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 · 2007-12-05 · Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA · Notices

Notices. Notice

32,921 words·~150 min read·/register/2007/12/05/07-5947

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

BILLING CODE 6116-01-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Doc. No. AMS-TM-07-0126; TM-07-13] Notice of Funds Availability
(NOFA)Inviting Applications for the Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program (FSMIP) AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)announces the availability of approximately $1.3 million in competitive grant funds for fiscal year 2008 to enable States to explore new market opportunities for U.S. food and agricultural products and to encourage research and innovation aimed at improving the efficiency and performance of the U.S. marketing system. Eligible applicants include State departments of agriculture, State agricultural experiment stations, and other appropriate State Agencies. Applicants are encouraged to involve industry groups, academia, community-based organizations, and other stakeholders in developing proposals and conducting projects. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB under 0581-0240, Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program (FSMIP). DATES: Proposals will be accepted through February 11, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit proposals and other required documents to: FSMIP Staff Officer, Transportation and Marketing Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 4009 South Building, Washington, DC 20250; telephone
(202)720-8043; e-mail *janise.zygmont@usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janise Zygmont, FSMIP Staff Officer; telephone
(202)720-8043; fax
(202)690-4948; or e-mail *janise.zygmont@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FSMIP is authorized under Section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 *et seq.* ). FSMIP provides matching grants on a competitive basis to enable States to explore new market opportunities for U.S. food and agricultural products and to encourage research and innovation aimed at improving the efficiency and performance of the U.S. marketing system. Eligible applicants include State departments of agriculture, State agricultural experiment stations, and other appropriate State Agencies. Other organizations interested in participating in this program should contact their State Department of Agriculture's Marketing Division. State agencies specifically named under the authorizing legislation should assume the lead role in FSMIP projects, and use cooperative or contractual linkages with other agencies, universities, institutions, and producer, industry or community-based organizations as appropriate. Multi-State projects are encouraged as long as one State assumes the coordinating role, using appropriate cooperative arrangements with the other States involved. Applicants other than State Departments of Agriculture and State agricultural experiment stations may wish to include with their applications an explanation of how they meet the definition of “other appropriate State agency.” Proposals must be accompanied by completed Standard Forms
(SF)424 and 424A. AMS will not approve the use of FSMIP funds for advertising or, with limited exceptions, for the purchase of equipment. Detailed program guidelines may be obtained from the contact listed above, and are available at the FSMIP Web site: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/tmd/fsmip.htm.* Background FSMIP funds a wide range of applied research projects that address barriers, challenges, and opportunities in marketing, transportation, and distribution of U.S. food and agricultural products domestically and internationally. Eligible agricultural categories include livestock, livestock products, food and feed crops, fish and shellfish, horticulture, viticulture, apiary, and forest products and processed or manufactured products derived from such commodities. Reflecting the growing diversity of U.S. agriculture, in recent years, FSMIP has funded projects dealing with nutraceuticals, bioenergy, compost, and products made from agricultural residues. Proposals may deal with barriers, challenges, or opportunities manifesting at any stage of the marketing chain including direct, wholesale, and retail. Proposals may involve small, medium, or large scale agricultural entities but should potentially benefit multiple producers or agribusinesses. Proprietary proposals that benefit one business or individual will not be considered. Proposals that address issues of importance at the State, regional or national level are appropriate for FSMIP. FSMIP also seeks unique proposals on a smaller scale that may serve as pilot projects or case studies useful as a model for other States. Of particular interest are proposals that reflect a collaborative approach among the States, academia, the farm sector and other appropriate entities and stakeholders. FSMIP's enabling legislation authorizes projects to: • Determine the best methods for processing, preparing for market, packing, handling, transporting, storing, distributing, and marketing agricultural products. • Determine the costs of marketing agricultural products in their various forms and through various channels. • Assist in the development of more efficient marketing methods, practices, and facilities to bring about more efficient and orderly marketing, and reduce the price spread between the producer and the consumer. • Develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices. • Eliminate artificial barriers to the free movement of agricultural products in commercial channels. • Foster new/expanded domestic/foreign markets and new/expanded uses of agricultural products. • Collect and disseminate marketing information to anticipate and meet consumer requirements, maintain farm income, and balance production and utilization. Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the FSMIP information collection requirements were previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)and were assigned OMB control number 0581-0240. AMS is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public with the option of submitted information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. How To Submit Proposals and Applications Applicants have the option of submitting FSMIP applications electronically through the Federal grants Web site, *http://www.grants.gov* instead of mailing hard copy documents. Applicants considering the electronic application option are strongly urged to familiarize themselves with the Federal grants Web site well before the application deadline and to begin the application process before the deadline. Additional details about the FSMIP application process for all applicants are available at the FSMIP Web site: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/tmd/fsmip.htm.* FSMIP is listed in the “Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance” under number 10.156 and subject agencies must adhere to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination in all federally assisted programs. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: November 29, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-23528 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0149] National Animal Identification System; Updated Program Standards AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that we are making available for review and comment a revised version of the National Animal Identification System
(NAIS)Program Standards and Technical Reference document. A previous Program Standards document was originally made available in May 2005. The revised Program Standards and Technical Reference document reflects the continuing evolution of the NAIS, particularly with regard to identification devices available for official use within the system, and provides further guidance to NAIS participants and other interested stakeholders. ADDRESSES: The revised Program Standards and Technical Reference document is available on the Internet at *http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/.* The document may also be viewed 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Adam Grow; Director, Surveillance and Identification Programs, National Center for Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 200, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301)734-3752. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 6, 2005, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 23961-23963, Docket No. 05-015-1) a notice advising the public that two documents related to the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), a Draft Strategic Plan and a Draft Program Standards document, were being made available to the public for review and comment. The Draft Program Standards document provided technical data standards to be used for information systems in the NAIS. Subsequently, a Draft User Guide for the NAIS replaced the 2005 Draft Program Standards, as well as other draft NAIS documents. We published a notice of availability of the Draft User Guide in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 4680-4681, Docket No. APHIS-2007-0007) on February 1, 2007. The February 2007 notice also announced the availability of a technical specification document for animal tracking databases and an updated Program Standards and Technical Reference document. The Program Standards and Technical Reference document supplemented the User Guide and contained an update of the data element standards that were in the 2005 Draft Program Standards. It was targeted to entities that are involved in the administration of the program, including manufacturers of animal identification devices. At that time, only the Cattle Working Group and the Equine Species Working Group had provided performance standards for APHIS to employ when approving devices for use in the NAIS, so the standards included only the recommendations of those groups. Since then, the Swine Working Group and the Sheep and Goat Working Group have also provided recommendations, and in October 2007, we updated the Program Standards and Technical Reference document to include information specific to those species and made some other changes. We are, therefore, now making available to the public for review and comment this newly updated version of the Program Standards and Technical Reference document. We will continue to solicit public comments and stakeholder feedback on the document through the NAIS Web site. Updates to the document include the following:
(1)Adjustments to performance standards for identification eartags;
(2)adjustments to printing standards for individual animal identification eartags;
(3)the addition of printing standards for slaughter swine premises identification; and
(4)the adjustment of our performance standards for radio frequency identification
(RFID)injectable transponders to allow for the potential use of alternate International Organization for Standardization
(ISO)or U.S.-based technology standards. These updates are discussed in more detail below. Performance Standards for Identification Eartags In the February 2007 Program Standards and Technical Reference document, we included a table outlining performance standards for identification eartags. These standards focused on cattle, since the Cattle Working Group had provided performance standards and since cattle were the primary species using NAIS identification at that time. We have now updated the performance standards for “Readability” and “Tag loss rates” to include information specific to sheep and goats and swine. For readability, we have added a note indicating that, for swine, the premises identification number
(PIN)must also be easily and reliably readable. For tag loss rates, we have specified separate performance requirements for cattle (noting that the requirements for cattle should be used for all other species not specified in the table), sheep and goats, and swine. Due to the addition of eartag identification performance standards for species other than cattle, we have also changed the title of the table from “Identification Eartag” to “Performance Standards for Identification Eartags for all Species that use Eartags.” Printing Standards for Eartags In the February 2007 Program Standards and Technical Reference document, we included a table containing printing standards for identification eartags. As with the performance standards discussed above, the printing standards focused on cattle, since the Cattle Working Group had provided standards and since cattle were the primary species using NAIS identification at that time. We have now updated those standards to address the needs for unique, individual animal identification for sheep and goats and swine. Specifically, we have provided for the following options:
(1)The use of smaller print sizes for the U.S. Shield, numbers, and letters, if needed, on tags for sheep and goats;
(2)the inclusion of an eight-character series in the National Uniform Eartagging System, in addition to the current nine-character series, to accommodate the need for smaller eartags in smaller species such as swine and sheep;
(3)the continuing use of a PIN plus an individual animal number unique to the premises for swine as an alternative to the animal identification number (AIN); and
(4)the use of a number issued by the scrapie program consisting of a flock identification number
(FIN)plus an individual animal number unique to the flock for sheep and goats as an alternative to the AIN. We have also changed the title of the table from “Printing Standards for Eartags” to “Printing Standards for Individual Animal ID Eartags” to differentiate these standards for “individual animal identification” eartags from the standards for “premises identification” eartags for slaughter swine. Slaughter swine do not require unique, individual animal identification. Printing Standards for Slaughter Swine Premises Identification The Swine Working Group recently provided recommendations related to printing standards necessary for official identification for slaughter swine premises identification. This updated October 2007 Program Standards and Technical Reference document now provides a table, directly following the “Printing Standards for Individual Animal ID Eartags” table described above, outlining the printing standards for slaughter swine premises identification eartags. The February 2007 document did not have such a table. Adjustment to Performance Requirements for RFID Injectable Transponders The February 2007 Program Standards and Technical Reference document included a table outlining performance requirements for RFID injectable transponders, as recommended by the Equine Species Working Group. Continuing work with this group resulted in an application to be used by manufacturers of such devices to gain approval by APHIS for use in the NAIS. The application indicates that other ISO or U.S.-based technology standards might be approved for use by APHIS, so the “ISO Compliant” standard has been adjusted to read, “All transponders must be certified by ICAR [International Committee for Animal Recording] for conformance with ISO 11784 and 11785, unless other ISO or U.S.-based technology standards are applicable to livestock and approved for use by APHIS.” Comments about the revised Program Standards and Technical Reference document or other aspects of the NAIS may be submitted to USDA through the NAIS Web site e-mail address: *animalidcomments@aphis.usda.gov* or by mail to NAIS Program Staff, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 200, Riverdale, MD 20737. Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of November 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-23524 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Opportunity for Designation in Maryland, New Jersey, and New York AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for applications. SUMMARY: The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) has received inquiries, letters, and requests for official services in the currently unassigned states of Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. GIPSA plans to designate one or more organizations qualified to provide official services in Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. GIPSA is asking persons interested in providing official services in all or part of the unassigned areas of Maryland, New Jersey, and New York to submit an application for designation. DATES: Applications must be postmarked or electronically dated on or before January 4, 2008. ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit applications and comments on this notice. You may submit applications and comments by any of the following methods: • To apply for designation, go to FGIS online, Web page *https://fgis.gipsa.usda.gov/default_home_FGIS.aspx* . Select *Delegations/Designations and Export Registrations (DDR).* You need e-authentication and a customer number prior to applying. • *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver to Karen Guagliardo, Review Branch Chief, Compliance Division, GIPSA, USDA, Room 1647-S, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. • *Fax:* Send by facsimile transmission to
(202)690-2755, attention: Karen Guagliardo. • *E-mail:* Send via electronic mail to *Karen.W.Guagliardo@usda.gov.* • *Mail:* Send hardcopy to Karen Guagliardo, Review Branch Chief, Compliance Division, GIPSA, USDA, STOP 3604, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3604. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments and reading any comments posted online. *Read Applications and Comments:* All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Guagliardo at 202-720-7312, e-mail *Karen.W.Guagliardo@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental Regulation do not apply to this action. Section 7(f)(1) of the United States Grain Standards Act, as amended (Act), authorizes GIPSA's Administrator to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services. Section 7(g)(1) of the Act provides that designations of official agencies shall not end later than triennially and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 7(f) of the Act. GIPSA is asking for applicants to provide official services in Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. The areas being considered for assignment to the applicant or applicants selected for designation, pursuant to section (7)(2) of the Act, are as follows: The entire state of Maryland, except those export port locations within the State which are served by GIPSA. The entire state of New Jersey, except those export port locations within the State which are served by GIPSA. The entire state of New York, except those export port locations within the State which are served by GIPSA. *Opportunity for designation.* Interested persons are hereby given the opportunity to apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 7(f) of the Act and section 800.196(d) of the regulations issued thereunder. Designation in the specified geographic areas is for a period of no more than 3 years. To apply for designation, contact the Compliance Division at the address listed above for forms and information, or obtain applications at the GIPSA Web site, http://www.gipsa.usda.gov. Applications, comments, and other available information will be considered in determining which applicant will be designated. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71-87k. Alan Christian, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. [FR Doc. E7-23530 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Information Collection Activity; Comment Request AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended), the Rural Utilities Service
(RUS)an agency delivering the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA)Rural Development Utilities Programs invites comments on this information collection for which approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)will be requested. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by February 4, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele L. Brooks, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., STOP 1522, Room 5159 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. *FAX:*
(202)720-8435. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB)regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that RUS is submitting to OMB for extension. Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Michele L. Brooks, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 1522, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-1522. *FAX:*
(202)720-8435. *Title:* Electric Loan Application and Related Reporting Burdens. *OMB Number:* 0572-0032. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 *et seq.* ), as amended (RE Act) authorizes and empowers the Administrator of RUS to make and guarantee loans to furnish and improve electric service in rural areas. These loans are amortized over a period of up to 35 years and secured by the borrower's electric assets. In the interest of protecting loan security, monitoring compliance with debt covenants, and ensuring that RUS loan funds are used for purposes authorized by law, RUS requires that borrowers prepare and submit for RUS evaluation, certain studies and reports. Some of these studies and reports are required only once for each loan application; others must be submitted periodically until the loan is completely repaid. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 14 hours per response. *Respondents:* Businesses or other for profits; not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 680. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 6. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 65,673. Copies of this information collection, and related form and instructions, can be obtained from Joyce McNeil, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at
(202)720-0812. *FAX:*
(202)720-8435. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Dated: November 29, 2007. James Andrew, Administrator, Rural Utilities Service. [FR Doc. E7-23561 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Information Quality Guidelines AGENCY: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. ACTION: Final Information Quality Guidelines. SUMMARY: The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)directed Federal agencies to make available on their Web sites guidelines that ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) they disseminate. Federal agencies should also make available on their Web sites administrative mechanisms that allow affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information that the agency maintains and disseminated that does not comply with the guidelines. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) now publishes the following guidelines covering pre-dissemination information quality control and an administrative mechanism for requests for correction of information the Commission publicly disseminates. These guidelines were published in the **Federal Register** on July 24, 2006 at 71 FR 41762 and provided that the Commission would receive public comments through August 23, 2006 to be considered in the formulation of these final guidelines. No comments were received. OMB provided the Commission with suggested revisions, which the Commission used in preparing these final guidelines. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact David P. Blackwood, Esq., General Counsel, United States Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Suite 620, Washington, DC 20425,
(202)376-8351; *Facsimile:*
(202)376-1163. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In response to the draft guidelines, the Commission received suggested revisions from OMB. The Commission changed the draft guidelines to address these suggestions as follows: 1. Commission-sponsored testimony of Commission officials is now subject to the guidelines if it contains information not previously disseminated by the agency. 2. Statements reasonably expected to become the subject of litigation or other dispute resolution proceedings are now not automatically outside the scope of the guidelines. 3. Petitions for correction of information must now describe the specific corrective action sought. 4. The Commission's corrective actions may now take a number of forms and not simply the issuance of an errata page. 5. Postings of the quality information requests to the Commission's Web site now include: a copy of the requests to seek and obtain correction of information, the Commission's formal response(s), and any communications regarding appeals. All other OMB suggested changes that were accepted by the Commission were non-substantive ( *i.e.* , typographical or grammatical) in nature. The Commission also substituted the e-mail address provided in Section VII.02(c) of the draft guidelines with *qualityinfo@usccr.gov* and corrected section references to Administrative Instruction 1-6, National Project Development and Implementation. For the reasons discussed in the summary, the Commission proposes to issue these guidelines pursuant to Section 515 of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3502(1), *et seq.* ). Dated: November 29, 2007. David P. Blackwood, General Counsel, United States Commission on Civil Rights. Section I. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' Mission and Mandate .01 The Commission is an independent, bipartisan, fact-finding Federal agency of the executive branch established under the Civil Rights Act of 1957 to monitor and report on the status of civil rights in the nation. As the nation's conscience on matters of civil rights, the Commission strives to keep the President, Congress, and the public informed about civil rights issues that deserve concerted attention. .02 The Commission is mandated to:
(a)Investigate complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived of their right to vote by reason of their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or by reason of fraudulent practices;
(b)Study and collect information relating to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice;
(c)Appraise Federal laws and policies with respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice;
(d)Serve as a national clearinghouse for information in respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin;
(e)Submit reports, findings, and recommendations to the President and Congress;
(f)Issue public service announcements to discourage discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws. .03 The Commission's National Office is in Washington, DC. Its six Regional Offices are located throughout the nation:
(a)The Eastern Regional Office, Washington, DC;
(b)Southern Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia;
(c)Midwestern Office, Chicago, Illinois;
(d)Central Regional Office, Kansas City, Kansas;
(e)Rocky Mountain Office, Denver, Colorado; and
(f)Western Regional Office, Los Angeles, California. .04 State Advisory Committees
(SACs)are established in each State and in Washington, DC. SACs advise the Commission on matters pertaining to discrimination or denials of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or in the administration of justice. They also assist the Commission in its statutory obligation to serve as a national clearinghouse for information on those subjects. SACs present advice to the Commission in a variety of forms, including formal fact-finding reports and briefing memoranda. Section II. The Office of Management and Budget Governmentwide Guideline .01 Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554) directs OMB to issue to Federal agencies subject to the Paper Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 3502(1) *et seq.* ) governmentwide guidelines that provide policy and procedural guidance for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the information (including statistical information) that they disseminate. Specifically, the OMB guidelines direct agencies to:
(a)Issue their own guidelines, consistent with governmentwide guidelines, to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) the agency disseminates;
(b)Establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information the agency maintains and disseminates that does not comply with OMB guidelines; and
(c)Report annually to the OMB Director the number and nature of complaints the agency received regarding compliance with OMB guidelines on quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information and how such complaints were resolved. .02 The OMB guidelines offer three underlying principles. Agencies should ensure that the guidelines:
(a)Are sufficiently flexible to be applied to a wide variety of information activities that range in importance and scope, and to fit all forms of media;
(b)Meet basic information quality standards, although some information may require higher or more specific standards. Agencies should weigh the costs and benefits of higher information quality in the context of their mission, budget constraints, and timeliness in dissemination; and
(c)Are applied in a common-sensical and workable manner. Agencies should incorporate quality information guideline standards and procedures into exisiting processes and procedures. Application of these guidelines should not impose unnecessary administrative burdens. Section III. The Commission's Existing Policies and Procedures that Ensure and Maximize Information Quality .01 The Commission disseminates information on civil rights through:
(a)Reports to Congress and the President, including an annual report on civil rights enforcement as required by statute and other reports as considered appropriate;
(b)Program activities, such as hearings, briefings, conferences, and consultations; and
(c)Provision of civil rights information to the public through its clearinghouse function. .02 In order to ensure the accuracy and the impartiality of the information it provides, the Commission has in place various mechanisms to correct the information it disseminates. OMB's Information Quality Guidelines urge agencies to integrate into existing guidelines for dissemination of information the standards for information quality embodied in the Data Quality Act. The Commission shall improve the quality of the information it disseminates as it seeks to achieve the strategic goals of its mission while adhering to budget and resource priorities. .03 The mechanisms the Commission uses to ensure information quality are:
(a)Defame and Degrade Review. Commission regulations provide procedural guidelines when statements made at Commission hearings or in reports will defame, degrade or incriminate persons or institutions. A statement defames and degrades if its probable effect is to damage the person or institution criticized in reputation, business, or otherwise. In determining whether damage is likely to result, it is necessary to consider the substance of the allegations, all the circumstances surrounding it, and the community perception and reaction that is likely to result. All this must all be considered in light of the applicable legal standards governing defamation of public versus private persons and entities. When in advance of a hearing the Commission determines that certain evidence may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person at any hearing, it shall receive such evidence or testimony, or a summary of such evidence or testimony in executive session. The Commission affords such persons defamed, degraded, or incriminated by such evidence or testimony an opportunity to appear and be heard in executive session with a reasonable number of additional witnesses they request, before deciding to use such evidence or testimony. If the Commission decides to make this information public, it will give the person the opportunity to appear as a voluntary witness or submit a sworn statement. Procedures for addressing evidence presented at a hearing that may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person are specified at 45 CFR 702.11. If a Commission report tends to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, the report or relevant portions thereof shall be delivered to such person at least thirty
(30)days before the report is published to allow such person the opportunity to make a timely verified answer to the report, or relevant portions thereof. Administrative Instruction 7-1, Procedures for Providing an Opportunity for Response to Persons Criticized by Commission Publications and Audiovisual Products, at section 6 provides that whenever a publication, other than a statutory report, contains material that tends to defame and degrade, such person must be provided a full and fair opportunity to respond to such material. Section 7 of Administrative Instruction 7-1 provides for a defame and degrade review of State Advisory Committee reports. Section 8 of Administrative Instruction 7-1 provides for a defame and degrade review of the *Civil Rights Journal.*
(b)Legal Sufficiency Review. Administrative Instruction 1-6, National Project Development and Implementation, at section 16 provides for legal sufficiency review by the Office of General Counsel of draft reports and national office publications that are provided to the public. The purpose of the legal sufficiency review is to ensure the adequate interpretation and citation of legal materials and compliance with statutory requirements. SAC reports also will be subject to a legal sufficiency review.
(c)Editorial Policy Review. Administrative Instruction 1-6, National Project Development and Implementation, at section 15 provides that the Staff Director will appoint members of an editorial policy board to review draft national reports to determine the adequacy and accuracy of the substantive information in the draft document (for example, conceptual soundness, adherence to Commission policy, quality of research, argumentation, and documentation of major points). The project staff revises the draft document in accordance with the editorial board comments. The appropriate office director apprises the Staff Director by memorandum of areas upon which agreement was not reached and changes were not made. Once the substantive changes are made, the new material must be submitted for an expedited legal sufficiency review. The Regional Directors are responsible for ensuring that such reports are unbiased, methodologically sound, well written, appropriately organized, and properly formatted. SACs are ultimately responsible for the substance of their reports and memoranda. A report is forwarded to the Staff Director following formal approval from the appropriate State Advisory Committee.
(d)Affected Agency Review. Administrative Instruction 1-6, National Project Development and Implementation, at section 17 provides that after completing any revisions occasioned by legal and editorial reviews, the director of the appropriate office sends the sections of the draft report that pertain to a government agency to the affected agency for review and comment on the accuracy of the material contained therein. The Commission's draft findings, conclusions, and recommendations are not submitted to the affected agency. Nongovernmental organizations receive pertinent material for review where appropriate. Upon receipt of comments, the project staff prepares the appropriate revisions. SAC reports also are subject to an affected agency review. .04 Information Technology and Systems Management. Administrative Instruction 4-18, Information Technology and Systems Management, provides guidance for the appropriate management of information technology resources and systems throughout their life cycle, in accordance with federal regulations, policies and guidelines. It also provides for the establishment and maintenance of a strategic information resources management planning process that includes:
(a)An up-to-date five-year plan that has, among others, document linkages between mission needs and information technology capabilities; and
(b)An up-to-date security and disaster preparedness plan for information systems that provides adequate assurances of the availability, confidentiality and integrity of the information systems. .05 The Staff Director is the Chief Information Officer
(CIO)of the agency and has primary responsibility for managing the Commission's information resources. The Deputy CIO will manage the Commission's security systems and procedures, and monitor Commission compliance with appropriate federal policies, principles, standards, guidelines, rules, and administrative instructions. .06 Data Collection from the Public.
(a)Administrative Instruction 1-6, National Project Development and Implementation, at section 9 provides that the Chief of the Administrative Services and Clearinghouse Division
(ASCD)is the Commission's designated paperwork reduction officer, and as such, is responsible for reviewing proposed data collection procedures as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. It provides that when collecting information from ten or more persons or organizations, the Commission must receive prior approval from OMB. The appropriate documents are submitted to the ASCD Chief at least fifty
(50)days before the anticipated administration of a questionnaire or interview schedule.
(b)The Civil Rights Commission Amendments Act of 1994, Public Law 103-419, 108 Stat. 4338, at 42 U.S.C. 1975a(e) provides that the Commission may issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and the production of written or other matter in a hearing approved by the Commission. In addition, the Commission may use depositions and written interrogatories to obtain information and testimony about matters that are the subject of a Commission hearing or report. Further, data also are collected at briefings, conferences, hearings, and during consultation and interviews by staff. Staff shall submit the Commission's Privacy Act notice to potential data sources at these prior to collecting the data. Section IV. Scope and Applicability of the Commission's Quality Information Guidelines .01 Consistent with OMB guidance, the definitions of information and dissemination set the scope and applicability of the Commission's quality information guidelines. For the purposes of these guidelines, information means any communication or representation of facts or data, in any medium or form, including textual, numerical, graphic, cartographic, narrative, or audiovisual forms. This definition includes information that the Commission disseminates from a Web page, but does not include the provision of hyperlinks to information that others disseminate. .02 This definition of information does not include:
(a)Opinions or policies, where the presentation makes clear that the statements are subjective opinions, rather than facts. Underlying information upon which the opinion or policy is based may be subject to these guidelines only if the Commission publishes that information;
(b)Information originated by and attributed to non-Commission sources, provided the Commission does not expressly rely upon it. Examples include non-U.S. government information reported and duly attributed in materials the Commission prepared and disseminated, hyperlinks on the Commission's Web site to information that others disseminate, and reports of advisory committees published on the Commission's Web site that are not explicitly endorsed by the Commission;
(c)Statements relating solely to the Commission's internal personnel rules and practices and other materials produced for the Commission's employees, contractors, or agents;
(d)Descriptions of the Commission, its responsibilities, and organizational components;
(e)Statements, the modification of which might cause harm to the national security, including harm to the national defense or foreign relations of the United States;
(f)Statements of Commission policy; however, any underlying information the Commission published upon which a statement is based may be subjected to these guidelines;
(g)Testimony or comments of Commission officials before courts, administrative bodies, Congress, or the media, unless such testimony contains new, substantive information not previously disseminated;
(h)Investigatory material compiled pursuant to U.S. law or for law enforcement purposes in the United States; or .03 Dissemination means Commission initiated or sponsored distribution of information to the public (see 5 CFR 1320.3(d) “Conduct or Sponsor”). .04 This definition of dissemination does not include distributions of information or other materials that are:
(a)Produced in response to requests for Commission records under the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, or similar law; or
(b)Archival records, public filings, responses to subpoena or compulsory document productions, or documents prepared and released in the context of adjudicative processes. These guidelines do not impose any additional requirements on the Commission during adjudicative proceedings and do not provide parties to such adjudicative proceedings any additional rights of challenge or appeal; and
(c)Limited to Commission employees or Commission contractors or grantees, as well as intra- or inter-agency use or sharing of government information. .05 Consistent with OMB guidance, the Commission's guidelines apply to any covered information the Commission disseminated on or after October 1, 2002. The Commission's administrative mechanism shall apply to information that it disseminates on or after October 1, 2002, regardless of when it first disseminated the information. Section V. The Commission's Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing Information Quality .01 In accordance with OMB guidelines, quality encompasses utility, objectivity, and integrity. These four statutory terms sometimes are collectively referred to as quality. The Commission shall adopt a basic standard of quality and take appropriate steps to ensure that all offices in the National Office and each Regional Office incorporate quality criteria into its information dissemination practices. .02 Utility of Information
(a)Utility means the usefulness of the disseminated information to its intended users, including the public. The Commission is committed to disseminating quality information. Basic to achieving utility is an understanding of what information is needed as the Commission seeks to fulfill its mission and mandate. The Commission shall identify civil rights issues in which there is a critical need for information and shall develop and implement plans to provide such information.
(b)The Commission shall assess the utility of the information it will produce from original research and secondary analysis of existing data. It shall also assess the utility of the information it disseminates that is provided by or obtained from outside sources and which it adopts, endorses, or uses.
(c)When reproducibility and transparency of information are essential for determining information utility, the Commission shall ensure the reproducibility and transparency of the research design and analytic methods. In this context, reproducibility means that the information is capable of being reproduced, subject to an acceptable degree of imprecision. With respect to analytic results, “capable of being substantially reproduced” means that independent analysis of the original or supporting data using identical methods would generate similar analytic results, subject to an acceptable degree of imprecision.
(d)In order to enhance further the utility of information, the Commission shall ensure that the information it will disseminate is clearly written in plain English, grammatically correct, and free of spelling or typographical errors. Where appropriate, the Commission shall include contact information for intended users and the public who may wish to obtain supplementary information, seek further elucidation, or provide comments. .03 Objectivity of Information Objectivity concerns substance and presentation of disseminated information. Substance focuses on whether the content of the disseminated information is accurate, reliable, unbiased, and balanced. Presentation concerns whether the disseminated information is presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner. The Commission is committed to disseminating information that reflects these two elements.
(a)In the course of fulfilling its mission and mandate, the Commission conducts social science studies and evaluates federal civil rights enforcement programs, reports on findings and conclusions, and makes recommendations. The Commission strives for a research process that embodies methodological and statistical rigor, intellectual honesty in analysis, and presentation of findings and conclusions in full and proper context in order to achieve accurate, reliable, and unbiased reports. In this respect, the Commission's Administrative Instruction 1-6, National Project Development and Implementation at sections 7 and 8 is instructive. Consistent with it, the Commission shall ensure that the program office primarily responsible for reports:
(1)Develops methodologically strong and practically feasible research designs capable of judging the issues addressed;
(2)Makes explicit the assumptions underlying research efforts;
(3)Conducts thorough review of the literature representing a wide range of perspectives on the subject of study or evaluation;
(4)Uses appropriate and sound research methods to gather information;
(5)Uses appropriate and sound statistical techniques to analyze collected information;
(6)Ensures that the analysis is unbiased;
(7)Presents disseminated information within a full and proper context, including supporting data as appropriate;
(8)Identifies data sources (to the extent possible, consistent with confidentiality protections); and
(9)Specifies limitations of the study or evaluation, including error sources that affect data quality. The Staff Director is responsible for reviewing national office project designs and proposals to ensure that they reflect objectivity and balance. The Staff Director also reviews State Advisory Committee reports for balance and objectivity. .04 In conducting social science studies and evaluation of federal civil rights enforcement programs, the Commission may combine original research with secondary analysis of existing data or may rely solely on the latter. The sources of existing data may be other federal government agencies, advisory committees, or other organizations and individuals. The Commission expects that these entities will subject information they submit to adequate quality control measures. Prior to using existing data from outside sources, the responsible program office shall review and verify the data as necessary and appropriate. Data collected at briefings may be verified by requiring the outside sources to submit testimony upon oath or affirmation. Being subject to these guidelines does not necessarily mean that the material the Commission publishes is a policy statement of the United States government. .05 When the responsible program office determines that the information it will disseminate is influential social science, financial, legal, or statistical information, it shall take extra care to include a high degree of transparency about data and research methods to meet OMB's requirement for the reproducibility of such information. In this context, influential means that such information will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies pertaining to civil rights issues or important private sector decisions that have civil rights implications. A high degree of transparency for disseminated information here means that the methodology used to derive the results is readily understandable to persons experienced in the appropriate field of study. In determining the appropriate level of transparency, the responsible program office will consider the types of data that can be practically subjected to a reproducibility requirement given ethical, feasibility, confidentiality, and national security constraints. In making this determination, the responsible program office will hold analytical results to an even higher standard than original data. It is important that analytic results have a high degree of transparency regarding:
(a)The source of the data used;
(b)The various assumptions employed;
(c)The analytic methods applied; and
(d)The statistical procedures employed. .06 The Commission may contract, from time to time, with organizations or individuals to conduct research and analysis in support of its mission and mandate, but Commission policy does not influence their results. The responsible program office that disseminates contractor-prepared information will maintain records on data sources, data collection methods, and statistical techniques used in analysis, and retain all data and documents employed in preparing contractor reports. The Commission expects that contractors will adhere to research standards set forth in section V.03 and .04 above. When the Lead Office anticipates that the contractor-prepared information it will disseminate is influential social science, financial, or statistical information, it will ensure that the contractor adheres to section V.05 above. .07 The clearance process contributes in important ways to the objectivity of disseminated information. The Commission's Administrative Instruction 1-6, National Project Development and Implementation, at sections 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 provides a rigorous, multi-phased quality control clearance. Where appropriate, the Commission will seek substantive input from other government agencies, nongovernment organizations, scholars, and the public. The Commission also will determine if peer review is appropriate and, if necessary, the Lead Office will coordinate such review; .08 Public dissemination of hard-bound information and all information published in final form on the Commisson's Web site at *http://www.usccr.gov* shall occur only after clearances are obtained from the Office of the Staff Director, and, if appropriate, with the approval of the Commissioners. .09 These guidelines focus on procedures for the dissemination of information, as those terms are defined herein. Accordingly, procedures specifically applicable to forms of communication outside the scope of these guidelines, such as those for correspondence, press releases, or to other federal employees, among others, are not included. .10 Integrity of Information
(a)Integrity refers to security, that is, the protection of information from unauthorized access or revision in order to ensure that it is not compromised through corruption or falsification. Information technology is essential to the Commission as it seeks to fulfill its mission and mandate. A critical component of information integrity is protecting information technology systems from unauthorized access that could compromise information stored therein. .11 Consistent with Administrative Instruction 4-18, Information Technology and Systems Management, the Commission shall ensure that ASCD coordinates and works with all offices in the National Office, the Regional Offices, and SACs to guarantee the integrity of information residing in its technology systems. .12 To assist in fulfilling its mission, the Commission's Office of Civil Rights Evaluation and Office of General Counsel conduct studies on issues with civil rights implications. They may collect information for analysis and/or obtain existing information from other sources. These program offices shall protect such information from unauthorized, unanticipated, or unintentional modification. They shall use appropriate controls to safeguard draft reports and confidential information, such as interrogatory responses, from improper dissemination. Section VI. Administrative Procedures for Pre-Dissemination Review .01 Each Commission's program office in the National Office and each Regional Office shall incorporate OMB and Commission information quality principles into their existing pre-dissemination review procedures as appropriate. Section VII. Administrative Mechanism for Correction of Information .01 The Commission shall allow any affected person to request the correction of Commission-disseminated information that does not comply with applicable OMB and Commission information quality guidelines. An affected person is an individual or an entity that may use, benefit from, or be harmed by the disseminated information at issue. .02 Information Correction Requests
(a)In the Commission's correction request process the burden of proof rests with the requester. An affected person who believes that information the Commission disseminates does not adhere to the information quality guidelines of OMB or the Commission, and who would like to request correction of specific information, needs to submit a Petition for Correction with the following information.
(1)Name, mailing address, e-mail address, telephone number, and organizational affiliation (if any) of the individual or organization submitting a petition;
(2)Detailed description of the information the requester believes does not comply with the Commission's guidelines, including the exact name of the report or publication, the date, and a description of the specific item in question;
(3)Description of the requester's interest in the information and how the requester is affected by the information in question;
(4)Description of reason(s) that the information should be corrected, including the elements of the information quality guidelines that were not followed; and
(5)The specific corrective action sought, including (if applicable) temporary corrective action pending full resolution of the complaint.
(b)The Petition for Correction should be sent to the Deputy Chief Information Officer
(DCIO)for Information Management at the following address: Deputy Chief Information Officer, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20425.
(c)Alternatively, requesters may submit an e-mail request to the following address: *qualityinfo@usccr.gov.* Requesters should indicate that they are submitting an Information Quality Request in the subject line of the e-mail. .03 The DCIO will review the request and determine whether it contains all the information required for a Petition. If the request is unclear or incomplete, he/she will seek clarification from the requester. .04 If the request is complete, the DCIO will forward it to the appropriate program office(s) for a response. The responsible office(s) will determine whether a correction is warranted, and if so, what corrective action it will take. The answer will take into consideration the importance of the information involved, the magnitude of the error, and the cost of undertaking the correction. .05 The Commission is not required to change the content or status of information simply based on the receipt of a Petition for Correction. The Commission may reject a request that appears to be made in bad faith or without justification, and is only required to undertake the degree of correction that is appropriate for the nature and timeliness of the information involved. In addition, the Commission need not respond to requests involving information not covered by the information quality guidelines. .06 The Commission will respond to all Petitions for Correction within sixty
(60)calendar days of the receipt of the request by the DCIO, unless there is a reasonable basis for an extension. The requester will be told of the right to appeal the decision. .07 Appeal
(a)If the requester is not satisfied with the Commission's decision on the request, he/she may appeal to the Commission's CIO within thirty
(30)calendar days of the receipt of the Commission's decision. This administrative appeal must include a copy of the initial request, a copy of the Commission's decision, and a written narrative explaining why the requester believes the Commission's decision was inadequate, incomplete, or in error.
(b)This appeal will be sent to the Commission's CIO at the following address: The Chief Information Officer, Staff Director's Office, RE: Information Quality Appeal, Room 700, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20425.
(c)All appeals will be impartially reviewed by parties other than those who prepared the Commission's decision. The Commission will respond to all appeals within sixty
(60)calendar days of the CIO's receipt of the appeal.
(d)If the appropriate Commission official, whether at the initial or appeal stage, decides that the requester is correct and the information should be corrected, he/she will notify the Staff Director who will instruct the official to take appropriate corrective actions. Appropriate corrective actions may take a number of forms, including (but not limited to): Errata pages, personal contacts via letter or telephone, form letters, press releases or postings on the Commission's Web site. Corrective measures, where appropriate, should be designed to provide reasonable notice to affected persons of such correction.The Commission will also post information quality correction requests to its Web site. The specific information will include a copy of each correction request, the Commission's formal response(s), and any communications regarding appeals. [FR Doc. E7-23526 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-846] Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 5, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Veith, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4295. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 2, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 72 FR 35968 (July 2, 2007) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). Based on an adequate response from the domestic interested party and an inadequate response from the respondent interested party, the Department is conducting an expedited sunset review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping order would lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the Department's regulations. *See* Memorandum to the International Trade Commission regarding, “Expedited Sunset Review of the AD/CVD Order Initiated in July 2007,” dated August 21, 2007. On November 5, 2007, the Department published a notice extending the time limit for the completion of the final results of this review by 30 days until November 29, 2007. *See Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order* , 72 FR 62430 (November 5, 2007). Extension of Time Limits for Final Results In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act, the Department may extend the 120-day time period for making its determination by not more than 90 days, if it determines that a review is extraordinarily complicated. As set forth in section 751(c)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, the Department may treat a sunset review as extraordinarily complicated if there are a large number of issues, as is the case in this proceeding. In particular, this sunset review involves complicated issues pertaining to adequacy of responses, related party status, and interested party status. Therefore, the Department has determined, pursuant to section 751(c)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, that the second sunset review of brake rotors from the PRC is extraordinarily complicated, as the Department must consider numerous arguments presented in the domestic interested party's and the U.S. importer's August 1, 2007, substantive response and each parties' August 6, 2007, rebuttals to the substantive responses. Based on the timing of the case, the final results of this expedited sunset review cannot be completed within the statutory time limit of 120 days. Accordingly, the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of the final results by an additional 32 days, from the November 29, 2007, extended deadline, to no later than December 31, 2007, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act. This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: November 29, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-23574 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-822 Notice of Amended Final Results in Accordance With Court Decision: Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 5, 2007. SUMMARY: On July 16, 2007, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) to sustain the Department of Commerce's (“the Department”) remand redetermination in the tenth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on helical spring lock washers from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), for the period October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003. In its redetermination, the Department assigned Hangzhou Spring Washer Co., Ltd. (also known as Zhejiang Wanxin Grp (ZWG)) (“HSW”) a dumping margin of 19.48 percent, rather than the 0.00 percent calculated in the final results of the 2002-2003 antidumping duty administrative review of helical spring lock washers from the PRC. As there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this case, the Department is amending the final results of the 2002-2003 antidumping duty administrative review of helical spring lock washers from the PRC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marin Weaver or Charles Riggle, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-2336 or
(202)482-0650, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 17, 2005, the Department published its final results of antidumping duty administrative review. *See Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 28274 (May 17, 2005) (“Final Results”), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum for the administrative review covering October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003. In its *Final Results* , the Department calculated an individual rate for the sole respondent, HSW. The petitioner in this case, Shakeproof Assembly Components Division of Illinois Tool Works Inc. (“Shakeproof”), filed a court challenge (Court No. 05-00404) to the Department's *Final Results* . In the CIT proceeding, the Department moved for a voluntary remand, which the court granted. In the remand redetermination, Commerce revisited the methodology employed in the valuation of zinc plating services and determined to rely solely on the value submitted by petitioner, Shakeproof. This resulted in a recalculation of HSW's dumping margin to 19.48 percent. *See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to United States Court of International Trade Remand Order Shakeproof Assembly Components Division of Illinois Tool Works, Inc., Plaintiff, v. United States, Defendant, and Hangzhou Spring Washer Co., Ltd., Defendant - Intervenor* (June 2, 2006). On August 25, 2006, the CIT sustained the final remand redetermination made by the Department. *See Shakeproof Assembly v. United States* , Slip Op. 2006-129, 2006 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 132 (CIT Aug. 25, 2006). On October 23, 2006, HSW appealed the CIT's decision. Consistent with the Federal Circuit's decision in *Timken Company v. United States* , 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990), on November 30, 2006, the Department published a “Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with *Final Results* of Administrative Review,” which continued suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise until there was a “final and conclusive” decision in this case (71 FR 69204). On July 16, 2007, the CAFC issued a judgment (without an opinion) affirming the CIT's decision upholding Commerce's remand redetermination. The CAFC's final judgment was not in harmony with the Department's Final Results. Appeals of this decision were due by October 15, 2007, and HSW did not file an appeal of the CAFC's decision. Amended Final Results As the litigation in this case has concluded, the Department is amending the *Final Results* . The revised dumping margin in the amended final results is as follows: Exporter Margin Hangzhou Spring Washer Co., Ltd. (also known as Zhejiang Wanxin Grp (ZWG)) 19.48 percent The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection 15 days after publication of this notice, and cash deposit instructions to revise the cash deposit rate for the company listed above, effective as of the publication date of this notice. This notice is published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: November 23, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-23572 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-428-841, A-570-925] Sodium Nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 5, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith (Federal Republic of Germany) or Magd Zalok (People's Republic of China), AD/CVD Operations, Offices 2 and 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1766 or
(202)482-4162, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petitions On November 8, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received petitions concerning imports of sodium nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany (Germany) (German petition) and the People's Republic of China
(PRC)(PRC petition) filed in proper form by General Chemical LLC (petitioner). *See* the Petitions on Sodium Nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany and the People's Republic of China submitted on November 8, 2007. On November 14, 2007, the Department issued a request for additional information and clarification of certain areas of the petitions. Based on the Department's requests, the petitioner filed additional information on November 19, 2007 (three distinct submissions on General, Germany-only and PRC-only material). The period of investigation
(POI)for Germany is October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007. The POI for the PRC is April 1, 2007, through September 30, 2007. *See* 19 CFR 351.204(b)(i). In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of sodium nitrite from Germany and the PRC 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 are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. The Department finds that the petitioner filed these petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping duty investigations that the petitioner is requesting that the Department initiate ( *see* “Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions” section below). Scope of Investigations The merchandise covered by each of these investigations is sodium nitrite in any form, at any purity level. In addition, the sodium nitrite covered by these investigations may or may not contain an anti-caking agent. Examples of names commonly used to reference sodium nitrite are nitrous acid, sodium salt, anti-rust, diazotizing salts, erinitrit, and filmerine. The chemical composition of sodium nitrite is NaNO2 and it is generally classified under subheading 2834.10.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The American Chemical Society Chemical Abstract Service
(CAS)has assigned the name “sodium nitrite” to sodium nitrite. The CAS registry number is 7632-00-0. While the HTSUS subheading, CAS registry number, and CAS name are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive. Comments on Scope of Investigations During our review of the petitions, we discussed the scope with the petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the regulations ( *Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of signature of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires We are requesting comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of sodium nitrite to be reported in response to the Department's antidumping questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to more accurately report the relevant factors and costs of production, as well as to develop appropriate product comparison criteria. Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate listing of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as 1) general product characteristics and 2) the product comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, while there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe sodium nitrite, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in product matching. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last. In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the antidumping duty questionnaires, we must receive comments at the above-referenced address by December 18, 2007. Additionally, rebuttal comments must be received by December 28, 2007. 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 or workers 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 or workers 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. 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 and workers 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. Although this may result in different definitions of the 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), citing *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 subtitle.” 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, the petitioner does not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that sodium nitrite 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 this case, *see* the Antidumping Investigation Initiation Checklist: Sodium Nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany, Industry Support at Attachment II (Germany Initiation Checklist) and the Antidumping Investigation Initiation Checklist: Sodium Nitrite from the People's Republic of China (PRC), Industry Support at Attachment II (PRC Initiation Checklist) on file in the CRU, Room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building. Our review of the data provided in the petitions, supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioner has established industry support. To establish industry support, the petitioner demonstrated that it was the sole producer of the domestic like product in 2006. Therefore, the petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) 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. In addition, the domestic producers have met the statutory criterion for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. Finally, the domestic producers have met the statutory criterion for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the 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, the petitions. Accordingly, the Department determines that the petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. *See* Germany Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Industry Support) and PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Industry Support). The Department finds that the petitioner filed the petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping investigations that it is requesting the Department initiate. *See* Germany Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Industry Support) and PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Industry Support). Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share, lost sales, reduced production, capacity and capacity utilization rate, reduced shipments, underselling and price depressing and suppressing effects, lost revenue, reduced employment, decline in financial performance, and an increase in import penetration. 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* Germany Initiation Checklist at Attachment III (Injury) and PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment III (Injury). 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 based its decision to initiate these investigations of imports of sodium nitrite from Germany and the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to the U.S. price, constructed value
(CV)(for Germany), and the factors of production (for the PRC) are also discussed in the country-specific initiation checklists. *See* Germany Initiation Checklist and PRC Initiation Checklist. Should the need arise to use any of this information as facts available under section 776 of the Act in our preliminary or final determinations, we will reexamine the information and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate. Germany Constructed Export Price
(CEP)and Export Price
(EP)The petitioner calculated three CEPs based on price quotes during the POI obtained from U.S. distributors for German-produced sodium nitrite. The petitioner also calculated an EP using the average unit customs value
(AUV)of imports of subject merchandise from Germany during the POI derived from U.S. Census Bureau import statistics. Specifically, for CEPs based on price quotes, the petitioner made adjustments to the starting price, where applicable, for discounts, foreign inland freight, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight and trans-loading fees, U.S. customs and port fees, and warehousing expenses. The petitioner calculated foreign inland freight, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight and trans-loading fees, and warehousing expenses based on price quotes obtained from custom brokers, freight forwarders, and other service providers. U.S. customs and port fees ( *i.e.* , U.S. duty, harbor maintenance and processing fees) were based on standard U.S. government percentages, as applied to the petitioner's estimate of entered value. Because the petitioner's calculation of entered value incorrectly excluded foreign inland freight and included U.S. inland freight and trans-loading fees, we have recalculated U.S. customs and port fees based on entered value exclusive of all movement expenses except foreign inland freight. The petitioner also made an adjustment for CEP profit. To calculate CEP profit, the petitioner derived the profit margin from U.S. chemical-industry-wide statistical gross-margin data from the U.S. Census Bureau and applied this profit ratio to gross unit price. However, the petitioner's CEP profit calculation methodology is not in accordance with the Department's practice ( *i.e.* , the petitioner applied the profit ratio to gross unit price rather than to CEP selling expenses) ( *see* , *e.g.* , Policy Bulletin 97.1: Calculation of Profit for Constructed Export Price Transactions (September 4, 1997)). The petitioner's methodology overstates the amount of profit included in CEP. The Department requested that the petitioner provide the information necessary to make the proper calculation, but the petitioner stated that this information was not reasonably available to it. Therefore, to be conservative, we have disallowed this adjustment and have recalculated the CEP-to-NV margins exclusive of the CEP profit adjustment for purposes of initiating this investigation. For EP based on AUV, the petitioner made an adjustment only for foreign inland freight, as the AUV is based on FOB foreign port price. *See* Germany Initiation Checklist and “Fair Value Comparisons” section below for the revised CEP-to-NV margins. NV Based on CV With respect to NV, the petitioner states that neither home-market prices nor third-country prices of German-produced sodium nitrite were reasonably available. According to the petitioner, it was unsuccessful in obtaining such pricing information, despite its best efforts. *See* German petition at page 10 and the November 19, 2007, supplement to the German petition at pages 4-5. Therefore, the petitioner based NV on CV. Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the cost of manufacture (COM); selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses; packing expenses; and profit. In calculating COM and packing, the petitioner based the quantity of each of the inputs used to manufacture and pack sodium nitrite in Germany on its own production experience during the POI. The petitioner then multiplied the usage quantities by the value of the inputs used to manufacture and pack sodium nitrite in Germany based on publicly available data, data obtained from market research, or its own costs. *See* Volume I of the German petition at pages 10-13. Raw material ( *i.e.* , ammonia and caustic soda) is the most significant input used in the production of sodium nitrite. The petitioner determined the usage of ammonia and caustic soda based on the quantities it used to produce a short ton of sodium nitrite ( *i.e.* , technical and food grades). The values of ammonia and caustic soda were based on price data obtained from market research. The price data from market research were contemporaneous with the POI. The values for other raw material inputs and packing material inputs ( *e.g.* , silicon dioxide, bags) were based either on a price quote from market research (silicon dioxide) or on the petitioner's own experience (packing materials). *See* Volume I of the German petition at pages 12-13 and 15, and the November 19, 2007, supplement to the German petition at pages 7-9. The petitioner determined labor costs using the labor inputs derived from its own experience which it valued using an industrial German wage rate obtained from the International Labour Organization's “Laborsta” database at http://laborsta.ilo.org. *See* Volume I of the German petition at page 15. The petitioner determined energy costs ( *i.e.* , electricity, natural gas, steam, cooling water, and city water) using German price data from market research. *See* Volume I of the German petition at pages 13-14. To calculate factory overhead, the petitioner relied on its own experience (excluding depreciation) and on a German sodium nitrite producer's parent company's consolidated financial data (for depreciation). *See* Volume I of the German petition at pages 15-16. To calculate SG&A expenses and profit, the petitioner relied on a German sodium nitrite producer's parent company's consolidated financial data, for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2006, the period most contemporaneous with the POI for which the petitioner was able to obtain such information. *See* Volume I of the German petition at pages 16-17. PRC EP The petitioner calculated three EPs from price quotes for sodium nitrite manufactured in the PRC 1 and one EP from the AUVs of imports from the PRC that were classified under HTSUS number 2834.10.1000 for the period April 2007 through September 2007, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. Specifically, the petitioner calculated EPs from the price quotes by deducting from the prices, where applicable, the costs associated with exporting and delivering the product, including foreign inland freight, ocean freight and marine insurance, U.S. inland freight, U.S. warehousing expenses, and U.S. duties and port charges. *See* PRC Initiation Checklist. The petitioner calculated foreign inland freight expense using the Indian truck freight rate used by the Department in the investigation of certain lined paper products from the PRC, 2 and information it obtained regarding distances between sodium nitrite producers and the likely port of exportation. *See* Exhibit III-2 of the PRC petition, and Exhibit 2 of the November 19, 2007, supplement to the PRC petition. The petitioner based ocean freight and marine insurance expenses, U.S. warehousing, and rail and truck expenses on price quotes obtained from service providers. *See* Exhibits III-2-5 of the PRC petition. The petitioner based U.S. duties and port charges ( *i.e.* , U.S. duty, harbor maintenance and processing fees) on standard charges and duties applicable to sodium nitrite imported under HTSUS number 2834.10.1000. The petitioner calculated an EP from import data by deducting from the AUV of April through September 2007 PRC imports under HTSUS number 2834.10.1000 the expenses for transporting the product from the PRC factory to the port of exportation (the AUV is based on an FOB foreign port price). *See* Exhibit 3 of the November 19, 2007, supplement to the PRC petition. We recalculated the EPs to correct certain errors in the petitioner's calculations. *See* PRC Initiation Checklist. 1 The prices quotes are for three different types of sodium nitrite falling within the scope of these investigations, for delivery to the U.S. customer within the POI. 2 *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 19695 (April 17, 2006). NV The petitioner stated that the PRC is a non-market economy
(NME)country and no determination to the contrary has been made by the Department. Recently, the Department examined the PRC's status and determined that NME status should continue for the PRC. *See* the memorandum to David Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding “The People's Republic of China
(PRC)Status as a Non-Market Economy (NME),” dated May 15, 2006 (this document is available online at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download /prc-nme-status/prc-nme-status-memo.pdf). In addition, in two recent antidumping duty investigations, the Department 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); *see also 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 presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. Because the presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department, it remains in effect for purposes of this initiation. Accordingly, the NV of the product is appropriately based on factors of production valued in a surrogate market economy country in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. After initiation, all parties will have the opportunity to provide relevant information regarding the PRC's NME status and whether separate rates should be granted to individual exporters. The petitioner selected India as the surrogate market economy country. The petitioner claimed, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, that India is an appropriate surrogate country because it is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and is a significant producer of sodium nitrite. *See* Volume I of the PRC petition at pages 21-23. Based on the information provided by the petitioner, we believe that it is appropriate to use India as a surrogate country for initiation purposes. After initiation, we will solicit comments regarding surrogate country selection. The petitioner calculated NVs for each U.S. price discussed above using the NME methodology required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 351.408. Because the quantities of factors of production consumed by Chinese producers in manufacturing sodium nitrite are not available to the petitioner, the petitioner calculated NVs using its own consumption rates for producing sodium nitrite during the last two completed quarters. *See* the PRC petition at page 23, Exhibit III-9 in Volume I of the PRC petition, and the November 19, 2007, supplement to the PRC petition at Exhibit 9. The petitioner adjusted its NV calculation to account for certain differences between its own manufacturing process and the prilling process used by PRC producers. *See* the PRC petition at page 27, and Exhibit 9 of the November 19, 2007, supplement to the PRC petition. One adjustment involved the number of labor hours required to produce a unit of output. Specifically, the petitioner stated that the production and packing of subject merchandise is more labor intensive in the PRC than in the United States, requiring twice as much labor to produce the same amount of finished product. The petitioner explained that this adjustment is based on its employees' commercial knowledge, observations of production in the PRC, and company resources. *See* Exhibit III-9 of the PRC petition, and the November 19, 2007, supplement to the PRC petition at page 8. The petitioner based the value of material inputs on official Indian trade statistics from the Indian Department of Commerce's Export-Import Data Bank and prices in the periodical, *ICIS Chemical Bulletin* , dated September 10, 2007. *See* the PRC petition at Exhibits III-12 and III-13. In calculating surrogate values from Indian import data, the petitioner excluded the values of imports from unspecified countries, NME countries, and countries which the Department has found to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies ( *i.e.* , Indonesia, the Republic of Korea and Thailand). *See Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Administrative Review and Final Results of New Shipper Review* , 72 FR 27287 (May 15, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 23. The surrogate values used by the petitioner for material and packing inputs consist of information reasonably available to the petitioner and are, therefore, acceptable for purposes of initiation. The petitioner was unable to obtain surrogate values that were contemporaneous with the POI for all material inputs and, accordingly, it relied upon the most recently available information. Where a surrogate value was in effect during a period preceding the POI, the petitioner adjusted it using the Indian wholesale price index in the publication, *International Financial Statistics* , which is published by the International Monetary Fund. However, because the petitioner incorrectly calculated these adjustments, the Department has revised them. *See* the PRC Initiation Checklist. The petitioner based factory overhead expenses, SG&A expenses, and profit on data from an Indian sodium nitrite producer, Deepak Nitrite Limited. The data comes from Deepak Nitrite Limited's most recently available financial statement which covers the period April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007. *See* the November 19, 2007, supplement to the PRC petition at Exhibit 16. We find the petitioner's use of Deepak Nitrite Limited's data is appropriate for purposes of this initiation. *See* the NV calculation in the November 19, 2007, supplement to the PRC petition at Exhibit 10. Fair Value Comparisons Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of sodium nitrite from Germany and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on a comparison of CEP and CV, calculated in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the revised estimated dumping margins for sodium nitrite from Germany range from 65.58 to 151.98 percent. Based on a comparison of EP and CV, calculated in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for sodium nitrite from Germany is 237 percent. *See Germany Initiation Checklist* . Based on comparisons of EP to NV, calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the revised estimated dumping margins for sodium nitrite from the PRC range from 131.72 percent to 190.74 percent. *See* PRC Initiation Checklist. Initiation of Antidumping Investigations Based upon the examination of the petitions on sodium nitrite from Germany and the PRC, the Department finds that the petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether imports of sodium nitrite from Germany and the PRC 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. Separate Rates In order to obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate status application. *See* 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. Based on our experience in processing the separate-rate applications in previous 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). 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 will be due 60 days after publication of this initiation notice. Respondent Selection For these investigations, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)data for U.S. imports under HTSUS number 2834.10.1000 during the POI. We intend to make our decisions regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this **Federal Register** notice. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within seven days of publication of this **Federal Register** notice. 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. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin, states: {w}hile 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 period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. 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 period of investigation. (Emphasis added.) Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin, at page 6. Distribution of Copies of the Petitions In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public versions of the petitions have been provided to the representatives of the Governments of Germany and the PRC. We will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the petitions to the foreign producers/exporters, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). International Trade Commission Notification We have notified the ITC of our initiations, as required by section 732(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determinations by the International Trade Commission The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than December 24, 2007, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of sodium nitrite from Germany and the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination with respect to either of the investigations will result in that investigation 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: November 28, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-23489 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Battelle Memorial Institute, et al.; Notice of Consolidated Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Electron Microscopes This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 2104, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. *Docket Number:* 07-062. *Applicant:* Battelle Memorial Institute, Richland, WA 99354. *Instrument:* Electron Microscope, Model FIB/SEM. *Manufacturer:* FEI Company, Netherlands. *Intended Use:* See notice at 72 FR 63875, November 13, 2007. *Docket Number:* 07-063. *Applicant:* University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0608. *Instrument:* Electron Microscope, Model Titan 80-300 C-Twin STEM. *Manufacturer:* FEI Company, Netherlands. *Intended Use:* See notice at 72 FR 63875, November 13, 2007. *Docket Number:* 07-066. *Applicant:* St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN 38105. *Instrument:* Electron Microscope, Model Tecnai G2 F20 TWIN. *Manufacturer:* FEI Company, Netherlands. *Intended Use:* See notice at 72 FR 63875, November 13, 2007. *Docket Number:* 07-067. *Applicant:* National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH 45226. *Instrument:* Electron Microscope, Model JEM-2100F. *Manufacturer:* Jeol Ltd., Japan. *Intended Use:* See notice at 72 FR 63875, November 13, 2007. *Comments:* None received. *Decision:* Approved. No instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such purposes as these instruments are intended to be used, was being manufactured in the United States at the time the instruments were ordered. *Reasons:* Each foreign instrument is an electron microscope and is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring an electron microscope. We know of no electron microscope, or any other instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in the United States at the time of order of each instrument. Faye Robinson, Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff, Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-23576 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-926] Sodium Nitrite from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: (December 5, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Carey or Gene Calvert, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3964 and
(202)482-3586, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Initiation of Investigation: The Petition On November 8, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received a petition filed in proper form by General Chemical LLC (petitioner). On November 14 and November 15, 2007, the Department issued requests for additional information and clarification of certain areas of the petition involving general issues and the countervailable subsidy allegations, respectively. Based on the Department's request, petitioner filed additional information concerning the petition on November 19 and November 20, 2007. In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), petitioner alleges that manufacturers, producers, or exporters of sodium nitrite in the People's Republic of China (the PRC) received countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 701 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring or threatening material injury to an industry in the United States. The Department finds that petitioner filed this petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and petitioner has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the countervailing duty investigation that it is requesting the Department to initiate ( *see, infra* , “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition”). Period of Investigation The anticipated period of investigation
(POI)is calendar year 2006. *See* 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). Scope of Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is sodium nitrite in any form, at any purity level. In addition, the sodium nitrite covered by this investigation may or may not contain an anti-caking agent. Examples of names commonly used to reference sodium nitrite are nitrous acid, sodium salt, anti-rust, diazotizing salts, erinitrit, and filmerine. The chemical composition of sodium nitrite is NaNO2 and it is generally classified under subheading 2834.10.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The American Chemical Society Chemical Abstract Service
(CAS)has assigned the name “sodium nitrite” to sodium nitrite. The CAS registry number is 7632-00-0. For purposes of the scope of this investigation, the narrative description is dispositive, not the tariff heading, CAS registry number or CAS name, which are provided for convenience and customs purposes. Comments on Scope of Investigation During our review of the petition, we discussed the scope with petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the merchandise for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the regulations ( *Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of the publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. Consultations Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department invited representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China (the GOC) for consultations with respect to the countervailing duty petition. The Department held these consultations in Beijing, China with representatives of the GOC on November 26, 2007. *See* the Memorandum to the File, entitled, “Consultations with Officials from the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Countervailing Duty Petition: *Sodium Nitrite from the People's Republic of China* ” (November 26, 2007), a public document on file in the CRU. Determination of Industry Support for the Petition Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers 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 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers 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. 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 and workers 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. Although this may result in different definitions of the 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), citing *Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United States* , 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (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 subtitle.” 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, petitioner does not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that sodium nitrite 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 this case, *see* the *Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Sodium Nitrite from the People's Republic of China
(PRC)(Initiation Checklist* ), Industry Support at Attachment II, on file in the CRU. Our review of the data provided in the Petition, supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the Petitioner has established industry support. To establish industry support, the Petitioner demonstrated that it was the sole producer of the domestic like product in 2006. Therefore, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) 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 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act. In addition, the domestic producers have met the statutory criterion for industry support under 702(c)(4)(A)(i) because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. Finally, the domestic producers have met the statutory criterion for industry support under 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition 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, the Petition. Accordingly, the Department determines that the petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. *See CVD Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II (Industry Support). The Department finds petitioner has filed the petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in sections 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the countervailing duty investigation that it is requesting the Department to initiate. *See Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II. Injury Test Because the PRC is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the subsidized imports of the subject merchandise. The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share, lost sales, reduced production capacity and capacity utilization rate, reduced shipments, underselling and price depressing and suppressing effects, lost revenue, reduced employment, decline in financial performance, and an increase in import penetration. 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 Initiation Checklist* at Attachment III (Injury). Subsidy Allegations Section 702(b) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a countervailing duty proceeding whenever an interested party files a petition on behalf of an industry that
(1)alleges the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act and
(2)is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting the allegations. The Department has examined the countervailing duty petition on sodium nitrite from the PRC and found that it complies with the requirements of section 702(b) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b) of the Act, we are initiating a countervailing duty investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of sodium nitrite in the PRC receive countervailable subsidies. For a discussion of evidence supporting our initiation determination, *see Initiation Checklist* . We are including in our investigation the following programs alleged in the petition to have provided countervailable subsidies to producers and exporters of the subject merchandise: GOC Loan Program 1. Loans and Interest Subsidies Related to the Northeast Revitalization Program GOC Grant Programs 2. The State Key Technology Renovation Project Fund 3. Grants to Loss-Making State-Owned Enterprises GOC Provision of Goods or Services for Less than Adequate Remuneration 4. Provision of Electricity to State-Owned Enterprises
(SOEs)for Less than Adequate Remuneration 5. Provision of Land to SOEs for Less than Adequate Remuneration GOC Income Tax Programs 6. Income Tax Exemption for Export-Oriented FIEs 7. Preferential Tax Policies for Foreign Invested Enterprises
(FIEs)(Two Free, Three Half Program) 8. Reduced Income Tax Rates for FIEs Based on Location 9. Corporate Income Tax Refund Program for Reinvestment of FIE Profits in Export-Oriented Enterprises 10. Reduced Income Tax Rate for New or High Technology Enterprises 11. Preferential Tax Policies for Research and Development by FIEs 12. Income Tax Credits on Purchases of Domestically Produced Equipment by Domestically Owned Companies 13. Income Tax Credits on Purchases of Domestically Produced Equipment by FIEs 14. Reduced Income Tax Rate for FIEs Under the West Revitalization Program 15. Income Tax Reduction or Exemption for Export-Oriented or High Technology Enterprises under the West Revitalization Program 16. Preferential Tax Policies Under the West Revitalization Program GOC Indirect Tax Programs and Import Tariff Programs 17. VAT Rebate for FIE Purchases of Domestically Produced Equipment 18. VAT and Tariff Exemptions for FIEs and Certain Domestic Enterprises Using Imported Equipment in Encouraged Industries Provincial Loan Program 19. Reduced Interest Rate Loans Provided by Liaoning Province Provincial Grant Programs 20. Provincial Export Interest Subsidies (Guangdong and Zhejiang Provinces) 21. Guangdong Province Funds for Outward Expansion of Industries Provincial and Local Provision of Goods for Less than Adequate Remuneration 22. Provision of Land for Less than Adequate Remuneration (Jiangsu and Zhejiang Provinces, and Chongqing Municipality) 23. Provision of Electricity for Less than Adequate Remuneration (Jiangsu and Zhejiang Provinces) 24. Provision of Water for Less than Adequate Remuneration (Zhejiang Province) Provincial and Local Income Tax Programs 25. Income Tax Exemption and Reduction Programs (Provinces of Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Guangdong, and Shandong; Municipalities of Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, and Chongqing)For further information explaining why the Department is investigating these programs, see the Initiation Checklist. We are not including in our investigation the following programs alleged to benefit producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in the PRC: GOC Loan Program 1. Government Policy Lending Program Petitioner alleges that under the GOC's National Tenth Five-year Plan as well as the Tenth and Eleventh Five-year plans of the Chemical Industry, sodium nitrite producers may benefit from the provision of loans by state-owned commercial banks as part of the GOC's policy to encourage and to advance the chemical industry. In support of its allegation, Petitioner provided translated copies of the “Tenth Five-year Plan for National Economic and Social Development,” and the “Tenth Five-year Plan of the Chemical Industry and Its Development,” and a short, translated excerpt of the “Eleventh Five-year Plan of the Chemical Industry and Its Development.” Our review of these documents did not indicate that financing or loans were available pursuant to the GOC's Chemical Policy. Accordingly, we find that petitioner has not provided sufficient information to warrant initiation of an investigation of this program. GOC Provision of Goods for Less than Adequate Remuneration 2. Provision of Natural Gas and Water to State-Owned Enterprises
(SOEs)for Less than Adequate Remuneration Petitioner alleges that the GOC provides natural gas and water to SOEs and special industrial sectors at subsidized prices. Petitioner further alleges that end-user prices for natural gas and for water are set by the National Development and Reform Commission, and rarely reflect the true market price of these commodities. For purposes of this initiation, we find that petitioner has not sufficiently alleged the elements necessary for a less than adequate remuneration subsidy, as identified in 19 CFR 351.511. Petitioner has not provided sufficient information demonstrating that the GOC has provided natural gas and water for less than adequate remuneration and that this program is specific. Accordingly, we find that petitioner has not provided sufficient information to warrant initiation of an investigation of these programs. GOC Indirect Tax Program and Import Tariff Program 3. VAT Exemptions on Exports Petitioner alleges that the GOC enterprises are exempted from paying import tariffs and VAT payments on imported equipment provided that these goods are not for resale. Petitioner notes that in certain cases, a full 17-percent VAT exemption will apply upon export. Petitioner states that the program, by definition, is conditioned upon export performance, and therefore, is an export subsidy. Petitioner further alleges that this is a prohibited export subsidy if the exemption or reduction of indirect taxes on the exported product exceeds the indirect taxes levied on the inputs into the exported product. We find that Petitioner has not sufficiently alleged the elements necessary for the imposition of a countervailing duty and did not support the allegation with reasonably available information. Therefore, we are not initiating an investigation of this program. Application of the Countervailing Duty Law to the PRC The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy
(NME)country in all past antidumping investigations and administrative reviews. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,
(TRBs)From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review* , 68 FR 7500, 7500-1 (February 14, 2003), unchanged in *TRBs from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2001-2001 Administrative Review* , 68 FR 70488, 70488-89 (December 18, 2003). In the final affirmative countervailing duty determination on coated free sheet paper from the PRC, the Department determined that the current nature of the PRC economy does not create obstacles to applying the necessary criteria in the countervailing duty law. *See Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination* , 72 FR 60645 (October 25, 2007), and the accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* , at Comment 1. Therefore, because petitioner has provided sufficient allegations and support of its allegations to meet the statutory criteria for initiating a countervailing duty investigation of sodium nitrite from the PRC, initiation of a countervailing duty investigation is warranted in this case. Respondent Selection For this investigation, the Department expects to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)data for U.S. imports during the POI. We intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this **Federal Register** notice. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within seven calendar days of publication of this **Federal Register** notice. Distribution of Copies of the Petition In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of the public version of the petition has been provided to the GOC. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the petition to each exporter named in the petition, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). ITC Notification We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determination by the ITC The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 25 days after the date on which it receives notice of this initiation, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of subsidized sodium nitrite from the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. *See* section 703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated; otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Dated: November 28, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-23573 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE01 U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product Draft Report 3.2 “Climate projections for research and assessment based on emissions scenarios developed through the CCTP” AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability and request for public comments. SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publishes this notice to announce a 45-day public comment period for the draft report titled, U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.2: “Climate projections for research and assessment based on emissions scenarios developed through the CCTP”. This draft document is being released solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency policy or determination. After consideration of comments received on the draft report, a revised version along with the comments received will be published on the CCSP web site. DATES: Comments must be received by January 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: The draft Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.2: “Climate projections for research and assessment based on emissions scenarios developed through the CCTP.” is posted on the CCSP Web site at: *www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-2/public-review-draft/default.htm* Detailed instructions for making comments on this draft report are provided on the link above. Comments must be prepared in accordance to these instructions and must be submitted to: *3.2-climateprojections@usgcrp.gov* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Fabien Laurier, Climate Change Science Program Office, 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 250, Washington, DC 20006, Telephone:
(202)419-3481. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CCSP was established by the President in 2002 to coordinate and integrate scientific research on global change and climate change sponsored by 13 participating departments and agencies of the U.S. Government. The CCSP is charged with preparing information resources that promote climate-related discussions and decisions, including scientific synthesis and assessment analyses that support evaluation of important policy issues. Dated: November 27, 2007. William J. Brennan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for International Affairs, and Acting Director, Climate Change Science Program. [FR Doc. E7-23595 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-12-S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 4, 2008. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues:
(1)Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department;
(2)will this information be processed and used in a timely manner;
(3)is the estimate of burden accurate;
(4)how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(5)how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Dated: November 29, 2007. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Protection and Advocacy for Assistive Technology (PAAT). *Frequency:* Annually. *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 57. *Burden Hours:* 912. *Abstract:* The Annual PAAT Program Performance Report will be used to analyze and evaluate the PAAT Program administered by eligible systems in states. These systems provide services to eligible individuals with disabilities to assist in the acquisition, utilization, or maintenance of assistive technology devices or assistive technology services. The Rehabilitation Services Administration
(RSA)uses the form to meet specific data collection requirements of Section 5 of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, as amended (AT Act). PAAT programs must report annually using the form, which is due on or before December 30 of each year. The Annual PAAT Performance Report has enabled RSA to furnish the President and Congress with data on the provision of protection and advocacy services and has helped to establish a sound basis for future funding requests. Data from the form have been used to evaluate the effectiveness of eligible systems within individual states in meeting annual priorities and objectives. These data also have been used to indicate trends in the provision of services from year to year. Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3535. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E7-23563 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records—Migrant Student Information Exchange AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of a new system of records. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), the Department of Education (Department) publishes this notice of a new system of records entitled “Migrant Student Information Exchange”
(MSIX)(18-14-04). MSIX will contain information on migrant students who participate in the Migrant Education Program
(MEP)authorized under Title I, Part C of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-110). Section 1308(b)(2) of ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6398(b)(2)) specifically authorizes the implementation of MSIX and its associated minimum data elements (MDEs). This statutory provision requires the Secretary to ensure the linkage of migrant student record systems for the purpose of electronically exchanging, among the States, health and educational information regarding all migratory students. DATES: The Department seeks comment on the new system of records described in this notice, in accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act. We must receive your comments on the proposed routine uses for the system of records described in this notice on or before January 4, 2008. The Department filed a report describing the new system of records covered by this notice with the Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)on November 30, 2007. This system of records will become effective at the later date of—(1) the expiration of the 40-day period for OMB review on January 9, 2008 or
(2)January 4, 2008, unless the system of records needs to be changed as a result of public comment or OMB review. ADDRESSES: Address all comments about the proposed routine uses to Jennifer Dozier, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E327, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone:
(202)205-4421. If you prefer to send comments through the Internet, use the following address: *comments@ed.gov* . You must include the term “Migrant Student Information Exchange” in the subject line of the electronic message. During and after the comment period, you may inspect comments about this notice in room 2W224, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Dozier. Telephone:
(202)205-4421. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under this section. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction MSIX will provide the technology that will allow all States, in accordance with applicable law, to share educational and health information on migrant children who travel from State to State due to their migratory lifestyle and who, as a result, have student records in the migrant student databases of multiple States. Authorized representatives of State and local agencies will use MSIX to assist with school enrollment, grade placement, and accrual of course credits for migrant children nationwide. In doing so, MSIX will work in concert with the existing migrant student information systems that States currently use to manage their migrant student data. Authorized representatives of State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), and other MEP local operating agencies will use MSIX to retrieve educational and health information on migrant students who move from State to State due to their migrant lifestyle. The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)) requires the Department to publish in the **Federal Register** this notice of a new system of records maintained by the Department. The Department's regulations implementing the Privacy Act are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)in 34 CFR part 5b. The Privacy Act applies to information about individuals that contains individually identifying information that is retrieved by a unique identifier associated with each individual, such as a name or social security number. The information about each individual is called a “record,” and the system, whether manual or computer-based, is called a “system of records.” The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish notices of new or altered systems of records in the **Federal Register** and to submit reports to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, whenever the agency publishes a new or altered system of records. Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498, or in the Washington, DC, area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the CFR is available on GPO Access at: *www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Dated: November 30, 2007. Kerri L. Briggs, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education publishes a notice of a new system of records to read as follows: 18-14-04 SYSTEM NAME: Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX). SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: None. SYSTEM LOCATION:
(1)U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of Migrant Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E344, Washington, DC 20202-4614.
(2a)Deloitte LLC, 4301 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 210, Arlington, VA 22203-1633 (software development and programming).
(2b)Deloitte LLC, 110 West 7th Street, Suite 1100, Tulsa, OK 74119-1107 (help desk for MSIX).
(3a)EDS Data Center, 6031 South Rio Grande Avenue, Orlando, FL 32809-4613 (MSIX Production Servers).
(3b)EDS, 12000 Research Parkway, Orlando, FL 32826-2943 (back-up tapes).
(4)Navasite Data Center, 8619 Westwood Center Drive, Vienna, VA 22182-2220 (disaster recovery site).
(5)Access to MSIX is available through the Internet from other locations. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: This system contains records on all children whom States have determined to be eligible to participate in the MEP, authorized in Title I, Part C of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-110). CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: The categories of records in the system include the migrant child's: Name, date of birth, personal identification numbers assigned by the States and the Department, parent's or parents' name or names, school enrollment data, school contact data, assessment data, and other educational and health data necessary for accurate and timely school enrollment, grade and course placement, and accrual of course credits. The final request for public comment on the minimum data elements
(MDEs)to be included in MSIX was published, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 clearance process, in the **Federal Register** on August 3, 2007 (72 FR 43253-34). More information on the 66 MDEs is available in the Department's Information Collection Notice at: *http://edicsweb.ed.gov/browse/downldatt.cfm?pkg_serial_num=2841* . AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: MSIX is authorized under section 1308(b)(2) of the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (20 U.S.C. Section 6398(b)(2)). PURPOSE(S): The purpose of MSIX is to enhance the continuity of educational and health services for migrant children by providing a mechanism for all States to exchange educational and health related information on migrant children who move from State to State due to their migratory lifestyle. It is anticipated that the existence and use of MSIX will help to improve the timeliness of school enrollments, improve the appropriateness of grade and course placements, and reduce incidences of unnecessary immunizations of migrant children. Further, MSIX will facilitate the accrual of course credits for migrant children in secondary school by providing accurate academic information on the student's course history and academic progress. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: The Department of Education (Department) may disclose information contained in a record in this system of records, under the routine uses listed in this system of records, without the consent of the individual if the disclosure is compatible with the purposes for which the record was collected. The Department may make these disclosures on a case-by-case basis or, if the Department has complied with the computer matching requirements of the Privacy Act, as amended, under a computer matching agreement.
(1)*MEP Services, School Enrollment, Grade or Course Placement, Accrual of High School Credits, Student Record Match Resolution.* The Department may disclose a record in this system of records to authorized representatives of State education agencies (SEAs), local education agencies (LEAs), and other MEP local operating agencies
(LOAs)to facilitate one or more of the following for a student:
(a)Participation in the MEP,
(b)enrollment in school,
(c)grade or course placement,
(d)credit accrual, and
(e)unique student match resolution.
(2)*Contract Disclosure.* If the Department contracts with an entity for the purposes of performing any function that requires disclosure of records in this system to employees of the contractor, the Department may disclose the records to those employees who have received the appropriate level security clearance from the Department. Before entering into such a contract, the Department will require the contractor to maintain Privacy Act safeguards, as required under 5 U.S.C. 552a(m), with respect to the records in the system.
(3)*Research Disclosure.* The Department may disclose records from this system to a researcher if an appropriate official of the Department determines that the individual or organization to which the disclosure would be made is qualified to carry out specific research related to functions or purposes of this system of records. The official may disclose information from this system of records to that researcher solely for the purpose of carrying out that research related to the functions or purposes of this system of records. The researcher will be required to maintain Privacy Act safeguards with respect to the disclosed records.
(4)*Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA)and Privacy Act Advice Disclosure.* The Department may disclose records to the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ)or OMB if the Department concludes that disclosure is desirable or necessary to determine whether particular records are required to be disclosed under FOIA or the Privacy Act.
(5)*Disclosure in the Course of Responding to Breach of Data.* The Department may disclose records to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when
(a)it is suspected or confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in MSIX has been compromised;
(b)the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of MSIX or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or by another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and,
(c)the disclosure is made to such agencies, entities, and persons who are reasonably necessary to assist the Department in responding to the suspected or confirmed compromise and in helping the Department prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(6)*Litigation or Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR)Disclosure.*
(a)*Introduction.* In the event that one of the following parties is involved in litigation or ADR, or has an interest in litigation or ADR, the Department may disclose certain records to the parties described in paragraphs b, c, and d of this routine use under the conditions specified in those paragraphs:
(i)The Department or any of its components.
(ii)Any Department employee in his or her official capacity.
(iii)Any employee of the Department in his or her individual capacity where DOJ has agreed to or has been requested to provide or arrange for representation of the employee.
(iv)Any employee of the Department in his or her individual capacity where the Department has agreed to represent the employee.
(v)The United States where the Department determines that the litigation is likely to affect the Department or any of its components.
(b)*Disclosure to DOJ.* If the Department determines that disclosure of certain records to DOJ, or attorneys engaged by DOJ, is relevant and necessary to litigation or ADR, and is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected, the Department may disclose those records as a routine use to DOJ.
(c)*Adjudicative Disclosure.* If the Department determines that disclosure of certain records to an adjudicative body before which the Department is authorized to appear, individual, or entity designated by the Department or otherwise empowered to resolve or mediate disputes is relevant and necessary to litigation or ADR, and is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected, the Department may disclose those records as a routine use to the adjudicative body, individual, or entity.
(d)*Disclosure to Parties, Counsel, Representatives, and Witnesses.* If the Department determines that disclosure of certain records to a party, counsel, representative, or witness is relevant and necessary to litigation or ADR, and is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected, the Department may disclose those records as a routine use to a party, counsel, representative, or witness.
(7)*Congressional Member Disclosure.* The Department may disclose information from a record of an individual to a member of Congress and his or her staff in response to an inquiry from the member made at the written request of that individual. The member's right to the information is no greater than the right of the individual who requested it. DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES: Not applicable to this system notice. POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE: The Data Center of the Department's contractor, EDS, stores computerized student records on server hardware and MSIX backup tapes, including MSIX Help Desk tapes, in locked file cabinets. RETRIEVABILITY: Records in this system are indexed by a unique number, assigned to each individual, that is cross-referenced by the individual's name. SAFEGUARDS:
(1)*Introduction* Security personnel control and monitor all physical access to the site of the Department's contractor and subcontractors, where this system of records is maintained. The computer system employed by the Department offers a high degree of resistance to tampering and circumvention. This computer system limits data access to Department and contract staff on a “need to know” basis, and controls individual users' ability to access and alter records within the system by granting user names and passwords, and assigning user roles to individuals that restrict access based on user category (e.g., district administrator, counselor, state administrator). The contractor has established a set of procedures to ensure confidentiality of data, and will maintain the security of the complete set of all master data files and documentation. The contractor and subcontractor employees who collect, maintain, use, or disseminate data in this system, must comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act.
(2)*Physical Security of Electronic Data* Physical security of electronic data will be maintained. The MSIX infrastructure is housed in a secured data center, access to which is controlled by multiple access controls. These access controls include a combination of personal photo identification/card scans, biometric hand scanning, and personal access codes. These access controls also include man-traps and physical barricades that limit access to the data center floor and machine rooms. Further, all entrances, exits, and key points throughout the facility are monitored in real-time via closed circuit television
(CCTV)24 hours per day. All CCTV is recorded and stored on tape for audit purposes. These access control mechanisms are centrally managed by resources within the data center, which is staffed 24 hours per day. Security personnel are required to inspect picture identification and have visitors sign in before granting access to the facility. Visitors are pre-authorized and registered in a database at least 24 hours prior to their arrival, and are required to provide picture identification that matches the name given previously to the data center. All personnel are required to display an identification badge or an authorized visitor badge at all times while on the premises; and all packages brought into the data center are subject to inspection. Backup tapes are employed, and numerous mechanisms protect the physical security of these backup tapes. First, in the event of a disaster recovery situation, MSIX backup tapes will be transferred in locking containers. Contractor and subcontractor employees holding Department of Defense
(DoD)Secret or Interim Secret clearances will ship the tapes from the EDS Data Center to the Navasite Data Center, the disaster recovery site. Thus, the MSIX system can be restored in the event of a disaster at the Navasite Data Center. Second, the backup tapes are stored in a tape library within the EDS Data Center and are only available to authorized personnel. Access to the backup tapes is limited through the use of biometric access control mechanisms. Third, the backup tapes are stored in fireproof safes.
(c)*User Access to Electronic Data* MSIX incorporates a series of security controls mandated by the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA) and the Department. MSIX leverages role-based accounts and security controls to limit access to the application, its servers, and its infrastructure to authorized users. All MSIX users must follow a registration process that involves identity validation and verification prior to gaining access to MSIX. Once validated and approved, MSIX User Administrators will grant access to authorized users by creating their MSIX accounts and assigning the appropriate MSIX roles. MSIX requires users to use strong passwords, comprised of alphanumeric and special characters, and uses Oracle's Internet Directory
(OID)application to manage its user accounts. OID stores the name of each MSIX user, each MSIX user's associated roles and access privileges, and each MSIX user's passwords using an encrypted format. The MSIX application is only available to authorized users via a Uniform Resource Locator
(URL)that runs under the Hypertext Transfer Protocol over Secure Socket Layer (HTTPS). No user may alter records in this system of records except to identify and assign a student a unique student identifier through the record matching process. Further, MSIX limits data submissions from State systems to specific Internet Protocol addresses and requires the use of Secure File Transfer Protocol.
(d)*Additional Security Measures* The MSIX infrastructure also leverages a series of firewalls to limit internal access to specific protocols and ports, as well as intrusion detection systems to help identify unauthorized access to MSIX. MSIX logs and tracks login attempts, data modifications, and other key application and system events. The MSIX operations and maintenance team monitors these logs on a regular basis. Further, the MSIX operations and maintenance team performs vulnerability scans on a routine basis, monitors the U.S. Computer Emergency Response Team
(CERT)bulletins (see *http://www.us-cert.gov/* for more details), and applies routine operating system and vendor patches as appropriate. Retention and Disposal: Records are maintained and disposed of in accordance with the Department's Records Disposition Schedules as listed under ED 231—Public and Restricted Use Data Files—Studies. System Manager and Address: Director, Office of Migrant Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E317, Washington, DC 20202-0001. Notification Procedure: If you wish to determine whether a record exists regarding you in the system of records, contact the system manager at the address listed under, SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS. Your request must meet the requirements of regulations in 34 CFR 5b.5, including proof of identity. Record Access Procedure: If you wish to gain access to your record in the system of records, contact the system manager at the address listed under SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS. Your request must meet the requirements of regulations in 34 CFR 5b.5, including proof of identity. Contesting Record Procedure: If you wish to contest the content of a record regarding you in the system of records, contact the system manager at the address listed under, SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS. Your request must meet the requirements of regulations in 34 CFR 5b.7, including proof of identity. Record Source Categories: The system will contain records that are obtained from SEAs and LEAs. Exemptions Claimed for the System: None. [FR Doc. E7-23541 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings # 1 November 19, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER02-1656-034; EL01-68-031. *Applicants:* California Independent System Operator Corporation. *Description:* Sempra Energy Trading LLC submits a report to state that it does not seek any payment in excess of the negative $30/MWh Cap. *Filed Date:* 11/07/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071114-0090. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 28, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-428-005. *Applicants:* ConocoPhillips Company. *Description:* ConocoPhillips Company submits Substitute Third Revised Sheet 1 to its revised FERC Electric Tariff 1, to become effective 9/18/07. *Filed Date:* 11/13/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071114-0205. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 26, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER04-708-004. *Applicants:* Horsehead Corp. *Description:* Notice of non-material change in status re Horsehead Corp. *Filed Date:* 11/09/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071114-0077. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 30, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-758-002; ER06-635-001; ER02-237-009; ER95-1007-020; ER01-2741-005; ER07-34-002; ER03-1151-005; ER00-2235-002; ER99-3320-005; ER06-759-001; ER03-922-006; ER06-634-001. *Applicants:* Chambers Cogeneration LP; Edgecombe Genco, LLC; J. Aron & Company; Logan Generating Company, LP; Plains End, LLC; Plains End II, LLC; Power Receivable Finance, LLC; Ouachita Power, LLC; Rathdrum Power, LLC; Selkirk Cogen Partners, L.P.; Southaven Power, LLC; Spruance Genco, LLC. *Description:* Chambers Cogeneration, Limited Partnership *et al.* submit a notice of non-material change in status in compliance with FERC's Order 652. *Filed Date:* 11/09/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071114-0078. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 30, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-970-002. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. submits a compliance filing of a Large Generator Interconnection Agreement. *Filed Date:* 11/13/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071115-0057. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 4, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1203-001. *Applicants:* Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC. *Description:* Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC submits additional information to support their filing and request to waive the Commission's regulations in order to make the filing effective 1/1/08. *Filed Date:* 11/08/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071113-0006. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 29, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1250-002. *Applicants:* PowerGrid Systems, Inc. *Description:* PowerGrid Systems, Inc. submits a Substitute Original Sheet 1 and Original Sheet 2 to its FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 11/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071119-0019. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 6, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1268-002. *Applicants:* PacifiCorp. *Description:* Compliance Filing of PacifiCorp. *Filed Date:* 11/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071115-5002. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 6, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1367-001. *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corporation. *Description:* AEP Operating Companies submits their Third Revised Interconnection and Local Delivery Service Agreement with Elk Power Co. *Filed Date:* 11/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071119-0015. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 6, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1402-001. *Applicants:* Allegheny Generating Company. *Description:* Supplemental Submission of Allegheny Generating Company. *Filed Date:* 10/26/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071026-5037. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 29, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-193-000. *Applicants:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company. *Description:* Pacific Gas and Electric Co. submits the Midway Interconnection Agreement with Southern California Edison Co. *Filed Date:* 11/07/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071116-0320. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 28, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-205-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection LLC submits its revisions to Schedule 2 of the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff. *Filed Date:* 11/13/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071114-0076. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 4, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-213-000. *Applicants:* Round Rock Energy, LP. *Description:* Round Rock Energy, LP requests that FERC accept its FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1 etc. *Filed Date:* 11/14/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071116-0042. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-214-000. *Applicants:* Deephaven RV Sub Fund Ltd. *Description:* Deephaven RV Sub Fund Ltd submits a Notice of Cancellation, a Second Revised Sheet 1 to its market-based rate tariff and a Notice of Filing requesting that FERC accept the cancellation documents. *Filed Date:* 11/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071119-0001. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 6, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-215-000. *Applicants:* Indiana Michigan Power Company. *Description:* Indiana Michigan Power Company submits First Revised Sheet 15 *et al.* to FERC Electric Rate Schedule 109. *Filed Date:* 11/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071119-0002. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 6, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-216-000. *Applicants:* Indiana Michigan Power Company. *Description:* Indiana Michigan Power Company submits First Revised Sheet 15 *et al.* to its FERC Rate Schedule 105. *Filed Date:* 11/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071119-0003. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 6, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-217-000. *Applicants:* Indiana Michigan Power Company. *Description:* Indiana Michigan Power Company submits First Revised Sheet 15 *et al.* to its FERC Rate Schedule 104. *Filed Date:* 11/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071119-0005. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 6, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-218-000. *Applicants:* Indiana Michigan Power Company. *Description:* Indiana Michigan Power Company submits First Revised Sheet 16 *et al.* to its FERC Rate Schedule 101. *Filed Date:* 11/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071119-0004. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 6, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-219-000. *Applicants:* Indiana Michigan Power Company. *Description:* Indiana Michigan Power Company submits First Revised Sheet 15 *et al.* to its FERC Rate Schedule 102. *Filed Date:* 11/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071119-0006. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 6, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-220-000. *Applicants:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. *Description:* New York Independent System Operator Inc. submits First Revised Sheet 710 *et al.* for Attachment V of its Open Access Transmission Tariff to revise its Working Capital Fund provisions. *Filed Date:* 11/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071119-0007. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 6, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-221-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection LLC submits an executed interconnection service agreement with Ameresco Stafford LLC *et al.* and a notice of cancellation of an ISA being superseded. *Filed Date:* 11/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071119-0008. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 6, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-222-000. *Applicants:* Southern California Edison Company. *Description:* Southern California Edison Co. submits a Notice of Cancellation of the Amended and Restated Firm Transmission Service Agreement with Arizona Public Service Co. *Filed Date:* 11/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071119-0009. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 6, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-223-000. *Applicants:* Florida Power Corporation. *Description:* Florida Power Corp dba Progress Energy Florida, Inc submits a cost-based power sales agreement with Seminole Electric Coop, Inc. *Filed Date:* 11/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071119-0010. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 6, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-224-000 *Applicants:* Xcel Energy Operating Companies. *Description:* Public Service Co of Colorado submits their Second Revised Sheet 328 *et al.* to their Joint Open Access Service Tariff. *Filed Date:* 11/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071119-0011. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 6, 2007. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-23523 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 November 29, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1174-002; OA07-74-002. *Applicants:* MATL LLP. *Description:* MATL, LLP submits revised tariff sheets to its open access transmission tariff, Open Access Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 11/26/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071128-0045. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 17, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1377-001. *Applicants:* Central Vermont Public Service Corp. *Description:* Central Vermont Public Service Corporation Compliance Refund Report. *Filed Date:* 11/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071121-5023. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-235-000. *Applicants:* The Connecticut Light and Power Company. *Description:* The Connecticut Light and Power Co. submits its Notice of Cancellation of FERC Electric Rate Schedule 535 and related supplements. *Filed Date:* 11/20/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071121-0045. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 11, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-236-000. *Applicants:* Northern Maine Independent System Administrator, Inc. *Description:* Northern Maine Independent System Administrator, Inc submits a Coordination Agreement with New Brunswick System Operator. *Filed Date:* 11/20/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071121-0046. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 11, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-237-000. *Applicants:* Forward Energy LLC. *Description:* Forward Energy, LLC submits their FERC Electric Tariff 1. *Filed Date:* 11/20/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071121-0047. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 11, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-238-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection LLC submits the signature page to the PJM Consolidated Transmission Owners Agreement. *Filed Date:* 11/20/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071121-0048. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 11, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-239-000. *Applicants:* Indiana Michigan Power Company. *Description:* Indiana Michigan Power Co. submits First Revised Sheet 15 et al. to FERC Rate Schedule 107. *Filed Date:* 11/20/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071121-0049. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 11, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-240-000. *Applicants:* Indiana Michigan Power Company. *Description:* Indiana Michigan Power Co. submits First Revised Sheet 15 et al. to FERC Rate Schedule 106. *Filed Date:* 11/20/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071121-0050. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 11, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-241-000. *Applicants:* Consolidated Water Power Company. *Description:* Consolidated Water Power Co. submits an executed “Service Agreement for Wholesale Distribution Service” with the City of Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin. *Filed Date:* 11/20/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071121-0041. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 11, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-253-000. *Applicants:* LSF Limited. *Description:* LSF Limited submits a Notice of Cancellation of Market Base Rate Authority. *Filed Date:* 11/26/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071128-0044. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 17, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-254-000. *Applicants:* Westar Energy, Inc. *Description:* Westar Energy, Inc submits a Notice of Termination of a Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement with Avista Energy, Inc. *Filed Date:* 11/27/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071128-0046. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 18, 2007. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-23553 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PL07-2-000] Composition of Proxy Groups for Determining Gas and Oil Pipeline Return on Equity; Notice of Technical Conference and Request for Additional Comments Issued November 15, 2007. Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly, Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff. 1. On July 19, 2007, the Commission issued a proposed policy statement, concerning the composition of the proxy groups used to determine gas and oil pipelines' return on equity
(ROE)under the Discounted Cash Flow
(DCF)method. 1 Initial and reply comments were due on August 30 and September 19, 2007 respectively. In this notice, the Commission is requesting additional comments on or before December 14, 2007, solely on the issue of master limited partnership growth rates. The Commission is also establishing a technical conference for further consideration of that one issue. The technical conference will be held on January 8, 2008. The technical conference will be organized around panels whose members will be selected from among the parties who file comments. However, all parties and the public are invited to attend. Additional comments on the growth rate issue discussed at the technical conference will be due on January 25, 2008. 1 *Composition of Proxy Groups for Determining Gas and Oil Pipeline Return on Equity* , 120 FERC ¶ 61,068 (2007). I. Background 2. The Commission uses a DCF financial model to develop a range of returns earned on investments in companies with corresponding risks for determining the ROE for natural gas and oil pipelines. In the proposed policy statement, the Commission proposed to modify its current policy regarding the composition of the proxy group used in its DCF analysis to allow master limited partnerships
(MLPs)to be included in the proxy group. The proposed policy statement found that cost of service ratemaking requires that firms in the proxy group be of comparable risk to the firm whose ROE is being determined in a particular rate proceeding. The proposed policy statement found that expanding the proxy group to include MLPs whose business is more narrowly focused on pipeline activities would help provide a more representative proxy group. The Commission proposed to cap the cash distribution used to determine an MLP's return under the DCF method at the MLP's reported earnings. The Commission found that this was necessary to exclude that portion of an MLP's distributions constituting return of equity. The Commission also proposed to require a showing that the MLP has had stable earnings over a multi-year period, so as to justify a finding that it will be able to maintain the current level of cash distributions in future years. The proposed policy statement found that these requirements should render the MLP's cash distribution comparable to a corporation's dividend for purposes of the DCF analysis. Under the proposed policy, the Commission would leave to individual cases the determination of which specific MLPs and corporations should be included in the proxy group. 3. Interested parties filed some twenty-two initial comments and fourteen reply comments, which focused on three issues:
(1)Whether MLPs should be included in the gas pipeline proxy group at all;
(2)whether the proposed cap on the MLP cash distributions used in the DCF analysis is necessary or adequate; and
(3)whether the short and long term growth component of the DCF model should be modified given the financial practices of MLPs. Other points include the potential distorting effects of MLP tax treatment, the payouts by MLPs, the general partner's incentive distributions, and the relative returns to the limited and general partners. One party requested a technical conference to discuss the issues. 4. Based on its review of the comments to date, the Commission believes that there is adequate material in the record to address most issues without additional comments or addressing them at the technical conference. These include:
(1)Whether the Commission should permit MLPs to be included in the proxy group for both gas and oil pipelines;
(2)the proposed earnings cap on the MLPs' distributions; and
(3)whether the Commission should explore other means of determining the equity cost of capital at this time. 5. However, the Commission concludes that the current record is inadequate for deciding how an MLP's growth should be projected for purposes of the DCF analysis. Currently, the Commission projects growth in dividends based on an average of short- and long-term growth projections, with two-thirds weight given to the short-term growth forecast and one-third weight given to the long-term growth forecast. The Commission uses the five-year growth forecasts published by the Institutional Brokers Estimate System
(IBES)for the short-term growth forecast; long-term growth is based on forecasts of the growth of the economy as a whole, as reflected in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The commenters generally agree that MLPs will have lower growth potential than corporations, because of their distributions in excess of earnings. However, the existing record is insufficient for the Commission to determine
(1)whether its current method of projecting growth adequately reflects the lower growth potential of MLPs, particularly over the long term, 2 and
(2)if not, what alternative method should be used to project the growth of MLPs. 2 *See MLPs: Safe to Come Back into the Water* , Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC, Equity Research Department, at 9-10 (August 20, 2007), attached to the initial comments of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. and cited to in the reply comments of NYPSC at 5, using a projected MLP long term annual growth rate of 2.5 percent. Currently, GDP is projected to grow at a rate of approximately 4.5 percent. 6. Therefore, the Commission has determined that the current record must be supplemented before the Commission can resolve the issue of how to project MLP growth rates, if the Commission ultimately decides to permit the use of MLPs in the proxy group. In addition, the Commission recognizes that the various components of the DCF model interact with one another, with the result that the appropriate growth projection for MLPs necessarily depends to some extent on whether the Commission caps the distributions used to determine an MLP's dividend yield. Parties should focus their comments and discussion at the technical conference on the issue of the appropriate MLP growth projection and, in particular, the appropriate growth projection if the Commission, as recommended by certain parties, does not cap the distributions used to determine dividend yield. In order to adequately consider the issue of whether to cap such distributions, the Commission needs a more complete record on the issue of growth projections. II. Request for Comments and Notice of Technical Conference 7. The Commission requests that the parties submit additional comments on the issue of the appropriate growth component to be used in the Commission's DCF model in the context discussed above, when determining the equity cost of capital for an MLP. The comments must be filed on or before December 14, 2007. 8. The Commission is also establishing a staff led technical conference to discuss the MLP growth issue to be held on Tuesday, January 8, 2008. This conference is intended to be a working session focused solely on the appropriate growth component to be used in the Commission's DCF model when determining the equity cost of capital for an MLP. It is, therefore, not appropriate to discuss at this technical conference how the other components of the DCF model should be applied in determining the equity cost of capital of an MLP. The conference will be organized into a limited number of panel discussions. 9. Parties interested in serving on a panel should so indicate in their comments. To ensure that all points of view are represented and to help the conference move expeditiously, the Commission encourages parties sharing the same position to coordinate their efforts and designate one speaker to represent their shared position. 10. The Commission emphasizes that industry growth rates are a highly technical, if critical issue. For this reason the Commission strongly urges any party filing comments, or participating in a panel, to provide technical analyses and utilize a speaker at the conference who can respond to technical questions from the staff. The list of prospective panel members will be announced in a later notice. 11. All parties, whether or not selected to participate in a panel, may file post-conference comments on or before January 25, 2008. The post-conference comments should address only the MLP growth projection issue discussed at the conference. For more information about the conference or participation in panels, please contact John Robinson by e-mail at *john.robinson@ferc.gov* or by phone at 202-502-6808. III. Procedure for Comments 12. The comments requested by this notice must refer to Docket No. PL07-2-000, and must include the commentor's name, the organization it represents, if applicable, and its address. To facilitate the Commission's review of the comments, commentors are requested to provide an executive summary of their position. Additional issues the commentors wish to raise should be identified separately. The commentors should double space their comments. 13. Comments may be filed on paper or electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov.* The Commission accepts most standard word processing formats and commentors may attach additional files with supporting information in certain other file formats. Commentors filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. Commentors that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 14. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commentors are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commentors. IV. Document Availability 15. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the **Federal Register** , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission's Home Page ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426. 16. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available in the Commission's document management system, eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number (excluding the last three digits) in the docket number field. 17. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours. For assistance, please contact the Commission's Online Support at 1-866-208-3676 (toll free) or 202-502-6652 (e-mail at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or the Public Reference Room at 202-502-8371, TTY 202-502-8659 (e-mail at *public.referenceroom@ferc.gov* ). By the Commission. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-23552 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0043; FRL-8155-5] Chlorpyrifos-methyl; Product Cancellation Order AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's order for the cancellations, voluntarily requested by the registrants and accepted by the Agency, of products containing the pesticide chlorpyrifos-methyl, pursuant to section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. This cancellation order follows the July 7, 2004 **Federal Register** Notice of Receipt of Requests from the chlorpyrifos-methyl registrants to voluntarily cancel their Gustafson Reldan 4E Insecticide and Reldan 4E product registrations. These are not the last chlorpyrifos-methyl products registered for use in the United States. In the July 7, 2004 notice, EPA indicated that it would issue an order implementing the cancellations, unless the Agency received substantive comments within the 30 day comment period that would merit its further review of these requests, or unless the registrants withdrew their requests within this period. The Agency received comments on the notice that merited its further review of the requests. The Agency granted an extension of the existing registration of Gustafson Reldan 4E Insecticide and Reldan 4E until the availability of an equally effective stored grain product was registered. Storicide II, for broad-spectrum control of stored grain insects, was conditionally registered on October 27, 2004. EPA hereby issues in this notice a cancellation order granting the requested cancellations. Any distribution, sale, or use of the chlorpyrifos-methyl products subject to this cancellation order is permitted only in accordance with the terms of this order, including any existing stocks provisions. DATES: The cancellations are effective December 5, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana L. Friedman, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)347-8827; fax number:
(703)305-5290; e-mail address: *friedman.dana @epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. *Docket* . EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0043. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. 2. *Electronic access* . You may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the **Federal Register** listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . II. What Action is the Agency Taking? This notice announces the cancellation, as requested by registrants, of certain chlorpyrifos-methyl products registered under section 3 of FIFRA. These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1 of this unit. **Table 1.—Chlorpyrifos-methyl Product Cancellations** EPA Registration Number Product Name 264-934 Gustafson Reldan 4E Insecticide 62719-43 Reldan 4E Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. Please note, Gustafson Reldan 4E Insecticide (7501-41) was transferred to Bayer Cropscience LLP (264-934) in May 2005. **Table 2.—Registrants of Cancelled and/or Amended Chlorpyrifos-methyl Products** EPA Company Number Company Name and Address 264 Bayer Cropscience LP 2 T.W. Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 62719 Dow Agrosciences LLC 9330 Zionsville Rd, 308/2E Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 III. Summary of Public Comments Received and Agency Response to Comments The Agency received comments on the notice that merited its further review of the requests. The Agency granted an extension of the existing registration of Gustafson Reldan 4E Insecticide and Reldan 4E until an equally effective stored grain product was registered. Storicide II, for broad-spectrum control of stored grain insects, was conditionally registered on October 27, 2004. IV. Cancellation Order Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f), EPA hereby approves the requested cancellations of chlorpyrifos-methyl registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. Accordingly, the Agency orders that the chlorpyrifos-methyl product registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. are hereby canceled. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II. in a manner inconsistent with any of the Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks set forth in Unit VI will be considered a violation of FIFRA. V. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the **Federal Register** . Thereafter, following the public comment period, the Administrator may approve such a request. VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks For the purposes of this Order, the term “existing stocks” is defined as those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. The cancellation order issued in this notice includes the following existing stocks provisions. A. Distribution or Sale The distribution or sale of existing stocks will not be lawful under FIFRA with the date of this cancellation order except for the purposes of returns and relabeling, shipping such stocks for export consistent with the requirements of section 17 of FIFRA, or for proper disposal. B. Use of Existing Stocks Use of existing stocks will not be lawful after December 7, 2009 in the **Federal Register** provided such use is in accordance with the provisions of the existing labeling of the product. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: November 20, 2007. Steven Bradbury, Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E7-23300 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0302; FRL-8341-2] Dichlorvos Petition Response; Notice of Availability AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's response to the petition dated June 2, 2006 submitted by the Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC)insofar as the petition seeks to have EPA cancel all registrations for dichlorvos (DDVP). EPA's response is available in the DDVP docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0302) at www.regulations.gov. Elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** , EPA is making available its response to the June 2, 2006 petition insofar as it seeks to have EPA revoke all tolerances for DDVP. Taken together, these documents form EPA's response to the petition. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Bartow, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)603-0065; fax number:
(703)308-8005; e-mail address: *bartow.susan@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: General Information How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. *Docket* . EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0302. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. 2. *Electronic access* . You may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides, Pests. Dated: November 28, 2007. Steven Bradbury, Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E7-23566 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0507; FRL-8154-6] Naphthalene Acetic Acid, its Salts, Ester, and Acetamide; Reregistration Eligibility Decision and Amendment for Low-Risk Pesticide; Notice of Availability AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's Reregistration Eligibility Decision
(RED)and Amendment for the pesticide naphthalene acetic acid, its salts, ester, and acetamide, and opens a public comment period on these documents, related risk assessments, and other support documents. EPA has reviewed the low-risk pesticide naphthalene acetic acid, its salts, ester, and acetamide (also referred to as naphthalene acetates or NAA) through a modified, streamlined version of the public participation process that the Agency uses to involve the public in developing pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment decisions. Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides meet current health and safety standards. DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 4, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0507, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0507. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark T. Howard, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)308-8172; fax number:
(703)308-8005; e-mail address: *howard.markt @epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? Under section 4 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is reevaluating existing pesticides to ensure that they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. Using a modified, streamlined version of its public participation process, EPA has completed a RED and an Amendment for the low-risk naphthalene acetate pesticides under section 4(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA. The naphthalene acetates are plant growth regulators that mimic the function of the naturally occurring plant growth hormone, auxin. They are mainly used on apple and pear trees but also have minor uses on crops such as olives and cherries. They are also used on a wide variety of ornamental plants, trees, and shrubs. In its various forms, NAA can stimulate root growth, thin excess fruit, and prevent premature fruit drop. EPA has determined that the database to support reregistration is substantially complete and that products containing naphthalene acetic acid, its salts, ester, and acetamide will be eligible for reregistration provided the risks are mitigated either in the manner described in the RED Amendment or by another means that achieves equivalent risk reduction. Upon submission of any required product specific data under section 4(g)(2)(B) of FIFRA and any necessary changes to the registration and labeling (either to address any concerns identified in the RED Amendment or as a result of product specific data), EPA will make a final reregistration decision under section 4(g)(2)(C) of FIFRA for products containing naphthalene acetates. With the May 26, 2004 RED signature, EPA concluded that the use of the naphthalene acetates would have no effect on any endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat from the uses currently registered based on its screening-level assessment. However, the Agency was informed that one very minor use, on olive trees as a chemical thinning agent, has an approved application rate higher than assessed in the RED. Based on screening-level ecological and occupational assessments of the higher use rate, calculated risk quotients
(RQs)for NAA use on olive trees then exceeded the level of concern for endangered species and one worker exposure scenario exceeds the occupational level of concern. The Agency performed a refined risk assessment with additional data, which allowed EPA to characterize the risks and determine that risks were at an acceptable level. The Agency is issuing an Amended RED for NAA, which reflects the refined occupational and ecological assessments. In addition, certain components of the document, which did not affect the final regulatory decision, were undergoing final editing at the time of the RED's signature. These components, including the list of additional generic data requirements, summary of labeling changes, appendices, and other relevant information, have been added to the naphthalene acetic acid, its salts, ester, and acetamide RED Amendment document. Subsequent to signature, EPA identified some minor errors and ambiguities in the original RED. Therefore, for the sake of accuracy, the Agency also has included the appropriate error corrections and clarifications to the RED Amendment. None of these additions or changes impacts the decisions described in the NAA RED or its Amendment. These changes are described in the preamble to the naphthalene acetic acid, its salts, ester, and acetamide RED Amendment. EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public Participation Process, published in the **Federal Register** on May 14, 2004, (69 FR 26819) (FRL-7357-9) explains that in conducting these programs, the Agency is tailoring its public participation process to be commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide. EPA can expeditiously reach decisions for pesticides like the naphthalene acetates, which pose few risk concerns, and require little risk mitigation. Once EPA assesses uses and risks for such low risk pesticides, the Agency may go directly to a decision and prepare a document summarizing its findings, such as the naphthalene acetic acid, its salts, ester, and acetamide RED and its Amendment. The reregistration program is being conducted under congressionally mandated timeframes, and EPA recognizes the need both to make timely decisions and to involve the public in finding ways to effectively mitigate pesticide risks. NAA, however, poses few risks that require mitigation. The Agency therefore is issuing the naphthalene acetic acid, its salts, ester, and acetamide RED and Amendment, its risk assessments, and related support materials simultaneously for public comment. The comment period is intended to provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any additional amendments to the RED. All comments should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES , and must be received by EPA on or before the closing date. These comments will become part of the Agency Docket for naphthalene acetic acid, its salts, ester, and acetamide. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. EPA will carefully consider all comments received by the closing date and will provide a Response to Comments Memorandum in the Docket and regulations.gov. If any comment significantly affects the document, EPA also will publish an amendment to the RED in the **Federal Register** . In the absence of substantive comments requiring changes, the naphthalene acetic acid, its salts, ester, and acetamide RED as amended will be implemented as it is now presented. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA, as amended, directs that, after submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, “the Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient are eligible for reregistration,” before calling in product specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering products or taking other “appropriate regulatory action.” List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, Naphthalene acetic acid, Naphthalene acetates, NAA. Dated: November 21, 2007. Steven Bradbury, Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E7-23306 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the **Federal Register** . Copies of agreements are available through the Commission's Office of Agreements (202-523-5793 or *tradeanalysis@fmc.gov* ). *Agreement No.:* 011223-041. *Title:* Transpacific Stabilization Agreement. *Parties:* American President Lines, Ltd.; APL Co. PTE Ltd.; CMA-CGM S.A.; COSCO Container Lines Co., Ltd.; Evergreen Line Joint Service Agreement; Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd.; Hapag-Lloyd AG; Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd.; Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.; Mediterranean Shipping Co.; Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd.; Nippon Yusen Kaisha; Orient Overseas Container Line Limited; and Yangming Marine Transport Corp., and Zim Integrated Shipping Services, Ltd. *Filing Party:* David F. Smith, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The amendment would add China Shipping Container Lines (Hong Kong) Co. Ltd., and China Shipping Container Lines Co. Ltd., operating as a single carrier, as a party to the agreement. *Agreement No.:* 011284-064. *Title:* Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association Agreement. *Parties:* APL Co. Pte. Ltd.; American President Lines, Ltd.; A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S; CMA CGM, S.A.; Atlantic Container Line; Companhia Libra de Navegacao; Compania Libra de Navegacion Uruguay S.A.; Compania Sudamericana de Vapores, S.A.; COSCO Container Lines Company Limited; Crowley Maritime Corporation; Evergreen Line Joint Service Agreement; Hamburg-Süd; Hapag-Lloyd AG; Hapag-Lloyd USA LLC; Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd.; Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. Ltd.; Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.; Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd.; Nippon Yusen Kaisha Line; Norasia Container Lines Limited; Orient Overseas Container Line Limited; Yang Ming Marine Transport Corp.; and Zim Integrated Shipping Services, Ltd. *Filing Party:* Jeffrey F. Lawrence, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The amendment would authorize the parties to negotiate, agree on, or jointly contract for insurance related to the operation of a chassis pool. The parties request expedited review. *Agreement No.:* 011707-006. *Title:* Gulf/South America Discussion Agreement. *Parties:* Associated Transport Line, LLC; BBC Chartering & Logistic GMBH & Co. KG; Industrial Maritime Carriers (U.S.A.) Inc.; and West Coast Industrial Express, LLC. *Filing Party:* Wade S. Hooker, Esq.; 211 Central Park W; New York, NY 10024. *Synopsis:* The amendment deletes Brazil from the geographic scope of the agreement. *Agreement No.:* 011962-003. *Title:* Consolidated Chassis Management Pool Agreement. *Parties:* The Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association and its member lines; the Association's subsidiary Consolidated Chassis Management LLC and its affiliates; China Shipping Container Lines Co., Ltd.; Companhia Libra de Navegacao; Compania Libra de Navegacion Uruguay; Matson Navigation Co.; Mediterranean Shipping Co., S.A. ; Norasia Container Lines Limited; Westwood Shipping Lines; and Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. *Filing Party:* Jeffrey F. Lawrence, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The amendment would authorize the parties to negotiate, agree on, or jointly contract for insurance related to the operation of a chassis pool. The parties request expedited review. *Agreement No.:* 012019-000. *Title:* APL/CMA CGM Central America/US East Coast Slot Charter Agreement. *Parties:* APL Co. Pte Ltd.; American President Lines, Ltd; and CMA CGM S.A. *Filing Party:* Eric C. Jeffrey; Goodwin Procter LLP; 901 New York Avenue, N.W.; Washington, DC 20001. *Synopsis:* The agreement authorizes APL to charter space to CMA CGM on certain vessels that APL operates in trade between Guatemala, Honduras and East Coast of the United States. *Agreement No.:* 012020-000. *Title:* CMA CGM/Maruba Central America to Port Everglades Space Charter Agreement. *Parties:* CMA CGM, S.A. and Maruba S.A. *Filing Party:* Paul M. Keane, Esq.; Cichanowicz, Callan, Keane, Vengrow & Textor, LLP; 61 Broadway Suite 3000; New York, NY 10006. *Synopsis:* The agreement authorizes CMA to charter space to Maruba in the trade between U.S. East Cost ports and ports in Central America. By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission. Dated: November 30, 2007. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-23583 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Revocations The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 515, effective on the corresponding date shown below: License Number: 020018NF. Name: D & F Holdings Dba Dfhu Worldwide Shipping. Address: 12511 Crenshaw Blvd., Hawthorne, CA 90250. Date Revoked: November 15, 2007. Reason: Failed To Maintain Valid Bonds. License Number: 001665F. Name: Debsar Corporation. Address: 2145 Edge Hill Road, Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006. Date Revoked: November 14, 2007. Reason: Failed To Maintain a Valid Bond. License Number: 003458F. Name: Dependable International Services & Transport, Inc. Address: 243 W. Causeway Approach, Mandeville, LA 70448. Date Revoked: November 14, 2007. Reason: Surrendered License Voluntarily. License Number: 017931N. Name: Houston Syrius USA, Inc. Dba Syrius USA, Inc. Address: 3027 Marina Drive, Suite 107, League City, TX 77573. Date Revoked: November 10, 2007. Reason: Failed To Maintain a Valid Bond. License Number: 018614F. Name: Jack Chiang Dba Continental Resource Company. Address: 2639 East Avenue, Hayward, CA 94541. Date Revoked: November 14, 2007. Reason: Failed To Maintain a Valid Bond. Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing. [FR Doc. E7-23597 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409 and 46 CFR part 515). Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573. Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicant Junkanoo Shipping, Inc., 3300 NW 112 Ave., Miami, FL 33172. *Officers:* Maria A. Urbina, Vice President (Qualifying Individual), Suresh Khilnani, President. Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder Transportation Intermediary Applicant Denmark Customs Broker, Inc., 2250 NW 114 Ave., Suite 100, Miami, FL 33172. *Officer:* Ramiro Mark Ramirez, Jr., Vice President (Qualifying Individual). Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicants Around The World Shipping, Inc., 6726 Reseda Blvd., Suite #A-10, Reseda, CA 91335. *Officers:* Oleg Shkoda, Vice President, (Qualifying Individual), Artak Agamalian, President. Anmi Logistic Group, Inc., 8534 NW 66 St., Miami, FL 33166. *Officers:* Laura B. Bezrutschko, President, (Qualifying Individual), Alejandro M. Arias, Secretary. America-WestAfrica Trade Link, Inc., 101 Muses Court, Cary, NC 27513. *Officers:* Romanus E. Ndianefo, CEO (Qualifying Individual), Lilian C. Ndianefo, Secretary. Roger Baum International Exports Inc., 1602 E 4th Ave., Tampa, FL 33605. *Officers:* Sharon P. Rogers, Owner, Kirsten E. Figueredo, Forwarding Agent (Qualifying Individuals). Dated: November 30, 2007. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-23584 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 *et seq.* ) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below. The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at *www.ffiec.gov/nic/* . Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 31, 2007. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond** (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528: *1. Select Bancorp, Inc., Greenville, North Carolina;* to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Select Bank and Trust Company, Greenville, North Carolina. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 30, 2007. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E7-23548 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225) to engage *de novo* , or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at *www.ffiec.gov/nic/* . Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 19, 2007. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York** (Anne MacEwen, Bank Applications Officer) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001: *1. Canandaigua National Corporation, Canandaigua, New York;* to acquire voting shares of Genesee Valley Trust Company, Pittsford, New York, and thereby engage in trust company activities pursuant to section 225.28(b)(5) of Regulation Y. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 30, 2007. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E7-23547 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Federal Open Market Committee; Domestic Policy Directive of October 30-31, 2007 In accordance with § 271.25 of its rules regarding availability of information (12 CFR part 271), there is set forth below the domestic policy directive issued by the Federal Open Market Committee at its meeting held on October 30-31, 2007. 1 1 Copies of the Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee meeting on October 30-31, which includes the domestic policy directive issued at the meeting, are available upon request to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C. 20551. The minutes are published in the Federal Reserve Bulletin and in the Board's annual report. The Federal Open Market Committee seeks monetary and financial conditions that will foster price stability and promote sustainable growth in output. To further its long-run objectives, the Committee in the immediate future seeks conditions in reserve markets consistent with reducing the federal funds rate at an average of around 4 1/2 percent. By order of the Federal Open Market Committee, November 26, 2007. Brian F. Madigan, Secretary, Federal Open Market Committee. [FR Doc. E7-23527 Field 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD Employee Thrift Advisory Council *Time and Date:* 10 a.m. (Eastern Time), December 19, 2007. *Place:* 4th Floor, Conference Room, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC. *Status:* Open. *Matters to be Considered:* 1. Approval of the minutes of the June 12, 2007 meeting. 2. Report of the Executive Director on Thrift Savings Plan Status. 3. Discussion of frequent trading. 4. Other proposals. 5. New business. *Contact Person for More Information:* Thomas K. Emswiler, Committee Management Officer,
(202)942-1660. Dated: November 30, 2007. Thomas K. Emswiler, General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. [FR Doc. 07-5947 Filed 11-30-07; 4:21 pm]
Connectionstraces to 18
Traces to 18 documents
25 references not yet in our index
  • 7 USC 1621-1627
  • 7 CFR 1.27(b)
  • 7 USC 71-87k
  • 5 CFR 1320
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 5 CFR 1320.8(d)
  • Pub. L. 106-554
  • 45 CFR 702.11
  • Pub. L. 103-419
  • 108 Stat. 4338
  • 5 CFR 1320.3(d)
  • 893 F.2d 337
  • 132 F. Supp. 2d 1
  • 688 F. Supp. 639
  • 865 F.2d 240
  • 492 U.S. 919
  • Pub. L. 89-651
  • Pub. L. 106-36
  • 15 CFR 301
  • Pub. L. 107-110
  • 34 CFR 5
  • 40 CFR 2
  • 46 CFR 515
  • 12 CFR 225
  • 12 CFR 271
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
U.S.C.§ 1621
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 901
U.S.C.§ 3502
U.S.C.§ 1975a
C.F.R.§ 351.204
C.F.R.§ 351.202
C.F.R.§ 351.408
C.F.R.§ 351.203
F. App'x893 F.2d 337
F. Supp.132 F. Supp. 2d 1
F. Supp.688 F. Supp. 639
Cites 43 · 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.