE messages. (OLE requires VMS-related position reports, only.) Billing is separated between accounts for the vessel owner and the OLE. VMS position reports and vessel-initiated messaging are paid for by the vessel owner. Messaging initiated from OLE operations center is paid for by NOAA. Thrane & Thrane provides customer service for VIZADA and Stratos Global users to support and establish two-way transmission of transceiver unit configuration commands between the transceiver and land-based control centers. This supports OLE's message needs and, optionally, fishermen's private message needs. The vessel owner can configure automatic position reports to be sent to a private address, such as to a fleet management company. The vessel can send and receive private e-mail and other messages when the transceiver has such an input device as a laptop or personal computer attached. Vessel owners wishing to use Stratos Global or VIZADA services will need to purchase an Inmarsat-C transceiver approved for the fishery. The owner will need to complete an Inmarsat-C system use contract with Stratos Global or VIZADA, including a mobile earth station license (FCC requirement). The transceiver will need to be commissioned with Inmarsat according to Stratos Global's or VIZADA instructions. The owner should refer to and follow the configuration, installation, and service activation procedures for the specific transceiver purchased. III. VMS Provider Addresses Boatracs corporate offices address is 9155 Brown Deer Rd, Suite 8, San Diego, CA 92121. Telephone numbers are toll free
(877)468-8722 and direct dialed
(858)458-8100. The primary point of contact is Debbie Foste, Manager of Fisheries, e-mail *dfoste@boatracs.com* , direct telephone number
(877)468-8722 ext. 105, and Winston Richardson, e-mail *wrichardson@boatracs.com* , direct telephone number
(858)458-8106. Faria Watchdog Inc., authorized reseller. Reseller information can be found on the internet website at *www.vmstracking.com* . Alternatively vessel owners may contact, Faria WatchDog Inc., 385 Norwich-New London Turnpike, Uncasville, CT 06382, 1-877-888-5569, 860-848-2704 fax, *information@fariawatchdog.com* e-mail. For Thrane & Thrane Sailor 3026D Gold VMS, Stratos Global or VIZADA information contact Lauri Paul, Marine Products, Thrane & Thrane, Inc., 509 Viking Drive, Suite K, L & M, Virginia Beach, VA 23452; voice: 757-753-9450 or 757-463-9557; fax: 757-463-9581, e-mail: *lp@thrane.com* ; website: *http://www.us.thrane.com/* . Dated: October 22, 2007. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-21093 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request: Part 41 Relating to Security Futures Products AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request
(ICR)abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden; it includes the actual data collection instruments [if any]. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 26, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR A COPY CONTACT: David Van Wagner, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Division of Market Oversight, 202-418-5481, fax 202-418-5527, E-mail *dvanwagner@cftc.gov* , and refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0059. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Part 41 Relating to Security Futures Products (OMB Control No. 3038-0059). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* Section 4d(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (EAC), 7 U.S.C. 6d(c), requires the CFTC to consult with the SEC and issue such rules, regulations, or orders as are necessary to avoid duplicative or conflicting regulations applicable to firms that are fully registered with the SEC as brokers or dealers (broker-dealers) and the CFTC as futures commission merchants
(FCMs)involving provisions of the CEA that pertain to the treatment of customer funds. The CFTC, jointly with the SEC, issued regulations requiring such dually-registered firms to make choices as to how its customers' transactions in security futures products
(SFP)will be treated, either as securities transactions held in a securities account or as futures transactions held in a futures account. How an account is treated is important in the unlikely event of the insolvency of the firm. Only securities accounts receive insurance protection under provisions of the Securities Investor Protection Act. By contrast, only futures accounts are subject to the protections provided by the segregation requirements of the CEA. As 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 the CFTC's regulations were published on December 30, 1981. See 46 FR 63035 (Dec. 30, 1981). The **Federal Register** notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on August 21, 2007 (72 FR 46613). *Burden Statement:* The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to average .59 hours per response. These estimates include 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; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* 144. *Estimated number of responses:* 2,739. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 1,620.48 hours. *Frequency of collection:* On occasion. Send comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the addresses listed below. Please refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0059 in any correspondence. David Van Wagner, Chief Counsel, Division of Market Oversight, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581, and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for CFTC, 725 17th Street, Washington, DC 20503. Dated: October 22, 2007. David A. Stawick, Secretary of the Commission. Part 41—Security Futures Products OMB Collection No. 3038-0059 Estimated Number of respondents or recordkeepers per year Reports annually by each respondent Total annual responses Estimated average number of hours per response Estimated total number of hours of annual burden in fiscal year Reporting: 41.3 Application for exemption by intermediaries 5 1 5 25,000 125 41.23(a)(1)-(5) Listing of SFPs 3 20 60 4 240 41.23(a)(6) and 41.24(a)(5) 3 25 75 .033 2.48 41.25(a)(1) Reporting of data 3 20 60 1 60 41.27(c) Rules prohibiting exemptions 1 1 1 4 4 41.27(e) Rules permitting exemptions 1 1 1 4 4 41.31 SFPCM designation (one time only) 1 1 1 5 5 41.32 SFPCM continuing obligations 3 20 60 4 240 41.33 Application for exemption by SFPCM 1 1 1 40 40 41.41 FCM/B-D disclosure 60 40 2,400 .25 600 41.49 Margin rule changes 3 5 15 4 60 Subtotal Reporting Requirements 84 2,679 1,380.48 Recordkeeping: 41.41(a)(2) Handling of customer accounts 60 1 60 4 240 Subtotal Recordkeeping Requirements 60 1 60 4 240 Total Reporting and Recordkeeping 144 2,739 0.592 1,620.48 [FR Doc. 07-5301 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 36
Traces to 36 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
23 references not yet in our index
  • 40 CFR 52
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 40 CFR 300
  • 42 USC 9601-9657
  • 3 CFR 1991
  • 3 CFR 1987
  • 42 CFR 482
  • 7 CFR 319
  • 7 CFR 2.22
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 50 CFR 622
  • 41 USC 47(a)(2)
  • 41 CFR 51
  • 41 USC 46-48c
  • 132 F. Supp. 2d 1
  • 688 F. Supp. 639
  • 865 F.2d 240
  • 492 U.S. 919
  • 50 CFR 216.103
  • 50 CFR 229.2
  • 50 CFR 216
  • Pub. L. 107-314
  • 40 CFR 1501.6
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Direct final rule
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 601
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 272
U.S.C.§ 3501
U.S.C.§ 801
F. Supp.132 F. Supp. 2d 1
F. Supp.688 F. Supp. 639
F. App'x865 F.2d 240
Cites 59 · 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.