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 · 2007-12-10 · International Trade Administration (ITA) · Notices

Notices. Notice

36,846 words·~167 min read·/register/2007/12/10/07-6011

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

BILLING CODE 3510-DT-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Application for the President's “E” and “E STAR” Awards for Export Expansion AGENCY: International Trade Administration (ITA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before February 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Jennifer Kirsch, *Jennifer.Kirsch@mail.doc.gov,* phone
(202)482-5449, fax
(202)482-5362. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The President's “E” Award for Excellence in Exporting is our nation's highest award to honor American exporters. “E” Awards recognize firms and organizations for their competitive achievements in world markets, as well as the benefits of their success to the U.S. economy. The President's “E STAR” Award recognizes the sustained superior international marketing performance of “E” Award winners. II. Method of Collection The application form is available on the Internet. Applicants are required to submit one electronic version and one hard copy. III. Data *OMB Control Number:* 0625-0065. *Form Number(s):* ITA-725P. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 10. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 20 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 200. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $0. IV. Request for Comments *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: December 4, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-23848 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-FP-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-831] Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of the Twelfth Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) covering the period of review (“POR”) of November 1, 2005, through October 31, 2006. As discussed below, we preliminarily determine that certain respondents in this review made sales in the United States at prices below normal value (“NV”). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which importer-specific assessment rates are above *de minimis* . EFFECTIVE DATE: December 10, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Hancock, Michael Holton, or Matthew Renkey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1394,
(202)482-1324, and
(202)482-2312, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: General Background On November 16, 1994, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 59209 (November 16, 1994) (“ *Order* ”). On November 1, 2006, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC for the period November 1, 2005, through October 31, 2006. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 64240 (November 1, 2006). On November 30, 2006, we received requests from both Petitioners 1 and certain PRC companies to conduct administrative reviews for a total of 52 companies. On December 27, 2006, the Department initiated an administrative review of 52 2 producers/exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 77720 (December 27, 2006) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). 1 Petitioners are the members of the Fresh Garlic Producers Association: Christopher Ranch L.L.C.; The Garlic Company; Valley Garlic; and Vessey and Company, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Petitioners”). 2 Anqiu Friend Food Co., Ltd. (“Anqiu”); APS Qingdao; Fujian Meitan Import & Export Xiamen Corporation (“Fujian Meitan”); Golden Bridge International, Inc. (“Golden Bridge”); Henan Weite Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Henan Weite”); Heze Ever-Best International Trade Co., Ltd. (“Heze Ever-Best”); Hongchang Fruits & Vegetable Products (“Hongchang”); Huaiyang Hongda Dehydrated Vegetable Company (“Huaiyang Hongda”); Jinan Farmlady Trading Co., Ltd. (“Jinan Farmlady”); Jinan Yipin Corporation, Ltd. (“Jinan Yipin”); Jining Haijiang Trading Co., Ltd. (“Jining Haijiang”); Jining Solar Summit Trade Co., Ltd. (“Jining Solar”); Jining Trans-High Trading Co., Ltd. (“Jining Trans-High”); Jinxian County Huaguang Food Import & Export Co., Ltd. (“Jinxian County Huaguang”); Jinxiang Dong Yun Freezing Storage Co., Ltd. (aka Jinxiang Eastward Shipping Import and Export Limited Company) (“Jinxiang Dong Yun”); Jinxiang Shanyang Freezing Storage Co., Ltd. (“Jinxiang Shanyang”); Laiwu Hongyang Trading Company Ltd. (“Laiwu Hongyang”); Linshu Dading Private Agricultural Products Co., Ltd. (“Linshu Dading”); Omni Décor China Ltd. (“Omni”); Pizhou Guangda Import and Export Co., Ltd. (“Pizhou Guangda”); Qingdao Bedow Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao Bedow”); Qingdao Camel Trading Co., Ltd.; (“Qingdao Camel”); Qingdao H&T Food Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao H&T”); Qingdao Potenza Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao Potenza”); Qingdao Saturn International Trade Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao Saturn”); Qingdao Shiboliang Food Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao Shiboliang”); Qingdao Tiantaixing Foods Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao Tiantaixing”); Qingdao Titan Shipping LLC (“Qingdao Titan”); Qingdao Xintianfeng Foods (“Qingdao Xintianfeng”); Qufu Dongbao Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd. (“Qufu Dongbao”); Rizhao Xingda Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (“Rizhao Xingda”); Shandong Chengshun Farm Produce Trading Co., Ltd. (“Shandong Chengshun”); Shandong Dongsheng Eastsun Foods Co., Ltd. (“Shandong Dongsheng”); Shandong Garlic Company (“Shandong Garlic"); Shandong Longtai Fruits and Vegetables Co., Ltd. (“Shandong Longtai”); Shandong Wonderland Organic Food Co., Ltd. (“Shandong Wonderland”); Shanghai Ba-Shi Yuexin Logistics Development (“Shanghai Ba-Shi”); Shanghai Ever Rich Trade Company (“Shanghai Ever Rich”); Shanghai LJ International Trading Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai LJ”); Shanghai McCormick Foods Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai McCormick”); Shenzhen Fanhui Import & Export Co., Ltd. (“Shenzhen Fanhui”); Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Shenzhen Xinboda”); Sunny Import & Export Co., Ltd. (“Sunny”); T&S International, LLC (“T&S”); Taian Fook Huat Tong Kee Pte Ltd. (“Taian Fook Huat”); Taian Ziyang Food Co., Ltd. (“Taian Ziyang”); Weifang Hongqiao International Logistic Co., Ltd. (“Weifang Hongqiao”); Weifang Shennong Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (“Weifang Shennong”); Xiang Cheng Sunny Foodstuff Factory (“Xiang Cheng”); XuZhou Simple Garlic Industry Co., Ltd (“XuZhou Simple”); Zhangqiu Qingyuan Vegetable Co., Ltd. (“Zhangqiu Qingyuan”); and Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Ltd. (“Zhengzhou Harmoni”). On March 8, 2007, in accordance with section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations, we rescinded the administrative review with respect to nine companies. *See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of the Twelfth Administrative Review* , 72 FR 10491 (March 8, 2007) (“ *Rescission Notice* ”). Therefore, this review covers 43 3 producers/exporters of the subject merchandise and the PRC-wide entity. 3 Anqiu; APS Qingdao; Fujian Meitan; Golden Bridge; Henan Weite; Heze Ever-Best; Hongchang; Huaiyang Hongda; Jinan Farmlady; Jining Haijiang; Jining Solar; Jining Trans-High; Jinxian County Huaguang; Jinxiang Dong Yun; Jinxiang Shanyang; Laiwu Hongyang; Pizhou Guangda; Qingdao Bedow; Qingdao Camel; Qingdao H&T; Qingdao Potenza; Qingdao Saturn; Qingdao Shiboliang; Qingdao Tiantaixing; Qingdao Xintianfeng; Qufu Dongbao; Rizhao Xingda; Shandong Chengshun; Shandong Dongsheng; Shandong Garlic; Shandong Longtai; Shanghai Ba-Shi; Shanghai Ever Rich; Shanghai LJ; Shanghai McCormick; Shenzhen Fanhui; Sunny; T&S; Taian Ziyang; Weifang Shennong; Xiang Cheng; Zhangqiu Qingyuan; and Zhengzhou Harmoni. On August 2, 2007, the Department extended the preliminary results of this administrative review until November 30, 2007. *See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Twelfth Administrative Review* , 72 FR 42390 (August 2, 2007). Respondent Selection On January 23, 2007, the Department issued a quantity and value (“Q&V”) questionnaire to the 43 named firms that still had an active request for review. *See* Letter with Attachments from Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, to All Interested Parties, RE: Quantity and Value Questionnaire for Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China, (January 23, 2007) (“Q&V questionnaire”). Additionally, on January 23, 2007, Petitioners withdrew their request for review for nine named firms. 4 *See Rescission Notice* . Between February 2, 2007, and March 2, 2007, the Department received responses to the Q&V questionnaire from 23 firms. 5 4 Jinan Yipin; Lindshu Dading; Omni; Qingdao Titan; Shandong Wonderland; Shenzhen Xinboda; Taian Fook; Weifang Hongqiao; and Xuzhou Simple. 5 Jinxiang Dong Yun; Huaiyang Hongda; Shanghai LJ; Qufu Dong Bao; Weifang Shennong; Zhengzhou Harmoni; Sunny; Jinxiang Shanyang; Qingdao Xintianfeng; Shandong Longtai; Jining Trans-High; Shenzhen Fanhui; Taian Ziyang; Anqiu; Heze Ever-Best; Qingdao Saturn; Henan Weite; Qingdao Tiantaixing; Xiang Cheng (producer for Shanghai LJ); Shanghai Ever Rich; Xuzhou Simple; Shanghai McCormick; and Jinan Farmlady. In their responses, both Xuzhou Simple and Shanghai McCormick responses stated that they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Moreover, between March 13-14, 2007, the Department received revised Q&V questionnaire responses from the following 10 firms: Anqiu; Henan Weite; Jinan Farmlady; Jinxiang Dong Yun; Qingdao Tiantaixing; Qingdao Xintianfeng; Qufu Dongbao; Shanghai LJ; Taiyan Ziyang; and Weifang Shennong. On February 13, 2007, Qingdao Camel withdrew its request for an administrative review. 6 On February 14, 2007, the Department received a letter from Qingdao Camel stating that it would not be responding to the Q&V questionnaire. 6 However, Petitioners did not withdraw their request for a review of Qingdao Camel. On February 15, 2007, the Department issued a second Q&V questionnaire to the 20 firms 7 that did not respond to the Department's original Q&V questionnaire. *See* Letter with Attachments from Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, to All Interested Parties, RE: Second Quantity and Value Questionnaire for Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China, (February 15, 2007) (“Second Q&V Questionnaire”). 7 APS Qingdao; Fujian Meitan; Hongchang Fruits; Jining Haijiang; Jining Solar; Jinxian County Huaguang; Laiwu Hongyang; Pizhou Guangda; Qingdao Bedow; Qingdao H&T; Qingdao Potenza; Qingdao Shiboliang; Rizhao Xingda; Shandong Chengshun; Shandong Dongsheng; Shandong Garlic; Shanghai Ba-Shi; T&S; Golden Bridge; and Zhangqiu Qingyuan. Between February 16, 2007, and February 27, 2007, the Department received separate rate certifications from 18 firms 8 and between March 23 and 26, 2007, the Department received separate rate applications from 2 firms. 9 Additionally, between February 27, 2007, and March 2, 2007, the Department received responses from Zhangqiu Qingyuan and Golden Bridge that each company did not have shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 8 Jinxiang Dong Yun; Huaiyang Hongda; Shanghai LJ; Qufu Dong Bao; Weifang Shennong; Zhengzhou Harmoni; Sunny; Jinxiang Shanyang; Qingdao Xintianfeng; Shandong Longtai; Jining Trans-High; Shenzhen Fanhui; Taian Ziyang; Anqiu; Shanghai Ever Rich; Heze Ever-Best; Qingdao Saturn; and Henan Weite. 9 Qingdao Tiantaixing and Jinan Farmlady. As discussed below in “Preliminary Partial Rescission of the Administrative Review,” on March 16, 2007, the Department received letters from Petitioners and Zhengzhou Harmoni withdrawing their requests for review of Zhengzhou Harmoni and thus, the Department did not consider Zhengzhou Harmoni in the selection of respondents. On April 11, 2007, after receiving comments from interested parties, the Department selected Jinxiang Dong Yun, Huaiyang Hongda, and Shanghai LJ as the three mandatory respondents since they were the three largest exporters, by volume, of the remaining companies. *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, re: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Selection of Respondents, (April 11, 2007) (“Respondent Selection Memo”). There are 15 companies, based on withdrawals and appropriately submitted Q&V questionnaire responses, that were not selected as mandatory respondents, but which qualified for separate rates: Sunny; Qufu Dong Bao; Weifang Shennong; Jinxiang Shanyang; Qingdao Xintianfeng; Shandong Longtai; Jining Trans-High; Shenzhen Fanhui; Taian Ziyang; Anqiu; Shanghai Ever Rich; Heze Ever-Best; Qingdao Saturn; Henan Weite; and Jinan Farmlady (collectively known as the “separate rate companies”). Questionnaires There are 37 10 companies that remain in the administrative review, after the rescission of the reviews for Qingdao Tiantaixing, Zhengzhou Harmoni, Golden Bridge, Shanghai McCormick, and Zhangqiu Qingyuan, for these preliminary results, as discussed below in “Preliminary Partial Rescission of the Administrative Reviews.” 10 Anqiu; APS Qingdao; Fujian Meitan; Henan Weite; Hongchang; Huaiyang Hongda; Jinan Farmlady; Jining Haijiang; Jining Solar; Jining Trans-High; Jinxian County Huaguang; Jinxiang Dong Yun; Jinxiang Shanyang; Laiwu Hongyang; Pizhou Guangda; Qingdao Bedow; Qingdao Camel; Qingdao H&T; Qingdao Potenza; Qingdao Saturn; Qingdao Shiboliang; Qingdao Xintianfeng; Qufu Dongbao; Rizhao Xingda; Shandong Chengshun; Shandong Dongsheng; Shandong Garlic; Shandong Longtai; Shanghai Ba-Shi; Shanghai Ever Rich; Shanghai LJ; Shenzhen Fanhui; Sunny; T&S; Taian Ziyang; Weifang Shennong; and Xiang Cheng. On April 16, 2007, the Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to Jinxiang Dong Yun, Huaiyang Hongda, and Shanghai LJ. Between May 14, 2007, and June 4, 2007, Huaiyang Hongda responded to the Department's non-market economy (“NME”) questionnaire but did not respond to the Department's subsequent supplemental questionnaires. Between May 21, 2007, and November 15, 2007, Shanghai LJ responded to the Department's NME questionnaire and subsequent supplemental questionnaires. Between May 21, 2007, and November 13, 2007, Jinxiang Dong Yun responded to the Department's NME questionnaire and subsequent supplemental questionnaires. Between May 7, 2007, and May 23, 2007, Qingdao Saturn submitted voluntary responses to the Department's NME questionnaire. Preliminary Partial Rescission of the Administrative Review On March 22, 2007, Petitioners requested that the Department extend the deadline for the withdrawal of review requests. On March 27, 2007, the Department extended the deadline to withdraw a request for review to July 11, 2007. Qingdao Tiantaixing On July 9, 2007, Qingdao Tiantaixing withdrew its request for an administrative review. No other party requested a review of Qingdao Tiantaixing. Therefore, because Qingdao Tiantaixing's request was timely, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we have rescinded this review with respect to Qingdao Tiantaixing. Qingdao Xintianfeng On February 6, 2007, Qingdao Xintianfeng withdrew its request for an administrative review. Nonetheless, as previously noted, on February 22, 2007, Qingdao Xintianfeng submitted both a Q&V questionnaire response and a separate rate certification. On July 25, 2007, which was 14 days after the withdrawal deadline, Petitioners submitted a letter withdrawing their request for an administrative review of Qingdao Xintianfeng. On July 31, 2007, Qingdao Xintianfeng submitted a letter stating that due to its cooperative efforts it wished to remain an active respondent in this administrative review. On August 22, 2007, the Department issued a letter stating that it extended the time limit for withdrawing a request for review by 20 days to July 31, 2007. However, the Department also requested that Qingdao Xintianfeng submit a letter clarifying whether its July 31, 2007, letter, was in fact a retraction of its February 6, 2007, withdrawal of its review request. On August 24, 2007, Qingdao Xintianfeng submitted a letter stating that it was retracting its February 6, 2007, withdrawal request and wished to remain an active respondent in this administrative review. Therefore, because Qingdao Xintianfeng still has an active request for a review, we have not rescinded this review with respect to Qingdao Xintianfeng. Zhengzhou Harmoni On March 16, 2007, the Department received letters from Petitioners and Zhengzhou Harmoni withdrawing their requests for review of Zhengzhou Harmoni. Therefore, because Petitioners' and Zhenghzhou Harmoni's requests were timely, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we have rescinded this review with respect to Zhengzhou Harmoni. No-Shipment Companies Three companies, Golden Bridge, Shanghai McCormick, and Zhangqiu Qingyuan, reported in their Q&V questionnaire responses that they made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Additionally, the Department's examination of shipment data from CBP for these 3 companies confirmed that there were no entries of subject merchandise from them during the POR. Consequently, because there is no evidence on the record to indicate that these three companies had sales of subject merchandise under this Order during the POR, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department is preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to these three respondents: Golden Bridge, Shanghai McCormick, and Zhangqiu Qingyuan. Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values On June 7, 2007, the Department sent interested parties a letter requesting comments on the surrogate country and information pertaining to valuing factors of production. On August 2, 2007, September 20, 2007, and October 31, 2007, Petitioners submitted surrogate value comments from various Indian sources. No other interested party submitted comments on the surrogate country and information pertaining to valuing factors of production. Scope of the Order The products covered by this *Order* are all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay. The scope of this order does not include the following:
(a)garlic that has been mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; or
(b)garlic that has been specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed. The subject merchandise is used principally as a food product and for seasoning. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. In order to be excluded from the Order, garlic entered under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is
(1)mechanically harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use or
(2)specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by declarations to CBP to that effect. Adverse Facts Available (“AFA”) Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), provides that, if an interested party:
(A)withholds information that has been requested by the Department;
(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and
(e)of the Act;
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party “promptly after receiving a request from {the Department} for information, notifies {the Department} that such party is unable to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner, together with a full explanation and suggested alternative forms in which such party is able to submit the information,” the Department may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on that party. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If that person submits further information that continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not decline to consider information deemed “deficient” under section 782(d) if:
(1)the information is submitted by the established deadline;
(2)the information can be verified;
(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;
(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information and meeting the requirements established by the Department; and
(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department “finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority or the Commission, the administering authority or the Commission ..., in reaching the applicable determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.” *See also* Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994). Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See id* . An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on the record. *See* section 776(b) of the Act. Huaiyang Hongda As discussed in the “General Background” section above, Huaiyang Hongda did not respond to the supplemental questionnaires issued by the Department on August 10, 2007, and August 22, 2007. The deadline for Huaiyang Hongda to file a response to the supplemental Section A questionnaire and the supplemental Sections C and D questionnaire were August 24, 2007, and September 4, 2007, respectively. Huaiyang Hongda failed to respond to either of these supplemental questionnaires. Additionally, the Department issued letters to Huaiyang Hongda on August 24, 2007, and September 13, 2007, and confirmed delivery for both letters. In both letters, the Department noted that responses to its supplemental questionnaires were past due and requested that Huaiyang Hongda notify the Department whether it intended to participate further in this administrative review. Huaiyang Hongda did not respond to either of these letters. Therefore, the Department finds that Huaiyang Hongda's non-responsiveness necessitates the use of facts available, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A),
(B)and
(C)of the Act. Based upon Huaiyang Hongda's failure to submit responses to the Department's supplemental questionnaires and follow-up letters, the Department finds that Huaiyang Hongda withheld requested information, failed to provide the information in a timely manner and in the form requested, and significantly impeded this proceeding, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A),
(B)and
(C)of the Act. Because Huaiyang Hongda failed to provide a response to the Department's supplemental questionnaires, critical data relevant to its separate rate determination remains outstanding. Therefore, the Department was prevented from conducting a complete separate rate analysis. Additionally, Huaiyang Hongda's failure to provide a response to the Department's supplemental questionnaires means that critical information necessary to calculate an antidumping margin for Huaiyang Hongda is absent from the record. Therefore, Huaiyang Hongda withheld requested information, failed to provide the information in a timely manner and in the form requested, and has significantly impeded this proceeding. Thus, the Department has no choice but to rely on the facts otherwise available in order to determine a margin for Huaiyang Hongda, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A),
(B)and
(C)of the Act. *See Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 69546 (December 1, 2006) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. For these preliminary results, the Department finds that Huaiyang Hongda has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Specifically, the Department finds that Huaiyang Hongda did not respond to the Department's request for clarification on certain issues, including its separate rate information and reported sales and cost information, as requested in the Department's supplemental questionnaires. *See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States* , 337 F. 3d 1373, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“ *Nippon Steel* ”). Because Huaiyang Hongda refused to answer the Department's supplemental questionnaires and letters, the Department finds that Huaiyang Hongda has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. Because of Huaiyang Hongda's refusal to cooperate in the instant proceeding, the Department was unable to calculate a company-specific margin or even to determine Huaiyang Hongda's separate rate status. Thus, the Department could not determine whether Huaiyang Hongda is eligible for a separate rate. Accordingly, we are not granting Huaiyang Hongda a separate rate and consider Hongda to be part of the PRC-wide entity, subject to the PRC-wide rate. 19 Companies As mentioned in the “General Background” section above, the Department initiated this administrative review with respect to 52 companies, including among them APS Qingdao, Fujian Meitan, Hongchang, Jining Haijiang, Jining Solar, Jinxian County Huaguang, Laiwu Hongyang, Pizhou Guangda, Qingdao Bedow, Qingdao Camel, Qingdao H&T, Qingdao Potenza, Qingdao Shiboliang, Rizhao Xingda, Shandong Chengshun, Shandong Dongsheng, Shandong Garlic, Shanghai Ba-Shi, and T&S (collectively referred to as the “19 Companies”). *See Initiation Notice* . On January 23, 2007, the Department rescinded, in part, the review on nine of the 52 companies, but noted that 43 companies, including the 19 Companies, were still subject to review. *See Rescission Notice* . Additionally, on January 23, 2007, and on February 15, 2007, the Department issued a Q&V questionnaire and a Second Q&V questionnaire to the 19 companies. None of the 19 Companies responded to the Department's Q&V questionnaire, nor did these 19 Companies respond to the Department's Second Q&V questionnaire. Because these 19 Companies were non-responsive to the Department's two requests for Q&V information, the Department finds that they are not entitled to a separate rate. Additionally, by not responding to the Department's first or second Q&V questionnaire, each company failed to provide critical information to be used for the Department's respondent selection process. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A),
(B)and
(C)of the Act, the Department finds that the application of facts available is appropriate. In addition, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department may apply adverse facts available if it finds a respondent has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the Department. By failing to respond to the Department's first and second Q&V questionnaire, these 19 Companies have failed to act to the best of their ability in this segment of the proceeding. Moreover, because these 19 Companies did not participate in the respondent selection exercise, the Department did not send them a questionnaire and was unable to determine whether or not they qualified for a separate rate. Therefore, these 19 Companies are not eligible to receive a separate rate and will be part of the PRC-wide entity, subject to the PRC-wide rate. PRC-wide Entity Because Huaiyang Hongda and the 19 Companies, which are part of the PRC-wide entity, failed to cooperate to the best of their ability in providing the requested information, as discussed above, we find it appropriate, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A),
(B)and (C), as well as section 776(b), of the Act, to assign total AFA to the PRC-wide entity. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review and New Shipper Review* , 72 FR 10689, 10692 (March 9, 2007) (decision to apply total AFA to the NME-wide entity was unchanged for the final results). By doing so, we ensure that the companies that are part of the PRC-wide entity will not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had they cooperated fully in this review. As discussed above, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use, as AFA, information derived from the petition, the final determination in the LTFV investigation, any previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. Section 776(b)(4) of the Act permits the Department to use as AFA information derived in the LTFV investigation or any prior review. In selecting an AFA rate, the Department's practice has been to assign non-cooperative Respondents the highest margin determined for any party in the less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation or in any administrative review. *See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 67 FR 5789 (February 7, 2002). As AFA, we are assigning the PRC-wide entity, which includes Huaiyang Hongda and the 19 Companies, the highest rate from any segment of this proceeding, which in this case is 376.67 percent assigned to the PRC-wide entity in the LTFV investigation. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 49058, 49060 (September 26, 1994) (“ *Garlic LTFV Final Determination* ”). Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts available. Secondary information is defined as “information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See* SAA accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994); *see also* 19 CFR 351.308(d). The SAA further provides that the term “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* SAA at 870. Thus, to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. The AFA rate we are applying for the current review of fresh garlic was corroborated in the LTFV investigation. *See Garlic LTFV Final Determination* , 59 FR at 49060. No information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of the information used for this AFA rate. Thus, the Department finds that the information is reliable. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in *Flowers from Mexico* , the Department did not use the highest margin in the proceeding as best information available (the predecessor to facts available) because that margin was based on another company's aberrational business expenses and was unusually high. *See Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (“ *Flowers from Mexico* ”). In other cases, the Department has not used the highest rate in any segment of the proceeding as the AFA rate because the highest rate was subsequently discredited, or the facts did not support its use. *See D&L Supply Co. v. United States* , 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). None of these unusual circumstances are present with respect to the rate being used here. Moreover, the rate selected, ( *i.e.* , 376.67 percent), is the rate currently applicable to the PRC-wide entity. The Department assumes that if an uncooperative respondent could have obtained a lower rate, it would have cooperated. *See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. V. United States* , 899 F. 2d 1185, 1190-91 (Fed. Cir. 1990); *Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. V. United States* , 24 CIT 841, 848
(2000)(respondents should not benefit from failure to cooperate). As there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriate to use as AFA in the current review, we determine that this rate has relevance. As this rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value, and is thus in accordance with section 776(c)'s requirement that secondary information be corroborated to the extent practicable ( *i.e.* , that it has probative value). Voluntary Respondents Section 782(a) of the Act provides that the Department, in any investigation under subtitle A or B or a review under section 751(a) in which the administering authority has, under section 777A(c)(2), limited the number of exporters or producers examined, or determined a single country-wide rate, the administering authority shall establish an individual weighted- average dumping margin for any exporter or producer not initially selected for individual examination under such sections who submits to the administering authority the information requested from exporters or producers selected for examination, if
(1)such information is so submitted by the date specified for exporters and producers that were initially selected for examination; and
(2)the number of exporters or producers who have submitted such information is not so large that individual examination of such exporters or producers would be unduly burdensome and inhibit the timely completion of the investigation. Qingdao Saturn As discussed in the “General Background” section above, between May 7 and 23, 2007, Qingdao Saturn submitted voluntary responses to the Department's NME questionnaire. In Qingdao Saturn's questionnaire responses, Qingdao Saturn requested that the Department calculate an individual weighted-average dumping margin for Qingdao Saturn, pursuant to section 782(a) of the Act. Additionally, between October 2 and 15, 2007, Qingdao Saturn requested that the Department calculate an individual weighted-average dumping margin for Qingdao Saturn, pursuant to section 782(a) of the Act, arguing that the Department has the resources and time to review Qingdao Saturn as a voluntary respondent due to Huaiyang Hongda's lack of participation in this proceeding. Moreover, on October 9, 2007, Petitioners submitted comments requesting that the Department not review Qingdao Saturn as a voluntary respondent, pursuant to section 782(a) of the Act, because Department does not have the additional resources to consider Qingdao Saturn's data so late in the proceeding. Furthermore, in their comments, Petitioners stated that the Department has not yet determined how it will treat Huaiyang Hongda in the preliminary results. For these preliminary results, the Department has not examined any of the submissions by Qingdao Saturn because of the Department's resource constraints and the Department's decision to only review three exporters. Although Qingdao Saturn is correct that Huaiyang Hongda has not responded to the Department's supplemental questionnaires, as discussed above in the “Huaiyang Hongda” section, the Department has not received communication from Huaiyang Hongda that it is not going to participate as an active respondent in this proceeding. In certain circumstances, the Department has determined to review a voluntary respondent because
(1)another respondent notified the Department that it was not going to participate; and
(2)reviewing this voluntary respondent would not be unduly burdensome, given time and resource constraints. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results and Rescission, in Part, 2004/2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews* , 72 FR 52049 (September 12, 2007) and accompany Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 15; *see also Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2006 Administrative Review and Preliminary Intent to Rescind 2004/2006 New Shipper Review* , 72 FR 10645, 10647, and 10655 (March 9, 2007). However, in this proceeding, although Huaiyang Hongda has chosen to not respond to the Department's supplemental questionnaires, Huaiyang Hongda is still under review. Thus, the Department has devoted time and resources to the consideration of Huaiyang Hongda for these preliminary results. Additionally, the Department finds that, while Qingdao Saturn is correct that the Department can choose to review a voluntary respondent, section 782(a)(2) of the Act provides that the Department may do so if reviewing such an exporter or producer is not “unduly burdensome and inhibit the timely completion of the investigation.” However, the Department finds that, given the limited amount of time remaining after Huaiyang Hongda stopped responding to the Department's questionnaires, the Department did not have an adequate amount of time to examine Qingdao Saturn's responses for these preliminary results. The Department notes that the analysis of initial questionnaire responses makes up only a limited portion of the work performed with respect to any given respondent. The Department frequently issues supplemental questionnaires, collects surrogate value data for the factors of production (“FOPs”) used by each individual respondent, identifies and resolves any issues with respect to such data, and calculates a separate margin for each company. * See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers from the People's Republic of China * , 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Each of these activities requires the expenditure of significant resources. Given the limited amount of time available, the Department lacks the resources to analyze Qingdao Saturn as a voluntary respondent for these preliminary results, pursuant to section 782(a) of the Act. Moreover, in addition to the caseload identified in the Respondent Selection Memo as a factor to limit the number of respondents, the office responsible for this proceeding, AD/CVD Operations Office 9, is responsible for conducting five new antidumping investigations initiated subsequent to the selection of respondents in this review. Thus, it does not have significant additional resources to apply to Qingdao Saturn. NME Country Status In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as an NME country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper Review* , 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 2006). None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries. Separate Rate Determinations A designation as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. *See* section 771(18)(C) of the Act. Accordingly, there is a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the PRC are subject to government control and, thus, should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 53079 (September 8, 2006); *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006). It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject to review in NME countries a single rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law ( *de jure* ) and in fact ( *de facto* ), with respect to exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country under the test established in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ *Sparklers* ”), as amplified by *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ *Silicon Carbide* ”). A. Absence of De Jure Control The Department considers the following *de jure* criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate:
(1)an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;
(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and
(3)any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *See Sparklers* , 56 FR at 20589. Throughout the course of this administrative review, only two of the mandatory respondents, Jinxiang Dong Yun and Shanghai LJ, have placed sufficient evidence on the record that demonstrate absence of *de jure* control. Additionally, all of the separate rate companies have placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate absence of *de jure* control including the “Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China” and the “Administrative Regulations of the People's Republic of China Governing the Registration of Legal Corporations.” The Department has analyzed such PRC laws and has found that they establish an absence of *de jure* control. *See Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 30695, 30696 (June 7, 2001). We have no information in this proceeding that would cause us to reconsider this determination. Thus, we believe that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of an absence of *de jure* government control based on:
(1)an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the exporter's business license;
(2)the legal authority on the record decentralizing control over the respondent, as demonstrated by the PRC laws placed on the record of this review; and
(3)other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 11 11 This preliminary finding applies to
(1)two of the selected respondents of this administrative review: Jinxiang Dong Yun and Shanghai LJ; and
(2)the separate rate companies of this administrative review: Sunny; Qufu Dong Bao; Weifang Shennong; Jinxiang Shanyang; Qingdao Xintianfeng; Shandong Longtai; Jining Trans-High; Shenzhen Fanhui; Taian Ziyang; Anqiu; Shanghai Ever Rich; Heze Ever-Best; Qingdao Saturn; Henan Weite; and Jinan Farmlady. B. Absence of De Facto Control As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China* , 63 FR 72255 (December 31, 1998). Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of *de facto* control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to *de facto* government control of its export functions:
(1)whether the exporter sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority;
(2)whether the respondent has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts, and other agreements;
(3)whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of its management; and
(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. *See Silicon Carbide* , 59 FR at 22587; *Sparklers* , 56 FR at 20589. The Department conducted a separate rates analysis for
(1)two of the mandatory respondents chosen for an administrative review: Jinxiang Dong Yun and Shanghai LJ; and
(2)the separate rate companies upon which an administrative review was requested but which were not chosen as mandatory respondents. These companies have all asserted the following:
(1)there is no government participation in setting export prices;
(2)sales managers and authorized employees have the authority to create binding sales contracts;
(3)they do not have to notify any government authorities of management selections;
(4)there are no restrictions on the use of export revenue; and
(5)each is responsible for financing its own losses. The questionnaire responses of two of the mandatory respondents, Jinxiang Dong Yun and Shanghai LJ, and the separate rate companies do not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters. During our analysis of the information on the record, we found no information indicating the existence of government control of export activities. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that Jinxiang Dong Yun, Shanghai LJ, and the separate rate companies have met the criteria for the application of a separate rate. However, as discussed previously, the Department is not granting one of the mandatory respondents, Huaiyang Hongda, a separate rate because Huaiyang Hongda failed to respond to the supplemental questionnaire issued by the Department that contained several questions regarding Huaiyang Hongda's eligibility for a separate rate. As a result, we cannot confirm or verify the separate rate information that Huaiyang Hongda submitted in its questionnaire responses. Surrogate Country When the Department investigates imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most circumstances, on the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a surrogate market economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market economy countries that are:
(1)at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and
(2)significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the “Normal Value” section below and in the Memorandum to the File through James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9 and Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9 from Julia Hancock, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9: Surrogate Factor Valuations for the Preliminary Results of the 12th Administrative Review (November 30, 2007) (“Surrogate Values Memo”). As discussed in the “NME Country Status” section, the Department considers the PRC to be an NME country. The Department determined that India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. *See* Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, China/NME Group, Office 9: Antidumping Administrative Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries (June 1, 2007) (“Surrogate Country List”). Moreover, it is the Department's practice to select an appropriate surrogate country based on the availability and reliability of data from the countries. *See* Department Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004) (“Policy Bulletin”). In this case, the Department has found that India and Egypt are both significant producers of comparable merchandise. The Department finds India to be a reliable source for surrogate values because India is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and has publically available and reliable data. Furthermore, the Department notes that India has been the primary surrogate country in past segments, and the only surrogate value data based submitted on the record are from Indian sources. Given the above facts, the Department has selected India as the primary surrogate country for this review. *See* Memorandum to the File, through James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, Import Administration, and Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Julia Hancock, Senior Case Analyst, Subject: 12th Administrative Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country (November 30, 2007) (“Surrogate Country Memo”). U.S. Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we calculated the export price (“EP”) for sales to the United States for Jinxiang Dong Yun and Shanghai LJ because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made before the date of importation and the use of constructed EP (“CEP”) was not otherwise warranted. We calculated EP based on the price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, we deducted from the starting price to unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland freight, brokerage and handling, and marine insurance. For Jinxiang Dong Yun and Shanghai LJ, each of these services was either provided by an NME vendor or paid for using an NME currency. Thus, we based the deduction of these movement charges on surrogate values. *See* Surrogate Values Memo for details regarding the surrogate values for movement expenses. Additionally, Jinxiang Dong Yun reported that its international freight was provided by a market economy carrier and paid in U.S. dollars, so we used the actual cost per kilogram of the freight. Moreover, Jinxiang Dong Yun reported certain U.S. Customs and other expenses that must be deducted from the starting price to unaffiliated purchasers. Accordingly, we will deduct these expenses from the starting price to unaffiliated purchasers, as reported by Jinxiang Dong Yun. *See* Memorandum to the File, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Michael Holton, Senior Analyst, Office 9; Company Analysis Memorandum in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”): Jinxiang Dong Yun (November 30, 2007). Normal Value 1. Methodology Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department calculates NV using each of the FOPs that a respondent consumes in the production of a unit of the subject merchandise because the presence of government controls on various aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies. However, there are circumstances in which the Department will modify its standard FOP methodology, choosing to apply a surrogate value to an intermediate input instead of the individual FOPs used to produce that intermediate input. In some cases, a respondent may report factors used to produce an intermediate input that accounts for an insignificant share of total output. When the potential increase in accuracy to the overall calculation that results from valuing each of the FOPs is outweighed by the resources, time, and burden such an analysis would place on all parties to the proceeding, the Department has valued the intermediate input directly using a surrogate value. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China* , 68 FR 47538 (August 11, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 (“ *PVA* ”) (citing to *Final Results of First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001)). In the *9th Review Final Results* , the Department recognized that there were serious discrepancies between the reported FOPs of the different respondents and that the standard FOP methodology might not be adequate to apply in future reviews. 12 In the 10th administrative review, the Department conducted a “harvest verification” of several garlic producers in the PRC, interviewing farmers, studying farming techniques, and reviewing standard PRC garlic production record-keeping. 13 In analyzing the questionnaire responses and “harvest verification” reports in the 10th administrative review, the Department determined that, to capture the complete costs of producing fresh garlic, the methodology of valuing the intermediate product, the fresh garlic bulb, would more accurately capture the complete costs of producing subject merchandise. 14 In the two previous administrative reviews, the Department also stated that “should a respondent be able to provide sufficient factual evidence that it maintains the necessary information in its internal books and records that would allow us to establish the completeness and accuracy of the reported FOPs, we will revisit this issue and consider whether to use its reported FOPs in the calculation of NV.” *10th Review Final Results* , 71 FR at 26331; *Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Partial Rescission and Preliminary Results of the Eleventh Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews* , 71 FR 71510, 71520 (December 11, 2006). 12 *See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 34082 (June 13, 2005) (“ *9th Review Final Results* ”). 13 *See* Memorandum to the File from Matthew Renkey, Senior Case Analyst; 12th Administrative Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Intermediate Input Methodology Memoranda from the 10th Administrative Review Final Results and 11th Administrative Review Preliminary Results, (November 30, 2007), in which the Department placed the Intermediate Input Methodology memos from the tenth and eleventh Administrative Reviews on the record of this proceeding, inclusive of the verification reports resulting from the “harvest verification.” 14 *See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Results of New Shipper Reviews* , 71 FR 26329 (May 4, 2006) (“10th Review Final Results”), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. In the course of this review, the Department has requested and obtained a vast amount of detailed information from the respondents with respect to each company's garlic production practices. However, based on our analysis of the information on the record and for the reasons outlined in the Memorandum to the File through James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9 and Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9 from Matthew Renkey, Senior Case Analyst, and Michael Holton, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9: 12th Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Intermediate Input Methodology (November 30, 2007) (“Intermediate Product Memo”), we continue to believe that the respondents were unable to accurately record and substantiate the complete costs of growing garlic during the POR. Thus, in the preliminary results for this administrative review, in order to eliminate the distortions in our calculation of NV, for all of the reasons identified above and described in the Intermediate Product Memo, the Department applied an “intermediate-product valuation methodology” to the 2 mandatory companies, Jinxiang Dong Yun and Shanghai LJ, for which we are calculating an antidumping duty margin in these preliminary results. Using this methodology, the Department calculated NV by starting with a surrogate value for the garlic bulb ( *i.e.* , the “intermediate product”), adjusted for yield losses during the processing stages, and adding the respondents' processing costs, which were calculated using their reported usage rates for processing fresh garlic. For a complete explanation of the Department's analysis, and for a more detailed analysis of these issues with respect to each respondent, see the Intermediate Product Memo. 2. Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department calculated NV based on the intermediate product value and processing FOPs reported by the respondents for the POR. To calculate NV, the Department multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by publicly available surrogate values in India with the exception of the surrogate value for ocean freight, which we obtained from an international freight company. In selecting the surrogate values, the Department considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, the Department adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. The Department calculated these freight costs based on the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the port in accordance with the decision in *Sigma Corporation v. United States* , 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“ *Sigma* ”). The Department made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sale(s) as certified by the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank. Garlic Bulb Value In applying the intermediate input methodology, the Department sought foremost to identify the best available surrogate value for the fresh garlic bulb input to production, as opposed to identifying a surrogate value for garlic seed. Therefore, the Department has valued the fresh garlic bulb using prices for the size ranges of “A” and “super-A” grade garlic bulb in India, as published by Azadpur Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (“APMC”) in its “Market Information Bulletin” (the “Bulletin”). Azadpur APMC is the largest fruit and vegetable market in Asia and has become a “National Distribution Centre” for important Indian agricultural products such as garlic. The Bulletin is published by the Azadpur APMC on each trading day and contains, among other things, a list of all fruits and vegetables sold on the previous trading day, the amount (by weight) of each fruit or vegetable sold on that day, and a low, high and modal price for each commodity sold. The Department notes that the “A” grade garlic typically ranges from 40 - 55 millimeters (“mm”) in diameter, and the “super-A” grade garlic ranges 40 mm and above in diameter. *See* Petitioners' Second Surrogate Value Submission, (September 20, 2007) at Attachment 1; Petitioners' First Surrogate Value Submission, (August 2, 2007) at Exhibits 4-5. As the Department determined in past reviews, the price at which garlic is sold is heavily dependent upon physical characteristics, such as bulb size and number of cloves. *See 9th Review Final Results* , 70 FR 34082 at Comment 2; 10th Review Final Results, 71 FR 26329 at Comment 2. Accordingly, the Department finds that it is important to use surrogate Indian garlic values reflecting sales of garlic bulbs of similar diameter to that of Jinxiang Dong Yun's and Shanghai LJ's merchandise during the POR. Therefore, for these preliminary results, the Department finds that the “A” grade and “super-A” grade garlic data from Azadpur APMC are the best available and most appropriate information on the record to value the garlic bulb input, pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act, for the reasons stated below. The Department has found that the data from Azadpur APMC satisfy the Department's surrogate value selection criteria. *See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Eleventh Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews* , 72 FR 34438, 34440 (June 22, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Because the Department is able to determine the size of “A” and “super-A” grade garlic and Jinxiang Dong Yun and Shanghai LJ provided the size of the garlic bulb, the Department is calculating the surrogate value for the garlic bulb using a simple average of the Azadpur data for “A” and “super-A” grade garlic for Jinxiang Dong Yun and Shanghai LJ. For further discussion of the Department's calculation for the surrogate value for the garlic bulb, as well as other surrogate values used, *see* the Surrogate Values Memo. Preliminary Results of the Reviews The Department has determined that the following preliminary dumping margins exist for the period November 1, 2005, through October 31, 2006: Fresh Garlic from the PRC Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Shanghai LJ International Trading Co., Ltd. 35.05 Jinxiang Dong Yun Freezing Storage Co., Ltd. 23.21 Qufu Dongbao Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd. 27.49 Weifang Shennong Foodstuff Co., Ltd. 27.49 Jinxiang Shanyang Freezing Storage Co., Ltd. 27.49 Qingdao Xintianfeng Foods 27.49 Shandong Longtai Fruits and Vegetables Co., Ltd. 27.49 Jining Trans-High Trading Co., Ltd. 27.49 Shenzhen Fanhui Import & Export Co., Ltd. 27.49 Taian Ziyang Food Co., Ltd. 27.49 Anqiu Friend Food Co., Ltd. 27.49 Shanghai Ever Rich Trade Company 27.49 Heze Ever-Best International Trade Co., Ltd. 27.49 Qingdao Saturn International Trade Co., Ltd. 27.49 Sunny Import & Export Co., Ltd. 27.49 Henan Weite Industrial Co., Ltd. 27.49 Jinan Farmlady Trading Co., Ltd. 27.49 PRC-wide Rate 15 376.67 15 The PRC-Wide entity includes Huaiyang Hongda, APS Qingdao, Fujian Meitan, Hongchang, Jining Haijiang, Jining Solar, Jinxian County Huaguang, Laiwu Hongyang, Pizhou Guangda, Qingdao Bedow, Qingdao Camel, Qingdao H&T, Qingdao Potenza, Qingdao Shiboliang, Rizhao Xingda, Shandong Chengshun, Shandong Dongsheng, Shandong Garlic, Shanghai Ba-Shi, and T&S. The Department will disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. Interested parties must provide the Department with supporting documentation for the publicly available information to value each FOP. Additionally, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted by an interested party less than ten days before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. The Department generally cannot accept the submission of additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). *See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part* , 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). The Department urges interested parties to provide an executive summary of each argument contained within the case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the following information:
(1)The party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2)the number of participants; and
(3)a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If we receive a request for a hearing, we plan to hold the hearing seven days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific (or customer) *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above *de minimis* . For Qingdao Tiantaixing, Zhengzhou Harmoni, Golden Bridge, Shanghai McCormick, and Zhangqiu Qingyuan, companies for which this review is preliminarily rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(2). Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of the administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)for the exporters listed above, the cash-deposit rate will be that established in these final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or *de minimis* , no cash deposit will be required);
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above that have separate rates, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise, which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 376.67 percent; and
(4)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review, and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4). Dated: November 30, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-23891 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-475-818] Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: *Effective Date:* December 10, 2007. SUMMARY: In response to requests for administrative review received on July 31, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy covering the period July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007. 1 As a result of timely withdrawals of request for review, we are rescinding this review, in part, with respect to Valdigrano Di Flavio Pagani SrL (Valdigrano), Industria Alimentare Colavita, S.p.A. (Indalco) Atar S.r.L. (Atar), Rummo S.P.A. Molina E Pastificio (Rummo), Pastificio Pagani S.p.A. (Pagani), Pastificio Carmine Russo and Pastificio Russo di Cicciano (collectively, Russo), and Domenico Paone fu Erasmo S.p.A. (Domenico). 1 *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation,* 72 FR 48613, 48614 (August 24, 2007) ( *Initiation Notice* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Hargett, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4161. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 31, 2007, the Department received a request for review from Valdigrano, F. Divella SpA (Divella), Pasta Zara SpA (Zara), Pastificio Di Martino Gaetano & F.lli SrL (Di Martino), Pastificio Felicetti SrL (Felicetti), and from Industria Indalco. 2 The Department also received a request for an administrative review from petitioners 3 of Atar, Rummo, Pagani, Russo, and Domenico. 4 2 *See* Pasta from Italy, Request for Administrative Review of Antidumping Order, July 31, 2007. 3 Petitioners are the New World Pasta Company, American Italian Pasta Company, and Dakota Growers Pasta Company. 4 *See* Request for '06-'07 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, July 31, 2007. On August 24, 2007, the Department initiated the review. 5 On September 4, 2007, Valdigrano withdrew its request for review. On September 12, 2007, Indalco withdrew its request for review. On October 1 and October 5, 2007, petitioners withdrew their request for review on Rummo, Pagani, Russo, and Domenico. On November 21, 2007, petitioners withdrew their request for review on Atar. 5 *See Initiation Notice.* On October 15, 2007, the Department selected Divella, Zara and Atar as respondents in the instant review. 6 On October 15, 2007, the Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to Divella, Zara and Atar. 7 6 *See* Selection of Respondents for Individual Review Memo from the Team to Melissa Skinner, dated October 15, 2007. 7 *See* request for information from the Department to Divella, Zara and Atar, dated October 15, 2007. Scope of Order Imports covered by the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy include shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds (2.27 kilograms) or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastasis, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by this order is typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or polypropylene bags of varying dimensions. Excluded from the scope of this order are refrigerated, frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white. Also excluded from the order on pasta from Italy are imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by the Instituto Mediterraneo Di Certificazione, by Bioagricoop Scrl, by QC&I International Services, by Ecocert Italia or by Consorzio per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici, by Associazione Italiana per l'Agricoltura Biologica, or by Instituto per la Certificazione Etica e Ambientale
(ICEA)are also excluded from this order. The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy is currently classifiable under item 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive. Scope Rulings The Department has issued the following scope rulings:
(1)On August 25, 1997, the Department issued a scope ruling, finding that multicolored pasta, imported in kitchen display bottles of decorative glass that are sealed with cork or paraffin and bound with raffia, is excluded from the scope of the order. 8 8 *See* Memorandum from Edward Easton to Richard Moreland, dated August 25, 1997.
(2)On July 30, 1998, the Department issued a scope ruling, finding that multipacks consisting of six one-pound packages of pasta that are shrink-wrapped into a single package are within the scope of the order. 9 9 *See* letter from Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Barbara P. Sidari, Vice President, Joseph A. Sidari Company, Inc., dated July 30, 1998.
(3)On October 23, 1997, the petitioners filed a request that the Department initiate an anti-circumvention investigation against Barilla, an Italian producer and exporter of pasta. On October 5, 1998, the Department issued a final determination that, pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act, Barilla was circumventing the antidumping duty order by exporting bulk pasta from Italy, which it subsequently repackaged in the United States into packages of five pounds or less for sale in the United States. 10 10 *See Anti-circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order,* 63 FR 54672 (October 13, 1998).
(4)On October 26, 1998, the Department self-initiated a scope inquiry to determine whether a package weighing over five pounds as a result of allowable industry tolerances may be within the scope of the order. On May 24, 1999, we issued a final scope ruling finding that, effective October 26, 1998, pasta in packages weighing up to (and including) five pounds four ounces, and so labeled, is within the scope of the order. 11 11 *See* Memorandum from John Brinkmann to Richard Moreland, dated May 24, 1999. Partial Rescission of Review If a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review, the Secretary will rescind the review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). In this case, petitioners, Valdigrano, and Indalco withdrew their requests for administrative reviews within 90 days from the date of initiation. No other party requested review of the companies covered by each of the requests for review. Therefore, we are rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy, in part, with respect to Rummo, Pagani, Russo, Domenico, Indalco, Valdigrano and Atar. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)15 days after the publication of this notice. The Department will direct CBP to assess antidumping duties at the cash deposit rate in effect on the date of entry for entries during the period July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2006. This notice is in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 251.213(d)(4). Dated: December 3, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-23892 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-839] Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Final Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On June 6, 2007, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of the sixth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber from the Republic of Korea. The review covers the shipments of subject merchandise to the United States by Huvis Corporation and Dongwoo Industry Co., Ltd. Based on our analysis of the comments received from interested parties and an examination of our calculations, we have made certain changes for the final results. The final weighted-average dumping margins are listed below in the “Final Results of the Review” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 10, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAllister or Brandon Farlander, Office 1, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1174 and
(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 6, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published *Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Intent to Rescind* , 72 FR 31279 (June 6, 2007) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”) in the **Federal Register** . On July 12, 2007, the Department issued a memorandum releasing shipment data for Dongwoo Industry Co., Ltd. (“Dongwoo”). On July 17, 2007, the Department issued a memorandum releasing these shipment data to legal counsel for Dongwoo. We invited parties to comment on the preliminary results. On July 27, 2007, Wellman, Inc.; Invista, S.a.r.L.; and DAK Americas, LLC (collectively, “the petitioners”), Huvis Corporation (“Huvis”), and Consolidated Fibers Inc. (“Consolidated Fibers”) (an importer of subject merchandise sales by Dongwoo)/Dongwoo, filed case briefs. On August 3, 2007, the Department rejected Consolidated Fibers/Dongwoo's case brief because the brief contained untimely filed new factual information. Also, on August 3, 2007, the Department requested comments from interested parties on the discrepancies between information provided in Dongwoo's August 10, 2006, questionnaire response and information contained in the Department's July 12, 2007, memorandum. On August 7, 2007, we received a revised case brief from Consolidated Fibers/Dongwoo. We received no comments from interested parties regarding Dongwoo's discrepancies. On August 24, 2007, the petitioners and Huvis filed rebuttal briefs. On September 28, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an extension of the time limit for the completion of the final results of this review until no later than December 3, 2007, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). *See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 1703 (September 28, 2007). Scope of the Order For the purposes of this order, the product covered is certain polyester staple fiber (“PSF”). PSF is defined as synthetic staple fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in diameter. This merchandise is cut to lengths varying from one inch (25 mm) to five inches (127 mm). The merchandise subject to this order may be coated, usually with a silicon or other finish, or not coated. PSF is generally used as stuffing in sleeping bags, mattresses, ski jackets, comforters, cushions, pillows, and furniture. Merchandise of less than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier) currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheading 5503.20.00.25 is specifically excluded from this order. Also specifically excluded from this order are polyester staple fibers of 10 to 18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches (fibers used in the manufacture of carpeting). In addition, low-melt PSF is excluded from this order. Low-melt PSF is defined as a bi-component fiber with an outer sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner core. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the HTSUS at subheadings 5503.20.00.45 and 5503.20.00.65. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive. Period of Review The period of review (“POR”) is May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006. Application of Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia* , necessary information is not available on the record or an interested party: 1) withholds information that has been requested by the Department; 2) fails to provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782 of the Act; 3) significantly impedes a proceeding; or 4) provides such information, but the information cannot be verified. In its August 10, 2006, questionnaire response, Dongwoo reported that it made no sales or shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. However, on July 12, 2007, we placed a memorandum on the record confirming through U.S. Customs and Border Protection data that Dongwoo made shipments to the United States during the POR. Although the deadline to submit new factual information had passed, on August 3, 2007, we sought comments on the discrepancies between information provided in Dongwoo's August 10, 2006, questionnaire response and the Department's July 12, 2007, memorandum. Dongwoo did not provide any comments. By asserting in its original questionnaire response that it had no sales or shipments to the United States, Dongwoo failed to provide the requested information. In doing so, Dongwoo withheld requested information and significantly impeded the proceeding. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(C)of the Act, the Department finds that the use of total facts available is appropriate. According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from the facts otherwise available. *See also Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India* , 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (September 13, 2005); and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil* , 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). It is the Department's practice to apply adverse inferences to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully. *See* , *e.g.* , Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870
(1994)(SAA), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198-99. Furthermore, “affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); *see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States* , 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“ *Nippon* ”). We find that Dongwoo did not act to the best of its abilities in this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because it withheld information specifically requested by the Department. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting from the facts otherwise available with respect to this company. *See Nippon* , 337 F.3d at 1382-83. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as AFA, information derived from: 1) the petition; 2) the final determination in the investigation; 3) any previous review; or 4) any other information placed on the record. The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among the possible sources of information, has been to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See* , *e.g.* , *Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part* , 71 FR 65082, 65084 (November 7, 2006). In this case, the Department considered: 1) the rates alleged in the petition, which ranged from 48.14 to 84.03 percent; 2) the rates calculated in the final determination of the investigation, which ranged from 0.12 to 7.91 percent ( *see Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea, and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan* , 65 FR 33807, 33808 (May 25, 2000); *see also Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Amended Final Determination and Amended Order Pursuant to Final Court Decision* , 70 FR 74552, 74553 (December 24, 2003)); and 3) the rate calculated in the fourth administrative review, *i.e.* , 5.87 percent ( *see Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea* , 70 FR 73435, 73436 (December 12, 2005)). In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to induce cooperation, we have assigned a rate of 48.14 percent, which is the lowest rate alleged in the petition, as modified in the Department's initiation notice. *See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan* , 69 FR 23053, 23055 (April 29, 1999) (“ *LTFV Initiation* ”). The Department finds that this rate is sufficiently high to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule ( *i.e.* , we find that this rate is high enough to encourage participation in future segments of this proceeding in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act). Information from the petition and prior segments of the proceeding constitutes secondary information and section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Department's regulations provide that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* 19 CFR 351.308(d); *see also* SAA at 870. To the extent practicable, the Department will examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. To corroborate the petition margin, we compared it to the transaction-specific rates calculated for the participating respondent in this review. We find that it is reliable and relevant because the lowest transaction-specific petition rate is comparable to the range of individual transaction margins calculated for the participating respondent. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 10658, 10663 (March 7, 2007) (unchanged in the final results). Further, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department may disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. *See* , *e.g.* , *Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest calculated margin as AFA because the margin was based on a company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin). In the instant case, we examined whether any information on the record would discredit the selected rate as reasonable facts available. Specifically, we reviewed the quantities involved in the transaction-specific rates used for corroboration purposes and we note that the quantities of these transactions are quantities typical of the participating respondent's normal transactions. *See* Memorandum from Team to the File, “Corroboration of Data Contained in the Petition for Assigning Facts Available Rates in the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea,” dated December 3, 2007 (“Corroboration Memo”). Therefore, we have determined that the 48.14 percent margin is appropriate as AFA and are assigning it to Dongwoo. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this review are addressed in the December 3, 2007, Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Sixth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea (“Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix is a list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded in the Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department building (“CRU”). In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/fxsp0;frn/index.html* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of PSF from Korea to the United States were made at less than normal value, we compared export price (“EP”) to the NV. We calculated EP, NV, constructed value (“CV”), and the cost of production (“COP”), based on the same methodologies used in the *Preliminary Results* , with the following exceptions: To establish a market value for the input QTA pursuant to the major input rule, the Department applied a proxy market price calculated from the affiliated supplier's financial statements in the preliminary results. Based upon a further review of the record of this proceeding, we have determined that MTA can be substituted for QTA in similar quantities to produce the same amount of finished PSF. Therefore, for the final results, we have used the market price of MTA reported by Huvis as a proxy for the market price of QTA. Based on this, we made an adjustment to the value of QTA to reflect the difference between the transfer price of QTA and the higher of the COP of QTA or the market price of MTA. *See* Decision Memorandum at Comments 4 and 5; *see also* Memorandum from Team to File, “2005/2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea - Final Results Calculation Memorandum for Huvis Corporation,” dated December 3, 2007 (“Huvis Final Calculation Memorandum”). In the preliminary results, we allowed Huvis to exclude impairment losses related to property, plant, and equipment from SK Chemicals' SG&A expenses. For the final results, we determine that these impairment losses are ordinary losses and represent real economic losses. Therefore, we have included these impairment losses in SK Chemicals' SG&A expenses because these losses are part of the general operations of SK Chemicals. *See* Decision Memorandum at Comment 7; *see also* Huvis Final Calculation Memorandum. Final Results of the Review We find that the following percentage margins exist for the period May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006: Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average margin percentage Dongwoo Industry Co., Ltd. 48.14 Huvis Corporation 2.51 Assessment Rates The Department has treated Huvis as the importer of record for certain POR shipments. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales where Huvis is the importer of record, Huvis submitted the reported entered value of the U.S. sales and we calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Regarding sales where Huvis was not the importer of record, we note that Huvis did not report the entered value for the U.S. sales in question. Accordingly, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on the estimated entered value. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of these final results of review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. * See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties * , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. *Id* . Cash Deposit Rates The following antidumping duty deposits will be required on all shipments of certain PSF from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, effective on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)the cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rate listed above (except no cash deposit will be required if a company's weighted-average margin is *de minimis* , *i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent);
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 7.91 percent, the all-others rate established in *Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Amended Final Determination and Amended Order Pursuant to Final Court Decision* , 68 FR 74552 (December 24, 2003). These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 3, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I List of Comments in the Decision Memorandum *Comment 1:* Coding of Specialty Fibers *Comment 2:* Home Market Sales Database *Comment 3:* Classification of U.S. Sales as Constructed Export Price Sales *Comment 4:* MTA and QTA as Identical Products *Comment 5:* Valuing PTA and QTA at the Transfer Price Paid by Huvis *Comment 6:* Major Input Test for Samnam's Purchases of Paraxylene *Comment 7:* SK Chemicals' SG&A and Financial Expenses Ratios *Comment 8:* Huvis' G&A Expenses *Comment 9:* Zeroing Dumping Margins *Comment 10:* The Rate Applicable to Dongwoo's Sales [FR Doc. E7-23894 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-824] Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from India: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 10, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Douthit, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, Room 7866, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5050. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 7, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyethlene terephthalate sheet, and strip from India for the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. *See Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 44086 (August 7, 2007). This review covers one producer of the subject merchandise to the United States. Extension of Time Limit for Final Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) requires the Department to issue the final results in an administrative review within 120 days of the publication date of the preliminary results. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the final results to a maximum of 180 days. The Department has determined that completion of the final results of this review within the original time period is not practicable. Specifically, the Department requires additional time to analyze whether an adjustment for any countervailing duties imposed on the subject merchandise to offset an export subsidy is warranted. Thus, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for issuing the final results of review by an additional 60 days, from December 5, 2007 until no later than February 4, 2008. This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(I)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 4, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-23890 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-401-808] Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Sweden: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 7, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on purified carboxymethylcellulose
(CMC)from Sweden. *See Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Sweden: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 44089 (August 7, 2007) ( *Preliminary Results* ). The period of review is December 27, 2004, through June 30, 2006. We received comments from interested parties and have made changes to the margin for the final results. The final margin for the respondent is listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: December 10, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Edwards or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-8029 or
(202)482-3019, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 7, 2007, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CMC from Sweden. *See Preliminary Results* . On August 1, 2007, prior to the publication of the *Preliminary Results* , the Department issued an additional supplemental questionnaire to CP Kelco, requesting that it report its factoring expenses on a transaction-specific basis to the Department. CP Kelco submitted its response on August 15, 2007. *See* Letter from Arent Fox, LLP to the Secretary of Commerce dated August 15, 2007 (Factoring Expenses Supplemental Response). For a further discussion of CP Kelco's factoring expenses, *see* “Changes Since the Preliminary Results” section below. We invited interested parties to comment on the *Preliminary Results* . On September 6, 2007, petitioner filed comments on the *Preliminary Results* . 1 *See* Letter from Haynes & Boone, LLP to the Secretary of Commerce, regarding “Demonstration of Programming Errors,” dated September 6, 2007. Also on September 6, 2007, CP Kelco AB and Noviant AB, respondents in this administrative review (collectively, CP Kelco), submitted comments on the *Preliminary Results* . *See* Letter from Arent Fox, LLP to the Secretary of Commerce, regarding “Comments regarding August 7, 2007 Preliminary Results of Review,” dated September 6, 2007 (CP Kelco Brief). On September 11, 2007, petitioner filed its rebuttal to CP Kelco's September 6, 2007, submission. *See* Letter from Haynes & Boone, LLP to the Secretary of Commerce, regarding Rebuttal Brief of the Aqualon Company, dated September 11, 2007 (Petitioner Rebuttal Brief). We received no requests for a public hearing from the parties. 1 Petitioner in this proceeding is The Aqualon Company, a division of Hercules Incorporated. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order is purified CMC, sometimes also referred to as purified sodium CMC, polyanionic cellulose, or cellulose gum, which is a white to off-white, non-toxic, odorless, biodegradable powder, comprising sodium CMC that has been refined and purified to a minimum assay of 90 percent. Purified CMC does not include unpurified or crude CMC, CMC Fluidized Polymer Suspensions, and CMC that is cross-linked through heat treatment. Purified CMC is CMC that has undergone one or more purification operations, which, at a minimum, reduce the remaining salt and other by-product portion of the product to less than ten percent. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States at subheading 3912.31.00. This tariff classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the briefs are addressed in the “Memorandum to the Assistant Secretary: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of First Administrative Review of Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Sweden,” dated December 5, 2007 (Issues and Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised, all of which are in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in the briefs and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on the comments received from the interested parties, we have made changes to the margin calculations for CP Kelco, including corrections to clerical errors made at the *Preliminary Results* with regard to foreign currency conversions. As previously stated above, CP Kelco submitted its Factoring Expenses Supplemental Response on August 15, 2007. Petitioner did not comment on these data in its case and rebuttal briefs. Following our review of these data, we have determined that it is appropriate to revise our calculation of net price using the transaction-specific factoring expenses ( *i.e.* , transaction fees charged to CP Kelco by its affiliated financial institution for purchasing CP Kelco's accounts receivable and remitting payment to CP Kelco at an earlier date than payment would have otherwise been received from the invoiced customer) reported by CP Kelco in the Factoring Expenses Supplemental Response. For a discussion of all changes the Department has made to the margin calculations for CP Kelco, *see* “Memorandum to the File: First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Purified Carboxymethylcellulose for CP Kelco AB (CP Kelco),” dated December 5, 2007 (Final Analysis Memo). A public version of this memorandum is on file in the CRU. Final Results of Review In the *Preliminary Results* , we determined that CP Kelco AB is, as the company had alleged, the successor-in-interest to the former Noviant AB for purposes of this proceeding and application of the antidumping law. We received no comments on this issue, and we determine that CP Kelco AB is the successor-in-interest to Noviant AB, 2 and that the following antidumping duty margin exists for the period December 27, 2004, through June 30, 2006: 2 For a complete discussion of our successorship analysis, *see Preliminary Results* at 44090. Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) CP Kelco AB 3.84 Assessment Rates The Department will determine, and U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise covered by the review. Upon issuance of the final results of this review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , at or above 0.50 percent), we will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. To determine whether the duty-assessment rate covering the period is *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in sections 733(b)(3) and 735 of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we have calculated an importer-specific assessment *ad valorem* rate by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to the importers of CP Kelco's subject merchandise and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer. Where the importer-specific *ad valorem* rate is greater than *de minimis* and because the respondent has reported reliable entered values, we will instruct CBP to apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importer's entries during the period of review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Notice of Policy Concerning Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) ( *Assessment Policy Notice* ). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by CP Kelco, for which CP Kelco did not know that the merchandise it sold to an intermediary ( *e.g.* , a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no company-specific rate for an intermediary involved in the transaction. *See Assessment Policy Notice* for a full discussion of this clarification. Cash-Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results of this administrative review for all shipments of CMC from Sweden that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)the cash-deposit rate for CP Kelco will be 3.84 percent;
(2)for merchandise exported by producers or exporters that were previously reviewed or investigated, the cash deposit will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final determination or final results for which the producer or exporter received an individual rate;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash-deposit rate shall be 25.29 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. These cash-deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO as explained in the administrative protective order itself. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of APO. These final results of administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with ections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 3, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I *Comment 1:* Programming Errors regarding Foreign Currency Conversions *Comment 2:* Zeroing of Non-Dumping Margins [FR Doc. E7-23893 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Fisheries Finance Program Requirements AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before February 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Brian C. Summers at
(301)713-2390 or *Brian.Summers@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract NOAA operates a direct loan program to assist in financing certain actions relating to commercial fishing vessels, shoreside fishery facilities, aquaculture operations, and individual fishing quotas. The application information is required to determine eligibility pursuant to 50 CFR part 253 and to determine the type and amount of assistance requested by the applicant. An annual financial statement is required from the recipients to monitor the financial status of the loan. II. Method of Collection Paper applications. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0012. *Form Number:* NOAA Form 88-1. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households and business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,735. *Estimated Time per Response:* 8 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 13,880. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $8,050. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: December 4, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-23858 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Vessel Monitoring System Requirement for American Samoa Pelagic Longline Fishery AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before February 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Walter Ikehara,
(808)944-2275 or *walter.ikehara@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The commercial fishing vessels active in the American Samoa-based pelagic longline fishery that are greater than 50 feet in length overall must allow the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)to install Vessel Monitoring System
(VMS)units on their vessels when directed to do so by NMFS enforcement personnel. VMS units automatically send periodic reports on the position of the vessel. NMFS uses the reports to monitor the vessel's location and activities while enforcing longline fishing area closures. NMFS provide the funds for the units and messaging. II. Method of Collection The only information collected is vessel position reports, which are automatically transmitted via the VMS. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0519. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profits organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 40. *Estimated Time per Response:* 4 hours to install a VMS; 2 hours per year to maintain a VMS; 24 seconds a day to transmit hourly automated position reports from a vessel. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 193. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $0. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: December 4, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-23862 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Meeting: Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP)Product Development Committee
(CPDC)for Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.3 AGENCY: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: The Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP)Product Development Committee for Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.3 (CPDC-S&A 5.3) was established by a Decision Memorandum dated October 12, 2006. CPDC-S&A 5.3 is the Federal Advisory Committee charged with responsibility to develop a draft Synthesis and Assessment Product that addresses CCSP Topic 5.3: “Decision Support Experiments and Evaluations Using Seasonal to Interannual Forecasts and Observational Data”. *Place:* The meeting will be held at the Southwest Center, 1052 North Highland Ave, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721. *Time and Date:* The meeting will convene at 9 a.m. on Thursday, January 10, 2008 and adjourn the afternoon of January 11, 2008. Meeting information will be available online on the CPDC-S&A 5.3 Web site ( * http://www.fxsp0;climate.noaa.gov/ fxsp0;index.jsp?pg=./ccsp/53.fxsp0;jsp * ). Please note that meeting location, times, and agenda topics described below are subject to change. *Status:* The meeting will be open to public participation and will include a 30-minute public comment period on January 10 from 9-9:30 a.m. The CPDC—S&A 5.3 expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of five
(5)minutes. Written comments (at least 35 copies) should be received by the CPDC—S&A 5.3 Designated Federal Official
(DFO)by December 31, 2007 to provide sufficient time for review. Written comments received after December 31 will be distributed to the CPDC—S&A 5.3, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. Seats will be available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis. *Matters to be Considered:* The meeting will
(1)formulate responses to the comments received from the special committee of the National Academies of Science
(NAS)Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change tasked to review the First Draft of Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.3 and revise the First Draft accordingly;
(2)finalize plans for completion and submission of the Second Draft of the Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.3 for public review. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Nancy Beller-Simms, CPDC—S&A 5.3 DFO and the Program Manager, NOAA/OAR/Climate Program Office, Sectoral Applications Research Program, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 12221, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; telephone 301-734-1205, e-mail: *Nancy.Beller-Simms@noaa.gov.* Dated: December 4, 2007. Sharon L. Schroeder, Acting Chief Financial Officer, Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E7-23899 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-KB-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License; goodXense, Inc. AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to goodXense, Inc., a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license to practice in the field of use of radio frequency
(RF)wireless water quality monitoring in the United States and certain foreign countries, the Government-owned inventions described in U.S. Patent No. 6,780,307: Ion Selective Electrodes for Direct Organic Drug Analysis in Saliva, Sweat, and Surface Wipes, Navy Case No. 83,326.//U.S. Patent Application No. 10/833,636: Ion Selective Electrodes for Direct Organic Drug Analysis in Saliva, Sweat, and Surface Wipes, Navy Case No. 96,181.//U.S. Patent Application No. 11/009,849: Multiparameter System for Environmental Monitoring, Navy Case No. 84,717 and any continuations, divisionals or re-issues thereof. DATES: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than December 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Research Laboratory, Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rita Manak, Head, Technology Transfer Office, NRL Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320, telephone
(202)767-3083. Due to U.S. Postal delays, please fax
(202)404-7920, e-mail: *rita.manak@fxsp0;nrl.navy.mil* or use courier delivery to expedite response. (Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR Part 404.) Dated: December 4, 2007. L.R. Almand, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E7-23859 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P 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 8, 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: December 4, 2007. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education *Type of Review:* Revision. *Title:* Survey on the Use of Funds Under Title II, Part A (“Improving Teacher Quality State Grants—Subgrants to LEAs”). *Frequency:* Annually. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Governments, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* Responses: 850. Burden Hours: 5,000. *Abstract:* The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, provides funds to districts to improve the quality of their teaching and principal force and raise student achievement. These funds are provided to districts through Title II, Part A (“Improving Teacher Quality State Grants—Subgrants to LEAs”). The purpose of this survey is for the U.S. Department of Education to have a better understanding of how districts are using these funds. The survey also collects information on high-quality professional development in LEAs. This OMB clearance request is to continue these analyses using a similar data collection instrument and sampling plan for the 2007-2008 school year and subsequent years. The major change from past years is the addition of a short survey for State Educational Agencies (SEAs). The SEA survey will provide information on fiscal year allocations of Title II, Part A funds made to the LEAs selected for participation in the main survey and be preprinted with the names of the LEAs selected for participation in the LEA survey. 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 3523. 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. E7-23895 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P 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 8, 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: December 4, 2007. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Migrant Education Program
(MEP)Regulations, Sections 200.83, 200.84, and 200.88. *Frequency:* Biennially 220.84, biennially and one-time 200.83, and one-time 200.88. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs; Individuals or household. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 43. *Burden Hours:* 19,925. *Abstract:* Section 200.83 of the regulations for Title I, Part C establish the minimum requirements an State Educational Agency
(SEA)must meet for development of a comprehensive needs assessment and plan for service delivery as required under Section 1306(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended (Pub. L. 107-110). Section 200.84 of the regulations establish the minimum requirements the SEA must meet to implement the program evaluation required under Section 1304(c)(2) of the ESEA. Section 200.88 of the regulations clarify that, for the purposes of the MEP, only “supplemental” State or local funds that are used for programs specifically designed to meet the unique needs of migratory children can be excluded in terms of determining compliance with the “comparability” and “supplement”, not supplant” provisions of the statute. 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 3540. 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. E7-23896 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; Overview Information; Technology and Media Services for Individuals With Disabilities—Steppingstones of Technology Innovation for Children With Disabilities; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year
(FY)2008 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number: 84.327A. Note: This notice includes one absolute priority with two phases, and funding information for each phase of the competition. *Dates:* *Applications Available:* December 10, 2007. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* See the chart in the *Award Information* section of this notice (Chart). *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* See Chart. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of Program:* The purpose of the Technology and Media Services for Individuals with Disabilities program is to:
(1)Improve results for children with disabilities by promoting the development, demonstration, and use of technology,
(2)support educational media services activities designed to be of educational value in the classroom setting to children with disabilities, and
(3)provide support for captioning and video description that are appropriate for use in the classroom setting. *Priority:* In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority is from allowable activities specified in the statute, or otherwise authorized in the statute (see sections 674 and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)). *Absolute Priority:* For FY 2008 and any subsequent year in which we make awards based on the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority. This priority is: *Technology and Media Services for Individuals with Disabilities—Steppingstones of Technology Innovation for Children with Disabilities* Background The Department has made Steppingstones of Technology Innovation for Children with Disabilities awards for several years under the Technology and Media Services for Individuals with Disabilities program. Starting in FY 2005, awards were limited to two phases, Development and Research on Effectiveness. Abstracts of projects funded under these two phases can be found at *http://www.nichcy.org/fxsp0;directories/fxsp0;3_volumefxsp0;2006.pdf* (see projects funded under CFDA 84.327A with Beginning Dates of September 1, 2005 or later). *Priority:* The Steppingstones of Technology Innovation for Children with Disabilities absolute priority requires grantees to implement and evaluate innovative technology approaches designed to improve results for children with disabilities. Phase 1 projects must develop, refine, and test the feasibility of technology-based approaches. Phase 2 projects must subject technology-based approaches to rigorous field-based research to determine their effectiveness. To be considered for funding under the Steppingstones of Technology Innovation for Children with Disabilities absolute priority, applicants must meet the application requirements contained in the priority. All projects funded under the absolute priority also must meet the programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the priority. The application, programmatic, and administrative requirements are as follows:
(a)In the application, an applicant must—
(1)Describe a technology-based approach for improving the results of early intervention, response-to-intervention assessment techniques, or preschool, elementary school, middle school, or high school education for children with disabilities. The technology-based approach must be an innovative combination of new technology and additional materials and methodologies that enable the technology to improve early intervention, assessment, or educational results for children with disabilities;
(2)Present a justification, based on scientifically rigorous research or theory, that supports the potential effectiveness of the technology-based approach described pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this priority for improving the results of early intervention, response-to-intervention assessment techniques, or preschool, elementary school, middle school, or high school education for children with disabilities. Results studied under this priority must focus on child outcomes, rather than on parent or professional outcomes. Child outcomes may include improved academic or pre-academic skills, improved behavioral or social functioning, and improved functional performance, provided that valid and reliable measurement instruments are employed to assess the outcomes. Technology-based approaches intended for use by professionals or parents are not appropriate for funding under this priority unless child-level benefits are clearly demonstrated. Technology-based approaches for professional development will not be funded under this priority;
(3)Provide a detailed plan for conducting work in one of the following two phases:
(i)*Phase 1—Development:* Projects funded under Phase 1 must develop and refine a technology-based approach, and test its feasibility for use with children with disabilities. Activities under Phase 1 of the priority may include development, adaptation, and refinement of technology, materials, or methodologies. Activities under Phase 1 of the priority must include formative evaluation of the technology-based approach's usability and feasibility for use with children with disabilities. Each project funded under Phase 1 must be designed to develop, as its primary product, a promising technology-based approach that is suitable for field-based evaluation of effectiveness in improving results for children with disabilities.
(ii)*Phase 2—Research on Effectiveness:* Projects funded under Phase 2 must select a promising technology-based approach that has been developed and tested in a manner consistent with the criteria for activities funded under Phase 1, and subject the approach to rigorous field-based research to determine effectiveness in educational or early intervention settings. Approaches studied through projects funded under Phase 2 may have been developed with previous funding under Phase 1 of this priority or with funding from other sources. Phase 2 of this priority is primarily intended to produce sound research-based evidence that demonstrates that the technology-based approach can improve educational or early intervention results for children with disabilities in a defined range of real world contexts. Projects funded under Phase 2 of this priority must conduct research that poses a causal question and must employ randomized assignment to treatment and comparison conditions, unless a strong justification is made for why a randomized trial is not possible. If a randomized trial is not possible, the applicant must employ alternatives that substantially minimize selection bias or allow it to be modeled. These alternatives include appropriately structured regression-discontinuity designs and natural experiments in which naturally occurring circumstances or institutions (perhaps unintentionally) divide people into treatment and comparison groups in a manner akin to purposeful random assignment. In their applications, applicants proposing to use an alternative system must
(1)make a compelling case that randomization is not possible, and
(2)describe in detail how the procedures will result in substantially minimizing the effects of selection bias on estimates of effect size. Choice of randomizing unit or units (e.g., students, classrooms, schools) must be grounded in a theoretical framework. Observational, survey, or qualitative methodologies may complement experimental methodologies to assist in the identification of factors that may explain the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the technology-based approach being evaluated. Applications must provide research designs that permit the identification and assessment of factors that may have an impact on the fidelity of implementation. Mediating and moderating variables that are both measured in the practice or model condition and are likely to affect outcomes in the comparison condition must be measured in the comparison condition (e.g., student time-on-task, teacher experience, and time in position). Projects funded under Phase 2 of this priority must conduct comprehensive research in order to provide convincing evidence of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the technology-based approach under study, at least within a defined range of settings. Applicants must provide documentation that available sample sizes, methodologies, and treatment effects are likely to result in conclusive findings regarding the effectiveness of the technology-based approach;
(4)Provide a plan for forming collaborative relationships with vendors, other dissemination or marketing resources, or both to ensure that the technology-based approach can become widely available if sufficient evidence of effectiveness has been obtained. Applicants should document the availability and participation of dissemination or marketing resources. Applicants are encouraged to plan these collaborative relationships early in their projects, even in Phase 1 (if applicable), but should refrain from widespread dissemination of the technology-based approach to practitioners until evidence of its effectiveness has been obtained; and
(5)Budget for the project director to attend an annual three-day Project Directors' meeting in Washington, DC, and another annual two-day trip to Washington, DC to collaborate with the Federal project officer and the other projects funded under this priority to share information, and to discuss findings and methods of dissemination.
(b)The project also must conduct the following activities:
(1)If the project maintains a Web site, include relevant information and documents in a format that meets a government or industry-recognized standard for accessibility.
(2)If the project produces instructional materials for dissemination, produce them in accessible formats, including complying with the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (NIMAS) for textual materials. Within this absolute priority, we are particularly interested in applications that address the following invitational priorities. *Invitational Priorities:* Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1) we do not give an application that meets one of these invitational priorities a competitive or absolute preference over other applications. These priorities are:
(1)Projects led by a project director or principal investigator who is in the initial phase of his or her career. For purposes of this invitational priority, the initial phase of an individual's career is considered to be the first three years after the individual completes and graduates from a doctoral program (i.e., for FY 2008 awards, projects may support individuals who completed and graduated from a doctoral program no earlier than the 2004-2005 academic year). To qualify for this invitational priority, the applicant must explicitly state and document, in its application, that the project director or principal investigator is in the initial phase of his or her career. At least 50 percent of that individual's time must be devoted to the project.
(2)Projects focusing on technology-based approaches for children with disabilities, ages birth to age three.
(3)Projects focusing on technology-based approaches to response-to-intervention assessment techniques. *Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking:* Under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)(5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities and requirements. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the APA inapplicable to the priority in this notice. *Program Authority:* 20 U.S.C. 1474 and 1481. *Applicable Regulations:* The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99. Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes. Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education
(IHEs)only. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Discretionary grants. *Estimated Available Funds:* The Administration has requested $25,063,000 for the Technology and Media Services for Individuals with Disabilities program for FY 2008, of which we intend to use an estimated $3,000,000 for the Steppingstones of Technology Innovation for Children with Disabilities competition. Please refer to the “Estimated Range of Awards” column in the Chart for the estimated dollar amounts for individual competitions. The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. However, we are inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant process if Congress appropriates funds for this program. Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2009 from the lists of unfunded applicants from the competition. *Estimated Range of Awards:* See Chart. *Estimated Average Size of Awards:* See Chart. *Maximum Award:* Phase 1: $200,000, per year and Phase 2: $300,000, per year. We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding the maximum award for a single budget period of 12 months. The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services may change the maximum amount through a notice published in the **Federal Register** . *Estimated Number of Awards:* See Chart. *Project Period:* Projects funded under Phase 1 will be funded for up to 24 months. Projects funded under Phase 2 will be funded for up to 24 months unless a compelling rationale is provided for funding up to 36 months. Steppingstones of Technology Innovation for Children With Disabilities Application Notice for Fiscal Year 2008 CFDA No. and name Deadline for transmittal of applications Deadline for intergovernmental review Estimated available funds Estimated range of awards Estimated average size of awards Estimated number of awards 84.327A—Steppingstones of Technology Innovation for Children with Disabilities: Phase 1—Development January 9, 2008 March 10, 2008 $1,800,000 $100,000-$200,000 $200,000 9 Phase 2—Research on Effectiveness January 9, 2008 March 10, 2008 $1,200,000 $200,000-$300,000 $300,000 4 Note: The Department of Education is not bound by any estimates in this notice. III. Eligibility Information 1. *Eligible Applicants:* State educational agencies (SEAs); local educational agencies (LEAs); public charter schools that are LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; outlying areas; freely associated States; Indian tribes or tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations. 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* This competition does not require cost sharing or matching. 3. *Other: General Requirements* —(a) The projects funded under this competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).
(b)Applicants and grant recipients funded under this competition must involve individuals with disabilities or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26 in planning, implementing, and evaluating the projects (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA). IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address to Request Application Package:* Education Publications Center (ED Pubs), P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX:
(301)470-1244. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734. You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: *http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html* or at its e-mail address: *edpubs@inet.ed.gov* . If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify the competition to which you want to apply, as follows: CFDA Number 84.327A. Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the person or team listed under *Alternate Format* in section VIII of this notice. 2. *Content and Form of Application Submission:* Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition. Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit Part III to the equivalent of no more than 50 pages, using the following standards: • A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; the one-page abstract, the résumés, the bibliography, the references, or the letters of support. The page limit, however, does apply to the application narrative in Part III. We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit; or if you use other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit. 3. *Submission Dates and Times:* *Applications Available:* December 10, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* See Chart. Applications for grants under this program may be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov), or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery, please refer to section IV.6. *Other Submission Requirements* in this notice. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice. Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: See Chart. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition. 5. *Funding Restrictions:* We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. 6. *Other Submission Requirements:* Applications for grants under this program may be submitted electronically or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. a. *Electronic Submission of Applications.* To comply with the President's Management Agenda, we are participating as a partner in the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site. The Steppingstones of Technology Innovation for Children with Disabilities competition, CFDA Number 84.327A, is included in this project. We request your participation in Grants.gov. If you choose to submit your application electronically, you must use the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at *http://www.Grants.gov.* Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us. You may access the electronic grant application for the Steppingstones of Technology Innovation for Children with Disabilities competition—CFDA Numbers 84.327A at *http://www.Grants.gov.* You must search for the downloadable application package for this program by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.327, not 84.327A). Please note the following: • Your participation in Grants.gov is voluntary. • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not consider your application if it is date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov. • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov at *http://e-Grants.ed.gov/ help/GrantsgovSubmissionProcedures.fxsp0;pdf.* • To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all steps in the Grants.gov registration process (see *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp* ). These steps include
(1)registering your organization, a multi-part process that includes registration with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR);
(2)registering yourself as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and
(3)getting authorized as an AOR by your organization. Details on these steps are outlined in the Grants.gov 3-Step Registration Guide (see *http://www.grants.gov/section910/Grants.govRegistrationBrochure.pdf* ). You also must provide on your application the same D-U-N-S Number used with this registration. Please note that the registration process may take five or more business days to complete, and you must have completed all registration steps to allow you to submit successfully an application via Grants.gov. In addition you will need to update your CCR registration on an annual basis. This may take three or more business days to complete. • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit your application in paper format. • If you submit your application electronically, you must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. Please note that two of these forms—the SF 424 and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424—have replaced the ED 424 (Application for Federal Education Assistance). • If you submit your application electronically, you must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified in this paragraph or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice. • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by e-mail. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application). • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date. *Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System:* If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it. If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice. If you submit an application after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted. Note: The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system. b. *Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.* If you submit your application in paper format by mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier), you must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address: *By mail through the U.S. Postal Service:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.327A), 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260; or *By mail through a commercial carrier:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Stop 4260, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.327A), 7100 Old Landover Road, Landover, MD 20785-1506. Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1)A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2)A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3)A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4)Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1)A private metered postmark.
(2)A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service. If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application. Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office. c. *Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.* If you submit your application in paper format by hand delivery, you (or a courier service) must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.327A), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260. The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1)You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2)The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at
(202)245-6288. V. Application Review Information 1. *Selection Criteria:* The selection criteria for this program are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are listed in the application package. 2. *Peer Review:* In the past, the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain competitions, because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The Standing Panel requirements under IDEA also have placed additional constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department has determined that, for some discretionary grant competitions, applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and selected for funding within specific group. This procedure will make it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers, by ensuring that greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness of the review process while permitting panel members to review applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also have submitted applications. However, if the Department decides to select an equal number of applications in each group for funding, this may result in different cut-off points for fundable applications in each group. VI. Award Administration Information 1. *Award Notices:* If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notice (GAN). We may notify you informally, also. If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you. 2. *Administrative and National Policy Requirements:* We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant. 3. *Reporting:* At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to *http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.* 4. *Performance Measures:* Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), the Department has established a set of performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Technology and Media Services for Individuals with Disabilities program. These measures focus on the extent to which projects are of high quality, are relevant to the needs of children with disabilities, and contribute to improving results for children with disabilities. We will collect data on these measures from the projects funded under this competition. Grantees also will be required to report information on their projects' performance in annual reports to the Department (34 CFR 75.590). VII. Agency Contact FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom V. Hanley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 4066, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone:
(202)245-7369. If you use a TDD, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339. VIII. Other Information *Alternative Format:* Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone:
(202)245-7363. If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. *Electronic Access to This Document:* You can 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: *http://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 Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Dated: December 4, 2007. Raymond Simon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E7-23878 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; Personnel Development To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities (CFDA No. 84.325D) AGENCY: Department of Education. ACTION: Correction; notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year
(FY)2008. SUMMARY: On November 27, 2007, we published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 66143) a notice inviting applications for new awards for FY 2008 under certain Personnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities competitions authorized under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In the chart on page 66150, ninth column, the “Project Period” for the 84.325D Preparation of Leadership Personnel competition is incorrectly listed as “up to 60 months”. The project period for this competition is corrected to read “up to 48 months”. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debra Sturdivant, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 4104, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2600. Telephone:
(202)245-7539. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may 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 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . *Electronic Access to This Document:* You can 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: *http://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 Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Dated: December 4, 2007. Raymond Simon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E7-23888 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION National Mathematics Advisory Panel AGENCY: U.S. Department of Education, National Mathematics Advisory Panel. ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting. SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of an upcoming meeting with members of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. The notice also describes the functions of the Panel. Notice of this meeting is required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and is intended to notify the public of their opportunity to attend. Due to scheduling difficulties, this notice is appearing in the **Federal Register** less than 15 days prior to the meeting date. DATES: Friday, December 14, 2007, and Saturday, December 15, 2007. *Times:* Friday, December 14, 2007, 3-6:30 p.m. Saturday, December 15, 2007, 8:30 a.m.-3 p.m. ADDRESSES: Baltimore-Washington International
(BWI)Airport Marriott, 1743 West Nursery Road, Baltimore, MD 21240. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyrrell Flawn, Executive Director, National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202; telephone:
(202)260-8354. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Panel was established by Executive Order 13398. The purpose of this Panel is to foster greater knowledge of and improved performance in mathematics among American students, in order to keep America competitive, support American talent and creativity, encourage innovation throughout the American economy, and help State, local, territorial, and tribal governments give the nation's children and youth the education they need to succeed. The meeting will be held at the Baltimore-Washington International
(BWI)Airport Marriott in Baltimore, MD, on Friday, December 14, 2007, and Saturday, December 15, 2007. From 3 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Friday, December 14, 2007, and again from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Saturday, December 15, 2007, the Panel will discuss the Final Report draft. Individuals interested in attending the meeting are advised to register in advance to ensure space availability. Please contact Jennifer Graban at *Jennifer.Graban@ed.gov* by Wednesday, December 12, 2007. This meeting will not include a public comment session, as the Panel will be concluding its work on the Final Report. However, if you would like to provide comments to the Panel, please do so in written form, via e-mail to *NationalMathPanel@ed.gov* by Wednesday, December 12, 2007. Written comments will also be accepted at the meeting site. Please note that comments submitted to the National Mathematics Advisory Panel in any format are considered to be part of the public record of the Panel's deliberations, and will be posted on the Web site. The Panel has submitted its Preliminary Report to the President, through the U.S. Secretary of Education. The Preliminary Report is available at *http://www.ed.gov/mathpanel.* The Final Report will be submitted not later than February 28, 2008, and will, at a minimum, contain recommendations on improving mathematics education based on the best available scientific evidence. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Individuals who will need accommodations in order to attend the meeting, such as interpreting services, assistive listening devices, or materials in alternative format, should notify Jennifer Graban at *Jennifer.Graban@ed.gov* no later than Monday, December 10, 2007. We will attempt to meet requests for accommodations after this date, but cannot guarantee their availability. Records are kept of all Panel proceedings and are available for public inspection at the staff office for the Panel, from the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. *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: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister/index.html.* 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 Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Dated: December 3, 2007. Margaret Spellings, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education. [FR Doc. E7-23847 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 December 4, 2007. Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: *Docket Numbers:* RP96-200-183. *Applicants:* CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co. *Description:* CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company submits a negotiated rate agreement with Coral energy Resources LP. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071203-0038. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* RP99-176-147. *Applicants:* Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America. *Description:* Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America submits Original Sheet 414A.12 to FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1, to become effective 1/1/08 with JP Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071203-0039. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* RP00-445-020. *Applicants:* Alliance Pipeline L.P. *Description:* Alliance Pipeline LP submits Fourteenth Revised Sheet 11 *et al.* to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to become effective 1/1/08. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071203-0037. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* RP02-361-066. *Applicants:* Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C. *Description:* Gulfstream Natural Gas System, LLC's Original Sheet 8.02g *et al.* to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, effective on 12/1/07. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071203-0252. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* RP07-479-003. *Applicants:* Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation. *Description:* Columbia Gas Transmission Corp's First Revised Sheet 540A *et al.* to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, effective on 6/1/08. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071203-0250. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* RP07-507-003. *Applicants:* Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation. *Description:* Columbia Gas Transmission Corp submits its Third Revised Sheet 207 *et al.* to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, effective on 5/1/08. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071203-0249. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-91-000. *Applicants:* CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co. *Description:* CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company submits its Annual Report of Penalty Revenue Credits to its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1 which covers the period the twelve month reporting period ended 7/31/07. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071203-0033. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-92-000. *Applicants:* National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation. *Description* : National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation submits 109th Revised Sheet 9 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 1, to become effective 12/1/07. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071203-0034. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-93-000. *Applicants:* National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation. *Description:* National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation submits Eleventh Revised Sheet 43 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 1, effective on 1/1/08. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071203-0036. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-94-000. *Applicants:* East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC. *Description:* East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC submits First Revised Sheet 307 *et al.* to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, effective on 1/1/08. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071203-0263. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-95-000. *Applicants:* Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation. *Description:* Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation submits Thirteenth Revised Sheet 4 to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1-A, effective on 1/1/08. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071203-0262. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-96-000. *Applicants:* Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation. *Description:* Gas Transmission Northwest Corp submits its final annual fuel charge adjustment in compliance with Paragraph 37 of terms & conditions of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1-A. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071203-0261. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-97-000. *Applicants:* ANR Pipeline Company. *Description:* ANR Pipeline Company submits Eighteenth Revised Sheet 570 *et al.* to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 2, effective on 1/1/08. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071203-0260. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-98-000. *Applicants:* Mojave Pipeline Company. *Description:* Mojave Pipeline Company submits Nineteenth Revised Sheet 11 to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, to become effective on 1/1/08. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071203-0259. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-99-000. *Applicants:* El Paso Natural Gas Company. *Description:* El Paso Natural Gas Company submits Fifth Revised Sheet 374 to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1-A, effective on 1/1/08. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071203-0258. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-100-000. *Applicants:* El Paso Natural Gas Company. *Description:* El Paso Natural Gas Co submits their Third Revised Sheet 29.01 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1-A, effective on 1/1/08. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071203-0257. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-101-000. *Applicants:* Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company. *Description:* Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co submits their September 2006 through August 2007 Cash out Report. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071203-0255. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-102-000. *Applicants:* Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company LLC. *Description:* Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Co, LLC submits Second Revised Sheet 222 *et al.* to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, effective on 1/1/08. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071203-0256. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-103-000. *Applicants:* Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company LLC. *Description:* Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Co, LLC submits a firm transportation service agreement with Coral Energy Resources, LP. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071203-0254. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-104-000. *Applicants:* Colorado Interstate Gas Company. *Description:* Colorado Interstate Gas Co. submits their Fuel Reimbursement Percentage Filing. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071203-0253. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 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. E7-23849 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8503-7] Proposed CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement; Benjamin Schilberg and Schilberg Integrated Metals Corporation, Cadlerock Properties Site, Ashford and Willington, CT AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement; request for public comment. SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement, that includes a compromise of past response costs, concerning the Cadlerock Properties Superfund Site in Ashford and Willington, Connecticut with the following settling parties: Benjamin Schilberg and Schilberg Integrated Metals Corporation. The settlement requires the settling parties to perform removal activities at the Site. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue the settling parties pursuant to Section 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607(a). For thirty
(30)days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the compromise of past response costs. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to this portion of the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at One Congress Street, Boston, MA 02114-2023. DATE: Comments must be submitted by January 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Sarah Meeks, Enforcement Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (SES), Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2023 (Telephone No. 617-918- 1438) and should refer to: *In re:* Cadlerock Properties Superfund Site, U.S. EPA Docket No. 01-2007-0156. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from Sarah Meeks, Enforcement Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (SES), Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2023 (Telephone No. 617-918-1438; E-mail *meeks.sarah@epa.gov* ). Dated: November 20, 2007. James T. Owens, III, Director, Office of Site Remediation and Restoration. [FR Doc. E7-23879 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Submitted for Review to the Office of Management and Budget November 30, 2007. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning
(a)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Written comments should be submitted on or before January 9, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via Internet at *Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov* or via fax at
(202)395-5167 and to Leslie F. Smith, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C216, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or via Internet at *Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov* or *PRA@fcc.gov* . To view a copy of this information collection request
(ICR)submitted to OMB:
(1)Go to the Web page *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain,*
(2)look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,”
(3)click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading,
(4)select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box,
(5)click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box,
(6)when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the title of this ICR (or its OMB control number, if there is one) and then click on the ICR Reference Number to view detailed information about this ICR. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about the information collection(s), contact Leslie F. Smith via e-mail at *PRA@fcc.gov* or call
(202)418-0217. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB Control Number: 3060-0589. *Title:* FCC Remittance Advice and Continuation Sheet, Bill for Collection, FCC Remittance Advice for Regulatory Fees (E-Form). *Form Number(s):* FCC Forms 159, 159-C, 159-B, 159-E, and 159-W. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; Federal government; and State, local, or tribal government. *Number of Respondents:* 156,000. *Estimated Time per Response:* 0.25 hours (15 minutes). *Frequency of Response:* On occasion and annual reporting requirements; Third party disclosure. *Obligation to Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *Total Annual Burden:* 39,000 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* None. *Privacy Impact Assessment:* No impacts. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* The Commission is not requesting that the respondents submit confidential information to the FCC. Respondents may, however, request confidential treatment for information they believe to be confidential under 47 CFR Section 0.459 of the Commission's rules. *Needs and Uses:* On August 6, 2007, the FCC released a *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* (“ *R&O and FNPRM* ”), In the Matter of Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2007, MD Docket No. 07-81, FCC 07-XX, in which it applied regulatory fee obligations to interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP)providers. As a result of this action, the FCC is modifying FCC Form 159, 159-C, and 159-E to accommodate this new category of entities subject to regulatory fees. The Commission created a streamlined electronic form, FCC Form 159-E, to associate a mailed or faxed payment with regulatory fees, which are filed on-line. Pertinent information is taken directly from the regulatory fee electronic filing system (Fee Filer) and populated on the FCC Form 159-E, which can be printed by the filer. The FCC Form 159-E, essentially a simple payment voucher, contains summary information, which distinguishes the payment but not detailed information about the fee(s). Specific associated fee information is available on a separate report, which the filer does not need to remit. Beginning with the FY 2005 regulatory fees, the Commission has required FCC Form 159-E to accompany all payments derived from the regulatory fee electronic filing system, except on-line payments, which do not require any paper submission. Payment may be made by check or money order, credit card or wire transfer. The Commission uses this information to apply credit for the remittance against all regulatory fees within the associated electronic submission. The payment instrument must be in the dollar amount specified on the FCC Form 159-E for full credit to be applied. Expanded use of the FCC Form 159-E is possible in the future as additional streamlining for this process is implemented. This form may be used in lieu of pre-populated FCC Form 159s, which are currently produced to facilitate remittance for various electronic filings. The FCC Form 159-E may, therefore, impact users of all electronic filing systems, as well as users of an FCC bill paying system (currently Fee Filer and the Red Light Display system). This information collection may affect some individuals or households; however, the Commission has in place a registration process * http:// www.fcc.gov, * which issues a Federal Registration Number
(FRN)to each applicant/licensee, *etc.* , for use in filing any of these FCC Forms 159/159-C, 159-B, 159-E, and/or 159-W. As part of the registration process, the applicant/licensee's SSN or TIN is stored in a secure environment, which minimizes any potential privacy risks. The Commission is merging 3060-0949, Interstate Telephone Service Provider Worksheet, FCC Form 159-W, into this information collection. Once approved by OMB, the Commission will cancel 3060-0949. The FCC bills telecommunications licensees and permittees using the FCC Form 159-W as the invoice. The FCC developed FCC Form 159-W to provide a convenient format for these telecommunications licensees and permittees to verify the information that is extracted from the interstate revenue information (which are already “populated” on this form), to verify the simple calculation of the fee amount that is due, and to correct any inaccuracies as necessary. The FCC uses this form to bill the telecommunications licensee or permittee the amount of its regulatory fee. The FCC is making minor revisions to FCC Form 159-W to provide a clearer format. Respondents may access FCC Form 159-W on line through the FCC's Web page: *http://www.fcc.gov/frnreg* if they wish to submit payment prior to being billed. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-23808 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission, Comments Requested November 29, 2007. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to
(PRA)of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Subject to the PRA, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning
(a)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before February 8, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: You may submit all PRA comments by e-mail or U.S. post mail. To submit your comments by e-mail, send them to *PRA@fcc.gov* . To submit your comments by U.S. mail, mark them to the attention of Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about the information collection(s), contact Cathy Williams at
(202)418-2918 or send an e-mail to *PRA@fcc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0652. *Title:* Section 76.309, Customer Service Obligations; Section 76.1602; Customer Service—General Information; Section 76.1603, Customer Service—Rate and Service Changes—General Information, and Section 76.1619, Information on Subscriber Bills. *Form Number:* Not applicable. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit entities; State, Local or Tribal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 8,260. *Estimated Time per Response:* 10 minutes to 1 hour. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement. *Total Annual Burden:* 29,235 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* None. *Privacy Impact Assessment:* No impact(s). *Nature of Response:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *Confidentiality:* No need for confidentiality required. *Needs and Uses:* 47 CFR 76.309 and 47 CFR 76.1603 set forth various customer service obligations and notification requirements for changes in rates, programming services and channel positions. 47 CFR 76.1602(a) states that franchise authorities must provide affected cable operators 90 days written notice of its intent to enforce customer services standards. 47 CFR 76.1603(b) states that customers will be notified of any changes in rates, programming services or channel positions as soon as possible in writing. Notice must be given to subscribers a minimum of thirty
(30)days in advance of such changes if the change is within the control of the cable operator. In addition, the cable operator shall notify subscribers 30 days in advance of any significant changes in the other information required by Section 76.1602. 47 CFR n 76.1603(c) states that in addition to the requirement set forth in Section 76.1603(b) regarding advance notification to customers of any changes in rates, programming services or channel positions, cable systems shall give 30 days written notice to both subscribers and local franchising authorities before implementing any rate or service change. Such notice shall state the precise amount of any rate change and briefly explain in readily understandable fashion the cause of the rate change (e.g. inflation, changes in external costs or the addition/deletion of channels). When the change involves the addition or deletion of channels, each channel added or deleted must be separately identified. Section 76.1602(c) requires cable operators to inform subscribers in writing of their right to file complaints about changes in cable programming service tier rates and services, and shall provide the address and phone number of the local franchising authority. 47 CFR 76.1619(b) states that in case of a billing dispute, the cable operator must respond to a written complaint from a subscriber within 30 days. In addition, Section 76.1619 sets forth requirements for information on subscriber bills. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-23810 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Comments Requested November 30, 2007. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning
(a)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Written Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)comments should be submitted on or before February 8, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget,
(202)395-5887, or via fax at 202-395-5167 or via Internet at *Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov* and to *Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov* , Federal Communications Commission. To submit your PRA comments by e-mail send them to: *PRA@fcc.gov* . To view a copy of this information collection request
(ICR)submitted to OMB, go to *http://www.fcc.gov/omd/pra/collections-review.html* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), contact Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214 or via the Internet at *Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0004. *Title:* Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket 93-62, FCC 97-303. *Form No.:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; and state, local or tribal government. *Number of Respondents:* 376,253 respondents; 376,253 responses. *Estimated Time per Response:* .44 hours (average). *Frequency of Response:* On occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement. *Obligation to Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *Total Annual Burden:* 164,000 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* $26,700,000. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* N/A. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* There is no need for confidentiality. *Needs and Uses:* The Commission will submit this revision to the OMB after this 60 day comment period to obtain the full three-year clearance from them. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)requires Federal agencies to evaluate the effects of their actions on human environmental quality. To comply with NEPA, the Commission adopted rules in 1997, 47 CFR 1.1307, which revised the Radio Frequency
(RF)exposure guidelines for FCC-regulated facilities. The guidelines reflect more recent scientific studies of RF electromagnetic fields and their biological effects, and are designed to ensure that the public and workers are adequately protected from exposure to potentially harmful RF electromagnetic fields. The FCC staff uses the information required under section 1.1307 to determine whether the environmental evaluation is sufficiently complete and in compliance with the FCC rules to be acceptable for filing. This information is needed because the Commission requires applicants to perform an environmental evaluation with respect to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Applicants are required to consider contributions from other transmitters within the vicinity of their facility in order to assess the cumulative exposure. Accordingly, to correctly determine compliance with the Commission's exposure limits, an applicant must locate, determine ownership, and gather technical information for all contributing transmitters. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-23818 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission for Extension Under Delegated Authority, Comments Requested November 29, 2007. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning
(a)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Persons wishing to comment on this information collection should submit comments February 8, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
(202)395-5887, or via fax at 202-395-5167, or via the Internet at *Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov* and to *Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov* , Federal Communications Commission (FCC). To submit your PRA comments by e-mail send them to: *PRA@fcc.gov.* To view a copy of this information collection request
(ICR)submitted to OMB, go to *http://www.fcc.gov/omd/pra/collections-review.html.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about the information collection(s) send an e-mail to *PRA@fcc.gov* or contact Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control No.:* 3060-0357. *Title:* Section 63.701, Request for Designation as a Recognized Private Operating Agency (RPOA). *Form No.:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 10 respondents; 10 responses. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 5 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion reporting requirement. *Obligation to Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *Total Annual Burden:* 35 hours. *Annual Cost Burden:* $13,000. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* N/A. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* In general, there is no need for confidentiality. *Needs and Uses:* This collection will be submitted as an extension (no change in reporting or recordkeeping requirements) after this 60 day comment period to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)in order to obtain the full three year clearance. The Commission requests this information in order to make recommendations to the U.S. Department of State for granting recognized private operating agency
(RPOA)status to requesting entities. The Commission does not require entities to request RPOA status. Rather, this is a voluntary application process for use by companies that believe that obtaining RPOA status will be beneficial in persuading foreign governments to allow them to conduct business abroad. RPOA status also permits companies to join the International Telecommunication Union's (ITU's) Telecommunications Sector, which is the standards-setting body of the ITU. The information furnished in RPOA requests is collected pursuant to 47 CFR 63.701 of the Commission's rules. Entities submit these applications on a voluntary basis. The collection of information is a one-time collection for each respondent. Without this information collection, the Commission's policies and objectives for assisting unregulated providers of enhanced services to enter the market for international enhanced services would be thwarted. *OMB Control No.:* 3060-0454. *Title:* Regulation of International Accounting Rates. *Form No.:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 5 respondents; 41 responses. *Estimated Time per Response:* 1-5 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion reporting requirement. *Obligation to Respond:* Mandatory. *Total Annual Burden:* 205 hours. *Annual Cost Burden:* $2,000. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* N/A. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* In general, there is no need for confidentiality. *Needs and Uses:* This collection will be submitted as an extension (no change in reporting or recordkeeping requirements) after this 60 day comment period to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)in order to obtain the full three year clearance. The information is used by Commission staff in carrying out its duties under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The information collections are necessary for the Commission to maintain effective oversight of U.S. carriers that are affiliated with, or involved in certain co-marketing or similar arrangements with, foreign carriers that are affiliated with, or involved in certain co-marketing or similar arrangements with, foreign carriers that have market power. Additionally, the information collections are necessary to analyze market trends to determine whether amendment of the Commission's existing rules or proposals of new rules are necessary to promote effective competition and prevent anti-competitive behavior between American and foreign carriers. If the collections are not conducted or are conducted less frequently, applicants will not obtain the authorizations necessary to provide telecommunications services, and the Commission will be unable to carry out its mandate under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Furthermore, the Commission would lack sufficient information to determine whether new or modified rules are necessary to combat anti-competitive behavior between American and foreign carriers. *OMB Control No.:* 3060-0962. *Title:* Redesignation of the 18 GHz Frequency Band, Blanket Licensing of Satellite Earth Stations in the Ka-Band, and the Allocation of Additional Spectrum for Broadcast Satellite Use. *Form No.:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 5 respondents; 590 responses. *Estimated Time per Response:* 1-4 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion and annual reporting requirements; third party disclosure requirement; and recordkeeping requirement. *Obligation to Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *Total Annual Burden:* 590 hours. *Annual Cost Burden:* $60,000. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* N/A. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* In general, there is no need for confidentiality. *Needs and Uses:* This collection will be submitted as an extension (no change in reporting or recordkeeping requirements) after this 60 day comment period to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)in order to obtain the full three year clearance. The collection of this information is necessary for the Commission to determine whether licensees are complying with the Commission's rules applicable to satellite earth stations and to deploy new satellite systems. If the collection were not conducted, the Commission would not be able to verify whether NGSO/FSS satellite earth stations in the Ka-band were operating in accordance with Commission rules. Additionally, spectrum would not be used most efficiently and would, therefore, result in hindering the provision of new or enhanced telecommunications services to the public. *OMB Control No.:* 3060-1013. *Title:* Mitigation of Orbital Debris. *Form No.:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 53 respondents; 53 responses. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 3 hours. *Frequency of Response:* Annual reporting requirement and recordkeeping requirement. *Obligation to Respond:* Mandatory. *Total Annual Burden:* 159 hours. *Annual Cost Burden:* $74,000. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* N/A. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* In general, there is no need for confidentiality. *Needs and Uses:* This collection will be submitted as an extension (no change in reporting or recordkeeping requirements) after this 60-day comment period to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)in order to obtain the full three year clearance. Disclosure of debris mitigation plans as part of requests for FCC authorization will help preserve the United States' continued affordable access to space, the continued provision of reliable U.S. space-based services—including communications and remote sensing satellite services for the U.S. commercial, government, and homeland security purposes—as well as the continued safety of persons and property in space and on the surface of the Earth. Disclosure of debris mitigation plans will allow the Commission and potentially affected third parties to evaluate satellite operators' debris mitigation plans prior to the issuance of a FCC approval for communications activities in space. Disclosure may also aid in the wider dissemination of information concerning debris mitigation techniques and may provide a base-line of information that will aid in analyzing and refining those techniques. Without disclosure of orbital debris mitigation plans as part of applications for FCC authority, the Commission would be denied any opportunity to ascertain whether satellite operators are in fact considering and adopting reasonable debris mitigation practices, which could result in an increase in orbital debris and a decrease in the utility of space for communications and other uses. Furthermore, the effects of collisions involving orbital debris can be catastrophic and may cause significant damage to functional spacecraft or to persons or property on the surface of the Earth, if the debris re-enters the Earth's atmosphere in an uncontrolled manner. *OMB Control No.:* 3060-1028. *Title:* International Signaling Point Code (ISPC). *Form No.:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 20 respondents; 20 responses. *Estimated Time Per Response:* .166 hours (10 minutes). *Frequency of Response:* On occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement. *Obligation to Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *Total Annual Burden:* 7 hours. *Annual Cost Burden:* N/A. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* N/A. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* In general, there is no need for confidentiality. *Needs and Uses:* This collection will be submitted as an extension (no change in reporting or recordkeeping requirements) after this 60-day comment period to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)in order to obtain the full three year clearance. An International Signaling Point Code
(ISPC)is a unique, seven-digit code synonymously used to identify the signaling network of each international carrier. The ISPC has a unique format that is used at the international level for signaling message routing and identification of signaling points. The Commission receives ISPC applications from international carriers on the electronic, Internet-based International Bureau Filing System (IBFS). After receipt of the ISPC application, the Commission assigns the ISPC code to each applicant (international carrier) free of charge on a first-come, first-served basis. The collection of this information is required to assign a unique identification code to each international carrier and to facilitate communication among international carriers by their use of the ISPC code on the shared signaling network. The Commission informs the International Telecommunications Union
(ITU)of its assignment of ISPCs to international carriers on an ongoing basis. *OMB Control No.:* 3060-1029. *Title:* Data Network Identification Code (DNIC). *Form No.:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 5 respondents; 5 responses. *Estimated Time Per Response:* .25 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion reporting requirement. *Obligation to Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *Total Annual Burden:* 1 hour. *Annual Cost Burden:* N/A. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* N/A. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* In general, there is no need for confidentiality. *Needs and Uses:* This collection will be submitted as an extension (no change in reporting or recordkeeping requirements) after this 60-day comment period to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)in order to obtain the full three year clearance. A Data Network Identification Code
(DNIC)is a unique, four-digit number designed to provide discrete identification of individual public data networks. The DNIC is intended to identify and permit automated switching of data traffic to particular networks. The FCC grants the DNICs to operators of public data networks on an international protocol. The operators of public data networks file an application for a DNIC on the Internet-based, International Bureau Filing System (IBFS). The DNIC is obtained free of charge on a one-time only basis unless there is a change in ownership or the owner chooses to relinquish the code to the FCC. The Commission's lack of an assignment of DNICs to operators of public data networks would result in technical problems that prevent the identification and automated switching of data traffic to particular networks. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-23819 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission for Extension Under Delegated Authority, Comments Requested November 29, 2007. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to
(PRA)of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Subject to the PRA, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning
(a)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before February 8, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: You may submit all PRA comments by e-mail or U.S. post mail. To submit your comments by e-mail, send them to *PRA@fcc.gov* . To submit your comments by U.S. mail, mark them to the attention of Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about the information collection(s), contact Cathy Williams at
(202)418-2918 or send an e-mail to *PRA@fcc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0185. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Title:* Section 73.3613, Filing of Contracts. *Form Number:* Not applicable. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 2,300. *Estimated Hours per Response:* 0.25 to 0.5 hours *Frequency of Response:* Recordkeeping requirement; On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement. *Total Annual Burden:* 950 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* $80,000. *Privacy Impact Assessment:* No impact(s). *Nature of Response:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *Confidentiality:* No need for confidentiality required. *Needs and Uses:* 47 CFR 73.3613 requires each licensee or permittee of a commercial or noncommercial AM, FM, TV or International broadcast station shall file with the FCC copies of the following items: Contracts, instruments, and documents together with amendments, supplements, and cancellations (with the substance of oral contracts reported in writing), within 30 days of execution thereof:
(a)*Network service:* Network affiliation contracts between stations and networks will be reduced to writing and filed as follows:
(1)All network affiliation contracts, agreements, or understandings between a TV broadcast or low power TV station and a national network. For the purposes of this paragraph the term network means any person, entity, or corporation which offers an interconnected program service on a regular basis for 15 or more hours per week to at least 25 affiliated television licensees in 10 or more states; and/or any person, entity, or corporation controlling, controlled by, or under common control with such person, entity, or corporation.
(2)Each such filing on or after May 1, 1969, initially shall consist of a written instrument containing all of the terms and conditions of such contract, agreement or understanding without reference to any other paper or document by incorporation or otherwise. Subsequent filings may simply set forth renewal, amendment or change, as the case may be, of a particular contract previously filed in accordance herewith.
(3)The FCC shall also be notified of the cancellation or termination of network affiliations, contracts for which are required to be filed by this section.
(b)*Ownership or control:* Contracts, instruments or documents relating to the present or future ownership or control of the licensee or permittee or of the licensee's or permittee's stock, rights or interests therein, or relating to changes in such ownership or control shall include but are not limited to the following:
(1)Articles of partnership, association, and incorporation, and changes in such instruments;
(2)Bylaws, and any instruments effecting changes in such bylaws;
(3)Any agreement, document or instrument providing for the assignment of a license or permit, or affecting, directly or indirectly, the ownership or voting rights of the licensee's or permittee's stock (common or preferred, voting or nonvoting), such as:
(i)Agreements for transfer of stock;
(ii)Instruments for the issuance of new stock; or
(iii)Agreements for the acquisition of licensee's or permittee's stock by the issuing licensee or permittee corporation. Pledges, trust agreements, options to purchase stock and other executory agreements are required to be filed. However, trust agreements or abstracts thereof are not required to be filed, unless requested specifically by the FCC. Should the FCC request an abstract of the trust agreement in lieu of the trust agreement, the licensee or permittee will submit the following information concerning the trust:
(A)Name of trust;
(B)Duration of trust;
(C)Number of shares of stock owned;
(D)Name of beneficial owner of stock;
(E)Name of record owner of stock;
(F)Name of the party or parties who have the power to vote or control the vote of the shares; and
(G)Any conditions on the powers of voting the stock or any unusual characteristics of the trust.
(4)Proxies with respect to the licensee's or permittee's stock running for a period in excess of 1 year, and all proxies, whether or not running for a period of 1 year, given without full and detailed instructions binding the nominee to act in a specified manner. With respect to proxies given without full and detailed instructions, a statement showing the number of such proxies, by whom given and received, and the percentage of outstanding stock represented by each proxy shall be submitted by the licensee or permittee within 30 days after the stockholders' meeting in which the stock covered by such proxies has been voted. However, when the licensee or permittee is a corporation having more than 50 stockholders, such complete information need be filed only with respect to proxies given by stockholders who are officers or directors, or who have 1% or more of the corporation's voting stock. When the licensee or permittee is a corporation having more than 50 stockholders and the stockholders giving the proxies are not officers or directors or do not hold 1% or more of the corporation's stock, the only information required to be filed is the name of any person voting 1% or more of the stock by proxy, the number of shares voted by proxy by such person, and the total number of shares voted at the particular stockholders' meeting in which the shares were voted by proxy.
(5)Mortgage or loan agreements containing provisions restricting the licensee's or permittee's freedom of operation, such as those affecting voting rights, specifying or limiting the amount of dividends payable, the purchase of new equipment, or the maintenance of current assets.
(6)Any agreement reflecting a change in the officers, directors or stockholders of a corporation, other than the licensee or permittee, having an interest, direct or indirect, in the licensee or permittee as specified by § 73.3615.
(7)Agreements providing for the assignment of a license or permit or agreements for the transfer of stock filed in accordance with FCC application Forms 314, 315, 316 need not be resubmitted pursuant to the terms of this rule provision.
(c)*Personnel:*
(1)Management consultant agreements with independent contractors; contracts relating to the utilization in a management capacity of any person other than an officer, director, or regular employee of the licensee or permittee; station management contracts with any persons, whether or not officers, directors, or regular employees, which provide for both a percentage of profits and a sharing in losses; or any similar agreements.
(2)*The following contracts, agreements, or understandings need not be filed:* Agreements with persons regularly employed as general or station managers or salesmen; contracts with program managers or program personnel; contracts with attorneys, accountants or consulting radio engineers; contracts with performers; contracts with station representatives; contracts with labor unions; or any similar agreements. (d)(1) *Time brokerage agreements (also known as local marketing agreements):* Time brokerage agreements involving radio stations where the licensee (including all parties under common ownership) is the brokering entity, the brokering and brokered stations are both in the same market as defined in the local radio multiple ownership rule contained in § 73.3555(a), and more than 15 percent of the time of the brokered station, on a weekly basis is brokered by that licensee; time brokerage agreements involving television stations where the licensee (including all parties under common control) is the brokering entity, the brokering and brokered stations are both licensed to the same market as defined in the local television multiple ownership rule contained in § 73.3555(b), and more than 15 percent of the time of the brokered station, on a weekly basis, is brokered by that licensee; time brokerage agreements involving radio or television stations that would be attributable to the licensee under § 73.3555 Note 2, paragraph (i). Confidential or proprietary information may be redacted where appropriate but such information shall be made available for inspection upon request by the FCC.
(2)*Joint sales agreements:* Joint sales agreements involving radio stations where the licensee (including all parties under common control) is the brokering entity, the brokering and brokered stations are both in the same market as defined in the local radio multiple ownership rule contained in § 73.3555(a), and more than 15 percent of the advertising time of the brokered station on a weekly basis is brokered by that licensee. Confidential or proprietary information may be redacted where appropriate but such information shall be made available for inspection upon request by the FCC.
(e)The following contracts, agreements or understandings need not be filed but shall be kept at the station and made available for inspection upon request by the FCC; subchannel leasing agreements for Subsidiary Communications Authorization operation; franchise/leasing agreements for operation of telecommunications services on the television vertical blanking interval and in the visual signal; time sales contracts with the same sponsor for 4 or more hours per day, except where the length of the events (such as athletic contests, musical programs and special events) broadcast pursuant to the contract is not under control of the station; and contracts with chief operators. In June 2003, the Commission adopted changes to 47 CFR 73.3613 and the FCC's attribution rules. As a result, radio stations located in Arbitron radio markets must now file agreements for the sale of advertising time ( *i.e.* , “Joint Sales Agreements” or “JSAs”) that result in attribution under the Commission's multiple ownership rules. 47 CFR 73.3613 requires licensees of television and radio broadcast stations to file with the Commission:
(a)Contracts relating to ownership or control and personnel; and
(b)time brokerage agreements that result in arrangements being counted under the Commission's multiple ownership rules. Television stations also must file network affiliation agreements. This section also requires certain contracts to be retained at the station and made available for inspection by the Commission upon request. On June 24, 2004, the Court issued an *Opinion and Judgment* (“ *Remand Order* ”) in which it upheld certain aspects of the new ownership rules, including the attribution of JSAs among radio stations, while requiring further explanation for certain other aspects of the new rules. The Court stated that its prior stay of the new rules would remain in effect pending the outcome of the remand proceeding. The Commission has not yet responded to the *Remand Order* , but in the meantime the Commission filed a petition for rehearing requesting that the Court lift the stay partially— *i.e.* , with respect to the radio ownership and JSA attribution rules which the Court's *Remand Order* upheld. On September 3, 2004, the Court issued an Order (“ *Rehearing Order* ”) which partially granted the Commission's petition for rehearing, thus lifting the stay of the revised radio ownership and JSA attribution rules. As a result of the *Rehearing Order* , the Commission's revised radio ownership and JSA attribution rules took effect on September 3, 2004. Implementation of the new radio ownership and JSA attribution rules, as required by the *Rehearing Order* , triggers the requirement for certain licensees to begin filing JSAs. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-23821 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission, Comments Requested November 29, 2007. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to
(PRA)of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Subject to the PRA, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning
(a)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before February 8, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: You may submit all PRA comments by e-mail or U.S. post mail. To submit your comments by e-mail, send them to *PRA@fcc.gov.* To submit your comments by U.S. mail, mark them to the attention of Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about the information collection(s), contact Cathy Williams at
(202)418-2918 or send an e-mail to *PRA@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0833. *Title:* Implementation of Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Complaint Filings/Designation of Agents. *Form Number:* Not applicable. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Individuals or households; Businesses or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions, Federal government; State, local or tribal governments. *Number of Respondents:* 8,677. *Estimated Time per Response:* 0.50-5.0 hours. *Frequency of Response:* Recordkeeping requirement; On occasion and one-time reporting requirements; Third party disclosure requirement. *Total Annual Burden:* 12,600 burden hours. *Total Annual Cost:* $730,500. *Nature of Response:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* Confidentiality is an issue to the extent that individuals and households provide personally identifiable information, which is covered under the FCC's system of records notice (SORN), FCC/CGB-1, “Informal Complaints and Inquiries.” *Privacy Impact Assessment:* The Privacy Impact Assessment was completed on June 28, 2007. It may be reviewed by *http://www.fcc.gov/privacyact/Privacy_Impact_Assessment.html* . *Needs and Uses:* The information collection requirements included under this OMB Control Number 3060-0833, enables the Commission to govern the filing of complaints as part of the implementation of Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which seeks to ensure that telecommunications equipment and services are available to all Americans, including those individuals with disabilities. In particular, Telecommunications service providers and equipment manufacturers are asked for a one-time designation of an agent who will receive and promptly handle voluntary consumer complaints of accessibility concerns. As with any complaint procedure, a certain number of regulatory and information burdens are necessary to ensure compliance with FCC rules. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-23823 Filed 12-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Submitted for Review to the Office of Management and Budget November 29, 2007. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning
(a)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Written comments should be submitted on or before January 9, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via Internet at *Nicholas—A.—Fraser@omb.eop.gov* or via fax at
(202)395-5167 and to Leslie F. Smith, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C216, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or via Internet at *Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov* or *PRA@fcc.gov.* To view a copy of this information collection request
(ICR)submitted to OMB:
(1)Go to the Web page *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* ,
(2)look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,”
(3)click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading,
(4)select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box,
(5)click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box,
(6)when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the title of this ICR (or its OMB control number, if there is one) and then click on the ICR Reference Number to view detailed information about this ICR.” FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about the information collection(s), contact Leslie F. Smith via e-mail at *PRA@fcc.gov* or call
(202)418-0217. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0806 *Title:* Universal Service—Schools and Libraries Universal Service Program. *Form Number(s):* FCC Forms 470 and 471. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit entities; institutions and other not-for-profits; and state, local, or tribal governments. *Number of Respondents:* 60,000 respondents. *Estimated Time per Response:* 10 minutes to 4.5 hours. *Frequency of Response:* Annual reporting requirement; recordkeeping; and third party disclosure. *Obligation To Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *Total Annual Burden:* 525,003 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* $0.00. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* No impacts. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* The Commission is not requesting that the respondents submit confidential information to the FCC. Respondents may, however, request confidential treatment for information they believe to be confidential under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules. *Needs and Uses:* The Commission's rules under 47 CFR 54.500-54.523, provide support for all telecommunications services, Internet access, and internal connections for all eligible schools and libraries. To participate in the program, schools and libraries must submit a description of the services desired to the Universal Service Administrative Company, the Administrator of the Universal Service Fund, via FCC Form 470. FCC Form 471 is submitted by schools and libraries that have ordered telecommunications services, Internet access, and internal connections. The data are used by the Administrator to determine eligibility. The Administrator also collects an FCC registration number from each school and library. Program participants are also required to retain all records related to the application for, receipt and delivery of discounted services for a period of five years. As noted in the *2007 Comprehensive Review of the Universal Service Fund Management, Administration, and Oversight* (“ *2007 Comprehensive Review* ”), WC Docket Nos. 05-195, 02-60, 03-109 and CC Docket Nos. 95-45, 02-6, 97-21, FCC 07-150, which was released on August 29, 2007, the Commission is currently conducting inquiries to examine what additional data the Commission wants to collect and what changes should be made to the relevant FCC Forms. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-23825 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notices DATE & TIME: Friday, December 14, 2007, at 1 p.m. PLACE: 999 E. Street, NW., Washington, DC. (Ninth Floor) STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public. Items To Be Discussed Correction and Approval of Minutes. Election of Officers. Future Meeting Dates. Draft Advisory Opinion 2007-27: ActBlue by Jonathan Zucker, Esq. Draft Advisory Opinion 2007-28: Representatives Kevin McCarthy and Devin Nunes, by Charles Bell, Jr., Esq. and Ashlee Titus, Esq. Draft Advisory Opinion 2007-31: John Edwards for President, by Lora Haggard, CFO. Draft Advisory Opinion 2007-34: Representative Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. Electioneering Communications Explanation and Justification. Management and Administrative Matters. DATE & TIME: Tuesday, December 18, 2007, 10 a.m. PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. This meeting will be closed to the public. Items To Be Discussed Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g. Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C. Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration. Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee. PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, Telephone:
(202)694-1220. Mary W. Dove, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 07-6011 Filed 12-6-07; 2:50 pm]
Connectionstraces to 24
Traces to 24 documents
CFR
21 references not yet in our index
  • 337 F.3d 1373
  • 113 F.3d 1220
  • 899 F.2d 1185
  • 117 F.3d 1401
  • 19 CFR 251.213(d)(4)
  • 50 CFR 253
  • 37 CFR 404
  • Pub. L. 107-110
  • 34 CFR 79
  • 34 CFR 86
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 47 CFR 0.459
  • 47 CFR 76.309
  • 47 CFR 76.1603
  • 47 CFR 76.1602(a)
  • 47 CFR 76.1603(b)
  • 47 CFR 76.1619(b)
  • 47 CFR 1.1307
  • 47 CFR 63.701
  • 47 CFR 73.3613
  • 47 CFR 54.500-54
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.308
C.F.R.§ 351.224
C.F.R.§ 351.301
C.F.R.§ 351.309
C.F.R.§ 351.310
C.F.R.§ 351.212
C.F.R.§ 351.402
C.F.R.§ 351.106
F. App'x337 F.3d 1373
F. App'x113 F.3d 1220
F. App'x899 F.2d 1185
Cites 45 · 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.