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 · 2008-01-09 · Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Proposed rule

46,729 words·~212 min read·/register/2008/01/09/08-61

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1043; FRL-8514-4] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Michigan; PSD Regulations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to conditionally approve revisions to Michigan's State Implementation plan
(SIP)to add the prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD)construction permit program under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). This program affects major stationary sources in Michigan that are subject to or potentially subject to the PSD construction permit program. DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05- OAR-2007-1043, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. * • *Fax:*
(312)886-5824. • *Mail:* Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. • *Hand Delivery:* Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1043. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Laura Cossa, Environmental Engineer, at
(312)886-0661 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Cossa, Environmental Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312)886-0661, *cossa.laura@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? II. What Is Being Addressed in This Document? III. What Are the Changes That EPA Is Conditionally Approving? IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). 2. Follow directions—The EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. 3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. 4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. 5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. 7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. 8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. What Is Being Addressed in This Document? EPA is proposing to conditionally approve revisions to Michigan's SIP to add the PSD construction permit program. Approval of the proposed state rules would allow Michigan to obtain a full CAA New Source Review
(NSR)SIP. Current state SIP rules implement the major NSR permitting program for sources located in counties not attaining air quality standards, but not the PSD permitting program for sources located in counties attaining air quality standards. Prior to Michigan's development of the submitted PSD program, EPA delegated to Michigan the authority to issue PSD permits through the Federal PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21 (via delegation letter dated September 26, 1988). The new state PSD rules reflect the requirements of CAA 42 Sections 110(a)(2)(c) and 165. The state PSD rules also reflect recent changes to 40 CFR 51.166, following the June 24, 2005, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling on the Federal PSD and non-attainment NSR regulation revisions. These revisions are commonly referred to as “NSR Reform” regulations, and became effective on March 3, 2003. Michigan adopted the PSD rules on December 4, 2006. The rules took effect immediately at the state level. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ)submitted to EPA a final request for approval of these rules into the SIP on December 21, 2006. On February 12, 2007, EPA notified the state that the submittal satisfied the completeness criteria set forth at 40 CFR 51, Appendix V. III. What Are the Changes That EPA Is Conditionally Approving? Michigan Air Pollution Control Rules, Part 18, Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, Rules R 336.2801 to R 336.2819 and R 336.2823
(1)to (14). The following subsections discuss the elements of the proposed state rules and how they compare to Federal requirements: R 336.2801 Definitions *Actual Emissions* Michigan has established the definition of “actual emissions” in R 336.2801(a). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(21). *Baseline Actual Emissions* Michigan has established the definition of “baseline actual emissions” in R 336.2801 (b). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(47). *Baseline Area* Michigan has established the definition of “baseline area” in R 336.2801(c). The definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15). The reference to nonattainment area regulations in state rule R 336.2801(c)(ii)(b) is irrelevant for the purposes of this PSD SIP submittal. *Baseline Concentration* Michigan has established the definition of “baseline concentration” in R 336.2801(d). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(13). *Begin Actual Construction* Michigan has established the definition of “begin actual construction” in R 336.2801 (e). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(11). *Best Available Control Technology or “BACT”* Michigan has established the definition of “BACT” in R 336.2801(f). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(12). *Building, Structure, Facility, or Installation* Michigan has established the definition of “building, structure, facility, or installation”—in R 336.2801 (g). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(6). *Clean Coal Technology * Michigan has established the definition of “clean coal technology” in R 336.2801 (h). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(33). *Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project* Michigan has established the definition of “clean coal technology demonstration project” in R 336.2801(i). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(34). *Commence * Michigan has established the definition of “commence” in R 336.2801(k). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(9). *Complete * Michigan has established the definition of “complete”—in reference to an application to a permit—in R 336.2801(l). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(22). *Construction * Michigan has established the definition of “construction” in R 336.2801(m). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(8). *Continuous Emissions Monitoring System or “CEMS” * Michigan has established the definition of “CEMS” in R 336.2801(n). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(43). *Continuous Emissions Rate Monitoring System or “CERMS” * Michigan has established the definition of “CERMS” in R 336.2801(o). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(46). *Continuous Parameter Monitoring System or “CPMS” * Michigan has established the definition of “CPMS” in R 336.2801(p). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(45). *Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit* Michigan has established the definition of “electric utility steam generating unit” in R 336.2801(q). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(30). *Emissions Unit * Michigan has established the definition of “emissions unit” in R 336.2801(r). This is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(7). Included in both the Federal and state definitions is the statement that a replacement unit is considered an existing unit under this definition. However, Michigan's rules do not define “replacement unit,” which is included in the Federal rule at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(7). In a letter sent to EPA on May 17, 2007, Michigan agreed to follow the Federal definition of “replacement unit” in its implementation of these rules, and committed to add the definition in a future rulemaking. In a subsequent letter to EPA, dated November 30, 2007, MDEQ committed to add this definition in the rules not later than one year after EPA's conditional approval of this plan. Based on this commitment, and the understanding that Michigan will follow the Federal definition of “replacement unit” in its implementation of the rules in the interim, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve this rule. *Federal Land Manager * Michigan has established the definition of “federal land manager” in R 336.2801(s). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(24). *High Terrain * Michigan has established the definition of “high terrain” in R 336.2801(t). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(25). *Hydrocarbon Combustion Flare * Michigan has established the definition of “hydrocarbon combustion flare” in R 336.2801(u). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(31)(iv). *Indian Reservation * Michigan has established the definition of “Indian reservation” in R 336.2801(v). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(27). *Indian Governing Body * Michigan has established the definition of “Indian governing body” in R 336.2801(w). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(28). *Innovative Control Technology * Michigan has established the definition of “innovative control technology” in R 336.2801(x). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(19). *Low Terrain* Michigan has established the definition of “low terrain” in R 336.2801(y). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(26). “ *Lowest Achievable Emission Rate” or “LAER” * Michigan has established the definition of “LAER” in R 336.2801(z). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(52). *Major Modification * Michigan has established the definition of “major modification” in R 336.2801(aa). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(2). *Major and Minor Source Baseline Date * Michigan has established the definition of “major source baseline date” and “minor source baseline date” in R 336.2801(bb). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14). *Major Stationary Source * Michigan has established the definition of “major stationary source” in R 336.2801(cc). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1). *Necessary Preconstruction Approvals or Permits * Michigan has established the definition of “necessary preconstruction approvals or permits” in R 336.2801(dd). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(10). *Net Emissions Increase * Michigan has established the definition of “net emissions increase” in R 336.2801(ee). This definition exceeds the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(b)(3). As described in 40 CFR 51.166(b), states can use definitions that are more stringent than the corresponding definitions listed in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1) to (56). However, in a letter dated May 17, 2007, Michigan declined intent for a more stringent definition, and stated that the definition of “net emissions increase” is being rewritten under a state rulemaking, so that it will follow the same requirements as the Federal rule. Michigan indicates that the definition of “net emissions increase” as currently set forth in R 336.2801(ee) will be applied until the state rules are revised. EPA finds that the rule is approvable as currently promulgated, and as proposed to be revised to match the Federal definition. Therefore we propose to approve the definition of “net emissions increase” as part of the SIP. *Pollution Prevention * Michigan has established the definition of “pollution prevention” in R 336.2801(gg). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(38). *Potential to Emit or “PTE” * “Michigan has established the definition of “PTE” in R 336.2801(hh). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(4), except instead of “federally enforceable,” vacated in *Chemical Manufacturers Assn* v. *EPA,* No. 89-1514 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 15, 1995) the Michigan rules use the more general term “legally enforceable.” See EPA Interim Policy on Federally Enforceable Requirement for Limitations on PTE, dated January 22, 1996 (“Interim Policy”). EPA proposes to find the use of the term “legally enforceable” approvable as part of the definition of “PTE” because Michigan agrees to apply the term “legally enforceable” in accordance with the Interim Policy to mean legally and practically enforceable by a state or local air pollution control agency, as well as by the EPA. In general, practicable enforceability for a source-specific permit means that the permit's provisions must specify:
(1)A technically-accurate limitation and the portions of the source subject to the limitation;
(2)the time period for the limitation (hourly, daily, monthly, and annual limits such as rolling annual limits); and
(3)the method to determine compliance including appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. For rules and general permits that apply to categories of sources, practicable enforceability additionally requires that the provisions:
(1)Identify the types or categories of sources that are covered by the rule;
(2)where coverage is optional, provide for notice to the permitting authority of the source's election to be covered by the rule; and
(3)specify the enforcement consequences relevant to the rule. Michigan has committed in a letter dated September 11, 2007, to apply the term “legally enforceable” consistent with the above, and to revise the rule to make it consistent with this understanding. In a subsequent letter to EPA, dated November 30, 2007, MDEQ committed to add this definition in the rules not later than one year after EPA's conditional approval of this plan. Therefore EPA is proposing to conditionally approve this rule. *Predictive Emissions Monitoring System or “PEMS” * Michigan has established the definition of “PEMS” in R 336.2801(ii). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(44). *Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program or “PSD”* Michigan has established the definition of “PSD” in R 336.2801(jj). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(42). *Project * Michigan has established the definition of “project” in R 336.2801(kk). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(51). *Projected Actual Emissions * Michigan has established the definition of “projected actual emissions” in R 336.2801(ll). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(40). *Reactivation of a Very Clean Coal-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit * Michigan has established the definition of “reactivation of a very clean coal-fired electric utility steam generating unit” in R 336.2801 (mm). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(37). *Regulated New Source Review Pollutant * Michigan has established the definition of “regulated new source review pollutant” in R 336.2801(nn). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49). *Repowering * Michigan has established the definition of “repowering” in R 336.2801(oo). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(36). *Secondary Emissions * Michigan has established the definition of “secondary emissions” in R 336.2801(pp). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(18). *Significant * Michigan has established the definition of “significant” in R 336.2801(qq). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23). *Significant Emissions Increase * Michigan has established the definition of “significant emissions increase” in R 336.2801(rr). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(39). *Stationary source * Michigan has established the definition of “stationary source” in R 336.2801(ss). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(5). *Temporary Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project * Michigan has established the definition of “temporary clean coal technology demonstration project” in R 336.2801(tt). This definition is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(35). *Definitions Not Included in the PSD SIP * The following 40 CFR 51.166(b) definitions are not included in the submitted SIP rules: “allowable emissions”, “federally enforceable”, and “fugitive emissions”. The definitions of “allowable emissions” and “fugitive emissions” are included in previously approved SIP programs in Michigan's air rules (R 336.1101(j) and R 336.1106(h)), and are consistent with the definitions in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(16) and 40 CFR 51.166(b)(20). EPA is proposing to approve the rules based on Michigan's commitment that, in its implementation of the PSD rules, the State will follow the definitions of “allowable emissions” and “fugitive emissions” as included in previously approved SIP programs in Michigan's air rules (R 336.1101(j) and R 336.1106(h)), and as consistent with the definitions in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(16) and 40 CFR 51.166(b)(20). The definition of “federally enforceable” is not required for the PSD SIP. See discussion above in conjunction with the definition of “PTE.” Instead of “federally enforceable,” the Michigan rules use the term “legally enforceable.” Consistent with the Interim Policy, EPA proposes to find the term “legally enforceable” conditionally approvable as part of the rules’ definition of “PTE” (R 336.2801(hh)) as long as Michigan agrees to apply the term “legally enforceable” in accordance with the Interim Policy to mean legally and practically enforceable by the EPA, a state or local air pollution control agency,” as discussed above. R 336.2802 Applicability The Michigan rule defines the applicability of the PSD permitting program. The rule states that new major sources or major modifications at existing major sources of air pollution must obtain a PSD permit before construction begins. The rule also states that major modifications occur when a project causes a significant increase in an air pollutant. The rule then goes on to provide four methods of determining whether a significant increase occurs:
(1)Baseline actual emissions v. future potential emissions (applies to new or existing sources);
(2)baseline actual emissions v. projected actual emissions (applies to existing sources only);
(3)hybrid combination (for projects involving new and existing sources); and
(4)Plantwide Applicability Limitations. Rule R 336.2802 is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7). R 336.2803 Ambient Air Increments This rule contains the ambient air increment requirements (acceptable maximum impacts that may be caused by a new source of air pollution). Rule R 336.2803 is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(c). R 336.2804 Ambient Air Ceilings This rule sets forth ambient air increment requirements to ensure that no source may cause the concentration of air pollutants in the ambient air to exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Rule R 336.2804 is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(d). R 336.2805 Restrictions on Area Classifications This rule contains the ambient air ceiling requirements for certain Class I areas (such as national parks and national wildlife areas). All other areas of the state are Class II areas. The Federal and state PSD rules allow greater impacts from air pollutants in Class III areas, but Michigan does not currently contain any Class III areas. If Michigan were to seek to establish any Class III areas, then this rule would need to be consistent with Class III requirements at that time. Rule R 336.2805 is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(e). R 336.2806 Exclusions From Increment Consumption This rule specifies concentrations which shall be excluded from determining compliance with maximum allowable increments. Rule R 336.2806 is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(f). R 336.2807 Redesignation This rule contains provisions for obtaining waivers from normal increment consumption requirements. Rule R 336.2807 is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(g). R 336.2808 Stack Heights This rule contains stack heights requirements. Rule R 336.2808 is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(h). R 336.2809 Exemptions This rule exempts certain sources from applicable technology review, air quality monitoring, and projected emission impact modeling requirements. Rule R 336.2809 is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(i). R 336.2810 Control Technology Review This rule requires permit applicants to include the BACT on proposed new major sources or major modifications at existing major sources. Rule R 336.2810 is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(j). R 336.2811 Source Impact Analysis This rule requires permit applicants to demonstrate that their proposed emissions will not cause a violation of the NAAQS or the air quality increment. Rule R 336.2811 is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(k). R 336.2812 Air Quality Models This rule provides requirements for acceptable computer models which may be used in an air quality impact demonstration. Rule R 336.2812 is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(l). R 336.2813 Air Quality Analysis This rule requires that a PSD permit applicant analyze the existing condition of the ambient air at the proposed site both before and after construction (sometimes referred to as preconstruction and post-construction monitoring). Rule R 336.2813 is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(m). R 336.2814 Source Information This rule contains minimum information content requirements for PSD permit applications. Rule R 336.2814 is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(n). R 336.2815 Additional Impact Analyses This rule requires that the PSD permit applicant evaluate additional environmental impacts, like the impairment of visibility, soils, or vegetation. Rule R 336.2815 is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(o). R 336.2816 Sources Impacting Federal Class I Areas; Additional Requirements This rule establishes alternative increment requirements for sources impacting Class I areas. Rule R 336.2816, as submitted, is not consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(p). Specifically, state rule R 332.2816(2)(a) does not include the requirements of 51.166(p)(3), under which a plan must provide a mechanism whereby the Federal Land Manager may present to the state a demonstration of impacts of air quality-related values from proposed source/modification where maximum allowable increases for a Class I area are not violated, in which case if the state concurs, the state does not issue a permit. In a letter to EPA dated November 30, 2007, MDEQ committed to include these requirements in a future rule-making revision, to be completed no later than one year after EPA's conditional approval. Additionally, the state committed to clarify Rules R 332.2816 to more closely comport with 40 CFR 51.166(p). The proposed language, included in the November 30, 2007, letter is acceptable. Therefore EPA is proposing to conditionally approve this rule. R 336.2817 Public Participation This rule establishes the minimum acceptable opportunities for public comment on a proposed PSD permit. In its rules, Michigan is foregoing the right to one full year to act on a complete permit application, and is bound, instead, under the rules to act within 120 days. We approve this change. Rule R 336.2817 is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(q). R 336.2818 Source Obligation This rule places additional requirements upon the PSD permit applicant, including recordkeeping requirements for applicants using certain methods for determining if a project results in a significant increase. On December 31, 2002, EPA published revisions to the Federal PSD and non-attainment NSR regulations. These revisions are commonly referred to as “NSR Reform” regulations and became effective on March 3, 2003. These regulatory revisions include provisions for baseline emissions determinations, actual-to-future actual methodology, Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs), Clean Units, and Pollution Control Projects (PCP). The Federal rules require a source to follow the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this section if there is a “reasonable possibility” that a source may exceed the projected actual emissions (40 CFR 51.166(r)(6)). The “reasonable possibility” clause of this provision of the Federal rule has been remanded to EPA in the June 24, 2005, D.C. Circuit Court ruling in *State of New York et al.* v. *EPA* , 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005). On December 14, 2007, EPA issued a final rule that provides additional explanation and more detailed criteria to clarify the ”reasonable possibility” recordkeeping and reporting standard of the 2002 NSR reform rules. This final action will require recordkeeping and reporting when the projected increase in emissions to which the “reasonable possibility” test applies equals or exceeds 50 percent of the CAA's NSR significance levels for any pollutant. 1 MDEQ must submit a notice to EPA within 1 year from this conditional approval—before EPA takes final action to approve this aspect of the SIP—to acknowledge the rule change and that the PSD regulations will continue to follow the “reasonable possibility” provisions in a manner that is consistent with EPA's final rule. All the requirements of rule R 336.2818 are consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(r). 1 Currently, the MDEQ's minor source permitting program—Rule R 336.1201—requires this information to be submitted for all sources as part of a complete Permit to Install application before beginning actual construction on the proposed project (not just where there is a “reasonable possibility” that the source may exceed the projected actual emissions). Because this is more stringent than the Federal requirement, we approve this approach. R 336.2819 Innovative Control Technology This rule contains provisions allowing a PSD permit applicant to experiment with new control technologies to satisfy the BACT requirement. Rule R 336.2819 is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(s). R 336.2823
(1)to
(14)Actuals Plantwide Applicability Limits
(PALs)This rule contains an alternate applicability method for determining if a source requires a PSD permit. Rule R 336.2823(1) to
(14)is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(w). Rules Not Included in the PSD SIP Subrule R 336.1823(15) contains provisions synchronizing the Michigan minor permit to install program with the new PAL provisions. This subrule is mainly concerned with state air toxics provisions and was not submitted as part of Michigan's PSD SIP. Therefore, EPA is not taking action on rule R 336.1823(15) as part of this rulemaking action. Rule R 336.2830 is intended to provide a parallel appeal procedure to the procedure that is currently in place for the Federal PSD program in Michigan under the regulation at 40 CFR 124. The rule creates a right to an administrative hearing before a state administrative law judge that is similar to the current appeal rights under the Federal PSD permitting program. This rule is not submitted as part of Michigan's PSD SIP. Therefore, EPA is not taking action on rule R 336.2830. IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? EPA is proposing to conditionally approve revisions to the SIP to include the PSD construction permit programs of the State of Michigan. Conditions for Conditional Approval As noted above, EPA has identified several minor deficiencies that are necessary to correct in Michigan's rules so that the rules are approvable. The areas of concern are discussed in more detail above. In a letter to EPA dated May 17, 2007, Michigan committed to follow the federal definition of *“replacement unit”* (40 CFR 51.166(b)(7)) in its implementation of these rules, and to add the definition to the state rules in a future rulemaking. For the definition of *“PTE” (Rule 336.2801(hh))* , Michigan follows the federal definition, except instead of *“federally enforceable”,* the Michigan rules use the more general term *“legally enforceable”* . Michigan has committed, in a letter to EPA dated September 11, 2007, to apply the term *legally enforceable* to mean legally and practically enforceable by the EPA, a state or local air pollution agency, consistent with the Interim Policy dated January 22, 1996. The state's current *Rule 336.2816* does not include a mechanism under which the Federal Land Manager may present to the state a demonstration of impacts of air quality-related values from proposed source/modification where maximum allowable increases for a Class I area are not violated, and if the state concurs it does not issue the permit (as per 40 CFR 51.166(p) (3)). In order to add the missing requirement for sources impacting federal Class I areas, MDEQ committed, in a letter to EPA dated November 30, 2007, to add these requirements through a future rule-making revision. Additionally, the state committed to clarify this state rule to more closely comport with federal requirements (The deficiencies being addressed are described in more detail above in Part III of this document entitled “What Are The Changes That EPA is Conditionally Approving?”). Under section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, EPA may conditionally approve a SIP revision based on a commitment from the state to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain that is no more than one year from the date of conditional approval. In this action, we are proposing to approve the SIP revision that Michigan has submitted on the condition that the specified deficiencies in the SIP revision are corrected, as noted above, within a year of a final conditional approval of the rules. If this condition is not fulfilled within one year of the effective date of final rulemaking by correction of all of the specified deficiencies, the conditional approval for the uncorrected sections of the state rules will automatically revert to disapproval, as of the deadline for meeting the conditions, without further action from the EPA. EPA would subsequently publish a notice in the **Federal Register** providing notice and details of such disapproval. If Michigan submits final and effective rule revisions correcting the deficiencies, as discussed above, within one year from this conditional approval becoming final and effective, EPA will publish a subsequent notice in the **Federal Register** to acknowledge conversion of the conditional approval to a full approval. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it proposes approval of a state rule implementing a Federal Standard. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant regulatory action,” this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Absent a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA do not apply. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: December 27, 2007. Gary Gulezian, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E8-186 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 07-5037; MB Docket No. 07-279; RM-11411] Radio Broadcasting Services; Iola, TX AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rulemaking filed by Charles Crawford (“Petitioner”) proposing the allotment of Channel 299A at Iola, Texas, as the first FM broadcast service at Iola. The proposed coordinates are 30-40-42 NL and 96-09-30 WL with a site restriction of 13.1 kilometers (8.1 miles) southwest of Iola, Texas. DATES: Comments must be filed on or before February 11, 2008, and reply comments on or before February 26, 2008. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the Petitioner and his counsel as follows: Charles Crawford; 4553 Bordeaux Ave.; Dallas, Texas 75295; and Gene A. Bechtel, Law Office of Gene Bechtel; 1050 17th Street, NW., Suite 600; Washington, DC 20036. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau,
(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's *Notice of Proposed Rule Making,* MB Docket No. 07-279, adopted December 19, 2007, and released December 21, 2007. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Information Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone1-800-378-3160 or *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all *ex parte* contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. *See* 47 CFR Section 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible *ex parte* contact. For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, *see* 47 CFR Sections 1.415 and 1.420. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Texas, is amended by adding Iola, Channel 299A. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E8-204 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 07-5036; MB Docket No. 07-281; RM-11408] Radio Broadcasting Services; Elko, NV AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rulemaking filed by L. Topaz Enterprises, Inc., requesting the allotment of Channels 274C3 and 284C3 at Elko, Nevada, as the community's fifth and sixth local aural transmission services. Channels 274C3 and 284C3 can be allotted at Elko, Nevada without a site restriction at coordinates 40-49-57 NL and 115-45-44 WL. DATES: Comments must be filed on or before February 11, 2008, and reply comments on or before February 26, 2008. ADDRESS: Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner's counsel as follows: A. Wray Fitch, Esq., Gammon & Grange, PC, 8280 Greensboro Dr., 7th Floor, McLean, VA 22102-3807. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria McCauley, Media Bureau,
(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's *Notice of Proposed Rule Making,* MB Docket No. 07-281, adopted December 19, 2007, and released December 21, 2007. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all *ex parte* contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. *See* 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible *ex parte* contacts. For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, *see* 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR Part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Nevada is amended by adding Channels 274C3 and 284C3 at Elko. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E8-205 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P 73 6 Wednesday, January 9, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural-Business Cooperative Service Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed collection; comments requested. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Rural Business-Cooperative Service's
(RBS)intention to request an extension of a currently approved information collection in support of the program for “Renewal Energy and Energy Efficiency Improvements Program.” DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by March 10, 2008, to be assured of consideration. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William C. Smith, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA, STOP 3225, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-3225, Telephone:
(202)205-0903. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Renewal Energy and Energy Efficiency Improvements Program. *OMB Number:* 0570-0050. *Expiration Date of Approval:* July 31, 2008. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* The collection of information is vital for Rural Development to make wise decisions regarding the eligibility of applicants and borrowers, establish selection priorities among competing applicants, ensure compliance with applicable Rural Development regulations, and effectively monitor the grantees and borrowers activities to protect the Government's financial interest and ensure that funds obtained from the Government are used appropriately. This information will be used to determine applicant eligibility, to determine project eligibility and feasibility, and to ensure that grantees/borrowers operate on a sound basis and use funds for authorized purposes. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response. *Respondents:* Farmers, Ranchers, and Rural Small Businesses. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondents:* 469. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 13. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 6,241. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 30,160. Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, at
(202)692-0043. Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of RBS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of RBS estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-0742. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Dated: December 11, 2007. Ben Anderson, Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service. [FR Doc. E8-142 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-533-821] Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty
(CVD)order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India for the period January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006, the period of review (POR). For information on the net subsidy rate for each reviewed company, see the “Preliminary Results of Review” section, *infra* . Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results, see the “Public Comment” section, *infra* . EFFECTIVE DATE: January 9, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson or Robert Copyak, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4014, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4793 or
(202)482-2209, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 3, 2001, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the CVD order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India and Indonesia* , 66 FR 60198 (December 3, 2001) (Amended Final Determination of HRC Investigation). On December 1, 2006, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this CVD order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 69543 (December 1, 2006) ( *Opportunity to Request Review* ). 1 1 On December 18, 2006, we published a correction to the notice of *Opportunity to Request Review* to correct the POR. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review; Correction* , 71 FR 75709 (December 18, 2006). We received timely requests for review from Essar Steel Ltd. (Essar) and Ispat Industries Ltd. (Ispat), both Indian producers and exporters of subject merchandise on December 28, 2006. On December 29, 2006, we received a timely request for review from JSW Steel Ltd.
(JSW)2 and Tata Steel Ltd. (Tata), both Indian producers and exporters of subject merchandise. On January 3, 2007, we received an untimely request for review from petitioner. 3 2 JSW was previously known as Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd. The company name was changed on June 16, 2005. 3 Petitioner is United States Steel Corporation. On February 2, 2007, the Department initiated an administrative review of the CVD order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India, covering the period January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 72 FR 5005 (February 2, 2007). The Department issued a questionnaire to the Government of India (GOI), Essar, Ispat, JSW, and Tata (collectively, the respondents) on February 2, 2007. We received a questionnaire response from Essar on March 28, 2007, from Ispat on March 29, 2007, from JSW on April 4, 2007, from Tata on April 16, 2007, and from the GOI on April 23, 2007. From August 2007, through November 2007, we issued supplemental questionnaires to the respondents regarding programs addressed in the initial CVD questionnaire and received supplemental questionnaire responses. In the case of JSW, as explained below, it failed to fully respond to the Department's November 8, 2007, supplemental questionnaire. On May 23, 2007, petitioner submitted new subsidy allegations against Essar, Ispat, JSW, and Tata. On September 13, 2007, the Department initiated an investigation of the new subsidies allegations against Ispat. 4 On September 20, 2007, we issued the new subsidies questionnaire to Ispat, the GOI and the state government of Maharashtra. On September 27, 2007, the Department initiated an investigation of the new subsidies allegations against JSW and Tata, respectively, 5 and issued new subsidies questionnaires to JSW, Tata, the GOI, the state government of Karnataka (regarding JSW's new subsidies allegations), and the state government of Jharkhand (regarding Tata's new subsidies allegations). On October 4, 2007, the Department initiated an investigation of the new subsidies allegations against Essar 6 and issued the new subsidies questionnaire to Essar, the GOI, and the state governments of Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, and Chhattusgarh on October 5, 2007. From November 1, 2007, through November, 13, 2007, we received responses to the new subsidies questionnaires from Essar, Ispat, JSW, and Tata. From November 27, 2007, through December 12, 2007, we received responses to our new subsidies supplemental questionnaires from Essar, Ispat, and Tata. As explained below, JSW failed to respond to the Department's new subsidies supplemental questionnaire. 4 *See* Memorandum to Melissa G. Skinner, Director, Office 3, through Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, from Robert Copyak, Case Analyst, regarding New Subsidy Allegations for Ispat Industries Limited (February 13, 2007). This public document is available on the public file in the Department's Central Records Unit
(CRU)located in room B-099. 5 *See* Memorandum to Melissa G. Skinner, Director, Office 3, through Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, from Kristen Johnson, Case Analyst, regarding New Subsidy Allegations for JSW Steel Ltd. (September 27, 2007) and Memorandum to Melissa G. Skinner, Director, Office 3, through Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, from John Conniff, Case Analyst, regarding New Subsidy Allegations for Tata Steel Ltd. (September 27, 2007). The memoranda are public documents available on the public file in the CRU. 6 *See* Memorandum to Melissa G. Skinner, Director, Office 3, through Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, from Gayle Longest, Case Analyst, regarding New Subsidy Allegations for Essar Steel Ltd. (October 4, 2007). This public document is available on the public file in the CRU. In the case of the GOI, on November 8, 2007, we received a questionnaire response pertaining to subsidies allegedly received by Tata. However, as explained below, in spite of receiving multiple extensions of the deadline to respond to the Department's new subsidies questionnaires, the GOI did not respond to the new subsidies questionnaires pertaining to Essar, Ispat, and JSW. On August 2, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an extension of the deadline for the preliminary results of this review. *See Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Products from India: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 42399 (August 2, 2007). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those producers or exporters for which a review was specifically requested. The companies subject to this review are Essar, Ispat, JSW, and Tata. This review covers 56 programs. Scope of Order The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this order. Specifically included in the scope of this order are vacuum-degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high-strength low-alloy
(HSLA)steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low-carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. Steel products included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), are products in which: I) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; ii) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and iii) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of this order: • Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, *e.g.* , ASTM specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506). • SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and higher. • Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTS. • Tool steels, as defined in the HTS. • Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent. • ASTM specifications A710 and A736. • USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500). • All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507). • Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTS. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the HTS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel covered by this order, including: vacuum-degassed fully stabilized; high-strength low-alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive. Adverse Facts Available I. The GOI As discussed above, the Department initiated investigations of new subsidies allegedly provided to Essar, Ispat, JSW, and Tata by the GOI and Indian state governments. On September 20, 2007, the Department issued a questionnaire to the GOI pertaining to new subsidies allegedly received by Ispat. On September 27, 2007, the Department issued new subsidies questionnaires to the GOI pertaining to new subsidies allegedly received by JSW and Tata, respectively. On October 5, 2007, the Department issued a questionnaire to the GOI pertaining to new subsidies allegedly received by Essar. At the request of the government, the Department extended the GOI's deadline to respond to the new subsidies questionnaires on multiple occasions. Specifically, on October 11, 2007, the Department granted the GOI an additional two weeks to respond to the new subsidies questionnaire covering Ispat. On October 12, 2007, the Department provided the GOI a two-week extension to respond to the new subsidies questionnaires covering Essar, JSW, and Tata. On October 24, 2007, the Department granted the GOI a seven-day extension to respond to the new subsidies questionnaire covering Ispat. On November 1, 2007, the Department granted the GOI a seven-day extension to respond to all four new subsidies questionnaires. On November 8, 2007, the GOI submitted a questionnaire response pertaining to the new subsidies allegedly received by Tata. However, with respect to Essar, Ispat, and JSW, the GOI stated that “since the information sought from the GOI is on the same lines as that sought from the respondent companies, the GOI has nothing further to add.” In a November 14, 2007, letter to the GOI, the Department attached copies of the original new subsidies questionnaires pertaining to Essar, Ispat, and JSW and explained that the questions addressed to the GOI were distinct from those contained in the new subsidies questionnaires issued to the respective companies. In the letter the Department further explained that the GOI's failure to respond to the new subsidies questionnaires could result in the Department applying adverse inferences within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department provided the GOI an additional 12 days to submit its questionnaire responses. On November 26, 2007, the GOI requested a two-day extension to respond the new subsidies questionnaires covering Essar, Ispat, and JSW. In an amended submission, the GOI requested an additional five-day extension. On November 28, 2007, the Department rejected the GOI's extension requests explaining that the GOI's proposed extension would not provide the Department with sufficient time to analyze and incorporate information in the questionnaire responses prior to the preliminary results of review. * See* the Department's November 28, 2007, letter to the GOI, which in on the public record in the CRU. Sections 776(a)(1) and
(2)of the Act provide that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia* , necessary information is not on the record or an interested party or any other person:
(A)withholds information that has been requested;
(B)fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782 of the Act; ©) significantly impedes a proceeding; or
(D)provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department “shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements established by the administering authority” if the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so without undue difficulties. Because the GOI failed to provide the requested information by the established deadlines, the Department does not have the necessary information on the record to determine whether the new subsidies allegedly received by Essar, Ispat, and JSW constitute financial contributions and are specific within sections 771(D) and 771(5A) of the Act, respectively. Therefore, the Department must base its determination on the facts otherwise available in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available
(AFA)information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(B) and 776(b) of the Act, the use of AFA is appropriate for the preliminary results with respect to newly alleged subsidy programs used by Essar, Ispat, and JSW. 7 7 As explained above, the GOI responded to the questionnaire pertaining to new subsidy programs allegedly received by Tata. As noted, the Department extended the GOI's deadline to respond to the new subsidies questionnaires on multiple occasions. However, with the exception of the questionnaire pertaining to Tata, the GOI failed to submit responses to the new subsidies questionnaires pertaining to Essar, Ispat, and JSW. Therefore, consistent with section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, we find that the GOI did not act to the best of its ability and, therefore, we are employing adverse inferences in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. Accordingly, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that all newly alleged subsidy programs used by Essar, Ispat, and JSW constitute financial contributions and are specific pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 771(5A) of the Act, respectively. 8 Thus, in this segment of the proceeding, we preliminarily determine that any newly alleged programs used by Essar, Ispat, and JSW are countervailable to the extent that the programs conferred a benefit during the POR. 9 The Department's decision to rely on adverse inferences when lacking a response from a foreign government is in accordance with its practice. *See* , *e.g.* , *Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea* , 71 FR 11397, 11399 (March 7, 2006) (unchanged in the *Notice of Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea* , 71 FR 38861 (July 10, 2006), in which the Department relied on adverse inferences in determining that the Government of Korea directed credit to the steel industry in a manner that constituted a financial contribution and was specific to the steel industry within the meaning of the sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act, respectively. For a discussion of the Department's methodology of quantifying the AFA rate for JSW, see section “II. JSW” below. For the list of programs used by JSW to which we have assigned AFA rates, see section “C. State Government of Karnataka Programs” below. 8 Because the programs at issue are new and because the GOI failed to provide any information on how the alleged programs operate, in applying adverse inferences, we are unable to reference any sub-paragraphs under section 771(5)(D) and 771(5A) of the Act. 9 In these preliminary results, we find that JSW used newly alleged programs. However, as noted below, based on information provided, we preliminarily determine that Essar and Ispat did not use any of the newly alleged programs. We invite parties to comment for the final results on whether, in light of the incomplete responses by the GOI with respect to these newly alleged programs, it would be more appropriate to use facts available in determining to what extent Essar and Ispat may have benefitted from these newly alleged programs. II. JSW As explained above, due to the GOI's failure to submit a timely response, we find that all newly alleged subsidy programs used by JSW constitute a financial contribution and are specific pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 771(5A) of the Act, respectively. In its November 1, 2007, response to the Department's new subsidies questionnaire, JSW indicated that it received assistance under the State Government of Karnataka's
(SGOK)“New Industrial Policy and Package of Incentives and Concessions of 1993.” *See* JSW's November 1, 2007, Questionnaire Response to New Subsidies Allegations at 6-7 and Annexure A. However, in its response, JSW failed to provide complete answers with respect to the following newly alleged programs: “GOI's Granting of Captive Mining Rights for Iron Ore,” “SGOK's New Industrial Policy and Package of Incentives and Concessions of 1993” and “Other SGOK Subsidies,” which address subsidies allegedly received by Vijayanagar Minerals Private Limited (VMPL). VMPL is a joint venture between JSW and Mysore Minerals Limited (MML), a state-owned company located in Karnataka. In particular, JSW and VMPL failed to quantify the extent to which they used the new subsidy programs under examination. On November 8, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to JSW and VMPL in which it sought to clarify the deficiencies. Subsequent to the issuance of the supplemental questionnaire, Department officials spoke with a JSW official to discuss the information requested in the supplemental questionnaire and answer JSW's questions regarding the subsidy programs under review. *See* Memorandum to the File from Kristen Johnson, Trade Analyst, through Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, concerning Telephone Call to JSW (November 14, 2007). 10 The Department later reminded JSW that if the company needed additional time to respond to the supplemental questionnaire, which had a response due date of November 21, 2007, then JSW would have to file a letter requesting an extension of time to submit its response to the November 8, 2007, supplemental questionnaire. *See* Memorandum to the File from Kristen Johnson, Trade Analyst, through Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, concerning Emails Sent to JSW (November 21, 2007). 11 JSW, however, did not submit a questionnaire response or letter requesting an extension to respond to the supplemental questionnaire. 10 This public document is available on the public file in the CRU. 11 This public document is available on the public file in the CRU. In addition, JSW failed to completely respond to supplemental questions concerning the “Sale of High-Grade Iron Ore for Less Than Adequate Remuneration” program that were included in the Department's initial questionnaire. *See* JSW's October 22, 2007, Supplemental Questionnaire Response at 22 and JSW's November 19, 2007, Supplemental Questionnaire Response at 15-16 and Table A. Because JSW failed to provide the information requested in the Department's supplemental questionnaires by the established deadlines, the Department does not have the necessary information on the record to determine the extent to which JSW benefitted from certain programs within the meaning of section 771(5)(E) of the Act. Therefore, the Department must base its determination on facts otherwise available in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. Furthermore, we preliminarily determine that by failing to respond to the Department's supplemental questionnaires by the established deadlines, JSW has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability and, thus, pursuant to section section 776(b) of the Act, the use of adverse inferences in applying the facts otherwise available is warranted. The Department's practice when selecting an adverse margin from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan* , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures “that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action
(SAA)at 870. In choosing the appropriate balance between providing a respondent with an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior margin “reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.” *See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States* , 899 F. 2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In deciding which facts to use when calculating the AFA rate, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on information derived from
(1)the petition,
(2)a final determination in the investigation,
(3)any previous review or determination, or
(4)any information placed on the record. In its May 23, 2007, new subsidies allegation submission, petitioner did not provide estimated net subsidy rates regarding the new subsidies allegedly received by JSW. 12 Further, the additional subsidy programs pertaining to JSW were alleged for the first time in this administrative review and, thus, no information exists concerning these programs in prior segments of the proceeding. 12 This pubic document is available on the public file in the CRU. Therefore, for each instance in which JSW failed to provide the information necessary for the Department to determine the extent to which JSW used a newly alleged subsidy program, we have, in accordance with section 776(b)(4) of the Act, relied upon the highest calculated net subsidy rate established for an industry-wide program in this proceeding. Specifically, we have utilized a net subsidy rate of 16.63 percent *ad valorem* , which corresponds to the net subsidy rate that Ispat received under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme in the underlying investigation. *See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot- Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India* , 66 FR 49635 (September 28, 2001) ( *Final Determination of HRC Investigation* ), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Final Determination of HRC Investigation Decision Memorandum) at “Export Promotion of Capital Goods Scheme.” This approach is consistent with the Department's practice. *See* , *e.g.* , *Certain In-shell Roasted Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 66165 (November 13, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Duty Refunds on Imported Raw or Intermediate Materials Used in the Production of Export Goods,” which states: This program was alleged for the first time in the *Pistachios New Shipper Reviews* , and thus was not among the programs addressed in *Roasted Pistachios* . However, lacking any information from Nima and the Government of Iran on the record of the instant review, we find that the net subsidy rate of 6.65 percent, the highest rate established for an industry-wide program in *Roasted Pistachios* , is the only available information on the record and, therefore, as adverse facts available, is the appropriate rate to apply to this program. Accordingly, we find that the net subsidy rate for this program is 6.65 percent *ad valorem* . For additional information concerning the Department's treatment of these programs under AFA and for a list of programs used by JSW to which we have assigned AFA rates, see section “C. State Government of Karnataka Programs” below. Further, section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as “information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See* SAA at 870. Corroborate means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *Id* . To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. The SAA emphasizes, however, that the Department need not prove that the selected facts available are the best alternative information. *Id* . at 869. Thus, in those instances in which it determines to apply adverse facts available, the Department, in order to satisfy itself that such information has probative value, will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information used. With regard to the reliability aspect of corroboration, unlike other types of information, such as publicly available data on the national inflation rate of a given country or national average interest rates, there typically are no independent sources for data on company-specific benefits resulting from countervailable subsidy programs. The only source for such information normally is administrative determinations. In the instant case, no evidence has been presented or obtained which contradicts the reliability of the evidence relied upon in previous segments of this proceeding. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render benefit data not relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the information is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will not use it. *See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996). In the instant case, no evidence has been presented or obtained which contradicts the relevance of the benefit data relied upon in previous segments of this proceeding. Thus, in the instant case, the Department finds that the information used has been corroborated to the extent practicable. JSW also reported using a program that was previously found to be countervailable ( *i.e.* , “Sale of High-Grade Iron Ore for Less Than Adequate Remuneration”), about which it failed to provided a complete response. As discussed above, we find that, by failing to provide a complete response concerning the program, JSW has failed to act to the best of its ability. Therefore, under section 776(b) of the Act, we have applied adverse inferences using, to the extent possible, the limited information provided by JSW along with other information on the record of this segment of the proceeding when calculating the benefit. For further information concerning the Department's calculation of the benefit received by JSW under the program, see the program description below. For those programs for which the GOI and JSW have provided complete responses, we are basing our determination of the countervailability of each program based on the information provided. 13 We invite parties to comment for the final results of review on whether, in light of the incomplete responses by JSW and the GOI for so many programs, it would, be more appropriate to use adverse inferences under section 776(b) of the Act in determining the countervailable benefits for all of JSW's programs. 13 We invite parties to comment for the final results of review on whether, in light of the incomplete responses by JSW and the GOI for so many programs, it would be more appropriate to use adverse inferences under section 776(b) of the Act in determining the countervailable benefits for all of JSW's programs. Subsidies Valuation Information I. Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rates Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(d)(3)(i), the Department will use, when available, the company-specific cost of long-term, fixed-rate loans (excluding loans deemed to be countervailable subsidies) as a discount rate for allocating non-recurring benefits over time. Similarly, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a), the Department will use the actual cost of comparable borrowing by a company as a loan benchmark, when available. According to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2), a comparable commercial loan is defined as one that, when compared to the loan being examined, has similarities in the structure of the loan ( *e.g.* , fixed interest rate vs. variable interest rate), the maturity of the loan ( *e.g.* , short-term vs. long-term), and the currency in which the loan is denominated. For programs requiring the application of a benchmark interest rate, 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(ii) states a preference for using an interest rate that the company could have obtained on a comparable loan in the commercial market. Also, 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(i) stipulates that when selecting a comparable commercial loan that the recipient “could actually obtain on the market,” the Department will normally rely on actual short-term and long-term loans obtained by the firm. However, when there are no comparable commercial loans, the Department may use a national average interest rate, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii). In addition, 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(ii) states that the Department will not consider a loan provided by a government-owned bank for purposes of calculating benchmark rates. For programs requiring a rupee-denominated discount rate or the application or a rupee-denominated long-term fixed-rate benchmark, we used, where available, company-specific, weighted-average interest rates on comparable commercial long-term, rupee-denominated loans. Some respondents, however, did not have comparable commercial long-term, rupee-denominated loans for all the required years. Therefore, for those years for which we did not have company-specific information, we relied on comparable long-term, rupee-denominated benchmark interest rates from the immediately preceding year as directed by 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(iii). When there were no comparable long-term, rupee-denominated loans from commercial banks during either the year under consideration or the preceding year, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii), we used a national average interest rate as the benchmark. Specifically, we used India's prime lending rate (PLR), as published by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), as our long-term benchmark interest rate. *See* Memorandum to the File from Kristen Johnson, Trade Analyst, regarding India's Prime Lending Rate (November 28, 2007). 14 The use of the PLR is consistent with the Department's practice in prior Indian proceedings. *See* , *e.g.* , *Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India* , 69 FR 26549 (May 13, 2004) ( *Final Results of First HRC Review* ), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Final Results of First HRC Review Decision Memorandum) at “Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rate.” 14 This public document is available on the public file in the CRU. For those programs requiring a foreign currency-denominated discount rate or application of a foreign currency-denominated long-term fixed-rate benchmark, we used, where available, company-specific, weighted-average interest rates of comparable commercial long-term loans, denominated in the same currency. Where no such benchmark instruments were available, consistent with 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii), we used currency-specific lending rates from private creditors as reported by the International Monetary Fund's
(IMF)publication *International Financial Statistics* . The use of the IMF's publication for benchmark rate information is consistent with the Department's practice in prior Indian cases. *See* Final Determination of HRC Investigation Decision Memorandum at “Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rate,” *see also Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from India* , 71 FR 45034 (August 8, 2006) ( *Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation* ), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation Decision Memorandum) at “Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rate.” For variable-rate rupee-denominated or foreign currency-denominated loans outstanding during the POR, our preference is to use the interest rates of variable-rate lending instruments issued during the year in which the government loans were issued, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(5)(i). Where such benchmark instruments were unavailable, we used interest rates from loans issued during the POR as our benchmark, as such rates better reflect a variable interest rate that would be in effect during the review period. In one instance, company-specific variable-rate Libor information was not available. We, therefore, sourced Libor benchmark data from the British Banker's Association. *See* Memorandum to the File from Kristen Johnson, Trade Analyst, regarding Libor Rates (November 28, 2007). 15 15 This public document is available on the public file in the CRU. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(iv), if a program under review is a government-provided, short-term loan, the preference is to use an annual average of the interest rates on comparable commercial loans during the year in which the government-provided loan was taken out, weighted by the principal amount of each loan. For this review, we required both US dollar-denominated and rupee-denominated short-term loan benchmark rates to determine benefits received under the Pre-Shipment Export Financing and Post-Shipment Export Financing programs. Absent a company-specific, commercial interest rate denominated in rupees to calculate the benefit, we sourced a rupee-denominated short-term interest rate for India as reported in the IMF's *International Financial Statistics* . Where we did not have comparable, company-specific short-term loans denominated in US dollars, we used the dollar-denominated short-term interest rate for the United States as reported in *International Financial Statistics* . *See e.g.* , the “Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rate” section of the Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation Decision Memorandum. II. Use of Uncreditworthy Benchmarks for Essar In the administrative review covering the period April 20, 2001, through December 31, 2002, we found Essar to be uncreditworthy during 2001 and 2002. *See Final Results of First HRC Review* . As no new evidence has been provided to the Department with respect to Essar's uncreditworthiness during 2001 and 2002, we will continue to apply the uncreditworthy benchmark methodology for those programs requiring a long-term benchmark for 2001 and 2002. For our long-term interest rates, we used India's PLRs and converted those rates into benchmark interest rates for Essar using the formula set forth in 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(iii). III. Allocation Period Under 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2)(i), we presume the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies to be the average useful life
(AUL)of renewable physical assets for the industry concerned, as listed in the Internal Revenue Service's 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System (IRS tables), as updated by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. This presumption will apply unless a party claims and establishes that the IRS tables do not reasonably reflect the AUL of the renewable physical assets for the company or industry under review, and the party can establish that the difference between the company-specific or country-wide AUL for the industry under review is significant, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2)(ii). For assets used to manufacture products such as hot-rolled carbon steel flat products, the IRS tables prescribe an AUL of 15 years. In their questionnaire responses, the respondents did not rebut the regulatory presumption of a 15-year AUL. We, therefore, used a 15-year AUL to allocate any non-recurring subsidies for purposes of these preliminary results. Further, for non-recurring subsidies, we have applied the “0.5 percent test” described in 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2). Under this test, we compare the amount of subsidies approved under a given program in a particular year to sales (total sales or total export sales, as appropriate) for the same year. If the amount of subsidies is less than 0.5 percent of the relevant sales, then the benefits are allocated to the year of receipt rather than allocated over the AUL period. In the case of Tata, for certain years we lacked export sales data needed to conduct the “0.5 percent test” corresponding to non-recurring subsidies Tata received prior to the POR. Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, we derived the export sales denominators utilized in the “0.5 percent test” using information provided by Tata in its questionnaire responses as well as information contained in Tata's annual reports, which are publicly available on the internet and placed on the record of this segment of the proceeding. 16 Specifically, we calculated the ratio of Tata's export sales to total sales for the POR. We then multiplied this ratio by Tata's total sales in prior years, as indicated in its annual reports. For further information, see Tata's preliminary results calculation memorandum. 16 Information from Tata's annual reports is included in Tata's preliminary results calculation memorandum. Analysis Of Programs I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable A. GOI Programs 1. Pre- and Post-Shipment Export Financing The RBI provides short-term pre-shipment export financing, or “packing credits,” to exporters through commercial banks. Upon presentation of a confirmed export order or letter of credit to a bank, companies may receive pre-shipment loans for working capital purposes. Exporters may also establish pre-shipment credit lines upon which they may draw as needed. Credit line limits are established by commercial banks based upon a company's creditworthiness and past export performance, and may be denominated either in Indian rupees or in foreign currency. Commercial banks extending export credit to Indian companies must, by law, charge interest on this credit at rates capped by the RBI. For post-shipment export financing, exporters are eligible to receive post-shipment short-term credit in the form of discounted trade bills or advances by commercial banks at preferential interest rates to finance the period between the date of shipment of exported merchandise and payment from export customers (transit period). The Department has previously determined that these export financing programs are countervailable to the extent that the interest rates are capped by the GOI and are lower than the rates exporters would have paid on comparable commercial loans. *See* , *e.g.* , *Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 6530 (February 12, 2007) ( * Final Results of 3 rd PET Film Review * ), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Final Results of 3 rd PET Film Review Decision Memorandum) at “Pre-Shipment and Post-Shipment Export Financing.” Specifically, the Department determined that the GOI's issuance of financing at preferential rates constituted a financial contribution pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act and that the interest savings under this program conferred a benefit pursuant to section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act. The Department also found this program, which is contingent upon exports, to be specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been presented in this review to warrant a reconsideration of the Department's finding. Essar and Ispat reported rupee-denominated, pre-shipment loans outstanding during the POR. Essar reported U.S. dollar-denominated, pre-shipment export loans outstanding during the POR. Tata and Ispat reported U.S. dollar-denominated, post-shipment loans outstanding during the POR. However, Ispat indicated in its questionnaire response that it paid no interest on its post-shipment loan during the POR. Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, we have not calculated a benefit for Ispat's post-shipment loan, as no interest was due during the POR. To calculate the benefit conferred by the pre-shipment and post-shipment loan programs, we compared the actual interest paid on the loans with the amount of interest that would have been paid at the benchmark interest rates. We used a rupee- or US dollar-denominated benchmark, as appropriate ( *see* “Subsidies Valuation Information” section, *supra* ). Where the benchmark interest exceeds the actual interest paid, the difference constitutes the benefit. For pre-shipment loans, we calculated the company-specific program rates by dividing the benefit received by the company during the POR by the company's total exports during the POR. For pre-shipment loans, we calculated the net subsidy rate by dividing the benefit by the participating company's total exports, consistent with the Department's practice. *See* , *e.g.* , Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation Decision Memorandum at “Pre- and Post-Shipment Export Financing.” Because post-shipment loans are granted for particular shipments, our practice is to treat them as tied to particular markets, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(2). *Id.* Therefore, to calculate each company's subsidy rate for post-shipment financing, we divided the benefit received by the company during the POR by the company's exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy rate under the pre-shipment export financing program to be 5.00 percent *ad valorem* for Essar and 0.03 percent *ad valorem* for Ispat. We preliminarily determine that no benefit was provided to Tata under the post-shipment export financing program during the POR. 2. Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS) The EPCGS provides for a reduction or exemption of customs duties and an exemption from excise taxes on imports of capital goods. Under this program, producers may import capital equipment at a reduced customs duty, subject to an export obligation equal to eight times the duty saved to be fulfilled over a period of eight years (12 years where the CIF value is Rs. 100 Crore 17 ) from the date the license was issued. For failure to meet the export obligation, a company is subject to payment of all or part of the duty reduction, depending on the extent of the export shortfall, plus penalty interest. 17 A crore is equal to 10,000,000 rupees. The Department has previously determined that the import duty reductions provided under the EPCGS constitute a countervailable export subsidy. *See* , *e.g.* , Final Results of 3 rd PET Film Review Decision Memorandum at “Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme;” *see also* Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation Decision Memorandum at “Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme.” Specifically, the Department has found that under the EPCGS program, the GOI provides a financial contribution under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of Act, in the form of revenue foregone that otherwise would be due. The tax savings confer a benefit, as defined by section 771(5)(E) of the Act. The Department also found this program to be specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because it is contingent upon export performance. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been provided with respect to this program. Therefore, we continue to find that import duty reductions provided under the EPCGS are countervailable export subsidies. Essar, Ispat, JSW and Tata reported that they received import duty reductions under the EPCGS program. For these preliminary results, we have determined the benefit for each respondent in accordance with our findings and treatment of this program in other Indian CVD proceedings. *Id* . Under the Department's approach, there are two types of benefits under the EPCGS program. The first benefit is the amount of unpaid duties that would have to be paid to the GOI if the export requirements are not met. The repayment of this liability is contingent on subsequent events, and in such instances, it is the Department's practice to treat any balance on an unpaid liability as an interest-free loan. *See* 19 CFR 351.505(d)(1). For those EPCGS licenses for which JSW, Essar, Tata, and Ispat have not yet met the export obligations specified in the licenses by the end of the POR, we preliminarily find that the companies had outstanding contingent liabilities during the POR. We further determine that the amount of the contingent liability to be treated as an interest-free loan is the amount of the import duty reduction or exemption for those EPCGS licenses for which JSW, Essar, Tata, and Ispat applied but, as of the end of the POR, have not received a waiver of their obligations to repay the duties from the GOI. Accordingly, for those unpaid duties for which JSW, Essar, Tata, and Ispat have yet to fulfill their export obligations, we preliminarily find the benefit to be the interest that they would have paid during the POR had they borrowed the full amount of the duty reduction at the time of import. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(d)(1), we used a long-term interest rate as our benchmark to calculate the benefit of a contingent liability interest-free loan because the event upon which repayment of the duties depends ( *i.e.* , the date of expiration of the time period for the companies to fulfill their export commitments) occurs at a point in time more than one year after the date the capital goods were imported. Specifically, we used the long-term benchmark interest rates as described in the “Subsidies Valuation” section, *supra* . The rate used corresponds to the year in which the companies imported the items under the program. Further, consistent with our policy, absent acknowledgment in the form of an official letter from the GOI that the liability has been eliminated, we treat benefits from these licenses as contingent liabilities. *See e.g.* , Final Results of 3 rd PET Film Review Decision Memorandum “Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme;” *see also* Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation Decision Memorandum at “Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme.” The second benefit is the waiver of duty on imports of capital equipment covered by those EPCGS licenses for which export requirements have been met. For certain licenses, JSW, Essar, Tata, and Ispat reported that they had completed their export obligation under the EPCGS program, thereby eliminating the outstanding contingent liabilities on the corresponding duty exemptions. However, as explained above, in keeping with our practice, we have only accepted those claims that are accompanied by official letters from the GOI indicating that the company met its export obligation. Thus, for purposes of calculating the benefit, we treated licenses without accompanying letters from the GOI as contingent liabilities. For those licenses for which respondents demonstrated that they had fulfilled the export obligations, we followed our methodology set forth in the *Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation* and treated the import duty savings as grants received in the year in which the GOI waived the contingent liability on the import duty exemptions. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), for each of the grant amounts, we performed the “0.5 percent test” to determine whether the benefit should be fully expensed in the year of receipt or allocated over the AUL used in this proceeding pursuant to the grant allocation methodology set forth in 19 CFR 351.524(d)(1). JSW, Essar, Tata, and Ispat reported that they paid application fees in order to obtain their EPCGS licenses. We preliminarily find that the application fees paid qualify as an “application fee, deposit, or similar payment paid in order to qualify for, or to receive, the benefit of the countervailable subsidy.” *See* Section 771(6)(A) of the Act. As a result, we have offset the benefit in an amount equal to the fees paid. To calculate the company-specific subsidy rates for this program, we summed the benefits from the waived licenses, which we determine confer a benefit in the form of a grant, and from those licenses that have yet to be waived, which we determine confer a benefit in the form of contingent liability loans. With respect to licenses related to imports of capital goods during the POR, we prorated the contingent liability by the actual number of days the contingent liability was in effect during the POR. *See* Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation Decision Memorandum at “Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme.” We then divided the total benefits received by each company by the company's total export sales for the POR. Ispat reported making deemed export sales during the POR. Consistent with our approach in the * Final Results of the 3 rd PET Film Review * , we included deemed exports in the denominator of the net subsidy rate calculation. *See* Comment 1 of the Final Results of 3 rd PET Film Review Decision Memorandum. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy from this program to be 0.53 percent *ad valorem* for Essar, 10.51 percent *ad valorem* for Ispat, 1.71 percent *ad valorem* for JSW, and 4.28 percent *ad valorem* for Tata. 3. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme
(DEPS)India's DEPS was enacted on April 1, 1997, as a successor program to the Passbook Scheme (PBS). As with PBS, the DEPS enables exporting companies to earn import duty exemptions in the form of passbook credits rather than cash. All exporters are eligible to earn DEPS credits on a post-export basis, provided that the GOI has established a standard input/output norm
(SION)for the exported product. DEPS credits can be used for any subsequent imports, regardless of whether they are consumed in the production of an export product. DEPS credits are valid for 12 months and are transferable after the foreign exchange is realized from the export sales on which the DEPS credits are earned. With respect to subject merchandise, the GOI has established a SION for the steel industry. The Department has previously determined that DEPS is a countervailable program. *See* , *e.g.* , Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation Decision Memorandum at “Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme.” Specifically, we determined that under DEPS, a financial contribution, as defined under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, is provided because
(1)the GOI provides credits for the future payment of import duties, and
(2)the GOI does not have in place and does not apply a system that is reasonable and effective for determining what imports are consumed in the production of the exported product and in what amounts. *Id* . Therefore, under section 771(5)(E) of the Act, we determined that the entire amount of import duty exemption earned during the POR constitutes a benefit. 18 We also found DEPS to be specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because the program can only be used by exporters. *See* Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation Decision Memorandum at “Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme.” No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been presented in this review to warrant reconsideration of the Department's finding. 18 Specifically, we found that benefits under the DEPS program are conferred as of the date of exportation of the shipment for which the pertinent DEPS credits are earned. *See e.g.* , *Notice of Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Preliminary Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products From India* , 71 FR 7916, 7920 (February 15, 2006) ( *Preliminary Determination of Lined Paper Investigation* ) (unchanged in *Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation* ). We have previously determined that this program provides a recurring benefit under 19 CFR 351.519(c). *See e.g.* , *Preliminary Determination of Lined Paper Investigation* 71 FR 7916, 7920 (unchanged in *Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation* ). In accordance with past practice and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.519(b)(2), we preliminarily find that benefits from the DEPS program are conferred as of the date of exportation of the shipment for which the DEPS credits are earned. *See* , *e.g.* , *Final Affirmative Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from India* , 64 FR 73131 (December 29, 1999) ( *Final Determination of CTL Plate Investigation* ) at Comment 4 (explaining that for programs such as the DEPS, “we calculate the benefit on an 'earned' basis (that is upon export) where it is provided as a percentage of the value of the exported merchandise on a shipment-by-shipment basis and the exact amount of the exemption is known”). For those DEPS credits that JSW and Tata earned during the POR, we followed our past practice and calculated the benefit under the DEPS program by multiplying the FOB value of each export shipment to the United States during the POR by the relevant percentage of DEPS credit allowed under the program. *Id* . We then subtracted as an allowable offset the actual amount of application fees paid for each license in accordance with section 771(6) of the Act. Because DEPS credits are earned on a shipment-by-shipment basis, in calculating the benefit from the DEPS program, we normally calculate the net subsidy rate by dividing the benefit earned on subject merchandise export shipments to the United States by total sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. In the case of JSW and Tata, we have followed this calculation methodology. On this basis, we preliminarily calculate the net countervailable subsidy from the DEPS program to be 2.56 percent *ad valorem* for JSW, and 1.29 percent *ad valorem* for Tata. 4. Sale of High-Grade Iron Ore for Less Than Adequate Remuneration The Department has previously determined that the GOI provides high-grade iron ore to steel producers for less than adequate remuneration through the government-owned National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC). *See Notice of Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India* , 71 FR 28665 (May 17, 2006) ( *Final Results of Second HRC Review* ), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Final Results of Second HRC Review Decision Memorandum) at “Sale of High-Grade Iron Ore for Less Than Adequate Remuneration,” *see also Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India* , 71 FR 1512, 1516 (January 10, 2006) ( *Preliminary Results of Second HRC Review* ). NMDC is governed by the Ministry of Steel and the GOI holds 98 percent of its shares. No new information has been provided to the Department by the GOI to warrant a reconsideration of our finding. Therefore, for this review, we preliminarily find that the GOI directly, through the government-owned NMDC, continues to provide a financial contribution as defined under section 771(5)(D)(iii) of the Act and that the GOI's provision of high-grade iron ore is specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act because the actual recipient of the subsidy is limited to industries that use iron ore, including the steel industry, and is thus limited in number. Essar, Ispat, and JSW reported that they purchased high-grade iron ore lumps and fines ( *i.e.* , iron ore with Fe content of 64 percent or above) from the NMDC during the POR. Section 771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act provides that a benefit is conferred by a government when the government provides the good or service for less than adequate remuneration. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2)(i) the Department will normally seek to measure the adequacy of remuneration by comparing the government price for the goods or service to a market-determined price resulting from actual transactions in the country in question. The regulations provide that such market-determined prices could include prices stemming from actual transactions between private parties, actual imports, or, in certain circumstances, actual sales from competitively run government auctions. Ispat provided information concerning its purchases of iron ore lumps from private suppliers within India during the POR. There is no information on the record that suggests such private supplier prices do not reflect actual market-determined prices in India for comparable ore, or that such private-supplier prices have been distorted by GOI involvement in the market. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2)(I), we used such private prices as our benchmark for purposes of calculating the benefit from Ispat's purchases of iron ore lumps from the GOI. We made the following adjustments to the private iron ore lumps price used as the benchmark to measure the adequacy of remuneration of Ispat's purchases of iron ore lumps from the GOI. First, we calculated on a monthly basis a price per wet metric ton (including freight to the port). Next, we divided the sum of the monthly total costs by the total quantity of iron ore lumps Ispat purchased for the year. We then divided the resulting annual unit price by the corresponding iron ore content to arrive at the benchmark unit cost per Fe content (iron ore is priced by one unit of Fe content). Next, to ensure that the benchmark price reflects the same level of Fe content as the government price, we multiplied the benchmark unit cost per Fe content by the Fe content of the iron ore lumps Ispat purchased from the GOI. With respect to Essar's purchases of iron ore lumps and fines from the GOI, the record of this review contains no information on actual transaction prices between private parties in India, imports, or sales from government auctions that can be used to measure any benefit to Essar as a result of this program. 19 Further, Ispat reported that it did not have any transactions between private parties in India, imports, or sales from government auctions of iron ore fines during the POR. Thus, for these transactions, the Department is unable to measure the adequacy of remuneration using actual market-determined prices in India, as directed by 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2)(i). 19 The information, noted above, that Ispat provided concerning its purchases of iron ore lumps from private suppliers within India is business proprietary. As such, we are unable to use these private supplier prices to calculate a benefit for other recipients of either this program or the “Captive Mining of Iron Ore” program, noted below. Under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2)(ii), where actual market-determined prices are not available with which to make the comparison under paragraph (a)(2)(i), the Department will seek to measure the adequacy of remuneration by comparing the government price to a world market price where it is reasonable to conclude that such prices would be available to purchasers in the country in question. This second tier directs the Department to examine prices which it would be reasonable to conclude that purchasers could obtain in India. There are publications on the record that include prices from the world market for comparable goods which can be used as a benchmark to determine whether the GOI sold high-grade iron ore to the respondents for less than adequate remuneration. Specifically, several copies of the *Tex Report* , a daily Japanese publication that reports on world-wide price negotiations for iron ore, are on the record and include prices for high-grade iron ore that were set for 2006. 20 Therefore, consistent with our approach in the *Final Results of Second HRC Review* , we continue to find that the prices reported in the *Tex Report* constitute world market prices that would be available to the respondents in accordance with 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2)(ii). *See* Final Results of Second HRC Review Decision Memorandum at “Sale of High-Grade Iron Ore for Less Than Adequate Remuneration.” 20 Copies of several issues of the *Tex Report* reporting on negotiated iron ore prices with Australian, Brazilian iron ore producers and Japanese and European steel makers were submitted on the record by the GOI on November 15, 2007, and by Essar on November 14, 2007. To measure the adequacy of remuneration of Essar's purchases of iron ore lumps and fines from the GOI and Ispat's purchases of iron ore fines from the GOI, we compared the prices that each company actually paid for its high-grade iron ore lumps and fines, on an fob port basis, to an average of the fob port prices of high-grade iron ore lumps and fines set forth in the *Tex Report* . We made the following adjustments to the benchmark information. We converted the iron ore lumps and fines' prices listed in U.S. cents per dry long ton to U.S. dollars. We then multiplied the per unit U.S. dollar price by the corresponding percentage of iron content (iron ore is priced by one unit of Fe content) to calculate a U.S. dollar high-grade iron ore amount. Next, we converted the U.S. dollar per unit price from dry long tons to metric tons. We then converted the U.S. dollar per unit price from metric tons to wet metric tons. Next, we applied the average exchange rate for 2006 to calculate a Rupee per wet metric ton price for high-grade iron ore. We then averaged the prices to arrive at the benchmark used to compare against Essar's and Ispat's respective purchases of high-grade iron ore. To calculate the benefit, we multiplied the difference between the benchmark price and the government price by the quantity of iron ore lumps and fines purchased from the GOI. We then divided that amount by Essar's and Ispat's respective total sales for 2006. On this basis, we preliminarily calculate a net countervailable subsidy rate of 6.11 percent *ad valorem* for Essar and 0.54 percent *ad valorem* for Ispat. As noted, JSW reported that it purchased high-grade iron ore fines and lumps from NMDC during the POR. JSW, however, submitted incomplete information to the Department's questions concerning the purchases. In particular, JSW submitted only the quantity of iron ore purchased from NMDC and no associated pricing data. *See* JSW's November 19, 2007, Supplemental Questionnaire Response at Table A. Therefore, as AFA, for these preliminary results, we find that JSW received the iron ore from NMDC at no charge during the POR. To calculate the benefit, we multiplied the quantity of iron ore JSW received from NMDC in 2006, by the benchmark price for iron ore fines and lumps, obtained from the *Tex Report* . We then divided the benefit by JSW's total sales for 2006. On this basis, we preliminarily calculate a program rate of 9.01 percent *ad valorem* for JSW. 5. Advance License Program
(ALP)Under the ALP, exporters may import, duty free, specified quantities of materials required to manufacture products that are subsequently exported. The exporting companies, however, remain contingently liable for the unpaid duties until they have fulfilled their export requirement. The quantities of imported materials and exported finished products are linked through SIONs established by the GOI. During the POR, Essar and Ispat used advance licenses to import certain materials duty free. The Department has previously found this program to be countervailable because under the 2002 - 2007 Export/Import Policy Guidelines, the GOI does not have in place, and does not apply, a system that is reasonable and effective for determining what imports are consumed in the production of the exported product and in what amounts, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.519(a)(4). *See e.g.* , *Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India* , 71 FR 7534 (February 13, 2006) ( * Final Results of 2 nd PET Film Review * ), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Final Results of 2 nd PET Film Review Decision Memorandum) at “Advance License Program” and “Comment 1;” *see also* Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation Decision Memorandum at “Advance License Program.” In the * Final Results of 2 nd PET Film Review * , the Department found that the ALP confers a countervailable subsidy because:
(1)a financial contribution, as defined under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, is provided under the program, as the GOI exempts the respondents from the payment of import duties;
(2)the GOI does not have in place and does not apply a system that is reasonable and effective for the purposes intended in accordance with 19 CFR 351.519(a)(4) to confirm which inputs and in what amounts are consumed in the production of the exported products; thus, the entire amount of the import duty deferral or exemption earned by the respondent constitutes a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act; and
(3)this program is contingent upon exportation and, therefore, is specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. *See* Final Results of 2 nd PET Film Review Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Also, in the * Final Results of 2 nd PET Film Review * , the Department identified a number of systemic deficiencies that led to its determination, specifically:
(1)the lack of information related to verification or implementation of penalties and the failure to identify the number of companies during the POR that either did not meet export commitments under the ALP, were penalized for not meeting the export requirements under the ALP, or were penalized for claiming excessive credits;
(2)the availability of ALP benefits for a broad category of “deemed” exports; and
(3)the GOI's inability to provide the SION calculations for the PET film industry or any documentation demonstrating that the process outlined in its regulations was actually applied in calculating the PET film SION. *Id* . In the *Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation* , the Department stated that it had examined certain monitoring procedures with respect to the GOI's tracking of inputs and exports through the Directorate General for Foreign Trade (DGFT), and the tracking of inputs imported duty-free under the ALP through a customs database. *See* Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation Decision Memorandum at Comment 10. However, in the investigation, the Department ultimately determined that, in spite of these procedures, systemic issues continued to exist that demonstrate that the GOI lacks a system or procedure to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production of the exported products and in what amounts that is reasonable and effective for the purposes intended, as required under 19 CFR 351.519. For example, in the *Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation* , the Department explained that while we confirmed at verification that the GOI had recently updated the SION for the lined paper industry, the GOI was unable to provide source documents concerning the initial formation and subsequent revision of the SION used for the lined paper industry, including the SION in effect during the period of investigation. *Id* . The Department further stated that neither the GOI nor the respondent claimed that the laws and procedures underlying the ALP had changed with respect to the issue of “deemed exports” during that investigation. Thus, the Department determined that the respondent failed to provide information demonstrating that the ALP was implemented and monitored effectively during the period of investigation, and continued to find that the GOI had not demonstrated that it had carried out an examination of actual inputs involved to confirm which inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product, and in what amounts or that the ALP was reasonable and effective for the purposes intended. In this administrative review, the GOI indicated that it had revised its Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedures for ALP prior to the POR. Specifically, the GOI revisions, introduced on May 13, 2005, provided for a mechanism to review a SION and monitor a company's consumption and stocks of duty-free, imported or domestically procured, raw materials. The GOI revised its Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedures to update its consumption register on inputs imported and inputs consumed to be filed by companies with the DGFT. 21 Further, the GOI stated that in the case of excess duty-free inputs, penalties have been put in place for the exporter. 21 The revision pertains to Appendix 23, which replaced the previous version, Appendix 18 of the Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedures. Appendix 23 states the consumption and stock of inputs for each SION. It provides details of inputs, quantity imported, name of the finished product produced, quantity of the finished product, inputs actually consumed for the exported product, excess imports, if any, and actual consumption. According to the GOI, producers/exporters are required to file Appendix 23 with the DGFT at the beginning of each year. According to the GOI, the details of Appendix 23 are then cross-verified and authenticated by independent chartered accountants. In addition, the GOI argues that it has also put into place an internal system of regularly monitoring and reviewing SIONs. The GOI refers to Chapter 4, paragraphs 4.10-4.10.2 of the Foreign Trade and Policy Handbook of Procedures, which states that: {a}t the beginning of the financial year or at any other time as the {Norms Committee (NC)} may find it necessary, NC may identify the SIONs which in its opinion are required to be reviewed. The exporters are required to submit revised data in form given in 'Aayaat Niryaat Form' for such revision. It is mandatory for the industry/exporter(s) to provide production and consumption data etc. as may be required by DGFT/EPC for revision of SION. Otherwise, the applicant shall not be allowed to take the benefit of Advance Authorization Scheme. In addition, in this administrative review the GOI argues that advance licenses are issued with actual user conditions and are not transferable even after completion of the export obligation. The Department has analyzed the changes introduced by the GOI to the ALP during 2005 and acknowledges certain improvements to the ALP system. However, we preliminarily determine that systemic issues continued to exist in the ALP system during the POR, all of which were enumerated in the * Final Results of 2 nd PET Film Review * and the *Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation* . For example, while the GOI pointed to provisions in the Handbook of Procedures that lay out the procedures for the levying of penalties, the GOI did not demonstrate any enforcement of these deadlines and actual application of the penalty provisions. *See* Final Results of 2 nd PET Film Review Decision Memorandum at “Advance License Program” and Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation Decision Memorandum at “Advance License Program.” In addition, the GOI did not place any supporting documentation on the record of this review that demonstrates enforcement procedures for the DGFT and the Customs Authorities, respectively, as addressed in the Final Results of 2 nd PET Film Review Decision Memorandum, and as requested in the initial and supplemental questionnaires of this review. Furthermore, while the GOI points to certain provisions that provide for the review of SIONs, the GOI was not able to demonstrate the existence of a legal or regulatory requirement or process required for the DGFT to monitor the continued accuracy of the SION. Also, the GOI did not provide a layout of the regulatory procedures regarding the review of the SION or revision and selection of SIONs. Instead, the GOI stated that it decides which SIONs are to be reviewed based on the inputs received from various concerned government authorities. Thus, we preliminarily determine the GOI has not demonstrated that it has a process in place to ensure that all SIONs are reviewed regularly and consistently as part of the ALP monitoring system. Therefore, despite the changes to the ALP noted by the GOI, we preliminarily determine that systemic problems continue to exist, and consequently we find that the GOI lacks a system or procedure to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production of the exported products and in what amounts that is reasonable and effective for the purposes intended, as required under 19 CFR 351.519. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.519(c), the exemption of import duties on inputs consumed in production of an exported product normally provides a recurring benefit. Under this program Essar and Ispat did not have to pay certain import duties for inputs that were used in the production of subject merchandise. Thus, we treated the benefit provided under the ALP as a recurring benefit. To calculate the subsidy, we first determined the total value of duties exempted during the POR for each company. From this amount, we subtracted the required application fees paid for each license during the POR as an allowable offset in accordance with section 771(6) of the Act. Consistent with our practice, we attributed benefits under the ALP to the recipient's export sales. Accordingly, to calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the resulting net benefit by Essar's and Ispat's respective total export sales for the POR. Consistent with our approach in recent Indian proceedings involving the ALP, we preliminarily determine that “deemed export” sales should be included in the export sales denominator for the ALP program only when the respondent applied for and was granted licenses during the POR based on both physical exports and deemed exports. *See* Comment 1 of the Final Results of 3 rd PET Film Review Decision Memorandum. As noted above, Ispat reported deemed export sales during the POR. Because Ispat did not provide information regarding the extent to which its licenses were earned via deemed exports, we have therefore limited the denominator of the net subsidy rate calculation to physical exports. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy rate under the ALP to be 0.13 percent *ad valorem* for Essar and 0.50 percent *ad valorem* for Ispat. 6. Loan Guarantees from the GOI In the underlying investigation, the Department found that the GOI or State Bank of India
(SBI)provides loan guarantees on a case-by-case basis to particular industrial sectors. *See Final Determination of HRC Investigation* , 64 FR at 73137. We further determined, in accordance with section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, that GOI loan guarantees confer countervailable subsidies because they result in a financial contribution by the government in the form of a potential direct transfer of funds or liabilities. In accordance with section 771(5)(E)(iii) of the Act, the loan guarantees provide a benefit to the recipient in the amount of the difference between the amount the recipient pays on the guaranteed loan and the amount the recipient would pay for a comparable commercial loan if there were no government guarantee. Moreover, as we determined in the *Final Determination of HRC Investigation* , these loan guarantees are limited to certain companies selected by the GOI on an ad hoc basis and, thus, the program is specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(II) of the Act. *Id* . In the instant review, JSW reported having loan guarantees from the SBI for certain long-term foreign currency denominated loans outstanding during the POR. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been presented in this review to warrant reconsideration of the Department's finding that loan guarantees from the SBI are countervailable. In order to determine whether the government guarantees that JSW received conferred a benefit under section 771(5)(E)(iii) of the Act, we compared the total amount JSW paid for the guaranteed loans with the benchmark interest rates that would have been charged on a comparable commercial loan. 22 Consistent with the approach discussed in the “Subsidies Valuation Information” section, *supra* , where available, as our benchmark we used the interest rate on comparable, foreign currency loans that JSW received from commercial lenders. Where company-specific benchmarks were unavailable, consistent with our practice, we used the lending rate for the appropriate foreign currency, as reported by the IMF. *See* Final Determination of HRC Investigation Decision Memorandum at “Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rate.” 22 There is no information on the record regarding what, if any, guarantee fees may have applied, so no adjustment has been made in this regard. To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the benefit by JSW's total sales. On this basis, we calculated net subsidy rate of 0.01 percent *ad valorem* for JSW. 7. Steel Development Fund Loans The Steel Development Fund
(SDF)was established in 1978, during a time when the steel sector in India was subject to price and distribution controls. From 1978 through 1994, India's integrated steel producers, SAIL, Tata, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL), and India Iron & Steel Company Limited (IISCO), were mandated by the GOI to increase the prices for the products they sold. The proceeds from the price increases ( *i.e.* , levies) were remitted to the SDF. Under the SDF program, companies that contributed to the fund are eligible to take out long-term loans at advantageous rates. Loans from the SDF are made for the following purposes:
(1)finance capital improvements and research and development projects;
(2)provide funding for rebates to the Small Scale Industries Corporations on supplies by those companies; and
(3)meet the expenditures of the Economic Research Unit of the Joint Plant Committee (JPC). In the underlying investigation, the Department examined loans under the SDF. *See* Final Determination of HRC Investigation Decision Memorandum at “Loans from the Steel Development Fund.” The Department found that the Commission for Iron and Steel, which is known as CI&S, is led by the Secretary of the Ministry of Steel. This official is an ex-officio member of the SDF Managing Committee, and Chairman of the JPC. The issuance and administration of loans under the SDF program are supervised by the JPC. However, according to the GOI, all of the SDF's lending decisions are subject to the review and approval of the SDF Managing Committee. *See Notice of Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determinations: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India* , 66 FR 20240, 20248 (April 20, 2001) ( *Preliminary Determination of HRC Investigation* ) (unchanged in the *Final Determination of HRC Investigation* ). In the underlying investigation, we also found that the levies originated from producer price increases that were mandated and determined by the JPC. Because the Secretary of the Ministry of Steel, in his capacity as the head of the CI&S, acts as an ex-officio member and Chairman of the JPC, we determined that the GOI, through the JPC, has a controlling interest in the manner and amount of contributions that are made to the SDF. *See Preliminary Determination of HRC Investigation* , 66 FR at 20248 (unchanged in *Final Determination of HRC Investigation* ). In particular, we found that during the period in which the funds for the SDF were provided, the GOI controlled the price of steel products in India. In order to create the SDF, the GOI, acting through the JPC, mandated steel price increases which were earmarked for the SDF. Steel producers collected this price increase, which was paid by steel consumers in India, and these additional funds were then placed into the SDF as a source of concessional financing for the Indian steel industry. Therefore, in the underlying investigation, we concluded that the GOI played a direct role in the creation of the SDF by mandating price increases on steel products, which were authorized for use solely as a source of funds for the SDF. *Id* . Under section 771(5)(B) of the Act, a subsidy can be found whenever the government makes a financial contribution, when it provides a payment to a funding mechanism to provide a financial contribution, or when it entrusts or directs a private entity to make a financial contribution. In the underlying investigation, we determined that the GOI directed the contribution of funds for the SDF within the meaning of section 771(5)(B) of the Act, by levying price increases on steel products which were routed into the SDF. Furthermore, because the Secretary of the Ministry of Steel has a major leadership role in the JPC and the SDF Managing Committee, the bodies that issue and administer loans under the SDF, we determined that the GOI exercises control over the way in which funding is disbursed under this program. *Id* . Therefore, in the underlying investigation, we determined that loans under the SDF constitute a financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. We also determined that loans under the SDF are specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act because eligibility for loans from the SDF is limited to steel companies. We further found that loans under the SDF program confer a benefit under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act to the extent that the interest paid under the program during the POR was less than what would have been charged on a comparable commercial loan. *Id* . No new or substantive evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted in this proceeding to warrant reconsideration of this determination. In the instant administrative review, Tata reported SDF loans outstanding during the POR. In order to determine whether Tata's loans under the SDF program conferred a benefit within the meaning of section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act, we compared the actual interest rates charged to the benchmark interest rates that would have been charged on a comparable commercial loan. As discussed in the “Subsidies Valuation Information,” *supra* , where available we used as our benchmark the weighted-average interest rates on Tata's rupee-denominated, long-term loans. For those years in which no company-specific long-term benchmark was available for Tata, we used the average interest rate for India's PLR, as published by the RBI. Our comparison of the interest rates indicates that the interest rate payments that Tata made under the SDF program were less than what it would have otherwise paid on a comparable commercial loan. Thus, we preliminarily determine that the interest savings realized under this program conferred a benefit upon Tata. To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the total amount of interest savings Tata obtained under this program during the POR by its total sales for the POR. Our calculation of the net subsidy rate is consistent with our approach in the underlying investigation. *See Preliminary Determination of HRC Investigation* , 66 FR at 20248 (unchanged in *Final Determination of HRC Investigation* ). On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 0.41 percent ad valorem for Tata. 8. Target Plus Scheme
(TPS)On September 1, 2004, the GOI introduced the TPS in the 2004 - 2009 edition of its “Foreign Trade Policy” handbook. Under TPS, exporting companies are eligible for duty credit entitlement certificates for the percentage of incremental growth in exports made during the 2004-2005 period, as compared to the 2003-2004 period. Tata reported earning credits under the TPS prior to and during the POR. JSW reported that it used TPS credits earned prior to the POR to import various items during the POR. In its questionnaire response, JSW also reported that it did not apply for or earn TPS credits during the POR. We preliminarily find this program to be similar to the DEPS program, which is countervailable, in that all exporters are eligible to earn value-based TPS credits on a post-export basis, and may use the credits for the purpose of paying customs duty on subsequent imports of any input, regardless of whether they are consumed in the production of an exported product. 23 Similar to the Department's approach under DEPS, we preliminarily determine that a financial contribution, in the form of revenue forgone, as defined under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, is provided under the TPS program because the GOI provides credits for the future payment of import duties. We also preliminarily find that the TPS program provides a benefit. The GOI does not have in place and does not apply a system that is reasonable and effective for the purposes intended to confirm which inputs, and in what amounts, are consumed in the production of the exported products. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.519(a)(4) and section 771(5)(E) of the Act, the entire amount of import duty exemption earned during the POR constitutes a benefit. Further, because the TPS program can only be used by exporters, we preliminary determine that the program is specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. 23 However, unlike DEPS licenses, TPS licenses are not transferable. We also preliminarily determine that the TPS credits provide a recurring benefit under 19 CFR 351.519(c). In keeping with our approach concerning value-based licenses like those provided under the DEPS, we calculated the benefit under the TPS on an “as-earned” basis because the amount of the exemption is known at the time the TPS license is earned. However, unlike the DEPS, TPS credits are not tied to particular sales. Rather, under the TPS, credits are provided as a percentage of the value of incremental growth in the exported merchandise. As such, participating firms do not know the value of TPS credits they have earned until they receive the TPS license. Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, we find that the date on which participating firms receive their TPS licenses constitutes the time period in which benefits are earned. Accordingly, for purposes of these preliminary results, we have not included TPS credits earned prior to the POR in our benefit calculations. Under this approach, we therefore preliminarily determine that JSW did not benefit from the TPS during the POR. For purposes of calculating the benefit under the TPS for Tata, we summed all TPS credit earned by Tata during the POR. We then subtracted, as an allowable offset, the actual amount of any application fees paid for each license in accordance with section 771(6) of the Act. As stated above, we preliminarily determine that TPS credits are contingent upon export activity, but unlike the DEPS, the credits are not tied to particular sales. Therefore, to calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the amount of TPS credits earned during the POR by Tata's total export sales for the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine Tata's net countervailable subsidy rate under the program to be 1.80 percent *ad valorem* . In its questionnaire response, JSW also stated that the TPS program was eliminated on April 1, 2006. The company provided a copy of a GOI document announcing the termination of the program. We further note that 19 CFR 351.526(d) provides that the Department will not adjust the cash deposit rate if the program-wide change consists of a terminated program and:
(1)the Department determines that residual benefits may continue to be bestowed under the terminated program, or
(2)the Department determines that a substitute program for the terminated program has been introduced and the Department is not able to measure the amount of countervailable subsidies provided under the substitute program. However, in this review, the GOI has not provided the required information regarding residual benefits and successor programs, as discussed under 19 CFR 351.526(d). Thus, because the GOI has not provided the required information regarding the termination of and any residual benefits from the program, or possible substitute programs, we cannot take a program-wide change into account in this administrative review. In any future countervailing duty proceedings involving merchandise from India and this program, the GOI will have with the opportunity to demonstrate whether a program-wide change has occurred with respect to the TPS under 19 CFR 351.526. 9. Captive Mining of Iron Ore Under the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act of 1957, as amended,
(MMDR)and the Mineral Concession Rules of 1960, as amended, the GOI grants captive mining rights for minerals, including iron ore, to eligible applicants. The MMDR includes a schedule that lists minerals for which mining rights are controlled by the GOI. Iron ore is included on this schedule. According to documents issued by the GOI, captive mining rights of iron ore are limited to a small group of companies. For example, according to a report issued by the GOI's Ministry of Steel, captive mining rights of iron ore are limited to a handful of steel and mining companies, including Tata. *See* The Report of the “Export Group” on Preferential Grant of Mining Leases for Iron Ore, Manganese Ore and Chrome Ore, as issued by the Ministry of Steel at page 50, which was included as Exhibit 3 of petitioner's May 23, 2007, submission. In addition, a study commission by the GOI further indicates that the GOI's provision of captive iron ore mining rights has been largely limited to large Indian steel producers. *See* National Mineral Policy, Report of the High Level Committee (a.k.a., the Hoda Report) at page 143, which was included as Exhibit 10 of petitioner's May 23, 2007, submission. We preliminarily determine that the provision of iron ore under this program constitutes a financial contribution, in the form of a provision of a good, within the meaning of section (771)(D)(iii) of the Act. Furthermore, we preliminarily determine that the provision of iron ore under the Captive Mining Rights program is *de facto* specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act because the provision of captive iron ore mining rights is limited to certain enterprises, such as steel producers. Section 771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act provides that a benefit is conferred by a government when the government provides the good or service for less than adequate remuneration. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2)(i) the Department will normally seek to measure the adequacy of remuneration by comparing the government price for the goods or service to a market-determined price resulting from actual transactions in the country in question. The regulations provide that such market-determined prices could include prices stemming from actual transactions between private parties, actual imports, or, in certain circumstances, actual sales from competitively run government auctions. Tata reported that its sole source of iron ore during the POR was through the captive mining rights program. Thus, Tata was not able to provide a market-determined benchmark price resulting from actual transactions in the country in question, as described under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2)(i). Under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2)(ii), if there is no useable market-determined price with which to make the comparison under sub-paragraph (a)(2)(i), the Department will seek to measure the adequacy of remuneration by comparing the government price to a world market price where it is reasonable to conclude that such price would be available to purchasers in the country in question. This second tier directs the Department to examine prices which it would be reasonable to conclude that purchasers could obtain in India. There are publications on the record that include prices from the world market for comparable goods which can be used as a benchmark to determine whether the GOI sold high-grade iron ore to the respondents for less than adequate remuneration. As explained above in the “Sale of High-Grade Iron Ore for Less Than Adequate Remuneration” section of these preliminary results, copies of the *Tex Report* , which contain are on the record and include prices for high-grade iron ore that were set for 2006. Therefore, consistent with our approach in the *Final Results of Second HRC Review* , we continue to find that the prices reported in the *Tex Report* constitute world market prices that would be available to the respondents in accordance with 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2)(ii). See Final Results of Second HRC Review Decision Memorandum at “Sale of High-Grade Iron Ore for Less Than Adequate Remuneration.” To calculate the benefit, we first derived a per unit price for the iron ore that Tata extracted under the captive mining rights program. Specifically, we calculated a per unit price for the captive mining fees Tata paid to government entities during the POR. To this amount, we added the operational mining costs, on a per unit basis, which consisted of materials, labor, depreciation, overhead, and royalties. We then compared this total per unit cost to the per unit iron ore benchmark. We made the following adjustments to the benchmark information. We converted the iron ore fines' prices listed in U.S. cents per dry long ton to U.S. dollars. We then multiplied the per unit U.S. dollar price by the corresponding percentage of iron content (iron ore is priced by one unit of Fe content) to calculate a U.S. dollar high-grade iron ore amount. Next, we converted the U.S. dollar per unit price from dry long tons to metric tons. We then applied the average exchange rate for 2006 to calculate a Rupee per metric ton price for high-grade iron ore. We then averaged the prices to arrive at the benchmark used to compare against Tata's per unit cost of iron ore. To calculate the benefit, we multiplied the difference between the government per unit price and the benchmark per unit price by the total amount of iron ore Tata mined from government sources under the program. To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the benefit by Tata's total sales during the POR. On this basis, we calculated a net subsidy rate of 9.42 percent *ad valorem* for Tata. In its November 1, 2007, supplemental questionnaire response, JSW stated that the GOI did not provide captive mining rights to the company. We issued supplemental questions regarding captive mining rights on November 8, 2007. JSW did not submit a response to that supplemental questionnaire. Because JSW did not provide any further information or supporting documentation to substantiate the company's non-use of captive mining rights, we are applying facts available with an adverse inference to address these omissions. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that the net subsidy rate for this program is 16.63 percent *ad valorem* for JSW. 10. Captive Mining Rights of Coal In 1973, the GOI nationalized coal mining under the Coal Mines Nationalization Act. The legislation initially reserved coal mining for public companies. However, pursuant to the Coal Mines Nationalization Amendment Act of 1976, the law was revised to allow private iron and steel companies to mine for coal for captive use ( *i.e.* , the right of selected companies to extract coal from government-owned land for use in their production processes). In 1993 through 1996, the GOI amended the Act to also allow power companies and the cement industry to mine coal for captive use. Under the program, the GOI, in conjunction with local state governments, grants captive mining rights of coal in what is referred to as captive coal blocks. According to a document produced by the GOI's Ministry of Coal entitled, “Guidelines for Allocation of Captive Blocks and Conditions of Allotment Through the Screening Committee,” in granting captive coal blocks, preference shall be accorded to steel plants with annual capacities of more than one million metric tons. *See* Guidelines for Allocation of Captive Blocks and Conditions of Allotment Through the Screening Committee at Exhibit 23 of petitioner's May 23, 2007, submission. In its questionnaire response, Tata acknowledged that the GOI and the State Government of Jharkhand
(GOJ)granted it captive coal mining rights. Tata further acknowledged that during the POR it used such captive coal mining rights to extra coal from government-owned land located in West Bokaro and Jharia, in the state of Jharkhand. We preliminarily determine that the provision of coal under this program constitutes a financial contribution, in the form of a provision of a good, within the meaning of section (771)(D)(iii) of the Act. Furthermore, we preliminarily determine that the provision of coal under the Captive Mining Rights program is *de jure* specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act because preference is given in the allocation of coal blocks to steel producers whose annual production capacity exceeds one millions tons. Section 771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act provides that a benefit is conferred by a government when the government provides the good or service for less than adequate remuneration. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2)(i) the Department will normally seek to measure the adequacy of remuneration by comparing the government price for the goods or service to a market-determined price resulting from actual transactions in the country in question. The regulations provide that such market-determined prices could include prices stemming from actual transactions between private parties, actual imports, or, in certain circumstances, actual sales from competitively run government auctions. Tata reported importing coal from a private supplier during the POR. There is no information on the record that suggests such private supplier prices do not reflect actual market-determined prices in India for comparable ore, or that such private-supplier prices have been distorted by GOI involvement in the market. Therefore, pursuant to section 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2)(i), we used such private prices as our benchmark for purposes of calculating the benefit from Tata's purchases of coal under the captive mining rights program. To calculate the benefit, we first derived a per unit price for the coal that Tata extracted under the captive mining rights program. Specifically, we calculated a per unit price for the captive mining fees Tata paid to government entities during the POR. To this amount, we added the operational mining costs, on a per unit basis, which consisted of materials, labor, depreciation, overhead, and royalties. We then compared this total per unit cost to the per unit price that Tata paid for the coal it imported from commercial sources during the POR. To calculate the benefit, we multiplied the difference between the government per unit price and the imported per unit price by the total amount of coal Tata mined from government sources under the program. To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the benefit by Tata's total sales during the POR. On this basis, we calculated a net subsidy rate of 12.01 percent ad valorem for Tata. B. State Government of Gujarat Programs 1. State Government of Gujarat Tax Incentives Pursuant to a 1995 Industrial Policy of Gujarat and an Incentive Policy of 1995-2000, the State Government of Gujarat
(GOG)offered incentives, such as sales tax exemptions and deferrals, to companies that locate or invest in certain disadvantaged or rural areas in the State of Gujarat. A company could be eligible to claim exemptions or deferrals valued up to 90 percent of the total eligible capital investment. These policies exempt companies from paying sales tax on the purchases of raw materials, consumable stores, packing materials and processing materials. Other available benefits include exemption or deferment from sales tax and turnover tax on the sale of intermediate products, by-products, and scrap. The Pioneer and Prestigious programs are the two programs that are available under this policy. To be eligible for the incentives, companies must have made a fixed capital investment of over 5 crores (Pioneer Scheme) or 300 crores (Prestigious Scheme) in a qualified under-developed area in the state of Gujarat. *See Preliminary Results of Second HRC Review* , 71 FR 1512, 1514; *see also* the Final Results of Second HRC Review Decision Memorandum at “State Government of Gujarat
(SGOG)Tax Incentives.” The amount of the eligible capital investment is linked to the amount of the incentives received over a period of eight to 14 years, depending on the category of participation. For the Pioneer Scheme, which initially began in 1986, companies making a capital investment during 1986 and 1991 were allowed to utilize this program. For the Prestigious Scheme, tax incentives were offered only for investment units which started production between 1990 and 1995. *See Preliminary Results of Second HRC Review* , 71 FR at 1514 and Final Results of Second HRC Review Decision Memorandum at “State Government of Gujarat
(SGOG)Tax Incentives” section. In the current review, Essar stated that it completed the 14-year sales tax exemption granted under the Pioneer Scheme on July 31, 2004, and, therefore, sales taxes offered under the program were not available to Essar during the POR. However, Essar indicated that it received sale tax exemptions under the Prestigious program from the beginning of the POR through March 31, 2006. In the *Final Determination of PET Resin Investigation* , the Department determined that the sales tax exemptions under the Prestigious Scheme resulted in companies not paying the state sales tax otherwise due, and thus constituted a countervailable subsidy. *See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate
(PET)Resin from India* , 70 DR 13460 (March 21, 2005) ( *Final Determination of PET Resin Investigation* ), and the “State of Gujarat
(SOG)Sales Tax Incentive Scheme” section of the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Final Determination of PET Resin Investigation Decision Memorandum). Consistent with our findings in the *Final Determination of PET Resin Investigation* , we preliminarily determine that this program is countervailable. We preliminarily determine that the program is limited to only those companies that make an investment in a specified disadvantaged area and is therefore specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. We also preliminarily find that the GOG provides a financial contribution under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act by foregoing the collection of sales tax revenue and that Essar receives a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act in the amount of sales tax that Essar does not pay. In the case of an exemption of an indirect tax, the Department will consider the benefit as having been received at the time the recipient firm otherwise would be required to pay the indirect tax. *See* 19 CFR 351.510(b)(1). We preliminarily determine that the date Essar otherwise would be required to pay the exempted sales taxes corresponds to the date of the annual state tax return Essar filed during the POR, which is the return covering the period April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. Therefore, to calculate the benefit under the Prestigious program we summed the amount of sales tax exemptions Essar received, as indicated by the annual state tax return Essar filed during the POR. To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the benefit amount by Essar's total sales. On this basis, we preliminarily calculated an *ad valorem* rate of 1.08 percent for Essar. In the course of explaining its use of the Pioneer and Prestigious Schemes, Essar stated that it also used a Value Added Tax
(VAT)that the GOG established on April 1, 2006. According to Essar, the system remits VAT to eligible firms using the balance of tax incentives under the Prestigious Scheme that remained unutilized after the end of the 8- to 14-year time window allowed under the Prestigious Scheme. The VAT remission system operates differently with respect to purchases and sales. For purchases within the State of Gujarat, eligible firms ( *i.e.* , firms with existing balances under the Prestigious Scheme) must pay full tax to the vendor. However, the tax paid is credited to the company in the form of an input tax credit to be refunded by the State Government. The GOG then debits the refund received by the firm against the firm's remaining balance of tax credits leftover from the Prestigious Scheme. With respect to sales, a company is required to charge sales tax from its customers (both local VAT and central sales tax). However, the tax collected by the seller does not have to be paid to the State of Gujarat, but instead can be retained through a remission order provided by the state's sales tax authorities. In such instances, the amount of sales tax retained by the firm is credited against the firm's remaining balance of tax credits leftover from the Prestigious Scheme. Based on various aspects of the description of this system ( *e.g.* , that the recipient may retain the local and central taxes that it has charged on sales of its products), it appears that this tax system is not structured as a conventional VAT. This is further confirmed by the manner in which eligibility for and the amounts of these remissions appear to be linked to the Prestigious Scheme. Because the source of the tax remissions received under the system comes from participating firms' unused tax credits under the Prestigious Scheme, we preliminary determine that these indirect tax remissions constitute a financial contribution, in the form of revenue forgone, under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act and are regionally specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. We further preliminarily determine that these indirect tax remissions confer a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.510(a)(1) because they enable participating firms to pay less indirect taxes than they would have to pay absent the system. In its questionnaire response, Essar states that during the period April 1, 2006, through October 10, 2006, the remittances it obtained under this remission system exhausted the balance of tax credits earned under the Prestigious program. *See* pages 13 and 14 of Essar's November 8, 2007, supplemental questionnaire response, which indicates the balance of credits exhausted during the POR. Therefore, for purposes of the preliminary results, we are treating the balance of tax credits under the Prestigious Program that Essar used to obtain these remissions during the POR as the benefit. To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the benefit amount by Essar's total sales. On this basis, we preliminarily calculated an *ad valorem* rate of 0.02 percent for Essar. We will consider any additional information and comment that parties may want to provide concerning this remission system, and will reconsider our findings, as appropriate, for the final results. C. State Government of Karnataka Programs As explained above in the “Adverse Facts Available” section, *supra* , the SGOK failed to respond to the Department's new subsidy questionnaire regarding alleged subsidy programs pertaining to JSW and VMPL. Accordingly, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that all newly alleged subsidy programs determined to be used by JSW and VMPL, as listed below, constitute financial contributions and are specific pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 771(5A) of the Act, respectively. 1. SGOK's New Industrial Policy and Package of Incentives and Concessions of 1993 (1993 KIP) JSW reported that it received assistance from the SGOK under the 1993 KIP to construct an integrated steel plant in the state of Karnataka. JSW stated that eligibility for the subsidies was limited to industries located within designated regions of Karnataka. As discussed in “Adverse Facts Available” section, *supra* , JSW failed to submit complete information to the Department concerning the full extent of assistance the company received from the SGOK under the 1993 KIP. In its November 1, 2007, response, JSW submitted a copy of the SGOK's November 10, 1994, order that sanctioned infrastructure assistance, incentives, and concessions for JSW's steel plant. This government document outlines various types of assistance for the project including land, power, water, roads, iron ore, coal, limestone/dolomite, port facilities, training facilities, term loans, an interest free unsecured loan, and tax incentives. On November 8, 2007, we issued to JSW a supplemental questionnaire requesting information on the various types of assistance outlined in the SGOK's approval document. JSW failed to submit a response to that questionnaire. In its questionnaire responses, JSW, however, did submit limited information on the VAT refunds it received during the POR for domestic sales made in the state of Karnataka. JSW also provided some limited information regarding the amount of tax incentives the company was eligible to receive under the 1993 KIP incentives package from the SGOK in its new subsidies questionnaire response, which was submitted to the Department on November 1, 2007. JSW's failure, however, to provide complete information requested by the Department has impeded our investigation of the new subsidies allegations. JSW also has not provided us with any explanation as to why it could not provide the information within the established deadlines. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that JSW has failed to act to the best of its ability and, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we are applying facts available with an adverse inference to address these omissions for each type of assistance approved by the SGOK, with the exception of the VAT refunds and tax incentives (see discussion below for these two assistance programs). As such and as explained above in the “Adverse Facts Available” section of these preliminary results, we are assigning to each of the following sub-programs the AFA rate of 16.63 percent *ad valorem* : land, power, water, roads, iron ore, coal, limestone/dolomite, port facilities, training facilities, term loans, and an interest free unsecured loan. Treatment of each type of assistance as a “sub-program” ( *i.e.* , as a distinct program) is consistent with the Department's approach in other countervailing duty cases. *See* , *e.g.* , *Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Turkey; Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination* , 67 FR 55815 (August 30, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at “General Incentives Encouragement Program (GIEP),” under “Programs Determined To Be Countervailable,” where the Department treated each type of assistance under the GIEP as a separate sub-program. Concerning tax programs, JSW reported that it received VAT refunds from the SGOK during the POR for domestic sales. JSW reported that the VAT refunds are only for companies that set up productive units in the backward area of Karnataka and are only permitted for products sold domestically within Karnataka. *See* JSW's November 19, 2007, Supplemental Questionnaire Response at 19 and 22. We preliminarily find that, consistent with 19 CFR 351.510(a)(1), the benefit to JSW is the total amount of VAT refunds that the company received for the POR. JSW provided to the Department the VAT refunds the company received in 2006 in its November 19, 2007, supplemental questionnaire response at Table C. We then divided that amount by JSW's total sales for 2006. On this basis, we preliminary determine for the VAT refund sub-program a rate of 0.83 percent *ad valorem* for JSW. In its November 1, 2007, questionnaire response, JSW also stated that it received tax incentives and that the company's tax incentives are limited to the capital investment in the fixed assets of the project. JSW reported a monetary amount for the fixed assets investment. JSW, however, did not explain the extent of tax assistance the company received from the SGOK or whether the “capped” tax incentives were part of or separate from the VAT refunds that the company received during the POR. Therefore, as AFA, we preliminarily find that in addition to the VAT refunds, JSW received other tax incentives during the POR. To calculate the benefit to JSW from these other tax incentives, we first divided the total fixed asset investment amount by the number of years that JSW can receive tax incentives. We then divided the amount apportioned to 2006 by JSW's total sales for 2006. On this basis, we preliminary determine for the tax incentives sub-program a rate of 3.99 percent *ad valorem* for JSW. In the November 8, 2007, supplemental questionnaire covering the new subsidies, we asked VMPL, an iron ore supplier that is majority owned by JSW, to respond to the questions regarding its receipt of assistance under the 1993 KIP. VMPL is a joint venture between JSW and MML to supply iron ore to JSW's integrated steel plant. As reported in JSW's financial statement, VMPL meets nearly 50 percent of JSW's iron ore requirements and “is pursuing with the Government of Karnataka for allocation of additional mining areas to meet the entire iron ore requirements of your company.” 24 ( *See* “Other SGOK Subsidies” below for more information on VMPL.) VMPL did not submit a response to the questionnaire. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily determine that VMPL has failed to act to the best of its ability and are applying facts available with an adverse inference to address these omissions for each type of assistance provided by the SGOK as outlined in JSW's November 10, 1994, approval order. 24 *See* JSW's 2004-2005 financial statement at page 15, which was submitted by petitioner in its May 23, 2007, new subsidies allegation submission (a public document on the public file in the CRU). Under section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi), we preliminarily determine that cross-ownership exists between JSW and VMPL based on the nature and extent of the ownership relationship between the two. Further, consistent with information on the record regarding the nature and extent of the supplier relationship between VMPL and JSW, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iv), we preliminarily determine that subsidies received by VMPL are attributable to the combined sales of VMPL and JSW. Therefore, in order to account for VMPL's failure to respond to the Department's questionnaire, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we are assigning to JSW:
(1)the AFA rate of 16.63 percent *ad valorem* for the following sub-programs: land, power, water, roads, iron ore, coal, limestone/dolomite, port facilities, training facilities, term loans, and an interest free unsecured loan;
(2)the calculated rate of 0.83 percent *ad valorem* for the VAT refund sub-program; and
(3)the calculated rate of 3.99 percent *ad valorem* for the tax incentives sub-program. 25 25 Because VMPL did not submit a questionnaire response, we do not have the company's sales data for 2006 to combine with JSW's sales. Therefore, as AFA, we are using only JSW's total sales as the denominator to calculate the rate for the VAT refunds and tax incentives sub-programs. 2. Other SGOK Subsidies Petitioner alleged that JSW received subsidies from the SGOK by virtue of JSW's ownership in VMPL, which is also partially owned by MML, a SGOK- owned company. Specifically, petitioner alleged that
(1)MML has not received shares in VMPL in return for MML turning over mining sites to VMPL;
(2)MML has failed to recover pension payments, premium payments, and mineral premiums from VMPL, and
(3)MML has failed to enforce certain pricing agreements it has with VMPL that have resulted in MML paying higher prices for iron ore. In its November 1, 2007, questionnaire response, JSW reported that it owns 70 percent of VMPL and MML owns the remaining 30 percent. Concerning petitioner's allegations, JSW stated that MML received its shares in VMPL and payment against the balance of premiums owed by VMPL. JSW stated that the Department's questions regarding failure of MML to enforce pricing arrangements were not applicable. In the November 8, 2007, supplemental questionnaire, we asked JSW to submit documentation to substantiate its statements that MML received shares in VMPL and received all payments due from VMPL. We also instructed VMPL to submit a questionnaire response covering the SGOK's incentives and concessions packages (see discussion, *infra* ). JSW did not submit a response to the November 8, 2007, supplemental questionnaire, nor did VMPL respond to its questionnaire. JSW's failure to provide complete information requested by the Department has impeded our investigation of the new subsidies allegations. JSW also has not provided us with any explanation as to why it could not provide the information within the established deadlines. Therefore, because we preliminarily determine that JSW has failed to act to the best of its ability, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, and find that subsidies to VMPL are attributable to JSW, we are applying facts available with an adverse inference to address these omissions. As such, we are assigning to each of the following sub-programs the AFA rate of 16.63 percent *ad valorem* :
(1)MML's receipt of VMPL shares,
(2)MML's receipt of premium payments from VMPL, and
(3)MML's Failure to Enforce Pricing Arrangements. 3. SGOK's New Industrial Policy and Package of Incentives and Concessions of 1996 VMPL did not submit a response to the November 8, 2007, new subsidies supplemental questionnaire covering its use of the SGOK's 1996 incentives and concessions package. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that VMPL/JSW has failed to act to the best of its ability and, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we are applying facts available with an adverse inference to address this failure to respond. Therefore, we are assigning to this program the AFA rate of 16.63 percent *ad valorem* . 4. SGOK's New Industrial Policy and Package of Incentives and Concessions of 2001 VMPL did not submit a response to the November 8, 2007, new subsidies supplemental questionnaire covering its use of the SGOK's 2001 incentives and concessions package. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that VMPL/JSW has failed to act to the best of its ability and, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we are applying facts available with an adverse inference to address this failure to respond. Therefore, we are assigning to this program the AFA rate of 16.63 percent *ad valorem* . 5. SGOK's New Industrial Policy and Package of Incentives and Concessions of 2006 VMPL did not submit a response to the November 8, 2007, new subsidies supplemental questionnaire covering its use of the SGOK's 2006 incentives and concessions package. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that VMPL/JSW has failed to act to the best of its ability and, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we are applying facts available with an adverse inference to address this failure to respond. Therefore, we are assigning to this program the AFA rate of 16.63 percent *ad valorem* . D. State Government of Maharashstra Programs 1. Sales Tax Program Under the Maharastra Package Scheme of Incentives and the Maharastra New Package Scheme of Incentives, the Government of Maharastra
(GOM)offered tax incentives - including sales tax exemptions, sales tax deferrals, VAT tax refunds, and interest-free unsecured loans - to companies that located or invested in certain developing areas in the State of Maharastra. Ispat reported that, through the Maharastra Package Scheme of Incentives of 1983 and the Maharastra Package Scheme of Incentive of 1988, Ispat was permitted to retain as an interest-free loan an amount equal to the amount of sales taxes incurred by its Kalmeshwar Complex that was otherwise payable to the GOM. For its Dolvi Plant, under the Maharashstra New Package Scheme of Incentives of 1993 Ispat was entitled to receive an exemption of sales taxes payable on raw material purchases, but, with GOM's introduction of a VAT system on April 1, 2005, the exemption of sales taxes on purchases was no longer available. Ispat reported that, with regard to the Dolvi division, Ispat is eligible for an exemption of sales taxes on sales and that it is also entitled to VAT refunds. Ispat stated that, with regard to the Dolvi division, Ispat has been eligible for remission of sales taxes since August 6, 1998, and will remain eligible until August 5, 2012. Finally, Ispat reported that deferral of sales tax on purchases is not available under the program, but deferral of sales tax on sales is available. Ispat stated that, as of May 1, 2006, the company shifted from claiming sales tax exemptions to claiming sales tax deferrals. Ispat stated that, instead of immediately paying the GOM the sales taxes it collects, the company retains the sales taxes it collects on behalf of the GOM for ten years before being required to submit the deferred sales taxes to the GOM in equal installments over five years. In the *Final Determination of PET Resin Investigation* , the Department determined that the purchases under the Prestigious Scheme resulted in companies not paying the state sales tax otherwise due, and that the program provided a countervailable subsidy. *See* the “State of Gujarat
(SOG)Sales Tax Incentive Scheme” section of the Final Determination of PET Resin Investigation Decision Memorandum. Consistent with our findings in the *Final Determination of PET Resin* , we preliminarily determine that this program is countervailable. We preliminarily determine that the Maharstra Package Scheme of Incentives program is limited to only those companies that make an investment in a specified developing area and therefore, it is specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. We also preliminarily determine that the GOM provides a financial contribution under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act by foregoing the collection of sales tax revenue and, in the case of sales tax deferrals, in the form of uncollected interest on the deferred sales taxes. *See* 19 CFR 351.510(a)(2). We preliminarily determine that Ispat receives a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act:
(1)in the amount of sales tax that it does not pay;
(2)in the case of sales tax deferrals, in the amount of interest otherwise due; and
(3)in the case of sales tax loans, in the form of interest-free loans. In the case of an exemption of an indirect tax, the Department considers the benefit as being received at the time the recipient firm otherwise would be required to pay the indirect tax. *See* 19 CFR 351.510(b)(1). We preliminarily determine that the date that Ispat otherwise would be required to pay the exempted taxes corresponds to the date of the annual state tax return Ispat filed during the POR. Because Ispat has not provided a copy of its state tax return filed in the POR, we are unable to calculate the benefit for sales tax exemptions that may have been claimed by Ispat during the POR. Prior to issuing the final results, we intend to collect a copy of Ispat's state tax return and additional information regarding Ispat's sales tax exemptions. Ispat provided a breakdown of its VAT refunds pertaining to the period April 2005 to the end of the POR. Because Ispat did not provide detailed information as to when it applied for and received these refunds, we calculated the benefit by summing all of the VAT refunds Ispat reported having received during the POR. Prior to issuing the final results, we intend to collect additional information regarding these VAT refunds. Regarding Ispat's deferrals of indirect taxes, a benefit exists to the extent that the appropriate interest charges are not collected. *See* 19 CFR 351.510(2)(a)(2). Ispat provided a monthly breakdown of its sales tax deferrals. Using these data, we calculated the monthly benefit by multiplying the monthly amount of deferred tax by the days outstanding in the POR by the benchmark interest rate. We used the long term 2006 benchmark interest rate because Ispat is not required to repay these deferral sales tax amounts for 10 to 15 years. Regarding interest free sales tax loans, Schedule 4 of Ispat's Annual Report contains an entry for the amount of interest-free sales tax loans outstanding as of March 31, 2006. Because Ispat did not provide more specific data, we calculated the benefit by treating this amount as the amount of interest-free tax loan outstanding at the beginning of 2006 and multiplying it by the benchmark interest rate. As explained in the “Subsidies Valuation Section” above, because Ispat did not have comparable, commercial loans for 2006, we used the average interest rate in 2006 for India's PLR, as reported by the RBI. We used a long-term benchmark interest rate because Ispat reported that is not required to repay the unsecured sales tax loans for 10 to 15 years. Ispat claims that the provision in the Maharastra Package Scheme of Incentives which allows for exemptions of sales taxes on purchases was terminated on March 31, 2005, and that a substitute program has not been instituted. On this basis, Ispat requests that the Department take a program-wide change into consideration when establishing the cash deposit rate applicable to the Maharastra Package Scheme of Incentives. We note that 19 CFR 351.526(d) provides that the Department will not adjust the cash deposit rate if the program-wide change consists of a terminated program and:
(1)the Department determines that residual benefits may continue to be bestowed under the terminated program, or
(2)the Department determines that a substitute program for the terminated program has been introduced and the Department is not able to measure the amount of countervailable subsidies provided under the substitute program. In this review, the GOM has not provided the required information regarding residual benefits and successor programs, as discussed under 19 CFR 351.526(d). To calculate the net subsidy rate for this program, we summed the various benefit amounts received by Ispat under each provision of the program and divided the total benefit amount for the POR by Ispat's total sales during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily calculate an *ad valorem* program rate of 1.25 percent for Ispat. 2. Electricity Duty Exemption under the Package Scheme of Incentives for 1993 Ispat reported that, under the Package Scheme of Incentives for 1993, the GOM provides exemptions of electricity duties for “Mega” projects located in specified developing regions of the state. Ispat reported that, because Ispat's Dolvi plant qualified as a Mega project, Ispat holds eligibility certificates under the Maharastra New Package Scheme of Incentives of 1993. Under this program, Ispat received electricity duty exemptions on several of the types of electricity charges by the Maharastra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. We preliminarily determine that the Maharstra Package Scheme of Incentives program is limited to only those companies that make an investment in a specified developing area and therefore, it is specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. We also preliminarily determine that the GOM provides a financial contribution under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act by foregoing the collection of electricity duty revenue. We preliminarily determine that Ispat receives a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act in the amount of electricity duties that it does not pay. To calculate the benefit received by Ispat during the POR under this program, we summed the monthly value of electricity charges that were eligible for the duty exemption and multiplied these totals by the “industrial” electricity duty rate of 6 percent. We then divided this result by the company's total sales during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily calculate an *ad valorem* program rate of 0.59 percent for Ispat. II. Program Preliminary Found Not To Provide Countervailable Benefits in the POR Duty Free Replenishment Certificate
(DFRC)Scheme The DFRC scheme was introduced by the GOI in 2001 and is administered by the DGFT. The DFRC is a duty replenishment scheme that is available to exporters for the subsequent import of inputs used in the manufacture of goods without payment of basic customs duty. In order to receive a license, which entitles the recipient subsequently to import duty free certain inputs used in the production of the exported product, as identified in a SION, within the following 24 months, a company must:
(1)export manufactured products listed in the GOI's export policy book and against which there is a SION for inputs required in the manufacture of the export product based on quantity; and
(2)have realized the payment of export proceeds in the form of convertible foreign currency. The application must be filed within six months of the realization of the profits. DFRC licenses are transferrable, yet the transferee is limited to importing only those products and in the quantities specified on the license. Although 19 CFR 351.519(b)(2) provides that the Secretary will normally consider any benefit from a duty drawback or exemption program as having been received as of the date of exportation, we preliminary find that an exception to this normal practice is warranted here in view of the unique manner in which this program operates. Specifically, a company may not submit an application for a DFRC license until the proceeds of the sale are realized. The license, once granted, specifies the quantity of the particular inputs that the bearer may subsequently import duty free. In the *Final Results of First HRC Review* , we noted that the benefits from another duty exemption program, the DEPS, were conferred as of the date of exportation of the shipment because it is at that point that “the amount of the benefit is known by the exporter.” *See* Final Results of First HRC Review Decision Memorandum at II.A.4 “Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme.” However, in the case of the DFRC, the company does not know at the time of export the value of the duty exemption that it will ultimately receive. It only knows the quantity of the inputs it will likely be able to import duty free if its application for a DFRC license is granted. Unlike the DEPS, under the DFRC, the respondent will only know the total value of the duty exemption when it subsequently uses that license to import the specified products duty free or sells it. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the date of receipt is linked to when the company uses the certificate to import an input duty free or, in the case in which the company sells the certificate, the date of sale. This approach is consistent with the Department's approach to other similar types of programs in India. *See* , *e.g.* , the “Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPS),” section of the Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation Decision Memorandum. During the POR, no companies reported importing using a DFRC license or exporting against a DFRC license. However, Tata reported selling DFRC licenses during the POR. The Department has previously determined that the sale of quantity-based import licenses confers a countervailable export subsidy. *See* , *e.g.* , *Final Determination of CTL Plate Investigation* , 64 FR 73131, 73134; *Certain Iron-Metal Castings from India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 63 FR 64050 (Nov. 18, 1998); and *Certain Iron-Metal Castings from India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 62 FR 32297, 32298 (June 13, 1997), in which the Department found the sale of quantity-based licenses under the ALP countervailable. Therefore, in accordance with section 771(5A)(B) of the Act, we determine that the sale of DFRC licenses is an export subsidy and that a financial contribution is provided, under section 771 5(D)(ii) of the Act, in the form of the revenue foregone. We further find that the sales of the licenses conferred a benefit under section 771 (5)(E) of the Act. However, Tata further reported that all of the DFRC licenses sold during the POR were tied to non-subject merchandise. Because the receipt of DFRC licenses are tied to specific export sales, Tata's indication in its questionnaire response that its sales of DFRC licenses during the POR are tied to non-subject merchandise is plausible. Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, we find that Tata's use of this program was tied to non-subject merchandise. III. Program for Which More Information is Required Status Certificate Program India's Status Certificate Program is detailed under paragraph 3.5 of its Foreign Trade Policy Handbook. This program details the following privileges provided to exporters, depending on their export performance for the current year, plus the preceding three years: i). License/certificate/permissions and Customs clearances for both imports and exports on self-declaration basis; ii). Fixation of Input-Output norms on priority within 60 days; iii). Exemption from compulsory negotiation of documents through banks. The remittance, however, would continue to be received through banking channels; iv). 100 percent retention of foreign exchange in EEFC account; v). Enhancement in normal repatriation period from 180 days to 360 days; vi). Entitlement for consideration under the Target Plus Scheme; and vii). Exemption from furnishing of Bank Guarantee in Schemes under this Policy. Tata and JSW indicated that they did not use the Status Certificate program during the POR. However, Ispat and Essar indicated that they participated in the program. On December 7, 2007, the Department requested additional information from Ispat and Essar regarding their use of the program. In particular, we inquired the extent to which Ispat and Essar used the provision related to foreign currency retention under the Status Certificate program during the POR. In Essar's December 12, 2007, questionnaire response, it stated that it did not use the currency retention program. In its December 13, 2007, questionnaire response, Ispat indicated that it used the program to extend the repatriation period of its foreign currency earnings beyond 180 days. At this time, we do not have sufficient information from parties to determine whether this extension of the time period to repatriate foreign currency earnings under the Status Certificate Program is a countervailable subsidy. We intend to seek further information and issue an interim analysis describing our preliminary findings with respect to this program before the final results of review so that parties will have to opportunity to comment on our findings. VI. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Used A. GOI Programs 1. Export Processing Zones and Export Oriented Units 2. Export Processing Zones 3. Income Tax Exemption Scheme (Sections 10A, 10B, and 80HHC) 4. Market Development Assistance 5. Market Access Initiative 6. Exemption of Export Credit from Interest Taxes 7. Long-Term Loans from the GOI 8. Special Economic Zone Act of 2005 a. Duty free import/domestic procurement of goods and service for development, operation, and maintenance of SEZ units. b. Exemption from excise duties on goods ( *i.e.* , machinery and capital goods) “brought from the Domestic Tariff Area” (defined as the “whole of India” excluding SEZs) for use by an enterprise in the SEZ. c. Drawback on goods brought or services provided from the Domestic Tariff Area into a SEZ, or services provided in a SEZ by service providers located outside India. d. 100 percent exemption from income taxes on export income from the first 5 years of operation, 50 percent for the next 5 years, and a further 50 percent exemption on export income reinvested in India for an additional 5 years. e. Exemption from the Central Sales Tax. f. Exemption from the national Service Tax. B. State Government of Andhra Pradesh Programs- Grants Under the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy of 2005-2010 1. 25 percent reimbursement of cost of land in industrial estates and industrial development areas. 2. Reimbursement of power at the rate of Rs. 0.75 “per unit” for the period beginning April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006 and for the four years thereafter to be determined by the Government of Andhra Pradesh (GOAP). 3. 50 percent subsidy for expenses incurred for quality certification up to RS. 100 lakhs. 4. 25 percent subsidy on “cleaner production measures” up to Rs. 5 lakhs. 5. 50 percent subsidy on expenses incurred in patent registration, up to Rs. 5 lakhs. 6. 100 percent reimbursement of stamp duty and transfer duty paid for the purchase of land and buildings and the obtaining of financial deeds and mortgages. 7. A grant of 25 percent of the tax paid to GAAP, which is applied as a credit against the tax owed the following year, for a period of five years form the date of commencement of production. 8. Exemption form the GAAP Non-agricultural Land Assessment (NALA). 9. Provision of “infrastructure” for industries located more than 10 kilometers from existing industrial estates or industrial development areas. 10. Guaranteed “stable prices of municipal water for 3 years for industrial use” and reservation of 10% of water for industrial use for existing and future projects. C. State Government of Chhattusgarh Programs- Industrial Policy 2004-2009 1. A direct subsidy of 35 percent to total capital cost for the project, up to a maximum amount equivalent to the amount of commercial tax/central sales tax paid in a seven year period. 2. A direct subsidy of 40 percent toward total interest paid for a period of 5 years (up to Rs. Lakh per year) on loans and working capital for upgrades in technology. 3. Reimbursement of 50 percent of expenses (up to Rs. 75,000) incurred for quality certification. 4. Reimbursement of 50 percent of expenses (up to 5 lakh) for obtaining patents. 5. Total exemption from electricity duties for a period of 15 years form the date of commencement of commercial production. 6. Exemption from stamp duty on deeds executed for purchase or lease of land and buildings and deeds relating to loans and advances to be taken by the company for a period of three years from the date of registration. 7. Exemption from payment of “entry tax” for 7 years (excluding minerals obtained from mining in the state). 8. 50 percent reduction of the service charges for acquisition of private land by Chhattisgarh Industrial Development Corporation for use by the company. 9. Allotment of land in industrial areas at a discount up to 100 percent. D. State Government of Gujarat Programs 1. Gujarat Special Economic Zone
(SEZ)Act a. Stamp duty and registration fees for land transfers, loan agreements, credit deeds, and mortgages. b. Sales tax, purchase tax, and other taxes payable on sales and transactions. c. Sales and other state taxes on purchases of inputs (both goods and services) for the SEZ or a Unit within the SEZ. 2. Captive Port Facilities a. Discount on Gujarat wharfage charges. b. Credit for the cost of the capital (including interest) to construct the port facilities, which is then applied as an offset to the wharfage charges due Gujarat on cargo shipped through the captive jetty. E. State Government of Jharkhand Programs 1. Grants and Tax Exemptions under the State Industrial Policy of 2001 2. Subsidies for Mega Projects under the JSIP of 2001 F. State Government of Maharashstra Programs 1. Refunds of Octroi Under the PSI of 1993, Maharastra Industrial Policy of 2001, and Maharastra Industrial Policy of 2006. 2. Infrastructure Assistance for Mega Projects. 3. Land for Less than Adequate Remuneration. 4. Loan Guarantees Based on Octroi Refunds by the SGM. 5. Investment Subsidy. Preliminary Results of Review In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we have calculated an individual subsidy rate for each reviewed company for the period January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. These rates are summarized in the table below: Company Total Net Countervailable Subsidy Rate Essar Steel Ltd. 12.87 percent *ad valorem* Ispat Industries Ltd. 13.42 percent *ad valorem* JSW Steel Ltd. 505.20 percent *ad valorem* Tata Steel Ltd. 29.21 percent *ad valorem* If the final results of this review remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. We will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits for each respondent at the countervailing duty rate indicated above of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. We will also instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Public Comment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. The Department will notify interest parties of the briefing schedule after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs, unless otherwise specified by the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:
(1)a statement of the issues, and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department copies of the public version on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs, that is, 37 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. *See* 19 CFR 351.305(b)(3). The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of arguments made in any case or rebuttal briefs. These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Dated: December 31, 2007. Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-179 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-423-809] Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 9, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Layton at
(202)482-0371 or David Neubacher at
(202)482-5823; AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 29, 2007, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the countervailing duty order on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, covering the period January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part and Deferral of Administrative Review* , 72 FR 35690 (June 29, 2007). Statutory Time Limits Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) to issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and the final results of review within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results This administrative review is extraordinarily complicated due to the nature of the countervailable subsidy practices and the fact that we have not conducted an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on stainless steel plate in coils from Belgium since 2001. Because the Department requires additional time to review, analyze, and possibly verify the information, and to issue supplemental questionnaires, it is not practicable to complete this review within the originally anticipated time limit ( *i.e.* , by January 31, 2008). Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results to not later than May 30, 2008, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: January 3, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-180 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; High Seas Fishing Permit Application Information AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before March 10, 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 Robert Dickinson,
(301)713-2276 or *Bob.Dickinson@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract U.S. vessels that fish on the high seas (waters beyond the U.S. exclusive economic zone) are required to possess a permit issued under the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act. Applicants must submit information to identify their vessels and intended fishing areas. The application information is used to process applications and to maintain a register of vessels authorized to fish on the high seas. II. Method of Collection Paper forms must be mailed to NOAA. III. Data *OMB Control Number:* 0648-0304. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 200. *Estimated Time per Response:* 30 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 100. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $10,000. 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: January 4, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-166 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; High Seas Fishing Vessel Reporting Requirements AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before March 10, 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 Robert Dickinson,
(301)713-2276 or *Bob.Dickinson@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Operators of vessels licensed under the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act are required to report their catch and fishing effort when fishing on the high seas. The requirement is for fishery management purposes and to provide data to international organizations. Vessels already maintaining logbooks under other specific regulations are not required to maintain an additional logbook. II. Method of Collection Paper logbook pages are submitted. III. Data *OMB Control Number:* 0648-0349. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 550. *Estimated Time per Response:* 6 minutes per day for days fish are caught; 1 minute per day for days when fish are not caught. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 850. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $3,000. 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: January 4, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-167 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; High Seas Fishing Vessel Identification Requirements AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before March 10, 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 Robert Dickinson,
(301)713-2276 or *Bob.Dickinson@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The operators of vessels licensed under the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act are required to mark their vessels in 3 locations (port and starboard sides of the deckhouse or hull, and on a weatherdeck) with their official number or radio call sign. The requirement is for enforcement purposes. II. Method of Collection No information is submitted, only displayed on the vessel. III. Data *OMB Control Number:* 0648-0348. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 50. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 45 minutes (15 minutes for each of 3 locations). *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 38. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $1,000. 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: January 4, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-168 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Foreign Fishing Vessel and Gear Identification Requirements AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before March 10, 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 Robert Dickinson,
(301)713-9090 or *Bob.Dickinson@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Regulations at 50 CFR 600.503 require that a foreign fishing vessel display the vessel's international radio call sign on the port and starboard sides of the deckhouse or hull, and on a weatherdeck. The numbers must be of a specific size. The display of the identifying number aids in fishery law enforcement and allows other fishermen to report suspicious activity. The regulations also require that foreign fishing vessels that deploy gear that is not physically and continuously attached to the vessel mark that gear with a buoy displaying the vessel identification number and attach a light visible for two miles on a night with good visibility. The marking of gear aids law enforcement and enables other fishermen to report on gear placed in unauthorized areas. There currently are no foreign vessels authorized to do fishing that would be subject to the gear identification requirement. II. Method of Collection Information is displayed on vessels and gear. III. Data *OMB Control Number:* 0648-0356. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 6. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 45 minutes per vessel. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 5. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $120. 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: January 4, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-169 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary of Defense Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees AGENCY: Department of Defense. ACTION: Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, (5 U.S.C. Appendix, as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.65, the Department of Defense gives notice that it is renewing the charter for the Department of Defense Education Benefits Board of Actuaries (hereafter referred to as the Board). The Board, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2006(e), is a non-discretionary Federal advisory committee established to:
(1)Annually advise the Secretary of Defense on the actuarial status of the Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund (hereafter referred to as the Fund);
(2)shall furnish its advice and opinion on matters referred to it by the Secretary; review valuations of the Fund conducted under the provisions of 10 U.S.C., § 2006(f);
(3)report to the Secretary of Defense annually on the actuarial status of the Fund; and
(4)recommend to the President and Congress such changes as, in the Board's judgment, are necessary to protect the public interest and maintain the Fund on a sound actuarial basis. The Board shall be composed of not more than three members appointed by the Secretary of Defense from among qualified professional actuaries who are members of the Society of Actuaries. The members shall serve for a term of 15 years, except that a member of the Board appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the end of the term for which the predecessor was appointed shall serve only until the end of such term. A member may serve after the end of the term until a successor has taken office. A member of the Board may be removed by the Secretary of Defense for misconduct or failure to perform functions vested in the Board, and for no other reason. Members may not be reappointed for successive terms. The Chairperson of the Board shall be designated by the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), on behalf of the Secretary of Defense, for a five-year term. Board Members appointed by the Secretary of Defense, who are not Federal officers or employees, shall serve as Special Government Employees under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109, and shall, under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2006(e)(1)(C), serve with compensation, to include travel and per diem for official travel. The Board shall meet at the call of the Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with the Chairperson, the Secretary of Defense or the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel & Readiness). The Designated Federal Officer shall be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee, and shall be appointed in accordance with established DoD policies and procedures. The Designated Federal Officer or Alternate Designated Federal Officer shall attend all Board meetings and subcommittee meetings. The Board is authorized to establish subcommittees and workgroups, as necessary and consistent with its mission. Board subcommittees and workgroups shall operate under the provisions of Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976, and other appropriate Federal regulations. Board subcommittees and workgroups shall not work independently of the Board and shall report all their recommendations and advice to the Board for full deliberation and discussion. Board subcommittees and workgroups have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the Board and may not report directly to the Department of Defense or any Federal officers or employees who are not members of the Board. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 and 41 CFR 102-3.140(c), members of the public or interested groups may submit written statements to the members of the Board. Written statements may be submitted at any time to the Board's Designated Federal Officer or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. The contact information for the Designated Federal Officer for the Department of Defense Education Benefits Board of Actuaries can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database: *https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/public.asp* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Jim Freeman, Deputy Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-601-2554. Dated: January 3, 2008. C.R. Choate, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-207 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Record of Decision for Kilo Wharf Extension (MILCON P-502) at Apra Harbor Naval Complex, Guam, Mariana Islands AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Notice of Record of Decision. SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy announces its decision to extend Kilo Wharf by 400 feet (122 meters) to the west at Apra Harbor Naval Complex, Guam, Mariana Islands. The project includes dredging of reef flat and other marine habitats, construction of an additional mooring island, and improvements to the existing wharf. Improvements to the existing wharf include upgrades to the primary and secondary electrical power supply; upgraded lightning protection and grounding system; new electrical substation building, perimeter fencing, and floodlighting system; and seismic upgrades. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Nora Macariola-See, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific (Code EV2 NM), 258 Makalapa Drive, Suite 100, Pearl Harbor, HI 96860-3134, telephone 808-472-1402. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the entire Record of Decision
(ROD)is provided as follows: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)of 1969, 42 U.S.C. Section 4332(2)(c), and the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality that implement NEPA procedures (40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1500-1508), the Department of the Navy
(Navy)announces its decision to extend Kilo Wharf by 400 feet
(ft)(122 meters [m]) to the west at Apra Harbor Naval Complex (AHNC), Guam, Mariana Islands. The proposed wharf extension will be accomplished as set out in the West Extension Alternative, described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS)as the preferred alternative. Kilo Wharf is located within the AHNC in Outer Apra Harbor, and is the Department of Defense's (DoD's) only dedicated ammunition wharf in the Western Pacific Region. The Navy proposes to extend Kilo Wharf to provide adequate berthing facilities (including shore utilities and wharf-side handling area) to support a new class of ammunition ship that will replace existing ammunition ships currently forward deployed to the AHNC. The DoD is developing a new class of multi-purpose dry cargo/ammunition ship (designated as “T-AKE”), scheduled to be in service in Guam in fiscal year 2010. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to ensure that Commander, Navy Region Marianas (COMNAVREGMARIANAS) continues to provide ammunition on and off loading capability in direct support of DoD strategic forward power projection and maintain the readiness of the Navy's operating forces in the Western Pacific region. COMNAVREGMARIANAS provides operational, fuel re-supply, ordnance, and other logistic support to Fleet units of the Pacific Region and operating forces of the Navy's Fifth and Seventh Fleets. The Proposed Action will enable COMNAVREGMARIANAS to provide adequate facilities for the new T-AKE vessels forward deployed to Guam in accordance with DoD technical design standards for safe and efficient ordnance loading/offloading, in order to maintain its current support mission. The need for the Proposed Action is to ensure Kilo Wharf meets *Facility Planning Criteria for Navy and Marine Corps Shore Installations (P-80)* and *Military Handbook 1025/1* , *Piers and Wharves* criteria for berthing the T-AKE. There are no other suitable facilities on Guam available to accommodate this class of ammunition ship. *Public Involvement:* Public involvement is discussed in Section 1.6 of the FEIS and summarized here. A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the Proposed Action was published in the **Federal Register** (Vol. 70, No. 145, Page 43848) on 29 July 2005. Two public scoping meetings were held on Guam 30 August 2005 and 2 September 2005. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS)was filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) on 2 March 2007. A Notice of Availability of the DEIS was published in the **Federal Register** on 9 March 2007 (Vol. 72, No. 46, Page 10749), initiating a 45-day public comment period which ended on 23 April 2007. A Notice of Public Hearing for the DEIS was published in the **Federal Register** (Vol. 72, No. 46, Page 10721) on 9 March 2007. A public hearing was held on Guam 28 March 2007 to provide Federal, Territorial, and local agencies and interested parties the opportunity to provide oral and written comments on the DEIS. The Navy considered relevant issues raised during the 45-day public comment period for the DEIS. The Navy received 11 written comment letters by agencies, organizations and interested individuals during the DEIS public comment period. Issues raised during the DEIS public comment period are summarized in Section 1.6 of the FEIS. The FEIS was filed with the USEPA on 11 October 2007. A Notice of Availability of the FEIS was published in the **Federal Register** on 19 October 2007 (Vol. 72, No. 202, Page 59287), initiating a 30-day wait period (no action period) which ended on 19 November 2007. The FEIS included identification of the Preferred Alternative, best management practices
(BMPs)and mitigation measures to reduce environmental consequences, and public and agency comments on the DEIS as well as responses to those comments. *Alternatives Analyzed:* The Navy initially evaluated a range of alternatives that would meet the purpose and need of the action and applied preliminary screening criteria to identify those that were “reasonable” (i.e., practical and feasible from a military mission, operations, technical, and economic standpoint). The screening process and criteria were set out in the DEIS. A range of alternatives were initially considered, but not all were carried through the EIS analysis because they did not satisfy the screening criteria. Of the alternatives considered, the Navy determined that only two alternatives involving extension of the existing Kilo Wharf met the purpose and need and the preliminary screening criteria and were carried through the EIS analysis, in addition to the No Action Alternative. They are the “West Extension Alternative” and the “East-West Extension Alternative.” Both alternatives would provide adequate berthing for the T-AKE in accordance with DoD technical design standards for safe and efficient ordnance loading/offloading. Rationale for elimination of the other alternatives considered are discussed in Section 2.2.3 of the FEIS. *West Extension Alternative.* Under this alternative, the existing wharf would be extended by 400 ft (122 m) to the west. This alternative would take about 26 months to construct, including approximately six months of dredging. In-water work would be limited to the west side of the existing wharf. An additional mooring island would be constructed on the reef flat to the west of the existing mooring island for construction period vessel mooring. The Navy selected the West Extension Alternative as its preferred alternative in large part because it best avoided and/or minimized potential environmental impacts, when compared with the other alternative considered that met the project objectives (i.e., the East-West Extension Alternative). Furthermore, the West Extension Alternative would meet all technical and operational requirements for the project at a lower cost and shorter construction period than the East-West Extension Alternative. *East-West Extension Alternative.* This alternative would extend Kilo Wharf by 115 ft (35 m) to the east and 285 ft (87 m) to the west. This alternative would take about 28 months to construct including approximately eight months of dredging. In-water work would be necessary on both the west and east ends of the wharf, leading to a longer construction period with greater impacts on wharf operations. Two additional mooring islands would be constructed on the reef flat to the east and west of the existing mooring islands for construction period vessel mooring. *No Action Alternative.* Under the No Action Alternative, the T-AKE would replace the current ammunition ships forward-deployed to AHNC as planned, but would berth at the existing, substandard Kilo Wharf. The No Action Alternative assumes that the existing explosives safety quantity distance
(ESQD)arcs originating from Kilo Wharf would be revised to meet current Navy standards, with or without extension of the wharf. The No Action Alternative provides the least environmental impacts because it would not involve any change to the physical environment. However, this alternative does not meet the purpose and need and is not operationally acceptable because it does not conform with Navy design criteria for ammunition wharves, would adversely impact ordnance operations efficiency, would not adequately provide electrical power, fire protection, lighting, telecommunications, and security surveillance for the T-AKE, and presents substantial challenges to properly secure the larger ship during rough sea conditions. *Environmentally Preferred Alternative.* Through the EIS analysis, the West Extension Alternative was found to be the environmentally preferable alternative of the alternatives that met the purpose and need of the proposed action and operational requirements. As described in the FEIS, the West Extension Alternative would have the same or similar impacts as the East-West Extension Alternative in most environmental resource areas analyzed in the EIS, with the following exceptions. The West Extension Alternative would result in fewer adverse impacts than the East-West Extension Alternative on:
(1)Marine benthic habitats, specifically coral reef resources (smaller structural and sedimentation impact footprints, resulting in fewer ecological services lost);
(2)Essential Fish Habitat (shorter duration of construction period impacts); and
(3)land or water use constraints resulting from the variations in the wharf's ESQD arcs (East-West Extension Alternative ESQD arcs encumber 17 additional Navy family housing units and one additional dive/marine recreational site compared to the West Extension Alternative). *Decision:* After considering the potential environmental consequences of the operationally viable alternatives (West Extension Alternative and East-West Extension Alternative), and the No Action Alternative, the Navy has decided to implement the preferred alternative (West Extension Alternative) and extend Kilo Wharf 400 ft [122 m] to the west. *Environmental Impacts.* In the EIS, the Navy analyzed the environmental impacts that could occur as a result of implementing each of the alternatives, as well as the No-Action Alternative. Chapter 4 of the FEIS provides a detailed discussion of impacts and mitigation measures. This ROD, however, focuses on the impacts associated with the West Extension Alternative. *Physical Environment:* Construction period dredging associated with the West Extension Alternative would generate total suspended sediment loads that temporarily exceed Guam Water Quality Standards for marine waters, but are anticipated to return to background levels rapidly after cessation of dredging. BMPs to avoid or minimize water quality impacts as described in Section 4.2.6.4 of the FEIS will be implemented. BMPs will include appropriate use of silt curtains, disposal of dredged materials at approved disposal sites, and water quality monitoring. The construction contractor will prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Storm Water Notice of Intent before work commences. The SWPPP will meet the Guam Environmental Protection Agency
(GEPA)general permit requirements for storm water discharges from construction sites and select applicable BMPs. During the operational period, Kilo Wharf will be covered under a multi-sector general permit, which controls industrial discharges. No adverse operational period impacts to marine water quality are expected. *Biological Resources:* The West Extension Alternative would have unavoidable adverse impacts to approximately 4.75 acres
(ac)(1.92 hectares [ha]) of benthic habitat, including about 0.39 ac (0.16 ha) of high density live coral cover (i.e., “coral reef communities”). This area of marine benthic habitat provides ecological services that would unavoidably be affected due to structural impacts from construction dredging and fill. Dredging-related sediment plumes have the potential to adversely affect marine habitats. The affected areas would be localized around the dredging site and primarily affect marine habitats with low coral cover. Sediment transport computer modeling indicated that the West Extension Alternative could generate adverse sedimentation levels potentially affecting about 1.69 ac (0.68 ha) to 14.88 ac (6.02 ha) of benthic habitat, including about 0.14 ac (0.06 ha) to 0.72 ac (0.29 ha) of coral reef communities, over the course of the dredging period, depending on dredging rate and environmental conditions present. There would be adverse impacts to coral reef biota due to the general loss of ecological services, including non-motile species within the construction impact area. The West Extension Alternative would pose low potential for adverse effects on overall coral reproduction in the region of influence, since the Navy will comply with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit conditions requiring that it avoid dredging activities during the peak spawning event on Guam, which is seven to ten days after the full moon in July, in consultation with Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources. Construction BMPs described in Section 4.3.1.1 of the FEIS will be implemented to minimize impacts on the coral reef communities. No adverse impacts on Federal- or Territory-listed protected species or sensitive environments are expected during construction or operation. The Navy conducted informal consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Navy determined that although threatened or endangered species (i.e., sea turtles) may be affected by the West Extension Alternative, they are not likely to be adversely affected. By letter dated 29 June 2007, NOAA Fisheries concurred with the Navy's determination (Appendix N of FEIS). The Navy will implement construction period BMPs to minimize the potential for adverse effects on sea turtles, as described in Section 4.3.3.1 of the FEIS. The Navy initiated formal Essential Fish Habitat
(EFH)consultation 24 April 2007. The Navy concluded that the West Extension Alternative would have temporary adverse impacts on motile Fishery Management Plan species, eggs, and larvae due to dredging and in-water construction. NOAA Fisheries reviewed the EFH assessment and provided conservation recommendations dated 4 June 2007. The Navy supports the conservation recommendations provided 15 June 2007 with the following clarification:
(1)The preferred mitigation is the Cetti Bay watershed reforestation;
(2)success of the preferred mitigation will include performance measures with input from resource agencies;
(3)dredging will be avoided during the peak coral spawning (seven to ten days after the July full moon); and
(4)BMPs will be utilized to minimize impacts to corals. NOAA Fisheries conservation recommendations are addressed in the FEIS. The Navy's EFH assessment and correspondence with NOAA Fisheries are included in Appendix M of the FEIS. No adverse operational period impacts to the biological environment are anticipated from implementation of the West Extension Alternative. Ship berthing and unberthing procedures would be similar to that of the No Action Alternative and would continue with or without the wharf extension. *Social and Economic Environment:* The West Extension Alternative would not increase the number of family housing units or dive sites encumbered by the ESQD arcs above the No Action Alternative levels. *Cultural Resources:* No impacts to cultural resources are expected. Guam State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO)concurred with the Navy's determination of “no historic properties affected” (See Appendix O of FEIS for correspondence with Guam SHPO). The West Extension Alternative presents no significant impacts to climate and air quality; geology, seismology, soils and marine sediments; ambient noise; physical oceanography; groundwater quality; invasive species; terrestrial flora and fauna; aesthetics/visual environment; economics; social and demographic factors; infrastructure and services; and hazardous and regulated materials and waste. *Mitigation Measures.* The Navy will implement BMPs during construction and operation of the West Extension Alternative to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts. Because the West Extension Alternative will result in unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, primarily to the marine environment, the Navy will also fund or implement compensatory mitigation to provide substitute resources or environments for those ecological services expected to be lost. In coordination with Federal and Government of Guam (GOVGUAM) resource agencies, the habitat equivalency analysis
(HEA)process was used to estimate the spatial and temporal ecological service losses to marine benthic habitats resulting from the West Extension Alternative and identify appropriate levels of mitigation to compensate for the losses. Independent but coordinated HEA analyses were conducted by both the resource agencies and the Navy. Findings from both HEAs indicated similar levels of ecological services lost for the West Extension Alternative: the resource agency HEA estimated losses of 102 acre-years and the Navy estimated 116 acre-years of lost ecological services in its HEA. The HEA resulted in 102-116 acre-years. Selection, scaling and implementation of appropriate compensatory mitigation actions are being carried out in consultation with USACE, NOAA Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), USEPA, and GOVGUAM resource agencies. A USACE permit would be required for the West Extension Alternative for alteration of navigable waters and discharge of fill material into the water (caisson and construction mooring islands). This permit is the vehicle through which compensatory mitigation would be implemented. The Navy has coordinated with the resource agencies to develop a Mitigation Plan to satisfactorily meet the USACE permit requirements. The Navy and resource agencies have agreed on the general concepts of the Mitigation Plan. Before, during, and after construction, additional data would be collected on physical, chemical and biological factors in the vicinity of the construction project and used in post-construction monitoring and analysis. The Navy is developing the details of this monitoring plan, which will be submitted in the USACE permit process. *Preferred Mitigation.* The Cetti Bay watershed reforestation project is the Navy's preferred mitigation action. It was proposed by GOVGUAM based on HEA principles (i.e., identifying lost ecological services to be replaced). Although there is no direct correlation between the number of lost acre years of coral and number of acres to be reforested as compensatory mitigation, a mutual consensus was reached between Navy and GOVGUAM that the Cetti Bay watershed reforestation project will consist of reforestation of up to 500 ac (202 ha) of savanna grasslands and/or badlands within the Cetti Bay watershed, located on the southwestern coast of Guam, approximately 9 miles (14.4 kilometers) south of Apra Harbor. As stated in the Guam Department of Agriculture (GDOAG) reforestation plan, the bay's coral reef resources have been heavily degraded over the past few decades. One of the factors is believed to be upland erosion caused primarily by road construction, wildland fires, and feral ungulates (unrelated to Navy activities). Reforestation of the savanna grasslands and/or badlands within the Cetti Bay Watershed will reduce terrigenous sediment loads entering Cetti Bay, thereby improving water quality. This may have an indirect beneficial effect on the coral reef habitat in the receiving waters. Reducing sediment flow is intended to support and enhance the terrestrial and marine ecosystems, including fish and wildlife habitat within Cetti Bay and the Cetti Bay watershed. The following provides examples of the actions included in the reforestation project:
(1)Conversion of savanna grasslands and/or badlands to forest lands around Cetti Bay;
(2)reforestation of the area's badlands;
(3)fencing of identified reforested areas to provide ungulate control; and
(4)implementation of erosion BMPs. Performance standards for the Cetti Bay reforestation projects will not be tied to coral health improvement. Coral health monitoring conducted in Cetti Bay will not trigger a requirement for additional Navy mitigation action. GDOAG will be responsible for the implementation and long term management of the reforestation projects. A cooperative agreement between the Navy and GDOAG will be executed to authorize the transfer of Navy funds to GDOAG; therefore an appropriate real estate agreement between the Navy and GOVGUAM is required for the Cetti Bay parcel Lot No. 275, which is the area that will be reforested. The Navy will fund a third party contractor to conduct the terrestrial and marine monitoring at Cetti Bay as prescribed in the Mitigation Plan. The USACE's Permit mitigation procedures call for identification of a contingency mitigation project. The USACE permit would identify specific requirements associated with the preferred mitigation; however, failure to meet the requirements would trigger implementation of the contingency mitigation. An example of such a requirement would be that GOVGUAM provides real estate protection in perpetuity to the Cetti Bay mitigation site as described in USACE's DEIS comment letter in Appendix B-4 of the FEIS. Accordingly, the Navy, with USACE support, identified a contingency mitigation plan. *Contingency Mitigation.* The contingency mitigation plan consists of four components: Ordnance Annex Watershed Afforestation; Outer Apra Harbor Deep Water Substrate; Coral Reef Ecosystem Protection at Orote Point Ecological Reserve Area (ERA); and Shallow Water Reef Enhancement. Should it be required, by the USACE, to implement the contingency mitigation plan, all four of the components would be implemented. The deep water substrate component alone would provide levels of ecological services equivalent to the estimated acre-year losses. Therefore, the combined actions would provide benefits that would more than offset the estimated ecological service losses due to the West Extension Alternative. *Ordnance Annex Watershed Afforestation.* The Navy will conduct watershed afforestation of approximately 150 ac (60 ha) of savanna grassland vegetation in approximately 50 ac increments over a 3-year period within the northeastern portion of the Navy's Ordnance Annex. Afforestation will help reduce excessive terrigenous sediment loads entering Talofofo Bay, thereby improve water quality and support and enhance the terrestrial and marine ecosystems. This may have an indirect beneficial effect on coral reef habitat in the Bay. *Outer Apra Harbor Deep Water Substrate.* The Navy will place concrete or limestone block substrate in specific locations in Outer Apra Harbor to offset habitat losses from implementation of the West Extension Alternative. Four sites (Glass Breakwater, Kilo Wharf, San Luis Beach, and Sasa Bay) have been evaluated as candidate deep water substrate sites. The substrate will increase overall biomass and provide new benthic habitat. This mitigation component has been scaled such that if it were to be the sole mitigation project implemented, it would fully offset the ecological services lost due to the West Extension Alternative. *Coral Reef Ecosystem Protection at Orote Point ERA.* The Navy will expand the Orote ERA Area Marine Unit to include approximately 80 ac (32 ha) of Navy-owned submerged lands around Orote Point to Adotgan Point area, and approximately 32 acres (13 ha) of the Terrestrial Unit including the beaches and limestone forest area inland from the Marine Unit. The expanded Marine Unit would include shallow water benthic habitat around Orote Point that contains both hard and soft corals. The Navy will modify the management plan for the Orote ERA to restrict fishing and other types of consumptive activities that could potentially adversely affect EFH. *Shallow Water Reef Enhancement.* The Navy will transplant corals that would be directly impacted by the wharf extension to several new sites on Navy submerged lands in Outer Apra Harbor. Navy will enter into an agreement with a qualified organization to physically move and transplant as much live coral as feasible to sites on Navy-owned lands. Project will focus on transplanting large specimens. A detailed transplanting plan will be prepared which will include methods for moving large colonies, techniques for stabilizing colonies at the transplant sites, and a monitoring protocol. Since the contingency mitigation projects would take place wholly within Navy lands (including submerged lands), the Navy would be responsible for their monitoring and maintenance. *Agency Consultation and Coordination:* The Navy consulted and coordinated with Federal and GOVGUAM resource agencies regarding:
(1)ESA Section 7 consultation with NOAA Fisheries;
(2)Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act consultation with NOAA Fisheries;
(3)Section 106 consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 with the Guam SHPO; and
(4)Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination with GOVGUAM Bureau of Statistics and Plans (BSP). Correspondence relating to these consultations is found in Appendices M, N, O and P of the FEIS. In addition, the Navy invited three Federal agencies to be cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS: USACE, NOAA Fisheries, and USFWS. Of the three agencies, only the USACE agreed to be a cooperating agency. Appendix A of the FEIS contains correspondence with USACE and the other Federal agencies invited to be cooperating agencies. The FEIS includes an evaluation of potential impacts of implementing the preferred and contingency mitigation projects. In general, the watershed mitigation projects would have a beneficial effect on the environment by reducing erosion and sediment loading in surface and nearshore waters, thereby improving water quality. This may have an indirect beneficial effect on coral reef habitats in the receiving waters. The contingency mitigation projects would have direct beneficial effects on the marine environment either through habitat replacement (Deep Water Substrate and Shallow Water Reef Enhancement) or conservation (Orote ERA Expansion). The preferred and contingency mitigation projects would not adversely affect protected species or historic or cultural sites and, overall, would have beneficial effects on Guam's coastal management zone. GOVGUAM BSP concurred with the Navy's consistency determination that the proposed action and associated mitigation actions would be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of Guam's approved Coastal Management Program. *Responses To Comments Received On the FEIS:* Four Federal agencies (USACE, USEPA, NOAA Fisheries, USFWS), three GOVGUAM agencies (GDOAG, GEPA, BSP), one organization (The Nature Conservancy [TNC]) and a single commenter provided comment letters. Substantive comments are addressed below by topic. *Purpose and Need: Alternatives:* NOAA Fisheries recommended reconciling inconsistencies in justifying the purpose and need for the proposed action and suggested that the descriptions of the No Action Alternative were inadequate for full evaluation. USFWS commented that the project's purpose and need do not support the proposed action. GDOAG and TNC commented that the proposed action is not economically justified. The FEIS states that the No Action Alternative would not achieve the project objectives and COMNAVREGMARIANAS would not meet its mission to provide adequate waterfront facilities to replenish U.S. Fifth and Seventh Fleets. The FEIS explains that the action is needed because Kilo Wharf is inadequate to support the T-AKE and there are no other suitable facilities on Guam. The FEIS also states that although the No Action Alternative does not meet project objectives and is considered operationally unacceptable (for reasons described in the FEIS and earlier in this ROD), it provides a baseline to evaluate effects of the West Extension Alternative and East-West Extension Alternative. The decision to proceed with a proposed action is not made solely upon economic justification. Environmental, economic, and other factors were considered along with the operational need for the wharf extension in the decision-making process. *Compensatory Mitigation.* USACE identified the required contents of the Navy's mitigation plan, which will be submitted in conjunction with the project's necessary Department of the Army permit. USEPA commented that the monitoring would be underfunded and not enable measurements of success. The Navy is coordinating with the resource agencies to develop a Mitigation Plan that will satisfy USACE mitigation and monitoring requirements. The Mitigation Plan will be submitted with the permit application package. USEPA, GDOAG, and GEPA expressed concern over the Navy's timetable for reaching an acceptable agreement with the resource agencies on the preferred Cetti Bay watershed mitigation and questioned the Navy's commitment to this project. TNC commented that the Cetti Bay watershed mitigation is the only acceptable mitigation option. The Navy's preferred mitigation is the Cetti Watershed reforestation. The Navy and resource agencies have agreed on the general concepts of the Cetti Watershed reforestation plan to be submitted during the permitting process. USEPA, NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, GDOAG, and BSP expressed concerns over the adequacy of the Navy's contingency mitigation plan to offset lost ecological impacts. USFWS requested agency coordination if the contingency mitigation had to be implemented. Commenters requested that the Navy implement the Ordnance Annex afforestation (BSP, TNC), Orote ERA expansion (TNC), and coral transplantation (BSP, TNC) either as part of its natural resources management stewardship or as a BMP and not as compensatory mitigation. BSP requested that the Navy discuss the Orote ERA expansion with resource agencies to resolve concerns about the imposition of planned fishing restrictions associated with the expansion. The contingency mitigation plan is not the Navy's preferred mitigation, and would only be implemented if the preferred Cetti Bay watershed reforestation project does not proceed. It was developed in compliance with the USACE, whose mitigation requirements necessitate a contingency mitigation plan in the event the preferred plan is not implementable in accordance with USACE guidelines. The FEIS provides the rationale for each of the contingency mitigation components and describes their likely benefits to the environment. The deep water substrate component has been scaled such that if it were to be the sole mitigation project implemented, it would fully offset the ecological services lost due to the West Extension Alternative; the other three contingency mitigation components would provide additional ecological benefits. The Navy presented its contingency mitigation plan for resource agency comment prior to publication of the FEIS. Although the resource agencies indicated they did not support creation of artificial substrate, they did not provide alternatives for consideration. In its DEIS comment letter of 23 April 2007, the USACE stated that introducing deep water substrate at more than one location within Apra Harbor would “provide appropriate substrate that would rapidly be colonized by *Porites* , macro-algae, and other organisms similar to those found in the deeper areas on the impacted site, and thereby provide perpetual reef habitat.” Access to the Orote ERA is already restricted by its location within an active Navy base and ordnance handling activities in Kilo Wharf; therefore, any fishing restriction within the ERA will be enforced because of security and safety issues. *Marine Biological Environment-Existing Environment.* Commenters questioned the Navy's benthic habitat mapping methodology (NOAA Fisheries) and its characterization of certain benthic habitats and resources (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS); claimed that the Navy too narrowly defined the coral reef community (NOAA Fisheries; GDOAG) and undervalued the affected marine habitats (NOAA Fisheries); requested the analysis incorporate more of the resource agencies' survey data in describing the affected marine resources (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS); suggested a correction to the table comparing resource agency and Navy quantitative coral data (USFWS); commented that the FEIS does not provide an analysis of coral reef resources at Kilo Wharf in terms of contributions (e.g., reproduction, genetic diversity, future survival) to other coral reef resources within Apra Harbor (USFWS); and objected to the representation of the resource agencies' marine biological assessment in the FEIS (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS). The Navy's benthic habitat mapping methodologies were derived from the scientific literature and are described in the relevant studies, which were provided to the resource agencies prior to their in-water surveys and prior to inclusion in the DEIS. The EIS discusses the objectives and limitations of various approaches to assessing and characterizing benthic habitat data. The result of both methodologies utilized resulted in very close HEA results in acre-years. While all details of the technical reports (in the Appendices) are not reiterated in the FEIS, an adequate amount of information is presented to support the overall conclusions. The FEIS discussion of the resource agencies' assessment was not intended to undermine or criticize the data presented or methods employed. The purpose was to provide a general summary of the resource agencies' methods and findings, with attention to similarities and differences between the Navy and resource agency studies. FEIS reviewers were also encouraged to review the full reports appended to the FEIS. Despite the different approaches used to gather and present existing conditions data, the conclusions reached were similar. The resource agencies' and Navy's HEA projections of lost ecological services at Kilo Wharf were similar. The FEIS describes the other (non-coral) components of coral reef benthic community and states that all the habitats provide ecological services. The FEIS does explore the affected habitats; the results of the resource agencies' impact analysis and HEA are referenced and summarized in the FEIS text and received full evaluation. Complete reports are included as appendices. Both HEA results included estimates of the range of ecological services lost on all potentially impacted marine benthic habitats. The Navy is committed to providing full compensatory mitigation to offset lost ecological services estimated by the resource agencies' HEA. Although it would not affect the analysis or findings of the FEIS, Table 3-9 should have been entitled “Comparison of Coral Cover by Resource Agency and Navy Zones” to avoid confusion. The Navy recognizes that more than one approach may be employed to gather and present existing conditions data and to predict marine habitat impacts. It is currently working with Federal resource agencies to establish data gathering and pre- and post-construction monitoring protocols for future Navy projects (e.g., NOAA Coral Reef Ecosystem Division-sponsored Guam Monitoring Protocols Workshop held in December 2007). *Marine Biological Environment-Environmental Consequences.* Commenters questioned the findings of the sediment transport numerical model and associated sedimentation impact analysis (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS) and its threshold values for impacts (USFWS); requested clarification of BMPs for silt curtains, a definition of “sensitive coral habitat” in a BMP, and modification of a BMP to ensure that control measures are in place and functioning properly throughout each work shift (NOAA Fisheries); raised the issue of impacts from the release of sediment-entrained metals into the water column (NOAA Fisheries); commented that the construction period (GDOAG) and operational impacts of tugboats on benthic habitats were not considered (NOAA Fisheries); recommended use of coral densities and sizes rather than coral cover in the analysis (NOAA Fisheries); objected to the analysis of coral spawning and recruitment impacts (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, GDOAG, BSP, TNC) and suggested that suspension of dredging operations should occur over an expanded timeframe (BSP, TNC); questioned the water chemistry study methodology (NOAA Fisheries; GEPA); raised the issue of the lack of nighttime surveys for mobile invertebrates (NOAA Fisheries); disagreed with the impact analysis for the loss of vertical slope (GEPA); requested reevaluation of indirect long-term adverse impacts (GDOAG); requested compliance with stormwater BMPs in CNMI *and Guam Stormwater Management Manual* (GEPA); expressed concern that the FEIS minimizes impacts by considering only high coral cover areas (NOAA Fisheries, TNC); and requested that the impact analysis should include habitat types with little or no live coral coverage (TNC). The water current data sampling period and meter placement provided the necessary information for the sediment transport model, including surface water movement. Wave effects are important only in shallow water and would likely inhibit sediment deposition through increased water motion. The study adopted a conservative (i.e., “worst case”) strategy by not including these effects in the model. Because the harbor floor, as well as cover of the reef flats, consists of sediment similar to dredging-related sediments, once the dredging-related sediment is dispersed by currents, there is likely to be no difference in the sedimentation impacts compared to the present situation. The marine ecosystem impact analysis prepared for the EIS included a thorough review of the existing scientific literature of sedimentation impacts to coral, and used a conservative threshold value to estimate impacts. The Navy reviewed an article on “marine snow” cited in the USFWS comments for relevance to the potential sedimentation impacts to corals. The Navy concluded that because riverine muds and high nutrient water (which were key factors in the experiment reported in the article) are not components in the Kilo Wharf setting, the article's findings do not warrant the examination of lower threshold dredging-related sedimentation concentrations on coral reefs. In spite of the diverging views on the Navy's sediment transport modeling and associated impacts, the FEIS included the conclusions of the resource agencies' impact assessment and HEA, which included their projections of sedimentation effects on benthic organisms. BMPs to avoid or minimize water quality impacts and impacts to coral reef habitats during construction are discussed in the FEIS. BMPs that will be required as conditions to the USACE permit will be addressed in the Mitigation Plan through the permitting process. The FEIS lists metals that were reported in sediment tested at the project site, and also reports that they were reported at concentrations below the ER-L (effects range low). The text further states that these metals are likely to adhere to sediment which will resettle with the sediment rather than be released into the water column. Since the concentrations were below ER-L, these conditions are not elevated above what would be considered normal levels. In addition, these sediments presently exist in the harbor, therefore, any effect to fish or invertebrates would already be occurring. Presently, there are no documented indications that the metal concentrations would lead to blooms. As storm events resuspend sediments normally, any effects would be part of ongoing processes. The FEIS discusses potential operational period impacts of tug boats in Section 4.3.1.1. Tug boat operations were not addressed in the construction period impact analysis because they are not considered a new activity related to construction. Tug boats already operate on an ongoing basis at the wharf, supporting ships far larger than a dredging construction barge. The FEIS addressed the varying methods and included the resource agencies' survey in its entirety as an appendix in the interest of full disclosure. The FEIS provides rationale for the conclusion that the project dredging is not likely to have adverse or significant direct or indirect impacts on the long-term reproductive potential and structure of the coral community in Apra Harbor. The consideration of the effects of sedimentation to corals was based on the resource agencies' species list and not on percent live coral in order to make all corals that were noted to occur essentially equal in terms of spawning potential. To further reduce potential adverse impacts, the Navy has committed to avoid dredging activities during the peak coral spawning period on Guam (seven to ten days after the full moon in July in consultation with GDAWR) in accordance with U.S. Coral Reef Task Force guidance and USACE permit conditions. While replicate water chemistry sampling would have provided additional information on seasonal variations, the baseline water chemistry study results showed that the waters in the vicinity of the wharf are basically oceanic with a small indication of effect from draining of inner harbor water seaward, and water moving from land toward the center of the harbor. The Navy will implement a water quality monitoring plan, which will include a pre-construction component, as well as control stations. The Navy will also comply with the conditions of USACE permits required for the project. Nighttime surveys for benthic invertebrates may have produced higher counts. However, the FEIS summarized the results of the resource agency-prepared marine benthic impact analysis and levels of corresponding compensatory mitigation, which the Navy has agreed to implement or fund. The HEA process, which both the Navy and resource agencies utilized, accounts for habitat or ecosystem losses which would include the broad matrix of marine flora and fauna associated with the underlying coral reef resource. The FEIS notes that the loss of the vertical wall created by the original Kilo Wharf construction dredging would be replaced by similar, hard vertical substrate. The construction mooring island was not considered as part of the mitigation for ecological services lost, although it too would provide vertical substrate. Habitat removed or covered by both the construction mooring island and new shore protection was factored into the acre-year loss estimates for which the Navy will implement or fund compensatory mitigation. The EIS states that should sedimentation effects occur, the affected habitats are able to recover over time when the stressor is removed, although species composition may be affected. This is evidenced by the healthy condition of the coral reefs that were adversely affected by sedimentation from the original Kilo Wharf construction (i.e., west and east of the existing wharf). Reevaluation of indirect long-term adverse impacts is not necessary because the FEIS reports the results of the resource agencies' impact analysis and HEA. These results considered the resource agencies' estimated sedimentation effects west of the project area, extending to Orote Island. The Navy will consider the recommendations of the CNMI and Guam Stormwater Management Manual after a final report is issued. The Navy will comply with its NPDES permit regulations regarding stormwater runoff at the expanded wharf. The ecological services lost estimated in both the Navy and resource agency HEAs accounted for all habitat types impacted and not only those with high coral cover. The Navy will fund or implement mitigation commensurate with the total lost ecological services (both spatial and temporal) identified by the resource agencies. The Cetti Bay watershed reforestation is the Navy's preferred mitigation. The Navy is working collaboratively with the resource agencies on the details of the preferred mitigation plan. *Cumulative Impacts.* Commenters requested expanded analysis of cumulative effects of dredging on coral spawning in Apra Harbor (NOAA Fisheries); commented on the adequacy of cumulative impact analysis (NOAA Fisheries; TNC) and quantified data on the historical coral reef resources in Apra Harbor (NOAA Fisheries); requested the addition of a table containing the amount of actual direct and indirect impacts on coral reef communities and land/water use (GDOAG); and commented that the analysis should be considered in the context of reef decline worldwide, U.S. and on Guam (BSP). The FEIS described the likely effects of in-water construction on coral spawning and subsequent recruitment of planulae to the coral community within the region of influence (ROI). The analysis included evaluation of the spatial extent of potentially affected habitat; likely coral species to be affected, the susceptibility of their spawning characteristics to the effects of sedimentation, and overall sedimentation tolerance levels; and, based on analyses of these factors, concluded that there is little potential for sedimentation effects (if they occur) to have a negative impact on overall coral reproduction in Apra Harbor—both for areas that support live coral and also in those that do not. The FEIS cumulative impact assessment provides a sound characterization of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions in accordance with CEQ guidance. The absence of historical records on coral reef communities makes quantification of coral reef conditions in the post-WWII era speculative. The FEIS cumulative impacts analysis describes available pertinent information on past, present and future projects and therefore addition of a new table would not increase available data. The FEIS defines the ROI for cumulative impacts to coral reef communities as Inner and Outer Apra Harbor because this area represents the likely extent of the Kilo Wharf project's potential to contribute collective impacts. *Miscellaneous Comments.* There were numerous miscellaneous comments, including, but not limited to: comment that FEIS lacks information to evaluate finding of “no adverse impact to geological features” (NOAA Fisheries); GDOAG commented that a GDOAG permit is required for removal of coral; resource agencies requesting involvement in the Navy's ROD development (USEPA, NOAA Fisheries, USFWS); objections to the adequacy of the FEIS (USFWS, GDOAG), including its description of the existing environment/lack of incorporation of resource agency data (USFWS), environmental consequences (USFWS), and the Navy's lack of commitment to adequate compensatory mitigation (USFWS, GEPA). GDOAG commented that the FEIS lacked sufficient information and recommended development of a supplemental EIS. Commenters stated that the economic value of the Kilo Wharf coral reefs cited in the FEIS represent an incomplete valuation of impacted resources and are misleading (USFWS); objected to the FEIS's characterization of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act consistency concurrence for the contingency mitigation actions (BSP); requested clarification on impacts to resident seabirds (GEPA); requested ciguatera sampling of representative fishes (GEPA); requested discussion of Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA)(GEPA); stated that the Navy needs to consult with GDOAG and federal agencies regarding lighting specifications to help avoid or minimize potential impacts to threatened/endangered species due to concern with impacts to sea turtle nesting from dredging operations, fuel spills at night, and ship wakes from larger vessels (GDOAG); stated that the FEIS does not sufficiently describe placement of security and perimeter lighting to determine potential impacts to nesting and hatchling turtles (GDOAG); commented that FEIS is unclear on how Navy will address potential invasive species introductions via hull fouling (TNC); requested expanded discussion of Guam's water resources from a historical perspective (single commenter); and provided several factual corrections that do not affect the overall analysis or mitigation levels (GEPA, TNC). The permanent removal of the coral reef and placement of fill on the coral reef flat is addressed in Section 4.2.2.1. The FEIS text in this section states that this substrate is common in the ROI. Geologically, the reef flat and reef slope are common in the ROI. 5 GCA § 63602 and § 63603 is not applicable to this project because the Navy is not commercially harvesting or commercially taking the coral. By Navy policy, it does not include other agencies in development of its RODs. The FEIS includes the results and full reports of three Navy marine surveys, a resource agency survey, and a current monitoring/sediment transport computer modeling study. The FEIS addressed all the comments provided on the DEIS either in the body of the FEIS or in responses included in Appendix B-4 of the FEIS. If there were topics or conclusions contained in the DEIS that were not commented on at that time, it was concluded that they were acceptable to the DEIS reviewers. The FEIS explained that different methods were used in the resource agency and Navy surveys and analyses and included the resource agency reports in their entirety for interested readers. The FEIS summarized the marine habitat impacts prepared by the resource agencies and their resulting HEA estimates of lost ecological services (i.e., acre-year losses). The resource agencies involved in the marine assessment and impact analysis that formed the basis for the HEA lost ecological services estimate included both Federal (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS) and GOVGUAM agencies (GDOAG, GEPA). The Navy has committed to funding or implementing compensatory mitigation to fully offset the levels of ecological services calculated by the resource agencies. Therefore, the Navy considers the level of information and analysis in the FEIS sufficient and that a supplemental EIS is unwarranted. The Navy agreed to fund/implement compensatory mitigation to offset lost ecological services (i.e., a service-to-service approach to scaling, rather than a valuation approach), commensurate with the HEA prepared by the resource agencies. The Van Beukering et al.
(2007)study results cited in the FEIS have not been factored into compensatory mitigation scaling for the Kilo Wharf extension project, but were included in the EIS to illustrate that there are multiple approaches to estimating economic impacts of resource losses. The Navy's completed Guam Coastal Management Program
(GCMP)Assessment (FEIS Appendix P) evaluated the coastal zone consistency of wharf extension alternatives and the preferred and contingency mitigation plans. BSP's concurrence letter (5 September 2007) does not exclude any specific aspects of the Navy's determination or establish any preconditions for its concurrence. Orote Island, a recognized habitat for migratory birds, is too far away and sheltered by Orote Point to be impacted significantly by existing and proposed activities at Kilo Wharf. Accordingly, the assessment of Migratory Bird Treaty Act-protected species in the FEIS is sufficient and additional information on the status of resident migratory birds at Orote Island is not warranted. Requests for ciguatera testing were made by GEPA in response to the DEIS. The Navy responded at that time (response in FEIS Appendix B-4 to DEIS comment T.4.7), the link between the incidence of reported cases of ciguatera and the occurrence of “new” surfaces underwater (as occurs with construction) has not been demonstrated, thus the need for such a monitoring program is not warranted. Furthermore, commercially available ciguatera test kits yield numerous false positives and could lead to a very inaccurate picture of conditions in a given area and whether there were increases in ciguatera incidence with the construction of the wharf. The FEIS (Sections 3.3.3, 4.3.2.1) notes that marine mammals are uncommon in Apra Harbor, including the Kilo Wharf vicinity. Because of this, the FEIS concludes that there is little potential for adverse construction noise impacts on these species (Sec. 4.3.2.1). Therefore, there is little potential for “taking” of marine mammals protected under the MMPA. The FEIS includes sufficient information to analyze potential impacts to sea turtles (e.g., description of new security floodlighting illumination power, general location of new lighting, site plan of the wharf extension and new access road). As described in both the DEIS and FEIS, there is no evidence in literature or from field survey that sea turtles have nested at the beaches at either end of Kilo Wharf, both recently and at the time of the original wharf construction. FEIS Sec. 4.3.3.1 describes potential construction period impacts on threatened and endangered species as well as BMPs that will be implemented during the construction period, which address both noise/light impacts and fuel spills. FEIS Section 4.3.3.2 concludes that none of the alternatives would impact threatened, endangered or protected marine species during the operational period, and that the operational and security lighting on the wharf will be at a lower illumination level than what is currently used on the wharf. There is little potential for wakes from T-AKE ships entering Apra Harbor to impact turtle nesting beaches since ships preparing to berth at Kilo Wharf enter the harbor at much slower speeds than ships heading for the commercial port or Inner Apra Harbor. The FEIS also notes that NOAA Fisheries concurred with Navy's informal Section 7 consultation determination that effects on sea turtles would be insignificant and never reach the scale where take occurs. The Navy follows much stricter ballast water and hull cleaning procedures than most, if not all, the commercial and private vessels that use Apra Harbor. Since ships would berth in Apra Harbor and at Kilo Wharf with or without the project, the proposed wharf extension would have no effect on marine introductions related to hull fouling, and thus, was not specifically addressed in the FEIS. Because the project does not have the potential to significantly affect Guam's water resources, a comprehensive discussion of Guam's water resources history is not warranted in the EIS. *Summary:* In determining how to provide adequate berthing for the T-AKE class of ammunition ship at AHNC, Guam, Mariana Islands, I considered impacts to the following areas: physical environment, land and water use, the social and economic environment, infrastructure and services, cultural resources, hazardous and regulated materials and waste, and biological resources. I have taken into consideration the Navy's consultation with the NOAA Fisheries regarding endangered species and EFH, and the Guam SHPO regarding cultural resources. I have considered the comments sent to the Navy by Federal and Territorial resource agencies, other Federal and Territorial government agencies, and the public. I have considered the preferred and contingency mitigation projects. After carefully weighing all of these factors, I have determined that the West Extension Alternative, extension of Kilo Wharf by 400 ft (122 m) to the west, will best meet the needs of the Navy while also minimizing the environmental impacts associated with providing suitable facilities on Guam to accommodate the new class of ship. Dated: December 20, 2007. BJ Penn, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment). [FR Doc. E8-103 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or via fax to
(202)395-6974. Commenters should include the following subject line in their response “Comment: [insert OMB number], [insert abbreviated collection name, e.g., “Upward Bound Evaluation”]. Persons submitting comments electronically should not submit paper copies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. Dated: January 4, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Institute of Education Sciences *Type of Review:* Revision. *Title:* Common Core of Data Survey System. *Frequency:* Annually. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 56. *Burden Hours:* 4,816. *Abstract:* The Common Core of Data
(CCD)is the National Center for Education Statistics' universe data collection for finance and nonfinance information about public school districts and schools. Information is collected annually from school districts about the districts and their member schools including enrollment by grade, race/ethnicity, and gender. Information is also collected about students receiving various types of services such as English Language Learner services. The CCD also collects information about the occurrence of high school dropouts. Information about teachers and staffing is also collected. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3519. 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. E8-200 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy State Energy Advisory Board AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. ACTION: Notice of Open Teleconference. SUMMARY: This notice announces a teleconference of the State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these teleconferences be announced in the **Federal Register** . DATES: January 16, 2008 from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. EDT. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Burch, STEAB Designated Federal Officer, Acting Assistant Manager, Office of Commercialization and Project Management, Golden Field Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, CO 80401, Telephone 303/275-4801. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Purpose of the Board:* To make recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy regarding goals and objectives, programmatic and administrative policies, and to otherwise carry out the Board's responsibilities as designated in the State Energy Efficiency Programs Improvement Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-440). *Tentative Agenda:* Update members on routine business matters. *Public Participation:* The teleconference is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Gary Burch at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests to make oral comments must be received five days prior to the conference call; reasonable provision will be made to include requested topic(s) on the agenda. The Chair of the Board is empowered to conduct the call in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. This notice is being published less than 15 days before the date of the meeting due to programmatic issues. Notes: The notes of the teleconference will be available for public review and copying within 60 days on the STEAB Web site, *http://www.steab.org.* Issued at Washington, DC, on January 3, 2008. Rachel Samuel, Deputy Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-147 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2 January 2, 2008. Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: *Docket Numbers:* RP95-408-069. *Applicants:* Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation. *Description:* Columbia Gas Transmission Corp submits First Revised Eighty-fourth Revised Sheet 25 *et al.* to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, to become effective 2/1/08. *Filed Date:* 12/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20080102-0119. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP96-383-083. *Applicants:* Dominion Transmission, Inc. *Description:* Dominion Transmission Inc. submits Fourth Revised Sheet 1415, Fifth Revised Sheet 1416 to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, to become effective 1/1/08. *Filed Date:* 12/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20080102-0120. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP97-255-079. *Applicants:* TransColorado Gas Transmission Company. *Description:* Negotiated Rate Filing of TransColorado Gas Transmission Company. *Filed Date:* 12/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071231-5021. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP06-200-041. *Applicants:* Rockies Express Pipeline LLC. *Description:* Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC submits Second Revised Sheet 8C and Original Sheet 9N to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, to become effective 1/1/08. *Filed Date:* 12/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20080102-0121. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-148-000. *Applicants:* Texas Eastern Transmission LP. *Description:* Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits Twenty-Sixth Revised Sheet 25 *et al.* to FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume 1 and First Revised Volume 2, to be effective 2/1/08. *Filed Date:* 12/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20080102-0122. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-149-000. *Applicants:* Gulf States Transmission Corporation. *Description:* Gulf States Transmission Corporation submits Third Revised Sheet 5 *et al.* to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to become effective 2/1/08. *Filed Date:* 12/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20080102-0123. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-150-000. *Applicants:* Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation. *Description:* Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation submits its Penalty Revenue Crediting Report for the 2006—2007 contract year pursuant to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 12/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20080102-0124. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-151-000. *Applicants:* Columbia Gulf Transmission Company. *Description:* Columbia Gulf Transmission Company submits its Penalty Revenue Crediting Report to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 12/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20080102-0125. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-152-000. *Applicants:* Central Kentucky Transmission Company. *Description:* Central Kentucky Transmission Corporation informs FERC that they do not have any Penalty Revenue Credits Report for the 2006-2007 contract year. *Filed Date:* 12/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20080102-0127. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-153-000. *Applicants:* Crossroads Pipeline Company. *Description:* Crossroads Pipeline Company informs FERC that they do not have any Penalty Credits to report for the 2006-2007 contract year under its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 12/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20080102-0126. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 14, 2008. 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 email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-145 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 January 2, 2008. Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: *Docket Numbers:* RP96-200-185. *Applicants:* CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Comp. *Description:* CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co. submits the negotiated rate agreements with Connect Energy Services, LLC. *Filed Date:* 12/27/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071228-0046. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 8, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP96-320-075. *Applicants:* Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP. *Description:* Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits interim contracts executed by Gulf South and its various customers in relation to the East Texas Mississippi Expansion Project. *Filed Date:* 12/19/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071226-0078. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 4, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP97-186-005. *Applicants:* Trunkline Gas Company, LLC. *Description:* Trunkline Gas Company LLC submits Substitute Second Revised Sheet 28 to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, to become effective 12/15/07. *Filed Date:* 12/19/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071220-0199. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 4, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP99-176-148. *Applicants:* Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America. *Description:* Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America submits Transportation Rate Schedule FTS Agreement with a negotiated rate exhibit (Agreement) between Natural and Encana Marketing
(USA)Inc etc. *Filed Date:* 12/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071226-0077. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 4, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP04-67-002. *Applicants:* NGO Transmission, Inc. *Description:* NGO Transmission, Inc submits First Revised Sheet 1 *et al.* to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, effective 1/1/08. *Filed Date:* 12/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071227-0151. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 4, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-41-001. *Applicants:* Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. *Description:* Iroquois Gas Transmission System, LP submits Second Revised Sheet 108 *et al.* to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, effective 1/21/08. *Filed Date:* 12/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071227-0150. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 4, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-41-002. *Applicants:* Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. *Description:* Iroquois Gas Transmission System, LP submits Second Revised Sheet 108 *et al.* to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, effective 1/21/08. *Filed Date:* 12/26/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071228-0045. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 7, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-47-001. *Applicants:* Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd. *Description:* Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd submits Nineteenth Revised Sheet 4C *et al.* to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 2, effective 1/28/08. *Filed Date:* 12/28/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071231-0192. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 9, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-132-000. *Applicants:* CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co. *Description:* CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company submits First Revised Sheet 181 *et al.* to FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1, effective 2/1/08. *Filed Date:* 12/20/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071226-0079. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 4, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-133-000. *Applicants:* Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P. *Description:* Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed in Appendix A to the filing, to be effective 1/21/08. *Filed Date:* 12/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071226-0080. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 4, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-134-000. *Applicants:* Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company LLC. *Description:* Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, LLC submits its Second Revised Sheet 104 *et al.* to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, effective 1/21/08. *Filed Date:* 12/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071226-0081. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 4, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-135-000. *Applicants:* CenterPoint Energy-Mississippi River Transmission *Description:* CenterPoint Energy-Mississippi River Transmission Corporation submits Eighth Revised Sheet 11 *et al.* to its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 12/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071226-0082. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 4, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-136-000. *Applicants:* CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company *Description:* CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company submits Fourteenth Revised Sheet 17 *et al.* to its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1, effective 1/20/08. Filed Date: 12/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071226-0083. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 4, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-137-000. *Applicants:* Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline, LP. *Description:* Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline, LP's CD that contains FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, proposed to be effective 2/15/08. *Filed Date:* 12/20/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071220-4010. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 4, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-138-000. *Applicants:* Northern Natural Gas Company. *Description:* Petition of Northern Natural Gas Company for a Limited Waiver of Tariff Provisions. *Filed Date:* 12/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071226-0084. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 4, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-139-000. *Applicants:* Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. *Description:* Iroquois Gas Transmission System, LP submits schedules which reflect revised calculations supporting the Measurement Variance/Fuel Use Factors utilized during the period of 7/1/07-12/31/07. *Filed Date:* 12/28/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071231-0194. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 9, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-140-000. *Applicants:* Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Trans. LLC. *Description:* Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC submits the annual reconciliation filing pursuant to Section 35 of the Crediting of Imbalance Revenue of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 1-B. *Filed Date:* 12/28/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071231-0193. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 9, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-141-000. *Applicants:* TransColorado Gas Transmission Company. *Description:* TransColorado Gas Transmission LLC submits First Revised Sheet 242 to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, to be effective 11/1/07. *Filed Date:* 12/28/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071231-0195. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 9, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-142-000. *Applicants:* Questar Overthrust Pipeline Company. *Description:* Questar Overthrust Pipeline Company submits 1st Rev. Second Revised Sheet 21 *et al.* to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1-A. *Filed Date:* 12/28/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071231-0196. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 9, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-143-000. *Applicants:* Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC. *Description:* Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC submits the Annual Flow through Crediting Mechanism for the period November 2006-October 2007. *Filed Date:* 12/28/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071231-0197. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 9, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-144-000. *Applicants:* Gulf States Transmission Corporation. *Description:* Gulf States Transmission Corp submits Third Revised Sheet 5 to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1 pursuant to the Commission's Order. *Filed Date:* 12/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071231-0198. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 4, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-145-000. *Applicants:* ANR Pipeline Company. *Description:* ANR Pipeline Company submits Eighth Revised Sheet 162.01 *et al.* to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, effective 2/1/08. *Filed Date:* 12/28/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071231-0199. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 9, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-146-000. *Applicants:* Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC. *Description:* Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC submits the Annual Accounting Report Cash-out Mechanism Account Fuel Mechanism Balancing Tools Account for the period of August 2006-July 2007. *Filed Date:* 12/28/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071231-0200. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 9, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-147-000. *Applicants:* Carolina Gas Transmission Corporation. *Description:* Carolina Gas Transmission Corp submits the Interruptible Transportation Revenue Sharing Report for credit on the invoice for December service for the Accrual Period of 11/1/06 to 10/31/07. *Filed Date:* 12/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071231-0201. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 14, 2008. 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. E8-146 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0547; FRL-8344-6] Issuance of an Experimental Use Permit AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: EPA has granted an experimental use permit
(EUP)to the following pesticide applicant. An EUP permits use of a pesticide for experimental or research purposes only in accordance with the limitations in the permit. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shanaz Bacchus, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)308-8097; e-mail address: *bacchus.shanaz@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or sponsor research on pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the information in this action, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. *Docket.* EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0547. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is
(703)305-5805. 2. *Electronic access* . You may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . II. EUP EPA has issued the following EUP: *71693-EUP-2* . Issuance. Arizona Cotton Research and Protection Council, 3721 East Wier Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85040-2933. This EUP allows the use of a total of 240,000 pounds of the antifungal agent containing approximately 1.92 pounds of the active ingredient, *Aspergillus flavus* AF36 on 24,000 acres of corn over the entire three year period to evaluate the control of aflatoxin-producing colonies of *Aspergillus flavus* and concomitant reduction of aflatoxin on corn. The program is authorized only in the States of Arizona (3,000 acres per year) and Texas (5,000 acres per year). The EUP is effective from January 4, 2008 to January 4, 2011. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136c. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Experimental use permits. Dated: December 26, 2007. Janet L. Andersen, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-185 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FARM CREDIT SYSTEM INSURANCE CORPORATION Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board; Regular Meeting SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board (Board). Date and Time: The meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on January 10, 2008, from 10 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roland E. Smith, Secretary to the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board,
(703)883-4009, TTY
(703)883-4056. ADDRESSES: Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available) and parts will be closed to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are: Open Session A. Approval of Minutes • December 13, 2007. B. New Business • Review of Insurance Premium Rates. Dated: January 3, 2008. Roland E. Smith, Secretary, Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board. [FR Doc. E8-206 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6710-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the **Federal Register** . Copies of agreements are available through the Commission's Office of Agreements (202-523-5793 or *tradeanalysis@fmc.gov* ). *Agreement No.:* 011117-044. *Title:* United States/Australasia Discussion Agreement. *Parties:* A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S; ANL Singapore PTE LTD.; CMA-CGM, S.A.; Compagnie Maritime Marfret S.A.; Hamburg-Süd; Hapag-Lloyd AG; U.S. Lines Limited; and Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics AS. *Filing Party:* Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The amendment deletes Safmarine Container Lines NV as a party, removes reference to Hamburg-Süd's former trade name, and clarifies the application of the agreement's authority. *Agreement No.:* 011275-024. *Title:* Australia and New Zealand/United States Discussion Agreement. *Parties:* A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S; ANL Singapore PTE LTD.; Hamburg-Süd; and Hapag-Lloyd AG. *Filing Party:* Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The amendment deletes Safmarine Container Lines NV as a party to the agreement. By order of the Federal Maritime Commission. Dated: January 4, 2008. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-198 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409 and 46 CFR part 515). Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573. Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicant: Dependable Worldwide Express, LLC, 3915 Allendale Avenue, Oakland, CA 94619. Officer: Julie Lu, Member (Qualifying Individual). La Republica Cargo Express Corp., 30 Lawrence Street, Yonkers, NY 10705. Officer: Edgar J. Camacho, President (Qualifying Individual). Guzal Cargo Express Corp., 5561 NW 72nd Avenue, Miami, FL 33166. Officer: Herman D. Hoyos, President (Qualifying Individual). PJC Freightways, Inc., 7900 NW. 68th Street, Miami, FL 33166. Officer: Antonio B. Franca, President (Qualifying Individual). Curiel International Logistics LLC, 1 Harborside Place, Ste. 322, Jersey City, NJ 07311. Officer: Cesar A. Curiel, President (Qualifying Individual). Global Tranz Enterprises, LLC dba Carrierrate.com, 18401 North 25th Avenue, Ste. D-E, Phoenix, AZ 85023. Officers: Steve R. Bowman, CSO/Manager (Qualifying Individual). Andrew J. Leto, Manager. ALT Intermodal Inc. dba CEBU International Logistics, 6233 San Leandro Street, Oakland, CA 94621. Officers: Noel Allosa, Vice President (Qualifying Individual). Luis Alvares, CEO. Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder Transportation Intermediary Applicants: Total Transportation Services Worldwide, LLC, 879 W. 190th Street, Ste. 920, Gardena, CA 90248. Officers: Nobuyuki Suzuki, President (Qualifying Individual). Dennis Farnsworth, Vice President. V Logistics Inc., 1001 Nicholas Blvd., Unit A, Elk Grove Village, IL 60007. Officers: Kin C. Leung, Secretary (Qualifying Individual). Anne Lai, President. Borderline Shipping Inc., 4415 Metro Parkway, #110, Ft. Myers, FL 33916. Officers: Edson Araujo, Vice President (Qualifying Individual). Marcelo S. Moura, President. Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicants: ITW International, Inc., 879 W. 190th Street, Ste. 438, Torrance, CA 90248. Officer: Jyhren J. Kuo, President (Qualifying Individual). Brand Logistix LLC, 5101 Buffington Road, Ste. 3448, College Park, GA 30349. Officers: Brenda Alexander, President (Qualifying Individual). Randy H. Tagoe, CEO. Dated: January 4, 2008. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-197 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting Time and Date: 9 a.m. (Eastern Time), January 22, 2008. Place: 4th Floor Conference Room, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. Status: Parts will be open to the public and parts closed to the public. Matters to be Considered: Parts Open to the Public 1. Approval of the minutes of the December 17, 2007 Board member meeting. 2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director. a. Monthly Participant Activity Report. b. Legislative Report. 3. Quarterly Reports. a. Investment Performance and Policy Review. b. Vendor Financial Reports. 4. Audit Status Report. 5. Review of 2008 Board Meeting Calendar. Parts Closed to the Public 6. Personnel. Contact Person for More Information: Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, Office of External Affairs,
(202)942-1640. Dated: January 7, 2008. Thomas K. Emswiler, Secretary, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. [FR Doc. 08-61 Filed 1-7-08; 12:08 pm]
Connectionstraces to 34
Traces to 34 documents
CFR
16 references not yet in our index
  • 40 CFR 52
  • 40 CFR 51
  • 413 F.3d 3
  • 40 CFR 124
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 47 CFR 73
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • Pub. L. 107-198
  • 47 CFR 1.1204(b)
  • 47 CFR 1.415
  • 899 F.2d 1185
  • 50 CFR 600.503
  • 41 CFR 102
  • Pub. L. 92-463
  • Pub. L. 101-440
  • 46 CFR 515
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Proposed rule
C.F.R.§ 52.21
C.F.R.§ 51.166
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 3501
U.S.C.§ 601
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
F. App'x413 F.3d 3
F. App'x899 F.2d 1185
Cite40 CFR 52
Cites 50 · 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.