Proposed Rules. Proposed rule; reopening comment period

8,706 words·~40 min read·/register/2007/11/15/07-5700

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

BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 600 and 635 RIN 0648-AU89 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Shark Management Measures; Amendment 2 to the Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening comment period. SUMMARY: NMFS is reopening the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on the draft Amendment 2 to the Consolidated Highly Migratory Species

(HMS)Fishery Management Plan

(FMP)and its July 27, 2007, proposed rule. More specifically, NMFS is interested in receiving comments on a modification to shark dealer weigh-out slips that would facilitate compliance with measures proposed in the draft Amendment 2 to the HMS FMP, which would require fishermen to land sharks with all fins naturally attached. Additionally, over the course of the comment period, NMFS has received suggestions on ways to modify the proposed measures to minimize impacts to fishermen. NMFS is interested in receiving additional comments regarding those suggestions. Furthermore, as is required under the current regulations and was proposed to be maintained in the July 27, 2007, proposed rule, any overharvests that occur in the 2007 or 2008 commercial shark fishery will be accounted for with the implementation of final Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP. Thus, NMFS is reopening the comment period for 30 days to gather further public comment on these issues. The draft Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP and its proposed rule also describe a range of other management measures that could impact fishermen and dealers for HMS fisheries. DATES: The public comment period for receiving written comments on the July 27, 2007 (72 FR 41392), proposed rule and the draft Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP is reopened. Comments must be received by 5 p.m. on December 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AU89, by any one of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* • Email to *ShkA2@noaa.gov* . • Fax: 301-713-1917, Attn: Michael Clark • Mail: Attn: Michael Clark, HMS Management Division (SF1), 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark the outside of the envelope “Comment on Amendment 2.” Instructions: All comments received are 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, PowerPoint, or Adobe PDF file formats only. Copies of the draft Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP and other relevant documents are available on the HMS Management Division's website at *www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms* or by contacting the HMS Management Division at 301-713-2347. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information concerning the draft Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP and its proposed rule, contact: Michael Clark at 301-713-2347 or fax 301-713-1917; or Jackie Wilson at 240-338-3936 or fax 404-806-9188. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Atlantic HMS fisheries are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). The Consolidated HMS FMP, finalized in 2006, and amendments to that FMP are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. On July 27, 2007 (72 FR 41392), NMFS published a proposed rule that requested comments on the draft Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP, and scheduled 10 public hearings throughout August and September 2007 to receive comments from fishery participants and other members of the public regarding the proposed rule and draft Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP. On October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56330), the comment period was extended from October 15, 2007, to November 2, 2007. At the October 2007 HMS Advisory Panel

(AP)meeting, AP members asked a number of questions regarding the proposed measures that would require fishermen to land sharks with all fins naturally attached. Specifically, AP members asked how this requirement would relate to the Shark Finning Prohibition Act and its implementing regulations. In order to provide evidence that sharks were actually landed with their fins attached, NMFS is considering modifying shark dealer weigh-out slips so that dealers can document when they receive sharks landed with fins naturally attached. NMFS recently released a document that discusses this issue entitled “Clarification of the Proposed Rule Regarding Landing Sharks with the Fins Attached and the Shark Finning Prohibition Act,” which is available on the HMS website (see ADDRESSES ) and was distributed to the HMS listserve. Throughout the comment period, NMFS has received thousands of comments on the full range of analyzed alternatives, including the status of the stocks, proposed quotas, proposed shark landing requirements, and the proposed list of allowable shark species for recreational anglers. NMFS has also received suggestions on modifying the proposed measures to minimize impacts on fishermen. Specifically, one group of commenters, including the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, suggest implementing two regions (i.e., a Gulf of Mexico region and an Atlantic region). In general, these comments were made in light of the blacktip shark status in the Gulf of Mexico and the large overharvests in the Gulf of Mexico during 2007. NMFS has not fully analyzed the implications of the two regions versus the proposed one region or the status quo alternative of three regions. Nonetheless, NMFS welcomes additional comments on this suggestion. Finally, NMFS is clarifying that any overharvests in 2007 or 2008 would be accounted for in final measures implementing Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP, consistent with both the current and proposed regulations. NMFS continues to accept comments on any of the proposed measures and on those measures that comments were specifically requested, including the proposed list of species that recreational anglers would be allowed to land, the amount of time proposed to provide notice of closures, and the 80 percent trigger for closing commercial shark fisheries. In order to provide additional opportunities for public comment, NMFS is reopening the public comment period on the proposed rule and draft Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP until 5 p.m., December 17, 2007. Authority: 5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: November 9, 2007. John Oliver, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-22377 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No.070717342-7504-01] RIN 0648-AV42 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery; Proposed 2008-2010 Fishing Quotas for Atlantic Surfclams and Ocean Quahogs AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes quotas for the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries for 2008, 2009, and 2010. Regulations governing these fisheries require NMFS to publish the proposed quota specifications for the 2008-2010 fishing years and seek public comment on such proposed measures. The intent of this action is to propose allowable harvest levels of Atlantic surfclams and ocean quahogs from the Exclusive Economic Zone. DATES: Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on December 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting documents, including the Regulatory Impact Review

(RIR)and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)are available from Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790. A copy of the RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at *http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/regs/com.html* . You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-AV42, by any one of the following methods: • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298. Mark on the outside of the envelope, “Comments on SC/OQ Proposed Specifications.” • Fax:

(978)281-9135. • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov.* 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: Brian R. Hooker, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9220. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fisheries

(FMP)requires that NMFS, in consultation with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), specify quotas for surfclams and ocean quahogs for a 3-year period, with an annual review, from a range that represents the optimum yield

(OY)for each fishery. It is the policy of the Council that the levels selected allow sustainable fishing to continue at that level for at least 10 years for surfclams and 30 years for ocean quahogs. In addition to this constraint, the Council policy also considers the economic impacts of the quotas. Regulations implementing Amendment 10 to the FMP (63 FR 27481, May 19, 1998) added Maine ocean quahogs (locally known as mahogany quahogs) to the management unit, and provided for a small artisanal fishery for ocean quahogs in the waters north of 43 50' N. lat. with an annual quota within a range of 17,000 to 100,000 Maine bu (5,991 to 35,240 hL). As specified in Amendment 10, the Maine mahogany ocean quahog quota is allocated separately from the quota specified for the ocean quahog fishery. Regulations implementing Amendment 13 to the FMP (68 FR 69970, December 16, 2003) established the ability to set multi-year quotas. An evaluation, in the form of an annual quota recommendation, is conducted by the Council every year to determine if the multi-year quota specifications remains appropriate. The fishing quotas must be in compliance with overfishing definitions for each species. In proposing these quotas, the Council considered the available stock assessments, data reported by harvesters and processors, and other relevant information concerning exploitable biomass and spawning biomass, fishing mortality rates, stock recruitment, projected fishing effort and catches, and areas closed to fishing. In June 2007, the Council voted to recommend maintaining the 2007 quota levels of 5.333 million bu (284 million L) for the ocean quahog fishery, 3.400 million bu (181 million L) for the Atlantic surfclam fishery, and 100,000 Maine bu (35,240 hL) for the Maine ocean quahog fishery for 2008-2010. The proposed quotas for the 2008-2010 Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fishery are shown in the table below. The Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog quotas are specified in standard bu of 53.24 L per bu, while the Maine ocean quahog quota is specified in “Maine” bu of 35.24 L per bu. Because Maine ocean quahogs are the same species as ocean quahogs, both fisheries are assessed under the same ocean quahog overfishing definition. When the two quota amounts (ocean quahog and Maine ocean quahog) are added, the total allowable harvest is still lower than the level that would result in overfishing for the entire stock. PROPOSED 2008-2010 ATLANTIC SURFCLAM AND OCEAN QUAHOG 1 QUOTAS 2008 bu hL 2009 bu hL 2010 bu hL Surfclams 2 3.400 1.810 3.400 1.810 3.400 1.810 Ocean Quahogs 2 5.333 2.840 5.333 2.840 5.333 2.840 Maine Ocean Quahogs 3 100,000 35,240 100,000 35,240 100,000 35,240 1 Numerical values are in millions except for Maine ocean quahogs 2 1 bu = 1.88 cubic ft. = 53.24 liters 3 1 bu = 1.2445 cubic ft. = 35.24 liters Surfclams In 1999, the Council expressed its intention to increase the surfclam quota to OY over a period of 5 years (OY = 3.4 million bu (181 million L)). The proposed 2008-2010 status quo surfclam quota was developed after reviewing the results of the 44th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW 44) for surfclams, issued in January 2007. The surfclam quota recommendation is consistent with the SAW 44 finding that the Atlantic surfclam stock is not overfished, nor is overfishing occurring. Estimated fishable stock biomass in 2005 was above the management target, and fishing mortality was below the management threshold. Even though the total stock biomass is expected to gradually decline over the next 3 years due to poor recruitment, the total proposed quota of 3.4 million bu (181 million L), if fully harvested, would not exceed the fishing mortality threshold. Based on this information the Council is recommending, and NMFS is proposing, to maintain the status quo surfclam quota of 3.4 million bu (181 million L) for 2008-2010. This quota represents the maximum allowable quota under the FMP. Ocean Quahogs The proposed 2008-2010 quota for ocean quahogs also reflects the status quo quota of 5.333 million bu (284 million L) in 2007. SAW 44 found that the ocean quahog stock is not overfished, nor is overfishing occurring. Estimated fishable biomass in 2005 was above the management target, and estimated fishing mortality was well below the target level. Fishing mortality is not expected to reach the target threshold if the proposed quota is harvested each of the 3 years. Similar to surfclams, the ocean quahog biomass is expected to decline over the next 3 years. There is some evidence of recruitment, and small ocean quahogs found in most regions; however, growth is so slow that initial recruitment of year classes to the fishery is delayed for about 20 years. Based on this information the Council is recommending, and NMFS is proposing, to maintain the status quo quota of 5.333 million bu (284 million L) for 2008-2010. This quota level is above current market demand, but allows for growth of the market if conditions change. The proposed 2008-2010 quota for Maine ocean quahogs is the status quo level of 100,000 Maine bu (35,240 hL). In 2006, the State of Maine completed a stock assessment of the resource within the Maine Mahogany Quahog Zone. This assessment was peer-reviewed as part of SAW 44. Although landings per unit of effort have declined since 2002, they remain relatively high overall. The findings of the Maine quahog survey did not change the status of the entire ocean quahog resource. The proposed quota represents the maximum allowable quota under the FMP. Classification Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment. This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis

(IRFA)has been prepared, which describes the economic impacts that this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A summary of the IRFA is included in this section. The complete IRFA and regulatory impact review is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES ). A description of the reasons why this action is being considered, as well as the objectives of and legal basis for this proposed rule is found in the preamble of this proposed rule. There are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule. This action proposes fishing quotas for Atlantic surfclams and ocean quahogs for 2008-2010. The Council analyzed four quota alternatives for the Atlantic surfclam fishery, five alternatives for the ocean quahog fishery, and four alternatives for the Maine ocean quahog fishery. Each of the alternative sets included the proposed alternative and a “no action” alternative. The three proposed quotas for 2008-2010 are 5.333 million bu (284 million L) for the ocean quahog fishery, 3.400 million bu (181 million L) for the Atlantic surfclam fishery, and 100,000 Maine bu (35,240 hL) for the Maine ocean quahog fishery. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which this Proposed Rule Would Apply The Small Business Administration

(SBA)defines a small commercial fishing entity as a firm with gross annual receipts not exceeding $4 million. In 2006, a total of 38 vessels reported harvesting surfclams and/or ocean quahogs from Federal waters under an Individual Transferable Quota

(ITQ)system. In addition, 25 vessels participated in the limited access Maine ocean quahog fishery, for a total of 63 participants in the 2006 fisheries. Average 2006 gross income from surfclam ITQ trips was $1,182,713 per vessel, and from ocean quahog ITQ trips was $1,020,409 per vessel. The Maine ocean quahog fishery reported an average value of $160,698 per boat. Each vessel in this analysis is treated as a single entity for purposes of size determination and impact assessment. All 63 commercial fishing entities fall under the SBA size standard for small commercial fishing entities. In addition to the actual vessels that participate in the fishery there are 55 ocean quahog quota allocation owners, 67 surfclam allocation owners, and 51 Federal limited access Maine mahogany quahog permit holders. An allocation owner may choose to fish or lease his or her quota allocation. Economic Impacts of this Proposed Action The proposed quotas for 2008-2010 reflect the same quota level set for 2005-2007. Therefore, it is not expected that there will be any different economic impacts beyond status quo resulting from the proposed quota level. Leaving the ocean quahog quota at the harvest level of 5.333 million bu (284 million L) is not expected to constrain the fishery. In fact, actual ocean quahog landings for 2005 and 2006 did not exceed 60 percent of the available quota. The total 2007 harvest is expected to be similar to recent years (as of September 15, 2007, only 45.4 percent of the quota had been harvested). In comparison, 41 percent of the quota had been harvested as of September 15, 2006. The surfclam quota is proposed to be set to the maximum allowed under the FMP. In contrast to the ocean quahog harvest, the surfclam fishery has harvested over 80 percent of the available quota each year since 2005. The Maine ocean quahog quota is proposed to be also set at the maximum allowed under the FMP. The Maine ocean quahog quota is often fully harvested on an annual basis. It is anticipated that by maintaining the status quo quota level for the next 3 years the fishing industry will benefit from the stability of product demand from the seafood processors and being able to predict future fishery performance based on past performance from the last 3 years. Economic Impacts of Alternatives to the Proposed Action The Council analyzed four alternatives for the Atlantic surfclam fishery, five alternatives for the ocean quahog fishery, and four alternatives for the Maine ocean quahog fishery. Each of the alternative sets included the proposed alternative and a “no action” alternative. The selection of “no action” alternative would result in no quotas being established, a closure of the fishery, and is contrary to the FMP. Based on 2006 ex-vessel prices, the result of no Federal surfclam or ocean quahog harvests in 2008 would be a loss of $34.3 million to the Federal surfclam fishery, $18.4 million to the ocean quahog fishery, and $4 million to the Maine ocean quahog fishery, for a total loss of $56.7 million. The viable alternatives to the proposed quotas for ocean quahog include a 20-percent decrease from the status quo, a 6.2-percent decrease form the status quo, and a 20-percent increase from the status quo. The ocean quahog quota alternatives that were chosen for analysis represent options within the 4 - 6 million bu (213 - 319.4 million L) range that is specified in the FMP. Since the alternative quota levels would not likely constrain the harvest level, the primary economic impact would come from the change in the lease and sale value of surplus quota shares. It is estimated that the status quo lease price per bushel of ocean quahogs is $0.53. A 20-percent decrease in quota would likely increase the lease value to $1.00 per bu. In 2006 there were over 748,000 cage tags traded (each cage tag equals 32 bu or 1,704 liters). Most tags are traded more than one time. Since NMFS does not keep records on the transaction costs, the actual value of these transactions can not be accurately determined. However, it is clear that allocation owners who depend primarily on the lease market would benefit from a decrease in quota at the expense of harvesters. The other two alternatives each would increase the quota above status quo. Thus, each would likely have the effect of devaluing the lease price of a quota share, perhaps encouraging some allocation owners to sell their quota shares. These sales could cause further consolidation of quota shares in the ocean quahog fishery. The alternatives to the proposed surfclam quotas include a 45.6-percent decrease from the status quo and a 4.4-percent decrease from the status quo. The Atlantic surfclam quota alternatives that were chosen for analysis represent options within the 1.85 - 3.4 million bu (98.5 - 181 million L) range that is specified in the FMP. A 45.6-percent decrease in the Federal surfclam quota would subtract 23,147 bu (1.2 million L) from the current average allocation. At an average ex-vessel value of $11.22 per bu, the gross value of the quota decrease would equal $259,715 per allocation. For those entities that are simply renting their allocation, it is assumed that the current rental value for a bu of surfclams is $4.00. The foregone value of 23,147 bu (1.2 million L) would equate to $92,590. A 4.4-percent decrease in the Federal surfclam quota would subtract 2,234 bu (118,930 L) from the current average allocation. At an average ex-vessel value of $11.22 per bu, the gross value of the quota decrease would equal $25,060 per allocation. For those allocation owners renting their allocation, 2,334 bu (118,930 L) at $4.00 per bushel would equate to a loss of $8,934. The alternatives to the proposed Maine ocean quahog quota include a 50-percent decrease from the status quo and a 10-percent decrease from the status quo. Since 100,000 Maine bu (35,240 hL) is the maximum quota currently allowed for the Maine ocean quahog fishery under the FMP, only quota alternatives equal to, and less than that amount were analyzed. In 2006, a total of 25 vessels participated in the Maine ocean quahog fishery. If the Maine quota were reduced by 50 percent to 50,000 Maine bu (1.8 million L), 90 percent of the reduction would likely be replaced by renting ocean quahog allocation from the ITQ fishery. This would equal a total of 45,000 bu (1.6 million L) rented, at an estimated $1.00 per bushel. Divided among the 25 vessels in the fleet, the average cost per vessel would be $1,800. A 10-percent decrease in the Maine ocean quahog quota would likely result in 10,000 bu (352,400 L) being leased from the ocean quahog ITQ fishery, resulting in a lease cost of $400 per vessel. Under both alternatives, those unable to lease quota shares would just lose the amount they would have harvested under the 100,000-bu (35,240,000-L) quota. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements This proposed rule would not impose any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. Therefore, the costs of compliance would remain unchanged. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: November 9, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-22381 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 220 Thursday, November 15, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Information Collection; Equal Opportunity Compliance Review Record AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Request for Comment; Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the new information collection, Equal Opportunity Compliance Review Record. DATES: Comments must be received in writing on or before January 14, 2008 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Civil Rights, Mail Stop 1142, Forest Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-1142. Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to

(202)205-5054 or by e-mail to: *pjackman@fs.fed.us* . The public may inspect comments received at USDA Forest Service, Civil Rights, 201 14th St., SW., Room 4SW, Washington, DC 20024 during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 202-205-8534 to facilitate entry to the building. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat Jackman, Civil Rights,

(202)205-0989. Individuals who use TDD may call the Federal Relay Service

(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Equal Opportunity Compliance Review Record. *OMB Number:* 0596-New. *Type of Request:* New. *Abstract:* All Federal agencies must comply with equal opportunity laws: • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. • Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. • The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended. • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. • Executive orders prohibiting discrimination in the delivery of all programs and services to the public. Federal agencies and the entities receiving Federal financial assistance for the delivery of agency programs are prohibited from discriminating. Federal financial assistance is defined as, “Federal monies given through grants, cooperative agreements, commercial special use permits, training presented by the agency, loan/temporary assignment of Federal personnel, or loan/use of Federal property at or below market value.” The equal opportunity laws require agencies to conduct periodic program compliance reviews of recipients of Federal Financial Assistance to ensure they are adhering to the nondiscrimination statutes. The statutes require that prior to awarding support or issuing permits, the Federal government shall conduct pre-award reviews to ensure that potential recipients understand their responsibilities to provide services equitable pursuant to the law. Thereafter, during the partnership with the agency, ongoing monitoring and subsequent periodic program compliance reviews will take place to ensure that program beneficiaries are served without any barriers to information, activities, program/facility access or discrimination and that recipient(s)'s employees understand their customer service role. Forest Service employees will use form FS-1700-6, Equal Opportunity Compliance Review Record, to collect information and document assisted program compliance reviews. Collection will occur during face-to-face meetings or telephone interviews conducted by Forest Service employees integral to the pre-award and post award process. The pre-award civil rights review will take place prior to the award of a grant, signing of a cooperative agreement, letting of commercial special use permit, or similar activity. The post award interview may take place once every five years, or upon report/discovery of discrimination. The information collected is for internal use only and is utilized to establish civil rights compliance, identify opportunities for training or technical assistance, and actions toward compliance. Information is only shared with the recipient and other Federal agencies who share in the financial assistance activities with the same recipient(s). Monitoring reviews are required and have been a responsibility of the Federal government since 1964. Without the ability to monitor assisted program recipients, the Forest Service would not be able to administer compliance and improve customer service. *Estimate of Annual Burden:* 1 hour. *Type of Respondents:* Recipients of Federal financial assistance. *Estimated Annual Number of Respondents:* 3,400. *Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent:* One. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 3,400 hours. Comment is invited on:

(1)Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility;

(2)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 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 respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. Dated: November 2, 2007. Hank Kashdan, Deputy Chief, Business Operations. [FR Doc. E7-22316 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board AGENCY: Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces changes in the membership of the Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board for the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). DATES: Effective November 15, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Office of General Counsel,

(202)261-7600. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(1) requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, a performance review board (PRB). The PRB reviews initial performance ratings of members of the Senior Executive Service

(SES)and makes recommendations on performance ratings and awards for senior executives. Because the CSB is a small independent Federal agency, the SES members of the CSB's PRB are being drawn from other Federal agencies. The CSB Board Member Delegated Interim Executive and Administrative Authority has appointed the following individuals to the CSB Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board: *PRB Chair* —William B. Wark, Board Member, Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. *PRB Member* —Curtis Bowling, Director of Environmental Readiness and Safety, Office of the Secretary of Defense/Chairman, Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board. Mr. Wark replaces John S. Bresland (formerly Board Member, Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board) as Chair of the PRB. Mr. Bowling replaces Leon A. Wilson, Jr. (formerly Executive Director, Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled). The service of Mr. Bresland and Mr. Wilson on the PRB has ended. Their appointments were originally announced in the **Federal Register** of October 8, 2003 (68 FR 58063) (Bresland) and January 11, 2007 (72 FR 1317) (Wilson). Lawrence W. Roffee (Executive Director, United States Access Board) continues to serve as a Member of the PRB, as announced in the **Federal Register** of January 11, 2007 (72 FR 1317). This notice is published in the **Federal Register** pursuant to the requirement of 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). Dated: November 8, 2007. Raymond C. Porfiri, Deputy General Counsel. [FR Doc. E7-22332 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6350-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE U.S. Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Monthly Retail Trade Survey AGENCY: U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Scott Scheleur, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8K181, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233-6500,

(301)763-2713. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION I. Abstract The Monthly Retail Trade Survey provides estimates of monthly retail sales, end-of-month merchandise inventories, and quarterly e-commerce sales of retailers in the United States by selected kinds of business. Also, it provides monthly sales of food service establishments. The Bureau of Economic Analysis

(BEA)uses this information to prepare the National Income and Products Accounts and to benchmark the annual input-output tables. Statistics provided from the Monthly Retail Trade Survey are used to calculate the gross domestic product (GDP). Estimates produced from the Monthly Retail Trade Survey are based on a probability sample. The sample design consists of one fixed panel where all cases are requested to report sales and/or inventories each month. Listed below are the series of retail form numbers and a description of each form: Series Description SM-44(06)S Non Department Store/Sales Only/WO E-Commerce. SM-44(06)SE Non Department Store/Sales Only W E-Commerce. SM-44(06)SS Non Department Store/Sales Only/Screener. SM-44(06)B Non Department Store/Sales and Inventory/WO E-Commerce. SM-44(06)BE Non Department Store/Sales and Inventory/W E-Commerce. SM-44(06)BS Non Department Store/Sales and Inventory/Screener. SM-45(06)S Department Store/Sales Only/WO E-Commerce. SM-45(06)SE Department Store/Sales Only/W E-Commerce. SM-45(06)SS Department Store/Sales Only/Screener. SM-45(06)B Department Store/Sales and Inventory/WO E-Commerce. SM-45(06)BE Department Store/Sales and Inventory/W E-Commerce. SM-45(06)BS Department Store/Sales and Inventory/Screener. SM-72(06)S Food Services/Sales Only/WO E-Commerce. SM-20(06)I Non Department and Department Store/Inventory Only. II. Method of Collection This information will be collected by mail, fax, and telephone follow-up. III. Data *OMB Control Number:* 0607-0717. *Form Number:* SM-44(06)S, SM-44(06)SE, SM-44(06)SS, SM-44(06)B, SM-44(06)BE, SM-44(06)BS, SM-45(06)S, SM-45(06)SE, SM-45(06)SS, SM-45(06)B, SM-45(06)BE, SM-45(06)BS, SM-72(06)S, and SM-20(06)I. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Retail and Food Services firms in the United States. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 10,000. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 7 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 14,000. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $367,640. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *Legal Authority:* Title 13 U.S.C. Section 182. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: November 7, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-22234 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security [Docket No. 071107679-7690-01] Impact of Implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention on Commercial Activities Involving “Schedule 1” Chemicals During Calendar Year 2007 AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of inquiry. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security

(BIS)is seeking public comments on the impact that implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, through the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act and the Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations, has had on commercial activities involving “Schedule 1” chemicals during calendar year 2007. The purpose of this notice of inquiry is to collect information to assist BIS in its preparation of the annual certification to the Congress, which is required under Condition 9 of Senate Resolution 75, April 24, 1997, in which the Senate gave its advice and consent to the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention. DATES: Comments must be received by December 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: *E-mail: wfisher@bis.doc.gov.* Include the phrase “Schedule 1 Notice of Inquiry” in the subject line; *Fax:*

(202)482-3355 (Attn: Willard Fisher); *Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier:* Willard Fisher, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Regulatory Policy Division, 14th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2705, Washington, DC 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on the Chemical Weapons Convention requirements for “Schedule 1” chemicals, contact Timir Misra, Treaty Compliance Division, Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, *Phone:*

(703)605-4400. For questions on the submission of comments, contact Willard Fisher, Regulatory Policy Division, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, *Phone:*

(202)482-2440. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In providing its advice and consent to the ratification of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and Their Destruction, commonly called the Chemical Weapons Convention

(CWC)(the Convention), the Senate included, in Senate Resolution 75 (S. Res. 75, April 24, 1997), several conditions to its ratification. Condition 9, titled “Protection of Advanced Biotechnology,” calls for the President to certify to Congress on an annual basis that “the legitimate commercial activities and interests of chemical, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical firms in the United States are not being significantly harmed by the limitations of the Convention on access to, and production of, those chemicals and toxins listed in Schedule 1.” On July 8, 2004, President Bush, by Executive Order 13346, delegated his authority to make the annual certification to the Secretary of Commerce. The CWC is an international arms control treaty that contains certain verification provisions. In order to implement these verification provisions, the CWC established the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The CWC imposes certain obligations on countries that have ratified the Convention (i.e., States Parties), among which are the enactment of legislation to prohibit the production, storage, and use of chemical weapons, and the establishment of a National Authority to serve as the national focal point for effective liaison with the OPCW and other States Parties for the purpose of achieving the object and purpose of the Convention and the implementation of its provisions. The CWC also requires each State Party to implement a comprehensive data declaration and inspection regime to provide transparency and to verify that both the public and private sectors of the State Party are not engaged in activities prohibited under the CWC. “Schedule 1” chemicals consist of those toxic chemicals and precursors set forth in the CWC “Annex on Chemicals” and in Supplement No. 1 to part 712 of the Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations

(CWCR)(15 CFR parts 710-722). The CWC identified these toxic chemicals and precursors as posing a high risk to the object and purpose of the Convention. The CWC restricts the production of “Schedule 1” chemicals for protective purposes to two facilities per State Party. The CWC Article-by-Article Analysis submitted to the Senate in Treaty Doc. 103-21 defined the term “protective purposes” to mean “used for determining the adequacy of defense equipment and measures.” Consistent with this definition, U.S. implementation, as authorized via Presidential Decision Directive

(PDD)70, December 17, 1999, assigned the responsibility to operate these two facilities to the Department of Defense (DOD), thereby precluding commercial production of Schedule 1 chemicals for protective purposes in the United States. This action did not establish any limitations on “Schedule 1” chemical activities that are not prohibited by the CWC. However, the Department of Defense maintains strict controls on “Schedule 1” chemicals produced at its facilities in order to ensure the accountability and proper use of such chemicals, consistent with the object and purpose of the Convention. The provisions of the CWC that affect commercial activities involving “Schedule 1” chemicals are implemented in the CWCR (see 15 CFR part 712) and in the Export Administration Regulations

(EAR)(see 15 CFR 742.18 and 15 CFR part 745), both of which are administered by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). Pursuant to CWC requirements, the CWCR restrict commercial production of Schedule 1 chemicals to research, medical, or pharmaceutical purposes. The CWCR also contain other requirements and prohibitions that apply to “Schedule 1” chemicals and/or “Schedule 1” facilities. Specifically, the CWCR:

(1)Prohibit the import of “Schedule 1” chemicals from States not Party to the Convention (15 CFR 712.2(b));

(2)Require annual declarations by certain facilities engaged in the production of “Schedule 1” chemicals in excess of 100 grams aggregate per calendar year (i.e., declared “Schedule 1” facilities) for purposes not prohibited by the Convention (15 CFR 712.5(a)(1) and (a)(2));

(3)Require government approval of “declared Schedule 1” facilities (15 CFR 712.5(f));

(4)Provide that “declared Schedule 1” facilities are subject to initial and routine inspection by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (15 CFR 712.5(e) and 716.1(b)(1));

(5)Require 200 days advance notification of establishment of new “Schedule 1” production facilities producing greater than 100 grams aggregate of “Schedule 1” chemicals per calendar year (15 CFR 712.4);

(6)Require advance notification and annual reporting of all imports and exports of “Schedule 1” chemicals to, or from, other States Parties to the Convention (15 CFR 712.6, 742.18(a)(1) and 745.1); and

(7)Prohibit the export of “Schedule 1” chemicals to States not Party to the Convention (15 CFR 742.18(a)(1) and (b)(1)(ii)). Request for Comments In order to assist in determining whether the legitimate commercial activities and interests of chemical, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical firms in the United States are significantly harmed by the limitations of the Convention on access to, and production of, “Schedule 1” chemicals as described in this notice, BIS is seeking public comments on any effects that implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, through the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act and the Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations, has had on commercial activities involving “Schedule 1” chemicals during calendar year 2007. In response to last year's notice of inquiry, BIS received comments from two companies. To allow BIS to properly evaluate the significance of any harm to commercial activities involving “Schedule 1” chemicals, public comments submitted in response to this notice of inquiry should include both a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the impact of the CWC on such activities. Submission of Comments All comments must be submitted to the address indicated in this notice. The Department requires that all comments be submitted in written form. The Department encourages interested persons who wish to comment to do so at the earliest possible time. The period for submission of comments will close on December 17, 2007. The Department will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured. The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. The Department will return such comments and materials to the persons submitting the comments and will not consider them. All comments submitted in response to this notice will be a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying. The Office of Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, displays public comments on the BIS Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA)Web site at *http://www.bis.doc.gov/foia.* This office does not maintain a separate public inspection facility. If you have technical difficulties accessing this Web site, please call BIS's Office of Administration, at

(202)482-1093, for assistance. Dated: November 8, 2007. Matthew S. Borman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. [FR Doc. E7-22386 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-469-814] Chlorinated Isocyanurates From Spain: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“Department” published its preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates (“chlorinated isos”) from Spain on July 9, 2007. *See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain:* *Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 72 FR 37189 (July 9, 2007) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). The period of review (“POR”) is December 20, 2004, through May 31, 2006. We invited interested parties to comment on our *Preliminary Results.* Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to our calculations. The final dumping margins from this review are listed in the “Final Results of Review” section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 15, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-3936. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 24, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order on chlorinated isos from Spain. *See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain:* *Notice of Antidumping Duty Order,* 70 FR 36502 (June 24, 2005) (“ *Chlorinated Isos Order* ”). On July 27, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of the initiation of the antidumping duty administration review of chlorinated isos from Spain for the period December 20, 2004, through May 31, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part,* 71 FR 42626 (July 27, 2006). The Department published the preliminary results of these reviews on July 9, 2007. *See Preliminary Results.* We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. *See Preliminary Results,* 72 FR at 37194. The respondent Aragonesas Industrias y Energía S.A. (“Aragonesas”) and the petitioners, Biolab, Inc., Clearon Corporation and Occidental Chemical Corporation (collectively, “the petitioners”), submitted case briefs on August 8, 2007. Aragonesas and the petitioners submitted rebuttal briefs on August 22, 2007. On September 25, 2007, the Department held both a public session and a closed session hearing concerning these issues raised by the parties in their briefs. Scope of Antidumping Duty Order The products covered by this order are chlorinated isos. Chlorinated isos are derivatives of cyanuric acid, described as chlorinated s-triazine triones. There are three primary chemical compositions of chlorinated isos:

(1)trichloroisocyanuric acid (C13(NCO)3);

(2)sodium dichloroisocyanurate (dihydrate) (NaC12(NCO)3 2H20); and

(3)sodium dichloroisocyanurate (anhydrous) (NaC12(NCO)3). Chlorinated isos are available in powder, granular, and tableted forms. This order covers all chlorinated isos. Chlorinated isos are currently classifiable under subheadings 2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, and 2933.69.6050 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). The tariff classification 2933.69.6015 covers sodium dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous and dihydrate forms) and trichloroisocyanuric acid. The tariff classifications 2933.69.6021 and 2933.69.6050 represent basket categories that include chlorinated isos and other compounds including an infused triazine ring. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customers purposes, and written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the briefs and rebuttal briefs submitted by the parties in these reviews are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document which is on file in the Central Records Unit in room B-099 in the main Department building, and is accessible on the Web at *http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculation for Aragonesas. For a list of these changes, *see* Issues and Decision Memorandum, at the section titled “Changes in the Margin Calculation Since the Preliminary Results.” Final Results of Review We determine that the following percentage margin exists for the period December 20, 2004, through May 31, 2006: Manufacturer/exporter Weighted- average margin (percentage) Aragonesas Industrias y Energía S.A 2.35 Assessment The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to each importer, to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , 0.50 percent or greater), we will instruct CBP to assess the importer-specific rate uniformly, as appropriate, on all entries of subject merchandise during the POR that were entered by the importer. The Department will issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review directing CBP to assess the final assessment rates (if above *de minimis* ) uniformly on all entries of subject merchandise made by the relevant importer during the POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent). The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (“ *Assessment Policy Notice* ”). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the company included in these final results of review for which the reviewed company did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary ( *e.g.* , a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the “All Others” rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. *See Assessment Policy Notice* for a full discussion of this clarification. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of chlorinated isos from Spain entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, effective on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company, Aragonesas, will be the rate shown above;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated 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, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4)the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will be 24.83 percent, the “All Others” rate made effective by the original investigation. *See Chlorinated Isos Order* . These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification to Interested Parties This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these final results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: November 6, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Grant a Level of Trade Adjustment. A. Whether Certain Sales to Industrial Customers Should Be Reclassified as Sales in the Retail Channel of Distribution Due to Product Characteristics. B. Whether Evidence on the Record Supports Aragonesas' Reported Selling Activity Intensity. Comment 2: Whether the Department Should Exclude Sales for Which Aragonesas Reported No Freight Expenses in Calculating the Average Rate by Which Aragonesas Over-reported Home Market Inland Freight. Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Apply the Major Input Rule for Valuing Caustic Soda and Chlorine Inputs. Comment 4: Whether the Tableting and Packaging Services Supplier Is Affiliated With Aragonesas. Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Adjust Aragonesas' G&A Expenses. Comment 6: Whether the Department Should Adjust Aragonesas' Cost of Production To Account for Costs That Were Unreconciled After Verification. Comment 7: Whether the Department Should Deduct Unsubstantiated Interest Income From Aragonesas' Financial Expense Ratio Calculation. Comment 8: Whether the Department Should Adjust the Reported Costs for CONNUM 1111. Comment 9: Whether the Department Should Refrain From Zeroing Negative Margins. [FR Doc. 07-5700 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 17

Traces to 17 documents

U.S. Code