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 · 2008-03-26 · DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE · Notices

Notices. Notice; request for comment

59,017 words·~268 min read·/register/2008/03/26/08-1076

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

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P 73 59 Wednesday, March 26, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request March 20, 2008. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(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 should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Forest Service *Title:* Wood Education and Resource Center Training Registry. *OMB Control Number:* 0596-NEW. *Summary of Collection:* The USDA Forest Service is developing an online training information system. The Wood Education Resource Center Training Information System is designed to provide a service to trainers and trainees associated with the primary and secondary forest products industry. It will enable the trainees to locate continuing education training opportunities that will meet the criteria they have established. Providing such training will enhance opportunities for the industry, while helping keep the industry competitive in the world market. *Need and Use of the Information:* Collection is voluntary and is conducted for the benefit of the users of the website. Making the information available expedites and encourages learning opportunities for members of the timber industry. Trainers will use this site to register training and promote continuing education within the wood products industry. Upon registration, trainees will be able to access the database to find information about training programs, workshops, and short courses that meet the needs of wood products companies and employees. Trainees will be able to search and save information regarding training courses of interests and create a training profile that will automatically match the trainee to courses. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households; Businesses or other for-profits; Not-for-profit Institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 3,325. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 3,502 Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-6087 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Information Collection; Campfire Permit AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; request for comment. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the new information collection, Campfire Permit. DATES: Comments must be received in writing on or before May 27, 2008 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Jason Kirchner, Public Affairs Staff, U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, 1323 Club Drive, Vallejo, CA 94592. Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to
(707)562-9053 or by e-mail to: *jdkirchner@fs.fed.us.* The public may inspect comments received at the Forest Service's Pacific Southwest Regional Office during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to
(707)562-9014 to facilitate entry to the building. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Kirchner, Pacific Southwest Region,
(707)562-9014. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339 twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* California Campfire Permit. *OMB Number:* 0596-New. *Type of Request:* New. *Abstract:* The issuance of the California Campfire Permit by Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management offices in California is a requirement resulting from a formal agreement with the State of California. The agreement outlines fire management responsibilities for each party and results in enhanced cooperation for fire suppression and fire prevention activities across agency boundaries throughout the state. California State law requires individuals to possess a permit to light, maintain, or use a campfire on the property of another person and also requires individuals to obtain a campfire permit issued under U.S. Forest Service authority for campfires on National Forest System lands. As part of a formal agreement with the State, the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection have agreed to issue an interagency campfire permit that meets the intent of the State law. *California Public Resources Code 4433:* Permits Required. A person shall not light, maintain, or use a campfire upon any brush-covered land, grass-covered land, or forest-covered land which is the property of another person unless he first obtains a written permit from the owner, lessee, or agent of the owner or lessee of the property. If, however, campsites and special areas have been established by the property owner and posted as areas for camping, a permit is not necessary. A written campfire permit duly issued by or under the authority of the United States Forest Service is necessary for use on land under the jurisdiction and control of the United States Forest Service. Issuance of the California Campfire Permit will occur in every Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and CAL FIRE office in the State that is open to the public. The permit is required for any individual that intends to make a campfire on National Forest System lands or Bureau of Land Management lands. Only one permit is required per year per person. The permit requires individuals to provide their name and address, which is used by designated law enforcement officials to verify that the permit belongs to a responsible individual that is present at a campfire. The information is not otherwise used or maintained for any purpose by the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management. The California Campfire Permit is a valuable fire prevention tool that provides firefighting organizations in California an opportunity to educate members of the public on safe and responsible campfire use, and allows agencies to personally provide fire prevention messages to every individual that intends to build or maintain a campfire in the state. Without the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management participating in the distribution of this permit, those agencies would lose an important fire prevention tool while making it impossible for individuals to comply with state law due to the language in the state law requiring a campfire permit to be issued under U.S. Forest Service authority for campfires on National Forest System lands. *Estimate of Annual Burden:* 5 minutes. *Type of Respondents:* Individuals. *Estimated Annual Number of Respondents:* 250,000. *Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 20,833 hours. Comment Is Invited Comment is invited on:
(1)Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility;
(2)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval. March 20, 2008. Robin L. Thompson, Associate Deputy Chief, State & Private Forestry. [FR Doc. E8-6039 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Shasta Trinity National Forest, South Fork Management Unit, California Salt Timber Harvest and Fuels Hazard Reduction Project AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: The Hayfork District of the Shasta Trinity National Forest is proposing to use vegetation treatments to improve forest health, reduce risks from fire and provide forest products on approximately 1,658 acres within the upper Salt Creek watershed on the South Fork Management Unit of the Shasta Trinity National Forest. Prescribed treatments are expected to produce approximately 4.8 million board feet or 10,600 hundred cubic feet
(ccf)of merchantable sawtimber, and an estimated 4,710 bone dry tons of biomass. The Forest Service will analyze these vegetation treatments within the constraints of the Shasta Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1995. The proposed Salt project is in Trinity County, 10 air miles south of Hayfork, California and 3 air miles east of Post Mountain, California. The project area is within the Hayfork Adaptive Management Area (AMA), and Management Area 19, Indian Valley/Rattlesnake, of the Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS 1995, p. 4-64 & 65). Treatment areas in T29N, R11W sections 4-9, T29N, R12W sections 1, 2 and 12, T30N, R11W sections 31 and 32, and T30N, R12W sections 25, 26, 35, and 36 M.D.M. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by April 22, 2008 or 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** , whichever is later. The draft environmental impact statement is expected in August, 2008 and the final environmental impact statement is expected January, 2009. ADDRESSES: Please send written comments to Sandy Mack, TEAMS USFS Enterprise Unit, 1801 N. First, Hamilton, MT 59840-3114. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail to: *comments-pacificsouthwest-shasta-trinity-yo11abollahayfork@fs.fed.us* with “Salt Project” as the subject. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandy Mack, Project Team Leader, TEAMS USFS Enterprise Unit, 1801 N. First, Hamilton, MT 59840. Phone
(406)375-2638. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose and Need for Action The purpose and need for the Salt project is fourfold: Improve forest health and resiliency, reduce hazardous fuels conditions and the potential impacts from wildfire to the National Forest and neighboring land, provide timber products, and decommission roads no longer needed for management. Competition for limited water, nutrients and sun in many highly stocked stands in the Salt project area has reduced the vigor, growth and resiliency of the mixed conifer species. Thinning is needed to improve tree resiliency to disturbance factors such as drought, insects, disease, and fires. Conversely, there are some stands in the suitable timber base that are understocked and are not growing well because of decadence. These stands are not meeting the growth and yield potential for those sites, and will not unless regeneration occurs. Reducing fuels and stocking levels through thinning and regeneration harvests requires the removal of trees, some of which have commercial value. Fuel loadings and excessive ladder fuels have created the potential for crown fire initiation and spread, resulting in fires that can pose a threat to National Forest System lands as well as private land near the Salt project area. Decreasing fuels in the Salt project area is needed to help reduce this threat of wildfire to forest resources and local communities. The Trinity County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Trinity County Fire Council 2005, p. 61, 62) discusses the need for pre-fire fuel treatment in and around three dispersed residential communities that are all within 3 miles of the Salt project area (Post Mountain—1 mile west, Peanut—3 miles north, and Wildwood—3 miles east). Salt is the sixth in a series of watershed scale projects occurring in a south to north pattern. This project strategically connects fuels treatments from other projects to reduce the ability for crown fire transition and spread that can be a threat to these communities. Roads can be a major source of sedimentation. Watersheds can be improved and future road maintenance costs reduced by removing this potential sediment source when road access is no longer needed for management activities. The purpose and need for the Salt project are consistent with Management Plan Goals #3, #10, #11, #34, #35, #36, #39, and #40 Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS 1995, p. 4-5 and 4-6). Proposed Action The Salt project would treat approximately 1,658 acres to improve forest health, reduce risks from fire and provide forest products, including: • 984 acres of Intermediate Thinning from below, 31 units. • 14 acres of Hand Fuel Treatment, 1 unit. • 499 acres of Pre-commercial Thinning (plantations), 60 units. • 103 acres of Intermediate Thinning (shaded fuel break), 1 unit. • 58 acres of Regeneration Harvest with Green Tree Retention, 4 units. These treatments are expected to produce approximately 4.8 million board feet (10,600 ccf) of merchantable saw timber and 4,710 tons (bone dry) of biomass. Timber prices are at a 15-year low. For this reason appropriated dollars and service contracts may be required to complete all the treatments planned. Additionally, the proposed action would decommission approximately 8 miles of road no longer needed for management activities to improve watershed conditions. Approximately 3.4 miles proposed for decommissioning are “unclassified” roads, meaning they are abandoned or illegally developed roads. The remaining 4.6 miles are classified roads, meaning they are currently maintained and tracked as Forest Service System roads. The Proposed Action was developed with design features to minimize or eliminate impacts from the vegetation treatments. Some of the design features include: • Maintenance and reconstruction of 18 miles of roads that will be used to haul timber to reduce potential sedimentation. • Snags and downed logs greater than 19 inches in diameter at breast height would be left on site for wildlife habitat. Snags felled for safety reasons will be left on site as downed logs. • Five tons of logs per acre will be retained with a preference to have 4 to 6 logs per acre at the largest available diameter. • All hardwoods that have a reasonable chance of surviving and thriving after stand treatments will be retained. • Numerous detailed specifications and restrictions will be fully explained in the environmental impact statement and implemented to assure thinning within the intermittent and ephemeral riparian reserves meet the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives. • Limited Operating Periods would be applied to avoid direct adverse impacts to spotted owls if territories are occupied. • Ground disturbing activity will not occur during wet weather conditions. *Responsible Official:* The Responsible Official for this project is Donna Harmon, South Fork Management Unit District Ranger, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, P.O. Box 159, Hayfork, CA 96041. *Nature of Decision To Be Made:* The District Ranger will decide whether to implement the proposed action, take an alternative action that meets the purpose and need, or take no action. *Scoping Process—Public Comment:* In October of 2006 we anticipated an environmental assessment would be prepared for this project and requested input from the public through direct mailings and notice published in the Trinity Journal—a local newspaper. The proposed project was also listed quarterly in the Schedule of Proposed Environmental Actions (SOPA), a Shasta-Trinity National Forest publication. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was consulted regarding the proposed action and members of the interdisciplinary planning team met with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) and California Regional Water Quality Control Board (North Coast Region) to review the proposed action. Three public comments were received. Based on the initial scoping of the project including interdisciplinary team review, field work, public input and agency consultations, the District has modified the proposal and will prepare an environmental impact statement. A scoping letter for a proposed Environmental Impact Statement was mailed March 19, 2008, to twenty individuals and organizations. In addition, the notice was published in the Trinity Journal—a local newspaper. The proposed project is again listed in the Schedule of Proposed Environmental Actions, a Shasta-Trinity National Forest publication. Although comments are welcome throughout the planning process, providing your comments by April 22, 2008 will allow time for us to consider your input during alternative development and analysis. Information on the proposed action will also be posted on the forest Web site: *http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/shastatrinity/projects.* Preliminary Issues Issues identified during initial scoping include economics, how long treatments will be effective, cumulative effects from past management, fish habitat, non-critical spotted owl habitat, wildlife species viability. Comment Requested This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. Comments submitted during this scoping process should be in writing and should be specific to the proposed action. The comments should describe as clearly and completely as possible any issues the commenter has with the proposal. The scoping process includes:
(a)Identifying potential issues.
(b)Identifying issues to be analyzed in depth.
(c)Eliminating non-significant issues or those previously covered by a relevant environmental analysis.
(d)Exploring additional alternatives.
(e)Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives. *Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review:* A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the **Federal Register** . The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewers' position and contentions. *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC,* 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel,* 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and *Wisconsin Heritages, Inc.* v. *Harris,* 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection. Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21. Dated: March 19, 2008. Donna F. Harmon, South Fork Management Unit District Ranger, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. [FR Doc. E8-5954 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Opportunity To Comment on the Applicants for the Cedar Rapids, IA Area Consisting of Northeast Iowa, Southeast Minnesota, and East Texas AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: GIPSA requests comments on the applicants for designation to provide official services in the Cedar Rapids, Iowa area that was open for designation. • Gulf Country Inspection Service, Inc. (Gulf Country) applied for the Cedar Rapids, Iowa area. • South Texas Grain Inspection, LLC (South Texas) applied for part of the Cedar Rapids, Iowa area, the east Texas region. • Mid-Iowa Grain Inspection, Inc. (Mid-Iowa) applied for their current designation in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. DATES: Comments must be postmarked or electronically dated on or before April 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit comments on these applicants. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver to Karen Guagliardo, Review Branch Chief, Compliance Division, GIPSA, USDA, Room 1647-S, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. • *Fax:* Send by facsimile transmission to
(202)690-2755, attention: Karen Guagliardo. • *E-mail:* Send via electronic mail to *Karen.W.Guagliardo@usda.gov.* • *Mail:* Send hardcopy to Karen Guagliardo, Review Branch Chief, Compliance Division, GIPSA, USDA, STOP 3604, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3604. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments and reading any comments posted online. *Read Applications and Comments:* All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Guagliardo at 202-720-7312, e-mail *Karen.W.Guagliardo@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental Regulation do not apply to this action. In the December 3, 2007, **Federal Register** (72 FR 67885), GIPSA asked persons interested in providing official services in the Cedar Rapids, Iowa area to submit an application for designation. There were three applicants for the Cedar Rapids, Iowa area comprised of northeast Iowa, southeast Minnesota, and east Texas open for designation: Mid-Iowa, currently designated for the entire area and doing business as InterContinental Grain Inspections in east Texas region, applied for the entire area. Gulf Country, a corporation not currently designated, owned by Tyrone Robichaux, John Shropshire, Eurvin Williams, Pat LaCour, and Dan Williams, applied for the entire area, but stated they would accept no less than the east Texas region. South Texas, a limited liability company not currently designated, owned by Corpus Christi Grain Exchange, Inc., applied for a portion of the east Texas region bounded on the north and east by Maverick, Uvalde, Medina, Bexar, Comal, Guadalupe, Gonzales, Lavaca, and Jackson Counties; and bounded on the south and west by the Texas state line. GIPSA is publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to present comments concerning the applicants. Commenters are encouraged to submit reasons and pertinent data for support or objection to the designation of the applicants. All comments must be submitted to the Compliance Division at the above address or at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Comments and other available information will be considered in making a final decision. GIPSA will publish notice of the final decision in the **Federal Register** , and GIPSA will send the applicants written notification of the decision. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71-87k. James E. Link, Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5538 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Proposed Posting of Stockyards AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: This notice announces that 16 facilities now meet the definition of a stockyard under the Packers and Stockyards Act and therefore we propose to post signs identifying these facilities as posted stockyards. The purpose of this notice is to inform stockyard owners and the public of the posting status of all these facilities, and to provide an opportunity to comment on whether the facilities should be posted. DATES: For the proposed posting of stockyards, we will consider comments that we receive by April 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit comments on this notice. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • E-Mail: Send comments via electronic mail to *comments.gipsa@usda.gov.* • Mail: Send hardcopy written comments to H. Tess Butler, GIPSA, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 1633-S, Washington, DC 20250-3604. • Fax: Send comments by facsimile transmission to:
(202)690-2755. • Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver comments to: H. Tess Butler, GIPSA, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 1643-S, Washington, DC 20250-3604. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) administers and enforces the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (7 U.S.C. 181-229) (P&S Act). The P&S Act prohibits unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent practices by livestock market agencies, dealers, stockyard owners, meat packers, swine contractors, and live poultry dealers in the livestock, poultry, and meatpacking industries. Section 302 of the P&S Act (7 U.S.C. 202) defines the term “stockyard” as follows: * * * any place, establishment, or facility commonly known as stockyards, conducted, operated, or managed for profit or nonprofit as a public market for livestock producers, feeders, market agencies, and buyers, consisting of pens, or other inclosures, and their appurtenances, in which live cattle, sheep, swine, horses, mules, or goats are received, held, or kept for sale or shipment in commerce. Section 302(b) of the P&S Act requires the Secretary to determine which stockyards meet this definition, and to notify the owner of the stockyard and the public of that determination by posting a notice in each designated stockyard. After giving notice to the stockyard owner and to the public, the stockyard will be subject to the provisions of Title III of the P&S Act (7 U.S.C. 201-203 and 205-217a) until the Secretary deposts the stockyard by public notice. To post a stockyard, we assign the stockyard a facility number, notify the owner of the stockyard facility, and send an official posting notice to the owner of the stockyard to post on display in public areas of the stockyard. The entire process is referred to as posting. The date of posting is the date on which the posting notices are physically displayed. A facility that doesn't meet the definition of stockyard in the P&S Act isn't posted and therefore isn't subject to provisions of the Packers and Stockyards Act. A posted stockyard can be deposted. We depost a stockyard when the facility can no longer be used as a stockyard. This document notifies the stockyard owners and the public that the following 16 facilities meet the definition of a stockyard and that we, therefore, propose to post them. If we do not receive comments about these facilities, we expect that they will be posted by DD/MM/YY. If we receive comments that these facilities do not meet the definition of a stockyard, these facilities may not be posted, or the posting may be delayed while we consider the comments. Facility number Stockyard name and location AL-195 RS Auctions, Clayton, Alabama. AL-196 Clay County Goat & Poultry Auction, Goodwater, Alabama. AR-180 King Livestock Goat and Sheep Auction, North Lonoke, Arkansas. AR-181 G.P. Rivers d.b.a. Rivers Horse Center, Lewisville, Arkansas. CO-156 Western Slope Cattlemen's Livestock Auction, LLC, Loma, Colorado. GA-231 Thomas County Stockyards, Inc., Thomasville, Georgia. MO-288 CRS Sales LLC, Hughlandville, Missouri. MS-176 Cuevas Auction, Picayune, Mississippi. NY-176 Howard W. Visscher, Hilltop Dairy Auction, Savannah, New York. SC-162 Claxton's Auction Co., LLC, Ruffin, South Carolina. TN-197 Jimmy Brown d.b.a. JB Livestock Auction, Gleason, Tennessee. TN-198 Wallace P. Mitchell d.b.a. Mitchell's Trade Center & Auctions, Inc., Castalian Springs, Tennessee. TN-199 Middle Tennessee Sheep and Goat Sale, LLC, Dickson, Tennessee. TX-350 Hereford Livestock Exchange, Hereford, Texas. VA-163 Blythe Livestock, LLC, Courtland, Virginia. WI-150 Turenne Livestock Market, Thorp, Wisconsin. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 202. James E. Link, Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. [FR Doc. E8-6090 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Business—Cooperative Service Request for Proposals: Fiscal Year 2008 Funding Opportunity for 1890 Land-Grant Institutions Rural Entrepreneurial Outreach and Development Initiative AGENCY: Rural Business—Cooperative Service, USDA. ACTION: Initial notice of request for proposals. SUMMARY: Business and Cooperative Programs are administered through USDA Rural Development. USDA Rural Development announces the availability of approximately $1.5 million in competitive cooperative agreement funds. USDA Rural Development hereby requests proposals from 1890 Land-Grant Universities and Tuskegee University (1890 Institutions) for competitively awarded cooperative agreements for projects that support USDA Rural Development's goals and objectives of providing technical assistance for business creation in economically challenged rural communities, for educational programs to develop and improve upon the professional skills of rural entrepreneurs, and for outreach and promotion of USDA Rural Development's programs in small rural communities with the greatest economic need. Project proposals must be designed to overcome currently identified economic problems and lead to sustainable economic development. Project proposals that address both traditional and nontraditional business enterprises are encouraged. This initiative seeks to create a working partnership between USDA Rural Development and the 1890 Institutions through cooperative agreements. A cooperative agreement requires substantial involvement of the Government agency in carrying out the objectives of the project. Cooperative agreements will be awarded to the project proposals receiving the highest scores as determined by a peer review panel of USDA employees knowledgeable of the subject matter. Awards will be made to the extent that funds are available. However, USDA Rural Development is making no commitment to fund any particular project proposal or to make a specific number of awards. Eligible applicants must provide matching funds equal to at least 25 percent of the total project costs. DATES: Paper copies of applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than May 12, 2008, to be eligible for FY 2008 funding. Electronic copies of applications must be received by May 12, 2008, to be eligible for FY 2008 funding. Late applications are not eligible for FY 2008 funding. ADDRESSES: You may obtain application guides and materials for the 1890 Land-Grant Institutions Rural Entrepreneurial Outreach and Development Initiative (1890 REOD Initiative) at *http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/oa/1890.htm* or by contacting Edgar L. Lewis, Program Manager, USDA Rural Development, Cooperative Programs, Mail Stop 3252, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3252, telephone:
(202)690-3407, e-mail: *edgar.lewis@wdc.usda.gov.* Final paper applications for an 1890 REOD Initiative cooperative agreement may be submitted via the U.S. Postal Service to USDA Rural Development, Attention: 1890 REOD Initiative, Mail Stop 3250, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250, or via UPS, FedEx, or similar delivery service to USDA Rural Development, Attention: 1890 REOD Initiative, Room 4016, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. The telephone number that should be used on FedEx or similar packages is
(202)720-7558. Submit electronic cooperative agreement applications using the Grants.gov Web site at *http://www.grants.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edgar L. Lewis, Program Manager, USDA Rural Development, Cooperative Programs, Mail Stop 3252, Room 4204, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3252, Telephone:
(202)690-3407, TDD Federal Information Relay Service: 1-800-877-8339, e-mail: *edgar.lewis@wdc.usda.gov,* or visit the program Web site at *http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/oa/1890.htm.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Overview *Federal Agency:* Rural Business—Cooperative Service. *Funding Opportunity Title:* 1890 Land-Grant Institutions Rural Entrepreneurial Outreach and Development Initiative (1890 REOD Initiative). *Announcement Type:* Initial Announcement. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number:* 10.856. *Key Dates:* Cooperative agreement applications may be submitted on paper or electronically according to the following deadlines. Paper copies must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than May 12, 2008, to be eligible for FY 2008 funding. Electronic copies must be received by May 12, 2008, to be eligible for FY 2008 funding. Late applications will not be considered for funding. I. Funding Opportunity Description This solicitation is issued pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2204b(b)(4) and Executive Order 13256 (February 12, 2002), “President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities.” Several other Federal statutes and regulations apply to project proposals considered for review and to cooperative agreements awarded. These include, but are not limited to: *7 CFR part 15, subpart A:* Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs of the Department of Agriculture—Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, *7 CFR part 15b:* Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs or Activities Receiving Financial Assistance, *7 CFR part 3015:* Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations, *7 CFR part 3017:* Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement), *7 CFR part 3018:* New Restrictions on Lobbying, *7 CFR part 3019:* Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations, *7 CFR part 3021:* Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance), *7 CFR part 3052:* Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations. USDA Rural Development was established under the authority of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. The mission of USDA Rural Development is to enhance the quality of life for rural Americans by providing leadership in building competitive businesses, including sustainable cooperatives that can prosper in the global marketplace. USDA Rural Development meets these goals by investing financial resources and providing technical assistance to cooperatives and other businesses located in rural communities and establishing strategic alliances and partnerships that leverage public, private, and cooperative resources to create jobs and stimulate rural economic activity. The primary purposes of the 1890 REOD Initiative are to encourage 1890 Institutions to provide technical assistance for business creation in economically challenged rural communities, to conduct educational programs that develop and improve upon the professional skills of rural entrepreneurs, and to provide outreach and promote USDA Rural Development programs in small rural communities with the greatest economic need. Project proposals must be designed to overcome currently identified economic problems and lead to sustainable economic development. Project proposals that address both traditional and nontraditional business enterprises are encouraged. USDA Rural Development will use cooperative agreements with the 1890 Institutions to strengthen the capacity of these communities to undertake innovative, comprehensive, citizen-led, and long-term strategies for community and economic development. The cooperative agreements will be for an outreach and development effort to promote Rural Development programs in targeted underserved rural communities and shall include, but not be limited to:
(a)Developing a business startup program, including technical assistance, to assist new cooperatives and other businesses with new business development, business planning, franchise startup and consulting, business expansion studies, marketing analysis, cash flow management, and seminars and workshops for cooperatives and small businesses;
(b)Developing management and technical assistance plans for:
(1)Assessing cooperative and small business alternatives to traditional agricultural and other natural resource based industries;
(2)Assisting in the development of business plans or loan packages, marketing, or bookkeeping; and
(3)Assisting and training cooperatives and small businesses in customer relations, product development, or business planning and development.
(c)Assessing local community weaknesses and strengths, feasible alternatives to agricultural production, and the necessary infrastructure to expand or develop new or existing businesses;
(d)Providing community leaders with advice and recommendations regarding best practices in community economic development stimulus programs for their communities;
(e)Conducting seminars to disseminate information to stimulate business and economic development in selected rural communities; and
(f)Conducting outreach through the use of computer technology and maintaining an Internet Web presence that links community leaders and residents to available economic development information. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Cooperative Agreements. *Fiscal Year Funds:* FY 2008. *Approximate Total Funding:* $1,500,000. *Approximate Number of Awards:* 13. *Approximate Average Award:* $115,000. *Floor of Award Range:* None. *Ceiling of Award Range:* $115,000. *Anticipated Award Date:* September 26, 2008. *Budget Period Length:* 12 months. *Project Period Length:* 12 months. If an applicant is to receive an award that is less than the amount requested, the applicant will be required to modify the application to conform to the reduced amount before execution of the cooperative agreement. USDA Rural Development reserves the right to reduce or de-obligate any award if acceptable modifications are not submitted by the awardee(s) within 10 working days from the date the application is returned to the applicant. Any modification must be within the scope of the original application. Throughout the project period, USDA Rural Development's continued commitment to advance funds will be conditioned upon evidence of satisfactory progress by the recipient (as documented in certified acceptable quarterly progress and financial reports) and the determination that continued funding is in the best interest of the U.S. Government. III. Eligibility Requirements 1. Applicant Eligibility To be eligible for an award under this program, an applicant must:
(a)Be an 1890 Institution which includes: Alabama A&M University, University of Arkansas—Pine Bluff, Delaware State University, Florida A&M University, Fort Valley State University, Kentucky State University, Southern University and A&M College, University of Maryland—Eastern Shore, Alcorn State University, Langston University, North Carolina A&T State University, Lincoln University (Missouri), South Carolina State University, Tennessee State University, Prairie View A&M University, Virginia State University, West Virginia State University, and Tuskegee University. Although an applicant may be eligible to compete for an award based on its status as an eligible entity, other factors may exclude an applicant from receiving Federal assistance under this program (e.g. debarment and suspension). Applications from ineligible institutions or persons will be rejected in their entirety. USDA Rural Development will accept only one application per Institution under this program. In the event that more than one application is submitted, the 1890 Institution's president will determine the official application for consideration;
(b)Demonstrate that the personnel assigned to the project have the expertise and experience necessary to fulfill the tasks set forth in the project proposal. Applicants should demonstrate a previous record of successful implementation of similar projects;
(c)Demonstrate expertise in the use of computer technologies to provide technical assistance and access to Internet Web sites; and
(d)Submit a completed application as set forth in Section IV.3. An applicant may subcontract with organizations not eligible to apply provided such organizations are necessary for the conduct of the project. However, the subcontracted amount may not exceed one-third of the total Federal award. 2. Project Eligibility To be eligible for an award under this program, an applicant must:
(a)Establish that the project eligible beneficiaries are located in a rural area as defined in 7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(13)(A) with a demonstrated economic need. Eligible beneficiaries must also be located in communities that show significant community support for the proposal,
(b)Provide matching funds equal to at least 25 percent of the total project costs, and
(c)Establish and maintain an Internet Web presence linked to the USDA Rural Development Web site. This Web site should contain links to additional economic development sites that will benefit residents and community leaders. 3. Rural Area Definition Rural underserved targeted counties/communities must be an area other than a city or town that has a population of greater than 50,000 inhabitants and the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such a city or town, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of Census using the latest decennial census of the United States. 4. Matching Funds Matching funds may be provided by either the applicant or third party in the form of either cash or in-kind contributions and must be from non-Federal funds. Matching funds must be spent in proportion to the spending of funds received from the cooperative agreement. Applicants must verify that matching funds are available for the time period of the cooperative agreement. IV. Application Process 1. Application Packages If an Institution plans to apply using a paper application, application packages, including the required forms for this funding opportunity, may be obtained from *http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/oa/1890.htm.* If an Institution is having difficulty accessing the forms online, it may contact USDA Rural Development at
(202)690-3407, FAX:
(202)690-2723, or TDD Federal Information Relay Service: 1-800-877-8339. The application forms and instructions may also be requested via e-mail by sending a message with the contact person's name, mailing address, and telephone number to *edgar.lewis@wdc.usda.gov.* The application forms and instructions will be mailed as quickly as possible. When calling or e-mailing USDA Rural Development, please indicate that you are requesting application forms and instructions for the FY 2008 1890 REOD Initiative. If an Institution plans to apply electronically, the forms must be obtained from *http://www.grants.gov.* 2. Application Submission Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than May 12, 2008. Electronic copies must be received by May 12, 2008. Late applications will not be considered for funding. The applicant assumes the risk of any delay in proposal delivery. Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit completed applications electronically or via overnight mail or delivery service to ensure timely receipt by USDA Rural Development. Receipt of all applications will be acknowledged by e-mail. Therefore, applicants are strongly encouraged to provide accurate e-mail addresses. If the applicant does not receive an acknowledgment within 7 workdays of the submission deadline, please contact the program manager. If USDA Rural Development receives your application after the deadline due to:
(a)Carrier error, when the carrier accepted the package with guarantee for delivery by the closing date and time, or
(b)significant weather delays or natural disaster, you will be given the opportunity to document these problems. USDA Rural Development will consider the application as having been received by the deadline if your documentation meets these requirements and verifies the delay was beyond your control. Applications submitted via facsimile will not be accepted. An Institution may submit its application in paper or in an electronic format. If a paper application is submitted, a signed original and two copies of the completed application must be submitted. The original and two copies must include all required forms, certifications, assurances, project proposal documents, and appendices; be signed by an authorized representative of the Institution; contain original signatures; and be submitted unbound. A paper application submitted via the Postal Service must be addressed to USDA Rural Development, Attention: 1890 REOD Initiative, Mail Stop 3250, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. A paper application submitted via a commercial carrier such as UPS, FedEx, or similar delivery service must be addressed to USDA Rural Development, Attention: 1890 Initiative, Room 4016, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. The telephone number to be used on FedEx or similar packages is
(202)720-7558. If an application is submitted electronically, the application must be submitted at *http://www.grants.gov.* Applicants are advised to visit the site well in advance of the application deadline if they plan to apply electronically to ensure that they have obtained the proper authentication and have sufficient computer resources to complete the application. All Federal grant applicants must provide a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)number when applying for Federal grants and cooperative agreements. The DUNS number is required whether an applicant is submitting a paper application or using the governmentwide electronic portal Grants.gov. A DUNS number is required for every application for a new award or renewal/continuation of an award, including applications or plans under formula, entitlement, and block grant programs, submitted on or after October 1, 2003. Please ensure that your institution has a DUNS number. An Institution may acquire a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line on 1-866-705-5711 or online at *http://www.dnd.com.* If an Institution's application does not contain a DUNS number field, please write the DUNS number at the top of the first page of the application and/or include the DUNS number in the application cover letter. 3. Completed Application To be eligible for funding, an application must contain all of the following elements. Applications that are missing any element or contain an incomplete element will not be considered for funding.
(a)*Completed forms.*
(1)*Form SF-424,* “Application for Federal Assistance.” In order for this form to be considered complete, it must contain the legal name of the applicant, the applicant's DUNS number, the applicant's complete mailing address, the name and telephone number of a contact person, the employer identification number (EIN), the start and end dates of the project, the Federal funds requested, other funds, including in-kind funds, that will be used as matching funds, congressional districts, an answer to the question, “Is applicant delinquent on any Federal debt?”, the name and signature of an authorized representative, the telephone number of the authorized representative, and the date the form was signed. Other information requested on the form may be applicable, but the above-listed information is required for an application to be considered complete.
(2)*Form SF-424A* , “Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.” In order for this form to be considered complete, the applicant must fill out Sections A, B, C, and D. The applicant must include both Federal and matching funds, including in-kind funds.
(3)*Form SF-424B* , “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.” In order for this form to be considered complete, the form must be signed by an authorized official and include the title, name of applicant, and date.
(4)*Form AD-1047* , “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions.”
(5)*Form AD-1049* , “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements.”
(6)*Form SF-LLL* , “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.”
(7)*Form RD 400-1* , “Equal Opportunity Agreement.”
(8)*Form RD 400-4* , “Assurance Agreement.”
(b)*Letters of support.*
(c)*Table of Contents:* For ease of locating information, each proposal must contain a detailed Table of Contents immediately following the required forms. The Table of Contents should include page numbers for each component of the proposal. Pagination should begin immediately following the Table of Contents. Provide page numbers in the Table of Contents where each evaluation criterion is addressed.
(d)*Project Executive Summary:* A summary of the Project Proposal, not to exceed one page, must briefly describe the project, including goals, tasks to be completed, and other relevant information that provides a general overview of the project.
(e)*Eligibility Discussion* : A detailed discussion, not to exceed four pages, will describe how the applicant meets the eligibility requirements. In the event that more than four pages are submitted, only the first four pages will be considered. The eligibility discussion must address the following:
(1)*Applicant Eligibility* : The applicant must first confirm it is an 1890 Institution. It must demonstrate that the personnel assigned to the project have the expertise and experience necessary to fulfill the tasks set forth in the project proposal, including the use of computer technologies and technical assistance.
(2)*Project Eligibility* : The applicant must describe how the project's eligible beneficiaries are located in a rural area as defined in 7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(13)(A) with a demonstrated economic need and how eligible beneficiaries are also located in communities that show significant community support for the proposal. The applicant must show how it is to provide matching funds equal to at least 25 percent of the total project costs. The applicant must provide the address of the Internet Web presence linked to the USDA Rural Development Web site or demonstrate how such a link will be developed.
(f)*Project Proposal* : The application must contain a narrative statement describing the nature of the proposed project. Each of the proposal evaluation criteria referenced in this funding announcement must be addressed, specifically and individually, in narrative form. The proposal must include at least the following:
(1)*Project Title Page* : The Title Page must include the title of the project, names of principal investigators, and applicant organization.
(2)*Introduction:* A concisely worded justification or rationale for the proposal must be presented. Summarize the social and economical statistical data (income, population, employment rate, poverty rate, educational attainment, etc.) for the project area that substantiates the need for the initiative. Specify whether the target area includes a federally designated Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community, Champion Community, Federally-recognized Indian Reservation, or other federally declared economic disaster area. An applicant must address the “Economic Need of Community” evaluation criterion as described in Section VII.1.(c).
(3)*Workplan* : Discuss the approach (strategy) to be used in carrying out the proposed project outreach and achieving the proposed objectives. Address the “Statement of Work” evaluation criterion as described in Section VII.1.(e). A description of any subcontracting arrangements to be used in carrying out the proposed project must be included. The workplan also must include:
(i)*Overview* : Identify and discuss the specific goals and objectives of the proposed project and its impact on the proposed beneficiaries;
(ii)*Timeframes* : Develop a tentative timeline for completing the major tasks outlined in the project proposal;
(iii)*Project Outcomes/Impacts* : Describe and quantify the expected outcomes/impacts of the proposed project, including the businesses created, professionals trained, jobs created or assisted, conferences and seminars to be conducted, and the expected number of participants, loans packaged, etc.;
(iv)*Recipient Involvement* : Identify the person(s) responsible for performing the project tasks; and
(v)*USDA Rural Development Involvement:* Identify proposed USDA Rural Development responsibilities for assisting and monitoring project tasks;
(4)*Budget Narrative* : Provide a detailed budget justification, showing both Federal and applicant's matching funds, including in-kind contributions. Provide a budget to support the workplan, showing all sources and uses of funds during the project period. Detail and document both cash and in-kind funding by sources. Note that only goods and services for which no expenditure is made can be considered in-kind. If the applicant is paying for the goods and services as part of the matching funds contribution, the expenditure is considered a cash match and should be verified as such.
(5)*Certification of Matching Funds:* Certify that matching funds will be available at the same time Federal funds are anticipated to be spent and that matching funds will be spent on a pro rata basis with Federal funds. Please note that this certification is a separate requirement from the verification of Matching Funds requirement.
(6)*Leveraging Funds:* Discuss in narrative form how the Institution will use Federal, State, private, and other sources of funds and resources to leverage the proposed project.
(7)*Coordination and Management Plan* : Describe how the project will be coordinated among the various participants, the nature of the collaborations and benefits to participants, communities, applicants, and Rural Development. Describe plans for the management of the project to ensure its proper and efficient administration. Discuss any steering committees and/or Agreements developed to assist with managing the project. Describe the proposed scope of Rural Development's involvement in the project.
(8)*Technology Outreach* : The project proposal must address the applicant's ability to deliver computer technology to the targeted rural communities and maintain computer Internet Web sites linking community leaders and residents to available economic development information. Address the “Digital Technology Outreach” evaluation criterion as described in Section VII.1.(f).
(9)*Key Personnel Support:* The roles and responsibilities of key personnel used to carry out the goals and objectives of the proposal should be clearly described. An abbreviated curriculum vitae should be provided for all key personnel.
(10)*Facilities or Equipment:* Identify where the project will be located (housed) and what additional equipment is needed or already available to carry out the specific objectives of the project.
(11)*Previous Accomplishments:* Summarize the Institution's previous outreach and development accomplishments, including success stories from previous years for projects funded by USDA Rural Development or similar outreach or development experiences. First-time applicants should discuss previous similar outreach accomplishments. Address the “Previous Accomplishments” evaluation criterion as described in Section VII.1.(d).
(12)*Local and USDA Rural Development State Office Support:* Provide letters of support from the local community, such as businesses, educational institutions, local governments, community-based organizations, etc. Letters of support should demonstrate commitments for tangible resources and/or assistance. Include any letter from the appropriate USDA Rural Development State Office, evidencing its input to the proposal or other involvement. Identify and discuss tangible support contained in the letters. Evaluation points will be based on the quality (tangible support) of the letters, not quantity.
(13)*Additional Information:* Provide any additional information that demonstrates commitment for tangible resources and/or that supports the proposal. Additionally, the applicant is encouraged to provide any strategic plan that has been developed to assist cooperative and business development or entrepreneurship for the targeted communities. V. Intergovernmental Review of Applications Executive Order
(EO)12372 does not apply to this program. VI. Funding Restrictions Public Law 110-161, Section 705, states “No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to pay negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements or similar arrangements between the United States Department of Agriculture and nonprofit institutions in excess of 10 percent of the total cost of the agreement when the purpose of such cooperative arrangement is to carry out programs of mutual interest between the two parties.” Indirect costs in excess of 10 percent of the direct cost, therefore, will be ineligible for funding. Cooperative agreement funds may not be used to: 1. Pay for the preparation of the application; 2. Fund political activities; 3. Pay costs incurred prior to the effective date of this agreement; 4. Provide for revolving funds; 5. Purchase, rent or install fixed equipment; 6. Purchase real estate; 7. Repair or maintain privately owned vehicles; 8. Plan, repair, rehabilitate, acquire, or construct a building; 9. Conduct any activities where there is or may appear to be a conflict of interest; or 10. Fund any activities prohibited in 7 CFR parts 3015 and 3019, as applicable. VII. Application Review 1. Criteria Project proposals will be evaluated using the following seven criteria. Each criterion is given the weight value shown with total points equal to 100. The points assigned provide an indication of the relative importance of each section and will be used by the reviewers in evaluating the proposals. Points do not have to be awarded for each criterion. After all proposals have been evaluated, the Administrator may award an additional 10 discretionary points to any proposal to obtain the broadest geographic distribution of the funds, ensure a broad diversity of project proposals, or ensure a broad diversity in the size of the awards.
(a)*Support of Local Community (Up to 10 points):* This criterion evaluates the support of local government, educational, community, and business groups. Higher points will be awarded for proposals demonstrating broad support from all components of the communities served, particularly cooperative groups. Broad support is demonstrated by tangible contributions, such as providing volunteers, computers, and transportation or co-sponsoring workshops and conferences. Points will be awarded based on the level of tangible contribution in comparison to the size of the award. Tangible support must be stated in letters from supporting entities.
(b)*Matching Funds/Leveraging (Up to 10 points):* This criterion evaluates the extent to which the Institution has the capacity to support the project with matching funds and leveraging additional funds and resources from State, private, public, and nonprofit sources to carry out this outreach and development initiative. A maximum of 10 points will be awarded based upon the amount the proposal exceeds the minimum 25 percent matching requirement. Applicants will be required to provide matching funds in support of this project. Evidence of matching funds availability must be provided. Funds or equivalent in-kind funding must be available at the time at which the cooperative agreement is entered. Matching funds points will be awarded as listed below: >25 percent to 35 percent match—2 points. >35 percent to 50 percent match—5 points. >50 percent to 75 percent match—7 points. >75 percent match—10 points.
(c)*Economic Need of Community (Up to 15 points):* This criterion evaluates the economic need of the targeted communities. Five points will automatically be awarded to project proposals with at least one of the beneficiary communities located in a targeted community(s): Federally designated Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, Champion Communities, Federally-recognized Indian Reservations, and other federally declared economically depressed or disaster areas. The application must state the name(s) and location(s) of the economically depressed community(s) and the type(s) of targeted community designation (i.e., Empowerment Zone). Up to a maximum of 10 additional points may be awarded based upon the applicant's ability to identify and demonstrate other economic factors that would cause these communities to be targeted for special economic and community development, such as, but not limited to, unemployment rates, poverty rates, education levels, and job availability. These and other factors will be evaluated and compared to the respective State rates. An applicant must provide sufficient information for the panel to properly evaluate and rate this criterion.
(d)*Previous Accomplishments (Up to 10 points):* This criterion evaluates the applicant's previous accomplishments with this initiative and/or its demonstrative capacity to conduct similar projects. One point will be awarded to an Institution for each year it has been awarded a cooperative agreement under this program up to a total of 5 years. An applicant must provide evidence of satisfactorily completing the cooperative agreement for each year for which credit is claimed. Satisfactorily completing the cooperative agreement includes, completing all objectives in the workplan, submitting all required program and financial reports in a timely manner, and within budget for the project. Applicants with less than 5 recent years of awards in this program may receive up to the maximum 5 points by highlighting the applicant's previous performance in each of the past 5 years on other projects with cooperative and business development and outreach objectives. The applicant should discuss the potential impact of the project upon the targeted underserved rural communities, as well as describing previous similar outreach and development work. Up to a maximum of 5 additional points may be awarded based upon an applicant's ability to document the positive impact of its project upon the targeted underserved rural communities. Positive entrepreneurial developments should be emphasized. Points will be awarded to applicants who demonstrate that the project's technical assistance resulted in the creation of a business(s) in an economically challenged community or that it's educational programs developed or improved upon the professional skills of rural entrepreneurs. The applicant must provide specific information as to the specific businesses created and/or professional educational programs offered.
(e)*Statement of Work (Up to 35 points):* This criterion evaluates the degree to which the proposed project addresses the major purposes for the 1890 REOD Initiative. Points will be awarded according to the degree to which the Statement of Work reflects:
(1)Innovative strategies for providing technical assistance for business creation in economically challenged rural communities,
(2)educational programs that develop and improve the professional skills of rural entrepreneurs, and
(3)outreach and promotion of USDA Rural Development programs. Up to a maximum of 15 points will be awarded to proposed projects that have a clearly and concisely stated workplan detailing goals and objectives, timetables, expected results, and measurable outcomes for providing technical assistance for business creation in economically challenged rural communities. The greatest number of points will be awarded to those proposed projects that demonstrate innovative and creative ways to accomplish these goals. Up to a maximum of 10 additional points will be awarded to proposed projects that have a clearly and concisely stated workplan detailing goals and objectives, timetables, expected results, and measurable outcomes for educational programs to develop and improve the professional skills of rural entrepreneurs (i.e., sustainable agricultural practices, real estate sales, real estate appraising, accounting for small entrepreneurs, etc.). The greatest number of points will be awarded to those proposed projects that demonstrate innovative and creative ways to accomplish these goals. Up to a maximum of 10 additional points will be awarded to proposed projects for outreach and promotion of USDA Rural Development's programs in small rural communities with the greatest economic need. The greatest number of points will be awarded to those proposed projects that demonstrate innovative and creative ways to accomplish these goals. All proposals must integrate substantial USDA Rural Development involvement.
(f)*Digital Technology Outreach (Up to 10 points):* This criterion evaluates the applicant's experience and capacity to provide outreach and assistance to targeted underserved rural communities through use of computer technologies. A maximum of 10 points will be awarded based upon the applicant's demonstrated capacity to promote innovations and improvements in the delivery of computer technology benefits, including a Web presence to underserved rural communities whose share in these benefits is disproportionately low. The Web site should be operational with a link to the USDA Rural Development Web site and populated with success stories and economic development information.
(g)*Coordination and Management of the Project (Up to 10 points):* This criterion evaluates the applicant's demonstrated capacity to coordinate and manage the proposed project among the various stakeholders. Up to a maximum of 5 points will be awarded based upon the applicant's ability to demonstrate a broad and collaborative involvement with the respective USDA Rural Development State Office on the proposed project. This involvement and collaboration should include, but not be limited to:
(1)Evidence of any USDA Rural Development State Office input in and review of the applicant's proposal,
(2)a detailed plan for the USDA Rural Development State Office's continued participation in the proposed project that includes specific participatory tasks, and
(3)a detailed plan as to how Rural Development programs can be integrated into the proposed project. Up to a maximum of 5 additional points will be awarded based upon applicant's demonstrated ability for overall management of the project, which include submitting timely program and financial reports, and completing workplan goals/objectives as stated in the proposal. Applicants must document in the proposal that all required reports have been submitted. 2. Selection Process Each application will be evaluated in a two-part process. First, each application will be reviewed to ensure that both the applicant and project meet the eligibility requirements set forth in Section III. All applicants determined to be eligible will be scored based upon the criteria set forth in Section VII.1. Each eligible application will be scored by at least three expert reviewers. The individual scores for each application will be tallied, and applications receiving the highest scores will be recommended to the Administrator or Acting Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, for award. The Administrator or Acting Administrator has the final authority to award discretionary points in accordance with Section VII.1. and determine the applications to be funded. If a tie score results after the proposals have been rated and ranked, the tie will be resolved by the proposal with the largest matching funds as a percent of the total project cost. VIII. Award Administration 1. Award Notification Upon completion of the review process, successful applicants will be notified, in writing, by the USDA Rural Development National Office of its award. Each successful applicant will receive a cooperative agreement for signature by the Institution's president or designee. The document will become binding upon execution by the appropriate USDA official. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified, in writing, of the results of the review. 2. Advance of Funds Requirements Requests for advance of funds must be submitted to the National Office on a quarterly basis on a completed Form SF-270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement.” A completed Form SF-269 (Long Form), “Financial Status Report,” must be submitted with each advance of funds request. 3. Project Reviews USDA Rural Development State Office representatives will conduct semiannual onsite reviews of award recipients, as well as any additional reviews deemed necessary by the National Office. 4. Reporting Requirements During the term of the cooperative agreement, each award recipient must submit quarterly progress reports and a final report detailing the tasks performed and results accomplished to the National and appropriate State Offices. The report should also include a summary at the end of the report with the following elements to assist in documenting the annual performance measures of the 1890 program:
(a)Number of businesses/cooperatives started/expanded in the targeted areas;
(b)Number of currently active businesses/cooperatives in the targeted areas that were assisted;
(c)Number of individuals/businesses/cooperatives/organizations assisted (training, technical assistance, feasibility studies, etc.); and
(d)Number of individuals/businesses/cooperatives/organizations assisted with USDA Rural Development loan or grant programs or other similar programs. Quarterly reports must be submitted on or prior to January 31, April 30, July 31, and October 31, 2009. A final report must be submitted within 90 days of the date of the project's completion. Reports may be submitted in hard copy original or an electronic copy that includes all required signatures. Failure to submit satisfactory, timely reports may result in suspension or termination of current award and/or result in making your institution ineligible for future awards from this program. Upon the request of USDA Rural Development, the award recipient will submit manuscripts, videotapes, software, or other media identified in project proposals. USDA Rural Development retains those rights delineated in 7 CFR 3019.36. 5. Administrative Requirements Award recipients are responsible for:
(a)Completing the objectives defined in the proposed workplan.
(b)Maintaining up-to-date project records during the term of the agreement.
(c)Maintaining an accounting of Federal and matching fund expenditures, including in-kind contributions. Award recipients must submit to the National Office a completed Form SF-269 (Long Form) with each advance of funds request and within 90 days of the project's completion.
(d)Immediately refunding to USDA Rural Development, at the end of the agreement, any balance of unobligated funds received from USDA Rural Development.
(e)Providing matching funds or equivalent in-kind contribution in support of the project, at least to the level agreed to in the accepted proposal.
(f)Participating in the annual or biannual USDA Rural Development Entrepreneurship and Information conferences/workshops when planned.
(g)Developing a program of cooperative and business startup and technical assistance, in cooperation with local businesses, that will assist with new company development, business planning, new enterprise, franchise startup and consulting, business expansion studies, marketing analysis, cash flow management, and seminars and workshops for cooperatives and small businesses.
(h)Providing office space, equipment, and supplies for all personnel assigned to the project.
(i)Developing management and technical assistance plans in cooperation with the USDA Rural Development State Office that will:
(1)Assess cooperative and small business alternatives to agriculture and other natural resources-based industries;
(2)Assist in the development of business plans and loan packages, marketing, bookkeeping assistance, and organizational sustainability; and
(3)Provide technical assistance and training, in cooperation with the USDA Rural Development State Office, for customer relations, product development, and business planning and development.
(j)Assess local community needs, weaknesses and strengths, feasible alternatives to agriculture production, and the needed infrastructure to expand or develop new or existing businesses. The plans for any such studies must be submitted to the USDA Rural Development National Office for approval prior to the study being conducted.
(k)Provide community leaders with advice and recommendations, in cooperation with the USDA Rural Development State Office, regarding best practices in community economic development stimulus programs for their communities.
(l)Develop digital technology outreach and establish and maintain an Internet Web site to link community leaders and residents to available economic development information. USDA Rural Development must be included in the link to economic development information.
(m)Assure and certify that it is in compliance with, and will comply in the course of the agreement with, all applicable laws, regulations, Executive Orders, and other generally applicable requirements, including those set out in 7 CFR parts 3015 and 3019.
(n)Use Federal funds only to pay meeting-related travel expenses when employees are performing a service of direct benefit to the Government and in direct furtherance of the objectives of the proposed agreement. Federal funds cannot be used to pay non-Federal employees to attend meetings.
(o)Not commingle or use program funds for administrative expenses to operate an intermediary relending program (IRP).
(p)Submit to USDA Rural Development National Office, in writing, any request for revising the project work plan, including key personnel changes, budget reallocations, or requesting a no-cost extension amending the cooperative agreement.
(q)Assist the USDA Rural Development State Office in conducting a semiannual on-site review of the recipient's project.
(r)Collaborate, as needed, with the USDA Rural Development National and State Offices in performing the tasks in the agreement and providing the Rural Development National Office with the information necessary for the Agency to fulfill its responsibilities in the agreement.
(s)Sign an Agency approved Cooperative Agreement. USDA Rural Development is responsible for:
(a)Monitoring the program as it is being implemented and operated, including monitoring of financial information, to ensure that there is no commingling or use of program funds for administrative expenses to operate an IRP or other unapproved items.
(b)Terminating activity, after written notice, if tasks are not met.
(c)Reviewing and approving in writing, any changes to key personnel, budget reallocation and request for no-cost extension.
(d)Providing technical assistance as needed.
(e)Approving the final plans for any community business workshops; cooperative, business, and economic development sessions; and training workshops to be conducted by the recipient.
(f)Providing reference assistance, as needed, to the recipient for technical assistance given on a one-on-one basis to entrepreneurs and startup businesses.
(g)Reviewing and commenting on strategic plans developed by recipients for targeted areas.
(h)Reviewing economic assessments made by the recipient for targeted counties, enabling USDA Rural Development to determine the extent to which its programs are beneficial.
(i)Carefully screening projects to prevent First Amendment violations.
(j)Monitoring the program to ensure that a Web site link to USDA Rural Development is established and maintained.
(k)Ensuring that USDA Rural Development State Offices conduct semiannual on-site reviews and submit written reports to the National Office.
(l)Participating in 1890 outreach and development program workshops, seminars, and conferences as needed.
(m)Providing any other work agreed to by USDA Rural Development in the Cooperative Agreement. IX. Non-Discrimination Statement USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at
(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call
(800)795-3272 (voice), or
(202)720-6382 (TDD). “USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.” X. Agency Contact FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edgar L. Lewis, Program Manager, USDA Rural Development, Cooperative Programs, Stop 3252, Room 4204, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3252, Telephone:
(202)690-3407, e-mail: *edgar.lewis@wdc.usda.gov.* XI. Paperwork Reduction Act The paperwork burden associated with this initiative has been cleared by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB Control Number 0570-0041. Dated: March 19, 2008. Ben Anderson, Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service. [FR Doc. E8-6129 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* NOAA Community-based Restoration Program Progress Reports. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0334. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 268. *Number of Respondents:* 142. *Average Hours Per Response:* Transfer application, 1 hour; transfer appeal, 4 hours. *Needs and Uses:* The License Limitation Program
(LLP)is a step toward a comprehensive rationalization program to solve the conservation and management problems of Alaska's open access fisheries. The LLP provides stability in the fishing industry and identifies the field of participants in the fisheries. The LLP restricts access to the commercial groundfish fisheries, commercial crab fisheries and commercial scallop fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska except for certain areas where alternative programs exist. The intended effect of the LLP is to limit the number of participants and reduce fishing capacity in fisheries off Alaska. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at: *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Fax number
(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: March 20, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-6045 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* Pacific Islands Region Vessel and Gear Identification Requirements. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0360. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 1,134. *Number of Respondents:* 301. *Average Hours Per Response:* Vessel marking for South Pacific tuna vessels, 1 hour and 15 minutes; for all other vessels, 45 minutes; gear marking, 2 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* This collection of information covers regulatory requirements for fishing vessel and gear identification authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable law. The vessels in federally-regulated fisheries in the western Pacific region are required to display the vessel's official number in three locations. Purse seine vessels in the South Pacific are required to display their international radio call sign in three locations and on any helicopter or skiff. The fishing gear in the western Pacific pelagic longline fisheries, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands crustacean fishery, and western Pacific coral reef ecosystem fisheries are required to be marked with the vessel's official number in a specific manner and location. This collection renews OMB Control No. 0648-0360 and adds vessel identification requirements for western Pacific fisheries and the South Pacific purse seine fishery from OMB Control No. 0648-0361. The vessel identification requirements for fisheries off the U.S. west coast will continue to be covered under OMB Control No. 0648-0361. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households. *Frequency:* Annually. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at: *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Fax number
(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: March 20, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-6046 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* Northeast Region Vessel Identification Requirements. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0350. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 4,500. *Number of Respondents:* 6,000. *Average Hours Per Response:* 45 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* Federally permitted fishing vessels in the Northeast Region of the U.S. must display their vessel identification numbers on three locations (port and starboard sides of the deckhouse or hull, and an appropriate weather deck) on the vessel at a specified size. The requirement is needed to assist the NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Coast Guard in enforcing fishery regulations. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* Annually. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at: *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Fax number
(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: March 20, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-6048 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2010 Decennial Census AGENCY: U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before May 27, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at: *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Frank Vitrano, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 3H174, Washington, DC 20233-9200, 301-763-3961 (or via Internet at: *frank.a.vitrano@census.gov* .) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution mandates that the U.S. House of Representatives be reapportioned every ten years by conducting a national census of all residents. In addition to the reapportionment of the U.S. Congress, by law, Census data are required in order to redraw legislative district boundaries. Census data also are used to determine funding allocations for the distribution of hundreds of billions of dollars of federal and state funds each year. From the 2010 Census, the Census Bureau will produce the basic population totals by state for Congressional apportionment, as mandated by the Constitution, and more specifically elaborated in Title 13 U.S. Code. Title 13 of the United States Code also provides for the confidentiality of responses to various surveys and censuses. In compliance with Public Law 94-171, for each state, the Census Bureau will tabulate total population counts by race, Hispanic origin, and, for those 18 years of age and over, by a variety of census geographic areas including legislative district, voting district, and census tabulation blocks. In compliance with Public Law 94-171, the Census Bureau also will tabulate housing unit counts by occupancy status (and vacant). In the process of developing our data collection instruments for the 2010 Census, the Census Bureau has attempted to reduce respondent burden in two major ways:
(1)By providing all households a short form questionnaire containing seven population questions for each household member and four household questions for the person completing the form, and
(2)by providing enumerators working in the neighborhoods an up-to-the-minute status of completed questionnaires received by the office, thereby eliminating the need to visit a household that sent in a late return by mail. II. Method of Collection A. Mailing Strategy for Questionnaires, Letters, Reminder Postcards The mailout/mailback method is the primary means of census taking during the 2010 Census. The U.S. Postal Service will deliver Census Bureau-addressed questionnaires to housing units. Residents will be asked to complete and mail the questionnaires back in a postage-paid envelope. For Census 2000, this method was used for more than 80 percent of the housing units in the United States. We will use this method again in 2010. In the designated mailout/mailback areas of the United States, the 2010 Census will use a multiple mailing strategy—an advance notice letter, an initial questionnaire, a reminder or thank you postcard, and a replacement questionnaire. Our “multiple contact” mailing strategy was developed to get the highest mail response rate possible. Our studies have shown that mailing both a letter telling residents that a questionnaire is on the way, and a postcard reminding them to send it in, increase the mail return rate. We have found that the second mailing, or replacement mailing, increases the rate of response by at least 7 percentage points and eliminates the need to send a census worker to the home, thereby saving taxpayer dollars. In summary, mailings will include: • An advance notice letter that alerts households that the census form will be sent to them soon. • An initial mailing package that includes the questionnaire. In some areas the questionnaire is in English, in others it is a bilingual (English/Spanish) form. • A reminder post card or letter that serves as a thank you for returning the questionnaire, or a reminder to mail it. For those housing units receiving the bilingual questionnaire, the reminder will be a bilingual (English and Spanish) letter. • An English-language replacement questionnaire package that is mailed about 10 days after the reminder postcard is mailed. Replacements are sent only to households that do not return their questionnaire by a pre-determined date. B. Update/Leave Operations In geographic areas without street names and/or house number addresses (e.g. post office box, rural route, etc.), the census uses an Update/Leave (U/L) enumeration methodology. Enumerators canvass the blocks in their assignment areas, update the address lists and census maps, determine if the housing unit is either a duplicate or nonexistent and should be deleted, and leave addressed census questionnaires at each unit. They also prepare and drop off questionnaires at any added housing units that they find in their assignment areas not showing on existing census address lists. Residents are expected to complete the questionnaire and mail it back to the Census Bureau. An enumerator will visit those who do not return a questionnaire after April 2010 to obtain the information. C. Update/Enumerate Operations 1. *Update/Enumerate (U/E):* Update/Enumerate is a method of data collection conducted in communities with special enumeration needs and where mailing addresses of many housing units do not contain house numbers and/or street names. These communities may include selected American Indian reservations and colonias (small, usually rural Spanish-speaking communities). These communities often lack basic physical infrastructure elements such as running water, paved streets and approved sewage systems. U/E also will be implemented in resort areas with high concentrations of seasonally vacant living quarters. Enumerators will canvass assignment areas to update residential addresses by adding new ones or deleting those not found, update Census Bureau maps, and complete a questionnaire for each housing unit. Each housing unit will be classified as occupied, vacant, or delete. 2. *Remote Update Enumerate (RU/E):* Remote Update Enumerate is performed similarly to Update/Enumerate (U/E) but in designated remote U/E targeted enumeration areas. Areas include communities that are sparsely populated with an estimated 6,500 or fewer housing units, group quarters, transient locations, and service-based enumerations, as applicable. These areas are not included in the Local Update of Census Addresses
(LUCA)program and will not have their address lists updated in the Address Canvass operation. 3. *Remote Alaska (RA):* The remote areas of Alaska will be enumerated using the Update/Enumerate method. Remote Alaska is identified as Wade Hampton, the Seward Peninsula, the Aleutian Chain, and the Arctic/North Slope. Outlying or remote communities in Alaska range from a few people to several hundred. Roads rarely exist to connect the outlying communities. Most of these small communities are accessible only by small engine aircraft, snowmobiles, four-wheel drive vehicles, dog sled or a combination thereof. Due to the sequential timing of the spring thaw across Alaska, we will begin the remote enumeration earlier in January before the thaw begins when conditions are most favorable. Once the thaw begins, the population leaves to fish and hunt. D. Enumeration at Transitory Locations
(ETL)Operations The ETL field operation enumerates individuals who do not have a Usual Home Elsewhere, or UHE, that are staying at transitory locations at the time of enumeration. Transitory locations include RV parks, campgrounds, hotels, motels (including those on military sites), marinas, racetracks, circuses, and carnivals. During the operation, enumerators conduct interviews using a paper questionnaire. E. Be Counted Program and Questionnaire Assistance Centers 1. *Be Counted
(BC)Program:* The Be Counted program is designed for persons who believe they were not counted in the 2010 Census. The Census Bureau will place unaddressed census questionnaires at selected public sites that are easily accessible and frequented by large numbers of people. The BC questionnaires will be printed in Chinese, English, Korean, Russian, Spanish, and Vietnamese languages. They will contain the mailout/mailback style questions, along with additional questions needed to process and match the forms to the census address file. 2. *Questionnaire Assistance Centers (QAC):* These are “walk-in” community locations where residents are provided assistance in completing their census questionnaire, help with overcoming language barriers, and provided with answers to general questions about the census. Residents can pick up Be Counted questionnaires if they've misplaced the original questionnaire was which mailed to the residence. Residents will be able to locate a QAC by contacting a Census Bureau local census office. F. Group Quarters
(GQ)Operations 1. *Group Quarters Advance Visit (GQAV):* The GQAV operation informs the GQ contact person of the upcoming GQ enumeration, addresses privacy and confidentiality concerns relating to personal identifiable information, and identifies any security issues, such as restricted access, required credentials, etc. Crew leaders visit all GQs and conduct an interview with the designated contact person to verify the GQ name, address, contact name and phone number, and obtain an agreed upon date and time to conduct the enumeration and an expected Census Day population. The information collected during the interview is used to prepare the correct amount of census materials needed to conduct the enumeration at the facility. 2. *Group Quarters Enumeration (GQE):* The GQE operation will be conducted at the Group Quarters on the date agreed upon during the Advance Visit. During the GQE, three different enumeration methods can be used to enumerate the population:
(1)Interview residents in group quarters like soup kitchens;
(2)distribute questionnaire packets for residents in colleges and universities to complete; and
(3)use administrative records in places where it is disruptive or unsafe for Census personnel such as prisons. Enumerators will visit group quarters to develop a control list of all residents and distribute census questionnaires (Individual Census Reports or ICRs) for residents to complete, interview the residents and enter the data on the ICR, or use administrative records to complete the ICR. Enumerators collect and review completed ICRs to ensure that they are complete and legible. They will also complete an ICR for any resident on the control list who did not complete one. 3. *Service-Based Enumeration (SBE):* The SBE is designed to enumerate people experiencing homelessness and who may otherwise be missed during the enumeration of housing units and group quarters. People are enumerated at places where they receive services and at targeted non-sheltered outdoor locations. SBE locations likely will include shelters for people experiencing homelessness (emergency and transitional shelters, and hotels and motels providing shelter for people experiencing homelessness), domestic violence shelters, soup kitchens, regularly scheduled mobile food van stops, and targeted non-sheltered outdoor locations. This operation is conducted to provide an opportunity for people experiencing homelessness to be included in the census. 4. *Military Group Quarters Enumeration:* Military Group Quarters Enumeration is a special component of the GQE designed to enumerate military personnel assigned to barracks, dormitories, military treatment facilities, and disciplinary barracks and jails. Military Census Reports
(MCRs)are distributed to the residents of the military facilities. (Military families living in housing units on bases are enumerated using the mailout/mailback methodology.) For people living or staying in Military GQs, the Census Bureau provides enumeration procedures, training, and questionnaires to military personnel on the base who then conduct the actual enumeration. During the military enumeration, designated base personnel distribute census questionnaires to all military personnel assigned to the GQs, including all people in disciplinary barracks and jails. Within a few days, base personnel collect the completed questionnaires, obtaining census information for any missing cases. Census staffs return to the base to collect the completed questionnaires. 5. *Domestic Military/Maritime Vessels Enumerations (MMVE):* The MMVE is a special component of Group Quarters Enumeration designed to enumerate people residing on U.S. military ships or on maritime vessels in operation at the time of the census. This is also sometimes called “Shipboard Enumeration.” The MMVE uses questionnaires, which are distributed to every Navy and Coast Guard vessel home-ported in the United States and to U.S.-owned and operated flagged vessels used for commercial and non-combatant government purposes. The Census Bureau provides enumeration procedures, training, and questionnaires to personnel on the vessels who then conduct the actual enumeration. Designated vessel personnel distribute the census questionnaires to those living on the vessels, collect the completed questionnaires, and mail them to a Census Processing Office using a prepaid envelope. G. Non-Response Follow-up Operations 1. *Non-Response Follow-up (NRFU):* In mid-April 2010, the Census Bureau will begin identifying the addresses from the mailed-back returns for which we have not received a response, and create enumerator assignments to be used for collecting information from non-respondent households. Beginning early May, enumerators will visit every address for which a household did not respond and complete a census questionnaire for them. Enumerators also will complete a census questionnaire for any household or housing unit they discover that is not shown on the assignment list within their particular assignment area. Housing units will be classified as occupied, vacant, or delete. Enumerator assignments will be updated daily to remove addresses for late mail returns to avoid unnecessary visits to households. 2. *Non-Response Follow-up Reinterview (NRFU RI):* NRFU RI is a quality assurance operation on the actual NRFU field operation. It is designed to:
(1)Ensure that the enumerator correctly followed the NRFU field procedures, and
(2)identify enumerators who intentionally or unintentionally produced data errors. A sample of households in an assignment area will be contacted again, in person or by telephone, by an independent separate staff of Census enumerators. Enumerators will re-ask certain questions and compare the answers to the original questionnaire. This will confirm that the enumerator visited the correct address and that the original questionnaire was completed accurately. 3. *Vacant/Delete Check
(VDC)Field Operation:* The VDC operation is an independent followup of selected addresses that are classified as vacant or nonexistent during Non-response Follow-up. These addresses are assigned to a different enumerator than the enumerator who made the original classification. Enumerators will verify the Census Day (April 1, 2010) status of the assigned addresses and complete a census questionnaire for all VDC cases. In cases where a housing unit looks visibly demolished, the enumerator must conduct an interview with a proxy respondent (e.g., neighbor or mailman) to confirm that the address did not exist on Census Day. If the housing unit looks occupied, the interview will be conducted with the household member to confirm the unit's status on Census Day. Although the VDC workload is comprised of only vacant and nonexistent cases from NRFU, the VDC enumerator may determine that a case is vacant, nonexistent, or occupied. H. Counting Americans Overseas Operations The Federally-Affiliated Americans Overseas Count operation obtains counts from the administrative records of Federal agencies of U.S. military and Federal civilian employees stationed overseas and their dependents living with them as of April 1, 2010. These counts are allocated to a home state for the purposes of reapportioning seats in the U.S. House of Representatives; they are not included in sub-state allocations or redistricting. Federally-affiliated Americans living overseas and their dependents living with them are reported by the employing departments and agencies if they have a designated home state in one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia. If they do not have a designated home state, they will not be included in the final published Summary File of population data or apportioned to any state. Other private U.S. citizens living abroad and crews of merchant ships engaged in foreign transportation are not included in the overseas count. I. Telephone Questionnaire Assistance and Fulfillment Operation 1. *Telephone Questionnaire Assistance (TQA):* Toll-free telephone numbers (printed on mailback questionnaires) are provided for respondents to obtain information about the 2010 Census in support of data collection activities. Staffers will answer questions about the census questionnaire so that respondents can complete it and mail it back, take an interview over the phone, assist respondents who have difficulty reading or understanding the questionnaire, and accept requests for language guides and questionnaires. 2. *Questionnaire Fulfillment:* When respondents call TQA for forms, staffers will fulfill their requests by mailing census questionnaires in Chinese, English, Korean, Russian, Spanish, or Vietnamese languages. Language assistance guides will be developed in over 50 different languages and be made available to respondents who contact TQA, or can be downloaded from the Internet. J. Field Verification For Be Counted questionnaires that do not possess a Master Address File identification number, the Census Bureau will send enumerators out into the field to verify the existence of those housing units that were assigned to a census block, but did not match an address in the Master Address File. III. Data *OMB Control Number:* 0607-0919. *Form Numbers:* *Letters:* D-5(L), Advance Letter (English, Spanish). D-10(L), Cover Letter for Be Counted Questionnaire (Multilanguage). D-16(L), Cover Letter for Mailback Questionnaire (Multilanguage). D-17(L), Cover Letter for Replacement Mailing. D-25(L), Shipboard Reminder Letter. D-36(L), Shipboard 2nd Reminder Letter. D-47(L) PR, Letter to Shipmaster for American Flag Vessels. D-48(L), Letter to Shipboard Operators. D-55(L), Cover Letter for Overseas Personnel and Dependents Counts by State of Residence. D-350(L), GQ Access Letter. *Questionnaires:* D-1, Census Questionnaire (Multilanguage). D-10, Be Counted (Multilanguage). D-15, Enumeration of Transitory Locations (English, Spanish). D-20, Individual Census Report (English, Spanish). D-21, Military Census Report. D-23, Shipboard Census Report. D-351, Group Quarters Validation. *Postcard:* D-9, Reminder Postcard (English, Spanish). *Notices:* D-26, Notice of Visit—Puerto Rico (English, Spanish). D-31, Privacy Act Notice—Puerto Rico (English, Spanish). *Electronic Data Collection Instrument:* D-1302I, Coverage Follow-Up Telephone Interview Instrument (English, Spanish). D-1400I, TQA Telephone Interview Instrument (English, Spanish). D-1500I, Nonresponse Followup Instrument (English, Spanish). D-1501I, NRFU Reinterview Instrument (English, Spanish). D-1502I, NRFU Vacant Delete Check Instrument (English, Spanish). *Type of Review:* Regular Submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or Households. *Estimated Number of Respondents (Stateside and Puerto Rico (PR)):* Short form 133,700,000 households; Reinterview—2,100,000 households. *Estimated Time Per Response:* Short Form—10 minutes; Reinterview—10 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* Short Form—22,283,333 hours; Reinterview—350,000 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $0. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *Legal Authority:* Title 13 U.S.C. Sections 141 and 193. 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: March 20, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-6047 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census Census Advisory Committee of Professional Associations AGENCY: Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: The Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) is giving notice of a meeting of the Census Advisory Committee of Professional Associations. The Committee will address policy, research, and technical issues related to 2010 Decennial Census Programs. The Committee will also discuss several economic initiatives and demographic program topics, as well as issues pertaining to 2010 communications. Last-minute changes to the agenda are possible, which could prevent giving advance public notice of schedule adjustments. DATES: April 10-11, 2008. On April 10, the meeting will begin at approximately 8:15 a.m. and adjourn at approximately 5 p.m. On April 11, the meeting will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m. and adjourn at approximately 11:30 a.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, Maryland 20746. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeri Green, Committee Liaison Officer, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room-8H153, Washington, DC 20233. Her telephone number is
(301)763-6590, TDD
(301)457-2540. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Census Advisory Committee of Professional Associations is composed of 36 members, appointed by the presidents of the American Economic Association, the American Statistical Association, the Population Association of America, and the Chairperson of the Board of the American Marketing Association. The Committee addresses Census Bureau programs and activities related to each respective association's area of expertise. The Committee has been established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section 10(a)(b)). The meeting is open to the public, and a brief period is set aside for public comment and questions. Persons with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing at least three days before the meeting to the Committee Liaison Officer named above. Seating is available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis. This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should also be directed to the Committee Liaison Officer. Dated: March 21, 2008. Steve H. Murdock, Director, Bureau of the Census. [FR Doc. E8-6202 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security [Docket No. 080229350-8450-03] Request for Public Comments on Crime Control License Requirements in the Export Administration Regulations AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Inquiry, Correction. SUMMARY: This notice corrects a transposition error in the address for submitting comments to a notice of inquiry published on March 19, 2007 (73 FR 14769). The reference to room H-7205 should have read H-2705. As corrected, the final sentence of the addresses paragraph reads: ADDRESSES: * * * Comments may also be submitted by e-mail directly to BIS at *publiccomments@bis.doc.gov* or on paper to U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Regulatory Policy Division, Room H-2705, Washington DC 20230. Dated: March 20, 2008 Eileen Albanese, Director, Office of Exporter Services. [FR Doc. E8-6175 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-602-806) Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Australia AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that imports of electrolytic manganese dioxide from Australia are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. We will make our final determination within 75 days after the date of this preliminary determination. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hermes Pinilla or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3477 or
(202)482-1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 17, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** the initiation of antidumping duty investigations of electrolytic manganese dioxide from Australia and the People's Republic of China. *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Australia and the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 52850 (September 17, 2007) ( *Initiation Notice* ). The Department set aside a period for all interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encouraged all interested parties to submit such comments within 20 days from publication of the initiation notice, that is, by October 9, 2007. *See Initiation Notice* , 72 FR at 52851; see also *Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997) (Final Rule). On October 24, 2007, the United States International Trade Commission
(ITC)preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that imports of electrolytic manganese dioxide from Australia are materially injuring the U.S. industry and the ITC notified the Department of its findings. See *Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Australia and the People's Republic of China, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1124 1125 (Preliminary)* , 72 FR 60388-60389 (October 24, 2007) ( *ITC Preliminary Notice* ). On January 15, 2008, we postponed the deadline for the preliminary determinations under section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act by 50 days to March 19, 2008. See *Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Australia and the People's Republic of China* , 73 FR 2445 (January 15, 2008). Period of Investigation The period of investigation
(POI)is July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007. Scope of Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation includes all manganese dioxide
(MnO2)that has been manufactured in an electrolysis process, whether in powder, chip, or plate form (EMD). Excluded from the scope are natural manganese dioxide
(NMD)and chemical manganese dioxide (CMD). The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 2820.10.00.00. While the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Scope Comments In accordance with the preamble to our regulations, we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage in the *Initiation Notice* and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the *Initiation Notice* . See *Final Rule* , 62 FR at 27323. We did not receive comments from any interested parties in this investigation. Respondent Identification Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate individual weighted-average dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the subject merchandise. Section 777A(c)(2) of the Act also gives the Department discretion to examine a reasonable number of such exporters and producers when it is not practicable to examine all exporters and producers. In order to identify the universe of producers/exporters in Australia to investigate for purposes of this less-than-fair-value investigation on EMD, we analyzed information from various sources, including data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Using information obtained from the petition, an internet search, and CBP statistical information on U.S. imports of EMD during the POI, we identified one respondent, Delta Australia Pty Ltd (Delta). For a detailed analysis of our respondent-identification procedure, see Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill, “Antidumping Duty Investigation on Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Australia Respondent Identification,” dated October 25, 2007, on file in the Central Records Unit
(CRU)in room 1117. Delta On October 31, 2007, we issued a questionnaire to Delta and requested that it respond by December 7, 2007. On November 27, 2007, we granted Delta an extension until December 28, 2007, to respond to all sections of the questionnaire. On December 28, 2007, we received Delta's sections A and C responses. We granted Delta an extension until February 8, 2008, to respond to sections B and D of the questionnaire. On January 31, 2008, we received a letter from Delta explaining that, due to the closing of its plant facility in Australia, it did not have resources to provide adequate responses to the questionnaire or to continue active participation in this investigation. Thus, Delta did not submit any further questionnaire responses, including sections B and D due on February 8, 2008, or a response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire (sections A and C) due on February 14, 2008. Use of Adverse Facts Available For the reasons discussed below, we determine that the use of adverse facts available
(AFA)is appropriate for the preliminary determination with respect to Delta. A. Use of Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party withholds information requested by the administering authority, fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the information and in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782 of the Act, significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(e) of the Act states further that the Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are met:
(1)the information is submitted by the established deadline;
(2)the information can be verified;
(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;
(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and
(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. On January 31, 2008, forty-eight days before the Department's preliminary determination, Delta informed the Department that it did not have resources to continue active participation in the instant investigation. See Letter from Delta, “Notification of Intent Not to Participate Due to Closure of Australian EMD Facility” (January 31, 2008). Because Delta ceased participation in the instant investigation, Delta did not provide pertinent information necessary to calculate an antidumping margin for the preliminary determination. Specifically, Delta did not respond to sections B and D of the Department's questionnaire and did not respond to the January 30, 2008, supplemental questionnaire concerning its already-filed responses to sections A and C. Thus, by not providing the pertinent information we requested that is necessary to calculate an antidumping margin for the preliminary determination, Delta has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, we find that the application of total facts available for Delta is warranted in this preliminary determination. B. Application of Adverse Inferences for Facts Available In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the administering authority finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority, in reaching the applicable determination under this title, the administering authority may use an inference adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. See, *e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Japan* , 65 FR 42985, 42986 (July 12, 2000) ( *CSSSHP Final Determination* ) (the Department applied total AFA where the respondent failed to respond to the antidumping questionnaire). Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” See, *e.g., Statement of Administrative Action* accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 103-316, at 870
(1994)( *SAA* ). Furthermore, “affirmative evidence of bad faith, or willfulness, on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” See *Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties* , 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). Although the Department provided Delta with 58 days to respond to sections A and C of the questionnaire and 93 days to respond to sections B and D of the questionnaire, Delta did not respond adequately to the Department's questionnaire. While Delta has provided a reason for not participating in this investigation, this constitutes a failure on the part of Delta to cooperate to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information by the Department within the meaning of sections 776(b) and 782(d) of the Act. Because Delta did not provide the information requested, section 782(e) of the Act is not applicable. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is warranted. See, *e.g., CSSSHP Final Determination* , 65 FR at 42986. C. Selection and Corroboration of Information Used as Facts Available Where the Department applies AFA because a respondent 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 authorizes the Department to rely on information derived from the petition, a final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. See also 19 CFR 351.308(c). It is the Department's practice to use the highest calculated rate from the petition in an investigation when a respondent fails to act to the best of its ability to provide the necessary information and there are no other respondents. See, *e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland* , 69 FR 77216, 77218 (December 27, 2004) (unchanged in final determination, 70 FR 28279 (May 17, 2005)). Therefore, because an adverse inference is warranted, we have assigned Delta a rate of 120.59 percent based on the rate alleged in the petition, as recalculated in this preliminary determination and discussed below. See *Antidumping Duty Petitions on Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Australia and the People's Republic of China* (August 22, 2007) ( *Petition* ), September 4, 2007, Supplements to the Petition (addressing the Department's requests for additional information and clarification on certain areas in the *Petition), Initiation Notice* , 72 FR at 52854, and the Preliminary Determination Analysis Memorandum (March 19, 2008). When using facts otherwise available, section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information (such as the petition) rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation, it must corroborate, to the extent practicable, information from independent sources that are reasonably available at its disposal. The *SAA* clarifies that “corroborate” means the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See *SAA* at 870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information used. See *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews* , 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (unchanged in final results, 62 FR 11825, 11843 (March 13, 1997)). The Department's regulations state that independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. See 19 CFR 351.308(d). For the purposes of this investigation, to the extent appropriate information was available, we reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the *Petition* during our pre-initiation analysis and again for purposes of this preliminary determination. See *Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Australia* (September 11, 2007) (Australia Initiation Checklist). We examined evidence supporting the calculations in the *Petition* to determine the probative value of the margins alleged in the *Petition* for use as AFA for purposes of this preliminary determination. During our pre-initiation analysis, we examined the key elements of the export-price and normal-value calculations used in the *Petition* to derive margins. During our pre-initiation analysis, we also examined information from various independent sources provided either in the Petition or in the supplements to the *Petition* that corroborates key elements of the export-price and normal-value calculation used in the *Petition* to derive an estimated margin. U.S. Price The petitioner calculated a single U.S. price using the POI-average unit customs values
(AUVs)for U.S. import data, as reported on the ITC's Dataweb for the POI. The petitioner deducted an amount for foreign inland-freight costs. See *Petition* , at Exhibit 11, Supplemental Responses at Exhibit R, and *Australia Initiation Checklist* , at 5-6. The petitioner provided an affidavit from an individual attesting to the validity of the inland-freight costs it used in the calculation of net U.S. price. See *Petition* , at Exhibit 13. In calculating the export price, the petitioner relied exclusively on AUV data with respect to U.S. imports from Australia under the HTSUS number 2820.10.00.00. This HTSUS number is a “basket category” as it includes both subject EMD and non-subject CMD and NMD. The petitioner used PIERS data to demonstrate that the imports under HTSUS number 2820.10.00.00 are, in fact, overwhelmingly subject merchandise because PIERS provides more specific product-identification information than official U.S. Census data as reported on the ITC's Dataweb import statistics. See *Petition* , at Exhibit 10. U.S. official import statistics are sources that we consider reliable and thus require no further corroboration. See, *e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Superalloy Degassed Chromium from Japan* , 70 FR 48538 (August 18, 2005), and Memorandum to the File from Dmitry Vladimirov entitled “Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Superalloy Degassed Chromium from Japan: Corroboration of Total Adverse Facts Available Rate,” at 3, August 11, 2005 ( *Chromium from Japan* ) (unchanged in final determination, 70 FR 65886 (November 1, 2005)). In addition, the petitioner provided information that indicates that there are no producers of CMD or NMD in Australia and that the majority of imports under this HTSUS number are from a company that only produces EMD. Further, we obtained no other information that would make us question the reliability of the pricing information provided in the *Petition* . Based on our examination of the aforementioned information, we consider the petitioner's calculation of net U.S. prices to be reliable and relevant. Because the rate is both reliable and relevant it is corroborated. On February 19, 2008, the petitioner provided comments with respect to U.S. price. Specifically, the petitioner requests that the Department adjust the petition rate by using information in Delta's U.S. database to calculate net U.S. price. The petitioner argues that the Department should use Delta's U.S. database to derive U.S. price because it is more accurate than the information contained in the petition. According to the petitioner, using this information will ensure that Delta is not unfairly rewarded for its failure to cooperate in this investigation. Because we have not had an opportunity to confirm that we would be relying upon accurate information for purposes of calculating a dumping margin as accurately as possible in the instant case, we find information contained in Delta's U.S. database to be unreliable in this investigation. See sections 776(a)(2) and 782(i) of the Act. As such, we have preliminarily determined not to use any data submitted by Delta in this proceeding. Normal Value With respect to normal value, the petitioner provided information that there were no sales in commercial quantities of EMD in the home market during the POI and that home-market prices were not reasonably available. The petitioner proposed Japan as the largest third-country comparison market and demonstrated that Japan is a viable third-country market. See *Petition* , at Exhibit 15. The petitioner provided Global Trade Atlas EMD import data for exports from Australia into Japan and compared them with U.S. EMD import data for imports from Australia. According to these figures, the sales volume to Japan was greater than five percent of the sales volume to the United States. The petitioner compared third-country prices with an estimate of the cost of producing EMD in powder form by Delta. Because these data indicated that sales of EMD were made at prices below the product's cost of production (COP), pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioner based normal value for sales of EMD in Japan on constructed value. Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, the COP consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM), selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), and packing expenses. To calculate the COM, the petitioner relied on its own costs during the 2006 fiscal year, adjusted for known differences between the costs in the United States and the costs in Australia. The petitioner obtained all of the cost differences between the United States and Australia that were used to calculate the COM from public sources. The petitioner used its own factory-overhead costs
(FOH)as a conservative estimate of the Australian FOH. This is because the petitioner's facilities are older than Delta's and would thus likely have lower depreciation because more of the assets making up the petitioner's facilities would likely have reached the end of their service lives and, thus, have no book value. Because Delta's unconsolidated financial statements were not reasonably available, the petitioner used the financial statements of an Australian zinc producer because, it asserted, zinc undergoes a production process similar to EMD. For purposes of the *Initiation Notice* , we adjusted the petitioner's calculation of SG&A and profit ratios by using information from Delta PLC's consolidated financial statement pertinent to the Australian EMD segment of its business. We used Delta PLC's financial records because these records included Delta's actual costs of producing the merchandise under consideration. See *Australia Initiation Checklist* for a full description of the petitioner's methodology and the adjustments we made to those calculations for the initiation decision. In the *Australia Initiation Checklist* , we stated that the petitioner provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of EMD were made at prices below the fully absorbed COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. See *Australia Initiation Checklist* , at 7. Consequently, we found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product were made below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, we initiated a country-wide, sales-below-cost investigation. With regard to profit, we stated in our *Australia Initiation Checklist* that we did not include an amount for profit in our calculation of constructed value because the manganese segment of Delta PLC had a net loss for the year ending 2006. See *Australia Initiation Checklist* , at 9. We also stated that we would examine different options for calculating a profit later in this proceeding if it becomes necessary to calculate a constructed value from the *Petition* information. *Id* . at 9. Section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act requires the Department to use the amounts incurred and realized for SG&A and for profits based on any other reasonable method if actual data are not available with respect to SG&A and profit. In accordance with our practice, to determine an appropriate profit rate we have considered several factors in the instant case: 1) the similarity of the potential surrogate company's business operations and products to Delta's; 2) the contemporaneity of the surrogate data to the POI. See *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From Israel* , 66 FR 49349 (September 27, 2001), and the accompanying *Decision Memorandum* at Comment 8. The greater the similarity in business operations and products, the more likely that there is a greater correlation in the profit experience of the two companies. Contemporaneity is important because markets change over time and the more current the data the more reflective it would be of the market in which the respondent is operating. *Id* . In its February 19, 2008, comments the petitioner requested that the Department adjust the petition rate by adding an amount for profit to the calculation of constructed value. The petitioner asserts that, in situations such as those found in this case, the Department's general practice is to assign to the non-cooperating respondent the highest margin alleged in the petition, as an adverse inference, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act. The petitioner argues that, although the petition rate was based on constructed value, in its notice of initiation of the investigation the Department did not apply an amount for profit in its constructed-value recalculation and indicated explicitly that it would correct this deficiency if it became necessary to apply adverse inferences using the petition rate. The petitioner asserts that, because Delta is the only EMD producer in Australia and because Delta PLC's 2007 interim report indicates that its EMD division is still generating an operating loss, the Department has essentially two options for identifying a usable profit rate for recalculating constructed value. Specifically, the petitioner argues, the Department can either use the profit rate of Zinifex Limited, an Australian producer of merchandise comparable to EMD, or use the profit rate of a non-Australian EMD producer. The petitioner contends that, if the Department decides to use the profit rate of an Australian producer of comparable merchandise, it recommends that the Department use the profit rate contained in the 2007 Annual Report of Zinifex Limited. See Petitioner's Submission, “Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Australia; Application of Facts Available for Preliminary Determination” at 5 (February 19, 2008). Citing *Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation* , 72 FR 38816, 38820 (July 16, 2007), the petitioner argues that the Department has an established practice of accepting surrogate financial ratios of comparable companies in the same country for purposes of initiation. The petitioner asserts that, if the Department decides to apply the surrogate profit rate of an EMD producer, then the Department must look to contemporaneous information for a company located outside Australia. The petitioner claims that it is aware of only one EMD producer in India that had a positive profit during the relevant period. Based on the information on the record, we have preliminarily determined to use Zinifex Limited as a surrogate company from which to select a reasonable profit rate for use in the calculation of constructed value. For purposes of contemporaneity, we derived the surrogate profit rate from Zinifex Limited's 2006 financial statement. Using this statement as a source for a profit rate ensures that the data is contemporaneous with the data used in the *Petition* , which was based solely on 2006 cost experience. Our decision to use Zinifex Limited was based on the fact that it is an Australian zinc producer with similar production processes to that of EMD production, which involves electrolysis. Specifically, both production processes use the electrolytic process to produce zinc. See *Petition* at page 21 and Exhibit 8. Using Zinifex Limited's financial statements yields a profit rate of 44.27 percent. See Preliminary Determination Analysis Memorandum (March 19, 2008). Because the petitioner had demonstrated, and we confirmed, the validity of the input-usage quantities it used in its COP/constructed value build-up, used public sources of information, such as official import statistics that we confirmed were accurate to value inputs of production, and used Delta PLC's (Delta's consolidated parent company) audited financial statements, which are publicly available, to compute Delta's finance expense that we confirmed were accurate, we consider the petitioner's calculation of normal value, based on constructed value, to be reliable. With regard to SG&A, as stated above, we recalculated the petitioner's calculation using Delta PLC's audited financial statements. In addition, with regard to profit, we calculated a profit rate using Zinifex Limited's audited financial statements, which are publicly available. Zinifex Limited is an Australian producer of comparable merchandise and thus its business operations and products are similar to that of the respondent's in the instant case. Further, we consider the petitioner's calculation of normal value corroborated because the bulk of the calculations relied on publicly available information or import statistics that do not require further corroboration. Therefore, because we confirmed the accuracy and validity of the information underlying the derivation of the margin we have calculated in this preliminary determination by examining source documents as well as publicly available information, we preliminarily determine that the margin based on the rate alleged in the *Petition* , as recalculated in this preliminary determination, is reliable for the purposes of this investigation. In making a determination as to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in *Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin as “best information available” (the predecessor to “facts available”) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense that resulted in an unusually high dumping margin. In Am. *Silicon Techs. v. United States* , 273 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1346 (CIT 2003), the court found that the AFA rate bore a “rational relationship” to the respondent's “commercial practices,” and was, therefore, relevant. In the pre-initiation stage of this investigation, we confirmed that the calculation of the margin in the *Petition* reflects commercial practices of the particular industry during the POI. Further, no information has been presented in the investigation that calls into question the relevance of this information. As such, we preliminarily determine that the margin based on the rate alleged in the *Petition* , as recalculated in this preliminary determination, is relevant as the AFA rate for Delta in this investigation. Similar to our position in *Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 53405, 53407 (September 11, 2006) (unchanged in final results, 72 FR 1982 (January 17, 2007)), because this is the first proceeding involving Delta, there are no probative alternatives. Accordingly, by using information that was corroborated in the pre-initiation stage of this investigation and preliminarily determined to be relevant to Delta in this investigation, we have corroborated the AFA rate “to the extent practicable.” See section 776(c) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.308(d), and *NSK Ltd. v. United States* , 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1336 (CIT 2004) (stating that “pursuant to the to the extent practicable' language...the corroboration requirement itself is not mandatory when not feasible”). Therefore, we find that the estimated margin of 120.59 percent we have calculated in this preliminary determination has probative value. Consequently, in selecting AFA with respect to Delta, we have applied the margin rate of 120.59 percent, the highest estimated dumping margin set forth in this investigation. See Preliminary Determination Analysis Memorandum (March 19, 2008). Delta filed comments on the application of AFA and selection of a profit rate on March 11, 2008. We considered those comments for purposes of this preliminary determination. We will address comments parties raise in their case briefs in our final determination. Targeted Dumping On January 17, 2008, Tronox LCC (the petitioner) filed a targeted-dumping allegation concerning Delta under section 777A(d)(I)(B) of the Act. Because Delta decided not to participate in this investigation for the reasons stated above and, therefore, we have applied AFA to its exports, we find the issue of targeted dumping to be moot and have not addressed it in this preliminary determination. All-Others Rate Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that, where the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or *de minimis* margins or are determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. This provision contemplates that, if the data do not permit weight-averaging margins other than the zero, *de minimis* , or total facts-available margins, the Department may use any other reasonable methods. See also *SAA* , at 873. Because the petition contained only one estimated dumping margin and because there are no other respondents in this investigation, there are no additional estimated margins available with which to create the all-others rate. Therefore, we are using the preliminary determination margin of 120.59 percent as the all-others rate. In addition, because Delta provided incomplete information on the record that we were unable to verify, we were unable to calculate a margin for the all-others rate. Critical Circumstances A. Delta On February 19, 2008, the petitioner requested that the Department make a finding that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of EMD from Australia. The petitioner alleged that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with respect to the subject merchandise. The petitioner based its allegation on evidence of massive imports of subject merchandise for the post-petition period of September through December 2007. Because this allegation was filed earlier than the deadline for the preliminary determination, we must issue our preliminary critical-circumstances determination not later than the preliminary determination. See 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2). Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or
(ii)the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, and
(B)there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. In determining whether the relevant statutory criteria have been satisfied, the Department considered the evidence presented in the petitioner's February 19, 2008, submission and the *ITC Preliminary Notice* . To determine whether there is a history of injurious dumping of the merchandise under investigation, in accordance with section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department normally considers evidence of an existing antidumping duty order on the subject merchandise in the United States or elsewhere to be sufficient. See, *e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From India* , 71 FR 19706 (April 17, 2006) (unchanged in final determination, 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006)). The petitioner has made no statement concerning a history of dumping of EMD from Australia. Moreover, we are not aware of any antidumping duty order on EMD from Australia in any other country. Therefore, the Department finds no history of injurious dumping of EMD from Australia pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. To determine whether the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value, in accordance with section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for export-price sales or 15 percent or more for constructed export-price
(CEP)transactions sufficient to impute knowledge of dumping. See, * e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China * , 62 FR 61964, 61966 (November 20, 1997)). For the reasons explained above, we have assigned a margin of 120.59 percent to Delta. Based on this margin, we have imputed importer knowledge of dumping for imports from Delta. In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that an importer knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports, consistent with section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, normally the Department will look to the preliminary injury determination of the ITC. See, *e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Japan* , 64 FR 30574, 30578 (June 8, 1999) ( *Stainless Steel from Japan* ). The ITC preliminarily found a reasonable indication of material injury to the domestic industry due to imports of EMD from Australia which are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and, on this basis, the Department may impute knowledge of likelihood of injury to this respondent. See *ITC Preliminary Notice* , 72 FR at 60388. Thus, we determine that the knowledge criterion for ascertaining whether critical circumstances exist has been satisfied. Because Delta has met the first prong of the critical-circumstances test, according to section 733(e)(1)(A) of the Act we must examine whether imports from Delta were massive over a relatively short period of time. Section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the Department will preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been “massive,” the Department normally will examine the volume and value of the imports, seasonal trends, and the share of domestic consumption for which the imports accounted. In addition, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2) provides that an increase in imports of 15 percent during the “relatively short period” of time may be considered “massive.” Section 351.206(i) of the Department's regulations defines “relatively short period” as normally being the period beginning on the date the proceeding begins ( *i.e.* , the date on which the petition is filed) and ending at least three months later. The Department's regulations also provide that, if the Department finds that importers, exporters, or producers had reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, the Department may consider a period of not less than three months from that earlier time. Because we do not have verifiable data from Delta, we must base our “massive imports” determination on the facts available, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act. 1 Because Delta failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to respond fully to our questionnaires, we may make an adverse inference in selecting the facts available, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. 1 Because Delta did not respond fully to our questionnaires, we consider Delta a non-cooperating respondent and, accordingly, we did not request monthly shipment data from Delta, consistent with our practice. See *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Wax and Wax/Resin Thermal Transfer Ribbons from Japan* , 68 FR at 71078 (December 22, 2003) (TTR from Japan) (unchanged in final determination, 69 FR 11834 (March 12, 2004)). The Department's long-standing practice is to rely on respondent-specific shipment data to determine whether imports were massive in the context of critical-circumstance determinations. Where such information does not exist because of the respondent's failure to cooperate to the best of its ability in the course of the investigation, the Department normally makes an adverse inference that imports were massive during the relevant time period. We do not normally rely on publicly available import data as facts available in such circumstances because such data are imprecise and often reflect the activity of multiple exporters and products, *i.e.* , subject merchandise may have entered the United States during the relevant period under a broad HTSUS category. In this case, however, we are presented with unique circumstances such that Delta is the only known exporter of EMD from Australia and public information indicates that imports under the respective HTSUS category are of subject merchandise. Moreover, the data demonstrate that imports of merchandise produced and exported by Delta were massive over a relatively short period. Thus, under these unique circumstances, the Department believes it appropriate to rely on import data, as facts available with an adverse inference, in determining whether the massive-imports requirement for the critical-circumstances determination has been met with respect to Delta. Based on our determination that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the importer knew or should have known that Delta was selling EMD from Australia at less than fair value, that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such dumped imports, and that there have been massive imports of EMD from Delta over a relatively short period, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist for imports from Australia of EMD produced by Delta. Delta filed comments on critical circumstances on March 10, 2008. We considered those comments for purposes of this preliminary determination. We will address any comments parties raise in their case briefs in our final determination. B. All Others It is the Department's normal practice to conduct its critical-circumstances analysis of companies in the all-others group based on the experience of investigated companies. See, *e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey* , 62 FR 9737, 9741 (March 4, 1997), where the Department found that critical circumstances existed for the majority of the companies investigated and concluded that critical circumstances also existed for companies covered by the all-others rate. As we determined in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Japan* , 64 FR 24329, 24338 (May 6, 1999), applying that approach literally could produce anomalous results in certain cases. Thus, in deciding whether critical circumstances apply to companies covered by the all-others rate, the Department also considers the traditional critical-circumstances criteria. First, in determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that an importer knew or should have known that the exporter was selling EMD at less than fair value, we look to the all-others rate. See *TTR from Japan* , 68 FR at 71077. The dumping margin for the all-others category, 120.59 percent, is greater than the 25-percent threshold necessary to impute knowledge of dumping consistent with section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act. Second, based on the ITC's preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication of material injury, we also find that importers knew or should have known that there would be material injury from the dumped merchandise, consistent with 19 CFR 351.206. See *ITC Preliminary Notice* , 72 FR at 60388. Finally, with respect to massive imports, we are unable to base our determination on our findings for Delta because our determination for Delta was based on AFA. We have not inferred, as AFA, that massive imports exist for companies under the all-others category, because, unlike the uncooperative company in question, the all-others companies have not failed to cooperate in this investigation. Therefore, an adverse inference with respect to finding a massive surge in imports by the all-others companies is not appropriate. In addition, the record indicates that the only producer of EMD from Australia is Delta. See “Antidumping Duty Investigation on Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Australia Respondent Identification,” October 25, 2007. Thus, we determine that there were no massive imports from companies in the all-others category. Consequently, the criteria necessary for determining affirmative critical circumstances with respect to the all-others category have not been met. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that critical circumstances do not exist for imports of EMD from Australia for companies in the all-others category, as there were no shipments of the foreign like product from any other companies during the relevant period. Preliminary Determination We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007: Manufacturer or Exporter Margin (percent) Delta 120.59 All Others 120.59 Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of EMD from Australia that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Additionally, for Delta we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of entries made on or after 90 days prior to the publication of this notice in accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act. We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the margins, as indicated in the chart above, as follows:
(1)the rate for Delta will be 120.59 percent;
(2)if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation but the producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise;
(3)the rate for all other producers or exporters will be 120.59 percent. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value. If our final antidumping determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine whether the imports covered by that determination are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the U.S. industry. The deadline for the Commission's determination would be the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the date of our final determination, pursuant to section 735(b)(2) of the Act. Public Comment Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted no later than 50 days after the publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs must be filed within five days after the deadline for submission of case briefs, consistent with 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing is made in an investigation, the hearing normally will be held two days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. See 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should specify the number of participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. We will not be conducting a verification of Delta's responses because it has failed to file responses to all of our questionnaires, as discussed above in the Use of Adverse Facts Available section of this notice. Therefore, the deadline for submission of factual information in 19 CFR 351.301(b)(1) is not applicable. Thus, the deadline for submission of factual information in this investigation will be seven days after the date of publication of this notice. We will make our final determination within 75 days after the date of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(1) of the Act. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 19, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-6167 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-919 Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 26, 2008. SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that electrolytic manganese dioxide (“EMD”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Pursuant to a request from an interested party, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination not later than 135 days after publication of the preliminary determination. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Degnan or Robert Bolling, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0414 or 482-3434, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History On August 22, 2007, Tronox LLC (“Tronox” or “Petitioner”), filed a petition in proper form on behalf of the domestic industry, concerning imports of EMD from the PRC (“Petition”). The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated this investigation on September 11, 2007. 1 In the *Notice of Initiation* , the Department applied a process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate-rate status in non-market economy (“NME”) investigations. The process requires exporters and producers to submit a separate-rate status application (“SRA”). 2 However, the standard for eligibility for a separate rate (which is whether a firm can demonstrate an absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* government control over its export activities) has not changed. The SRA for this investigation was posted on the Department's website *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html* on September 19, 2007. The due date for filing an SRA was November 9, 2007. No party filed an SRA in this investigation. 1 *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Australia and the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 52850 (September 17, 2007) (“ *Notice of Initiation* ”). 2 *See* Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (“ *Policy Bulletin 05.1* ”), available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. On September 25, 2007, we sent a letter to interested parties requesting comments regarding the physical characteristics to be used in our Questionnaire. On October 9, 2007, Petitioner submitted comments. No other party submitted comments. On October 18, 2007, the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of EMD from the PRC. 3 3 *See Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1124 and1125 (Preliminary): Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Australia and China* , 72 FR 60388 (October 24, 2007). On October 16, 2007, the Department issued its respondent selection memorandum, selecting Guizhou Redstar Developing Import and Export Company, Ltd. (“Redstar”) and Xiangtan Electrochemical Scientific Ltd. (“Xiangtan”) as mandatory respondents in this investigation. 4 On November 6, 2007, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to the two above-named mandatory respondents. On November 27, 2007, Xiangtan submitted a letter to the Department stating that it would not participate in the investigation. 4 *See* Memorandum to Wendy Frankel, “Respondent Selection Memorandum: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from the People's Republic of China” (October 16, 2007) (“Respondent Selection Memorandum”). *See also* “Selection of Respondents” section below. On November 28, 2007, the Department requested that the Office of Policy provide a list of surrogate countries for this investigation. 5 On December 5, 2007, Redstar submitted its Section A response. On December 20, 2007, the Office of Policy issued its list of surrogate countries. 6 On December 28, 2007, Redstar submitted its Sections C and D responses. On January 15, 2008, subsequent to a request from Petitioner submitted on December 31, 2007, the Department extended the time period for issuing the preliminary determination by 50 days. 7 On January 23, 2008, the Department released a letter to interested parties requesting comments on the appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation and for publicly available information to value factors of production (“FOP”). On February 6, 2008, Petitioner submitted comments on surrogate country selection. On February 20, 2008, both Petitioner and Redstar submitted publicly available information to value FOPs. 5 *See* Memorandum to Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, “Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Electrlytic Manganese Dioxide from the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’), Surrogate Country Selection List” (November 28, 2007). 6 *See* Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries” (December 20, 2007) (“Surrogate Countries Memorandum”). 7 *See Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Australia and the People's Republic of China* , 73 FR 2445(January 15, 2008). Period of Investigation The period of investigation (“POI”) is January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2007. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which was September 2007. 8 8 *See* 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). Scope of Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation includes all manganese dioxide (MnO 2 ) that has been manufactured in an electrolysis process, whether in powder, chip, or plate form. Excluded from the scope are natural manganese dioxide
(NMD)and chemical manganese dioxide (CMD). The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheading 2820.10.00.00. While the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Scope Comments In accordance with the preamble to our regulations, 9 in our initiation notice, we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the initiation notice. No party submitted comments on the scope of this investigation. 9 *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties* , 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). Selection of Respondents Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate individual weighted-average dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the subject merchandise. Section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department discretion, when faced with a large number of exporters/producers, to limit its examination to a reasonable number of such companies if it is not practicable to examine all companies. Where it is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise, this provision permits the Department to investigate either
(1)a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid based on the information available to the Department at the time of selection or
(2)exporters/producers accounting for the largest volume of the merchandise under investigation that can reasonably be examined. After consideration of the complexities expected to arise in this proceeding and the resources available to it, the Department determined that it was not practicable in this investigation to examine all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise. We determined we had the resources to examine two exporters. We further determined to limit our examination to the two exporters accounting for the largest volume of the subject merchandise pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Our analysis indicates that Redstar and Xiangtan are the two largest PRC exporters of subject merchandise by weight, and account for a significant percentage of all exports of the subject merchandise from the PRC during the POI. As a result, we selected these entities as the mandatory respondents in this investigation. 10 10 *See* Respondent Selection Memorandum. Non-Market Economy Country For purposes of initiation, Petitioner submitted an LTFV analysis for the PRC as an NME. 11 The Department considers the PRC an NME. 12 In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. 13 No party has challenged the designation of the PRC as an NME country in this investigation. Therefore, we continue to treat the PRC as an NME country for purposes of this preliminary determination. 11 *See Notice of Initiation* , 72 FR at 52853. 12 *See* , *e.g.* , *Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 30758, 30760 (June 4, 2007), unchanged in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007). 13 *See* , *e.g.* , *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Artist Canvas from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 16116 (March 30, 2006) (“ *Artist Canvas* ”). Surrogate Country When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value (“NV”) on the NME producer's FOPs. The Act further instructs the Department to value FOPs based on the best available information in a surrogate market economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. 14 When valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market economy countries that are:
(1)at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and
(2)significant producers of comparable merchandise. 15 Further, the Department normally values all FOPs in a single surrogate country. 16 The sources of the surrogate values (“SV”) are discussed under the “Normal Value” section below and in the Memorandum to the File, Surrogate Value Memorandum, dated March 19, 2008, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the main Department building. 14 *See* Section 773(c)(1) of the Act. 15 *See* Section 773(c)(4) of the Act. 16 *See* 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2). The Department determined that India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Colombia and Thailand are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. 17 Once the economically comparable countries have been identified, we select an appropriate surrogate country by determining whether one of these countries is a significant producer of comparable merchandise and whether the data for valuing FOPs is both available and reliable. 17 *See* Surrogate Countries Memorandum. We have determined it appropriate to use India as a surrogate country pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act based on the following:
(A)India is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC, and
(B)India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. Furthermore, we have reliable data from India that we can use to value the FOPs. 18 Thus, we have calculated NV using Indian prices when available and appropriate to value Redstar's FOPs. We have obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever possible. 19 18 *Id* . at 2. 19 *See* Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, “Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum” (March 19, 2008) (“Surrogate Value Memorandum”). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final determination in an antidumping investigation, interested parties may submit within 40 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination publicly available information to value the FOPs. 20 20 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final determination of this investigation, interested parties may submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted by an interested party less than ten days before, on, or after the applicable deadline for submission of such factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. The Department generally cannot accept the submission of additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative SV information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). *See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part* , 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Separate Rates In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* government control over export activities. The Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ *Sparklers* ”), as further developed in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ *Silicon Carbide* ”). 21 However, if the Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate-rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government control. No companies in this investigation reported that they are wholly owned by individuals or companies located in a market-economy country and no companies reported that they are located outside the PRC. 21 *See also Policy Bulletin 05.1* at 6, which states: “ [w]hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates’ because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.” The sole participating company in this investigation, Redstar, stated that it is a wholly PRC-owned company. Therefore, the Department must analyze whether Redstar can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* government control over export activities. a. Absence of De Jure Control The Department considers the following *de jure* criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate:
(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;
(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and
(3)other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 22 22 *See* Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. The evidence provided by Redstar supports a preliminary finding of *de jure* absence of government control based on the following:
(1)an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporters' business and export licenses;
(2)there are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and
(3)there are formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 23 23 *See* Redstar's Section A Questionnaire Response, dated December 5, 2007. b. Absence of De Facto Control Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to *de facto* government control of its export functions:
(1)Whether the export prices are set by or are subject to the approval of a government agency;
(2)whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements;
(3)whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and
(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. 24 The Department has determined that an analysis of *de facto* control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. We determine for Redstar that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of *de facto* absence of government control based on record statements and supporting documentation showing the following:
(1)Redstar sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority;
(2)Redstar retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses;
(3)Redstar has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and
(4)Redstar has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. 25 24 *See Silicon Carbide* , 59 FR at 22586-87; *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China* , 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). 25 *See* Redstar's Section A Questionnaire Response, dated December 5, 2007. The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Redstar demonstrates an absence of *de jure* and *de facto* government control with respect to each its exports of the merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in *Sparklers* and *Silicon Carbide* . Application of Facts Available Section 776(a)(1) and
(2)of the Act provides 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,
(C)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 supplied if it can do so without undue difficulties. 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. Such an adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. 26 26 *See* 19 CFR 351.308(c). Application of Total Adverse Facts Available The PRC-Wide Entity On October 16, 2007, we selected Xiangtan as one of the mandatory respondents. On November 6, 2007, we issued our questionnaire to Xiangtan. On November 27, 2007, Xiangtan 1) stated it will not participate in this investigation through the submission of questionnaire responses, 2) stated that it had shredded and/or erased all submissions containing business proprietary information, and 3) requested to be removed from the APO service list. Thus, there is no information on the record of this investigation with respect to Xiangtan. Because Xiangtan was selected as a mandatory respondent and failed to demonstrate its eligibility for separate-rate status, it remains subject to this investigation as part of the PRC-wide entity. Pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, we further find that because the PRC-wide entity (including Xiangtan) failed to respond to the Department's questionnaires, withheld or failed to provide information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested by the Department, and otherwise impeded the proceeding, it is appropriate to apply a dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity using the facts otherwise available on the record. Additionally, because this party failed to cooperate by refusing to respond to our requests for information, we find an adverse inference is appropriate pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act for the PRC-wide entity. Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate In sum, because the PRC-wide entity failed to respond to our request for information, it has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference is appropriate pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act for the PRC-wide entity. Further, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available (“AFA”) information derived from the petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” 27 Moreover, the Department will select a rate that ensures “that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” 28 27 *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). 28 *See Statement of Administrative Action* at 870. *See also, Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Administrative Review; Final Results of the Eleventh New Shipper Review* , 70 FR 69937, 69939 (November 18, 2005). It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the higher of the
(a)highest margin alleged in the petition, or
(b)the highest calculated rate of any respondent in the investigation. 29 In the instant investigation, as AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-wide entity a margin of 236.81 percent, the highest calculated rate on the record of this proceeding, which is the calculated rate assigned to Redstar. The Department preliminarily determines that this information is the most appropriate from the available sources to effectuate the purposes of AFA. 29 *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's Republic of China* , 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Facts Available.” Consequently, we are applying a single antidumping rate - the PRC-wide rate - to all exporters which did not demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate, *i.e.* , all exporters other than Redstar. The Department will consider all margins on the record at the time of the final determination for the purpose of determining the most appropriate final PRC-wide margin. 30 30 *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin from the People's Republic of China* , 67 FR 79049, 79054 (December 27, 2002). Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of EMD to the United States by Redstar were made at LTFV, we compared Export Price (“EP”) to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Export Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under section 772(c) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for Red Star because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to importation and because constructed export price was not otherwise warranted. We calculated EP based on the packed cost and freight or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for any movement expenses (foreign inland freight from the plant to the warehouse, domestic brokerage, and international freight) and a discount in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 31 31 For a detailed description of all adjustments, *see* Memorandum to the File, “Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from the People's Republic of China: Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination: Guizhou Redstar Developing Import and Export Company Ltd. (March 19, 2008) (“Redstar's Preliminary Analysis Memorandum”). Normal Value We compared NV to weighted-average EPs in accordance with section 777A(d)(1) of the Act. Further, section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the NV using a FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on the FOPs because the presence of government controls on various aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under its normal methodologies. The Department's questionnaire requires that the respondent provide information regarding the weighted-average FOPs across all of the company's plants that produce the subject merchandise, not just the FOPs from a single plant. This methodology ensures that the Department's calculations are as accurate as possible. 32 The Department calculated the FOPs using the weighted-average factor values for all of the facilities involved in producing the subject merchandise for the exporter. The Department calculated NV for each matching control number (“CONNUM”) based on the FOPs reported from the exporter's supplier. 32 *See* , *e.g.* , *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China* , 68 FR 61395 (October 28, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 19. Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on FOPs reported by the respondent for the POI. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available Indian SVs. In selecting the SVs, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import SVs a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory of production or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory of production, where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Federal Circuit's decision in *Sigma Corp. v. United States* , 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all SVs used can be found in the Surrogate Value Memorandum and Redstar's Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. For this preliminary determination, in accordance with the Department's practice, we used import values from the World Trade Atlas® online (“Indian Import Statistics”), which were published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics, Ministry of Commerce of India, which were reported in rupees and are contemporaneous with the POI to calculate SVs for the mandatory respondent's material inputs. Where we found Indian Import Statistics to be unavailable or unreliable, we used information from *Chemical Weekly* , an Indian trade publication. In selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice is to select, to the extent practicable, SVs which are non-export average values, most contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. 33 33 *See* , *e.g.* , *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in the final determination ( *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004)). Redstar reported that its supplier of EMD owns its own manganese carbonite mine, and therefore we should value manganese carbonite using the FOPs consumed to mine the ore. Our analysis of the relationship between Redstar's producer and the mine, however, indicates that the producer's and the mine's production are not vertically integrated. Therefore, we are valuing manganese carbonite using SV methodology. 34 34 *See* Surrogate Value Memorandum. In those instances where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with the POI with which to value FOPs, we adjusted the SVs using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index, as published in the *International Financial Statistics* of the International Monetary Fund. Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based SVs, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these countries may be subsidized. 35 We are also guided by the legislative history not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. 36 The Department bases its decision on information that is available to it at the time it makes its determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries in calculating the Indian import-based SVs. In addition, we excluded Indian import data from NME countries from our SV calculations. 37 35 *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7. 36 *See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conference Report to Accompanying H.R. 3, H.R. Rep* . 100-576 at 590 (1988). 37 For a detailed description of all SVs used for each respondent, *see* Surrogate Value Memorandum. We used Indian transport information to value the inland freight cost of the raw materials. The Department determined the best available information for valuing truck freight to be from *www.infreight.com* . This source provides daily rates from six major points of origin to five destinations in India. The Department obtained a price quote on the first day of each month from June 2005 to May 2006 from each point of origin to each destination and averaged the data accordingly. We adjusted these rates for inflation. We determined the best available information for valuing rail freight to be from *www.indianrailways.gov.in* . Consistent with the Department's practice, we used two sources to calculate an SV for domestic brokerage expenses. 38 These data were averaged with the February 2004-January 2005 data contained in the May 24, 2005, public version of Agro Dutch Industries Limited's (“Agro Dutch”) response submitted in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India. 39 The brokerage expense data reported by Essar Steel and Agro Dutch in their public versions are ranged data. The Department first derived an average per-unit amount from each source, then adjusted each average rate for inflation. Finally, the Department averaged the two per-unit amounts to derive an overall average rate for the POI. 38 *See* , *e.g.* , *Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 19695, 19704 (April 17, 2006) (utilizing these same two sources), unchanged in the final determination ( *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 53079 (September 8, 2006)). The Department averaged December 2003-November 2004 data contained in the February 28, 2005, public version of Essar Steel's response submitted in the antidumping duty administrative review of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India. *See also Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 2018 (January 12, 2006) , unchanged in the final results ( *Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 40694 (July 18, 2006)). 39 *See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 37757 (June 30, 2005). *See also* Surrogate Value Memorandum. For direct, indirect, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in January 2007, available at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html* . Because this regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondent. 40 If the NME wage rates are updated by the Department prior to issuance of the final determination, we will use the updated wage rate in the final LTFV determination. 40 *See* Surrogate Value Memorandum. To value electricity, we used data from the International Energy Agency *Key World Energy Statistics* (2003 edition). Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the rate for inflation. The Department valued water using data from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation ( *www.midcindia.org* ) because it includes a wide range of industrial water tariffs. This source provides 386 industrial water rates within the Maharashtra province from June 2003: 193 for the “inside industrial areas” usage category and 193 for the “outside industrial areas” usage category. Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the rate for inflation. To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit, we used audited financial statements of Eveready Industries India Limited (“Eveready India”), producers of the subject merchandise from India, for fiscal year 2006 - 2007. 41 For purposes of initiation, we used the audited financial statements of Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. (“MOIL”), a producer of the merchandise under consideration that has a fully integrated mining operation. We stated at the initiation of this investigation that we would not use the financial statements of Eveready India because its financial statements reflect a zero profit and it is the Department's practice to disregard financial statements that do not demonstrate a profit, where other surrogate financial data exist on the record. 42 In the instant investigation, however, we find that because the respondent is a producer of EMD, and does not maintain a mining facility, it is inappropriate to use the financial statements of MOIL to calculate the surrogate financial ratios. Analysis of MOIL's financial statements indicates that, due to its integrated mining operations, MOIL's overall production is very capital intensive, requiring extensive overhead not experienced by enterprises that do not maintain their own mining facility, such as Redstar. Notwithstanding Redstar's claim to have an integrated mining operation, our analysis of Redstar's questionnaire responses, including its financial statements, indicates that Redstar's operations do not involve the equipment or facilities required for mining and consequently do not reflect the costs associated with a mining operation, such as those incurred by MOIL. Therefore, because the production experience of MOIL is so different from Redstar's, we have determined, in accordance with past practice, 43 that it is not appropriate to utilize the MOIL financial statements for this preliminary determination. However, the only financial statements currently on the record of this proceeding are those of MOIL and Eveready India. Therefore, despite the fact that it is the Department's practice not to use a financial statement without a realized profit, for this preliminary determination we have determined to use the financial statements of Eveready India to calculate surrogate financial ratios, as they represent the best available record information for this preliminary determination. We encourage interested parties to submit alternate publicly available financial statements on the record in this proceeding for use in the final determination. Moreover, the Department will also attempt to identify additional publicly available data for use in determining the surrogate financial ratios for purposes of the final determination of this investigation. 41 *See* Surrogate Value Memorandum. 42 *See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 71355 (December 17, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; *see also Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the First Antidumping Administrative Review and First New Shipper Review* , 72 FR 52052 (Sept. 12, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2), and *Notice of Initiation* . 43 *See Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 34082 (June 13, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. Post-Preliminary Determination Supplemental Questionnaire In reviewing Redstar's original and supplemental questionnaire responses, we have determined that certain reported items require additional supplemental information. We will issue a post-preliminary determination supplemental questionnaire to Redstar to address these and other deficiencies. For example, Redstar has not provided complete sales and cost reconciliations. Should Redstar not provide complete and adequate sales and cost reconciliations, the Department may not be able to conduct verification for this respondent and may have to resort to the use of AFA. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Verification As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify the information from Redstar upon which we will rely in making our final determination. Combination Rates In the *Notice of Initiation* , the Department stated that it would calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. 44 This practice is described in *Policy Bulletin 05.1* . 45 44 *See Notice of Initiation* , 72 FR at 52852. 45 *See* footnote 19, *supra* . Preliminary Determination The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: Exporter Producer Margin Guizhou Redstar Developing Import and Export Company, Ltd Guizhou Redstar Developing Dalong Manganese Industrial Co., Ltd 236.81%% PRC-Wide Entity* 236.81%% *The PRC-wide entity includes Xiangtan. Disclosure We will disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of EMD, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise within 45 days of our final determination. Public Comment Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309. A table of contents, list of authorities used, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 46 Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing three days after the deadline for submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. *See* 19 CFR 351.310. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. 46 *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). We will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act. At the hearing each party may make an affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures Section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the Department's regulations requires that exporters requesting postponement of the final determination must also request an extension of the provisional measures referred to in section 733(d) of the Act from a four-month period until not more than six months. We received a request to postpone the final determination from Redstar on March 11, 2008. In addition, Redstar requested the extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to not longer than six months. Because this preliminary determination is affirmative, the request for postponement was made by the exporter accounting for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and there is no compelling reason to deny the respondent's request, we have extended the deadline for issuance of the final determination until the 135 th day after the date of publication of this preliminary determination in the **Federal Register** and have extended provisional measures to not longer than six months. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 19, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-6165 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG57 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Northeast Region, NMFS (Assistant Regional Administrator), has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit
(EFP)application submitted by the University of Maryland Eastern Shore
(UMES)contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. The Assistant Regional Administrator has made a preliminary determination that the activities authorized under this EFP would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Northeast
(NE)Multispecies and Monkfish Fishery Management Plans (FMPs). However, further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made to issue an EFP. Therefore, NMFS announces that the Assistant Regional Administrator proposes to recommend that an EFP be issued that would allow one commercial fishing vessel to conduct fishing operations that are otherwise restricted by the regulations governing the fisheries of the Northeastern United States. This EFP, which would enable researchers to study the effects of climate on the distribution and catch rates of monkfish, would grant exemptions from the NE multispecies regulations as follows: Gulf of Maine
(GOM)Rolling Closure Area III and NE multispecies effort control measures. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments by any of the following methods: • Email: *DA8-055@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line “Comments on UMES Monkfish EFP.” • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, NE Regional Office, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on UMES monkfish EFP, DA8-055.” • Fax:
(978)281-9135. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Bryant, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9244. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An application for an EFP was submitted on February 20, 2008, by Andrea K. Johnson, Ph.D., Research Assistant Professor at UMES, for a project funded under the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils' Monkfish Research Set-Aside
(RSA)Program. The primary goal of this study is to investigate the influence of temperature on monkfish distribution and abundance, as well as determine age and growth patterns, spawning frequency, feeding rates, and cannibalism. This information will provide information on the biology of monkfish that could be used to enhance the management of this species. This is the first year this project has been funded under the Monkfish RSA Program. The project is scheduled to be conducted for 1 year, from May 2008 through April 2009. Four fishing industry collaborators using 95 Monkfish days-at-sea
(DAS)that will be awarded to the project through the monkfish RSA Program would collect a total of 640 monkfish from three size categories. Three monkfish gillnet vessels fishing in the Southern Fishery Management Area will collect monkfish as part of otherwise normal fishing activities, and do not require an EFP. One vessel fishing in the Northern Fishery Management Area would collect monkfish from a location inside Rolling Closure Area III. This activity would require an exemption from the restrictions of Rolling Closure Area III at 50 CFR 648.81(f) that will be in effect during May 2008. It is expected that this location would provide access to large monkfish and would avoid gear interactions between the research gillnet gear and the trawl gear. Due to the high economic value associated with the NE multispecies DAS, the applicant is also requesting exemption from the NE multispecies effort control measures at § 648.80(a)(3)(vi) in order to create sufficient incentive for a commercial vessel to participate in this experiment in the NFMA. This would exempt the vessel from the need to use a NE Multispecies DAS when fishing in the GOM for these research trips. The vessel would be using a large (12-inch) (30-cm) mesh, so the bycatch of NE multispecies is expected to be minimal. The vessel would make up to 40 trips (25 DAS) using gillnets that are 12-inch (30-cm) stretch mesh with a 3.5-inch (8.9-cm) diameter gauge web that is 12 meshes deep. Each net is 300 ft (91 m) long, and 100 nets would be hauled every 5 days in the spring, summer, and fall, with an average soak time of 120 hours. Five fish per week would be donated to UMES between May-December 2008, and February-April 2009. The smallest samples would measure 17 inches (44 cm) in length. Additional catch, within applicable size and possession limits, would be sold to help offset the costs of the research. As a consequence of the exemption from the need to use a NE Multispecies DAS, the vessel would not keep any regulated NE multispecies. Since these trips would be using gillnets with very large mesh, the bycatch of regulated NE multispecies is expected to be minimal. The applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: March 19, 2008. Emily H. Menashes Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-6190 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 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 April 25, 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: March 20, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Federal Student Aid *Type of Review:* Revision. *Title:* Federal Direct Stafford/Ford Loan and Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford/Ford Loan Master Promissory Note. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Affected Public:* Individuals or household. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 774,306. *Burden Hours:* 387,153. *Abstract:* The Federal Direct Stafford/Ford Loan (Direct Subsidized Loan) and Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford/Ford Loan (Direct Unsubsidized Loan) MPN serves as the means by which an individual agrees to repay a Direct Subsidized Loan and/or Direct Unsubsidized Loan. 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 3566. 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., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-401-0920. 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. E8-6033 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 27, 2008. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues:
(1)Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department;
(2)will this information be processed and used in a timely manner;
(3)is the estimate of burden accurate;
(4)how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(5)how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Dated: March 20, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development *Type of Review:* New. *Title:* Reading First Implementation Study: 2008-09. *Frequency:* Biennially. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Gov't., SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 54. *Burden Hours:* 162. *Abstract:* This purpose of this OMB package is to address requirements for conducting one component of the Reading First Implementation Study: 2008-09, state personnel interviews. This study will provide more comprehensive descriptions, and ultimately analysis, of RF implementation processes at the district and school levels. Additionally, interviews will provide information on the relationship between Reading First and other state reading initiatives (including Title I). Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov,* by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3629. 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., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-401-0920. 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. E8-6044 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-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 April 25, 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: March 21, 2008. James Hyler, Acting Leader, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Department of Education *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Generic Plan for Customer Satisfaction Surveys and Focus Groups. *Frequency:* Annually; one time. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs; Not-for-profit institutions. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* Responses: 70,000. Burden Hours: 25,000. *Abstract:* Customer satisfaction surveys and focus group discussions will be conducted by the Principal Offices of the Department of Education to measure customer satisfaction and establish and improve customer service standards as required by Executive Order 12862. 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 3569. 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., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-401-0920. 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. E8-6199 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-M DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Department of Energy. ACTION: Agency information collection activities: proposed collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) is soliciting comments on its proposal to request a three-year clearance by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for the proposed form: RW-SCWE-1, “Organization Climate and Safety Conscious Work Environment Survey.” DATES: Comments must be filed by May 27, 2008. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Mark Van Der Puy. To ensure receipt of the comments by the due date, submission by FAX (702-794-5557) or e-mail *Mark_VanDerPuy@ymp.gov* is recommended. The mailing address is U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, M/S 523 1551 Hillshire Drive, Suite A, Las Vegas, NV 89134. Alternatively, Mr. Van Der Puy may be reached by telephone at 1-800-225-6972. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the proposed form may be obtained at *http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/contact/outreach/shtml.* Alternatively, requests for additional information or copies of the proposed form may be directed to Mr. Van Der Puy at the address listed above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. Current Actions III. Request for Comments I. Background OCRWM proposes to collect information from Federal, contractor, and national laboratory employees supporting the OCRWM mission with the proposed form: RW-SCWE-1, “Organization Climate and Safety Conscious Work Environment Survey.” The purpose of this information would be to assess the organizational climate and Safety Conscious Work Environment
(SCWE)as part of OCRWM's desire to continuously improve performance and comply with the employee protection requirements of 10 CFR 63.9, Employee Protection, and Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5851). OCRWM, as part of its effort to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), is providing the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on this proposed collection of information conducted by or in conjunction with OCRWM. Any comments received will help OCRWM to prepare the data request for OMB approval to maximize the utility of the information collected and to assess the impact of collection requirements on the public. OCRWM will seek approval by OMB of the collection under Section 3507(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed form: RW-SCWE-1, “Organization Climate and Safety Conscious Work Environment Survey” is designed to invite Federal, contractor, and national laboratory employees who support the OCRWM mission to provide their opinions regarding a variety of topical areas. The information collected will be analyzed, shared with the employees and other interested parties, and used in planning and assessing management actions. It is anticipated that there will be approximately 200 Federal and 1,500 contractor and national laboratory employees responding electronically. Up to 50 paper responses may be collected from employees without access to computer work stations. II. Current Actions The current proposed action is a request to OMB for a three-year clearance for this data collection. Comments are requested on OCRWM's proposal to request this three-year clearance to collect information with the proposed form: RW-SCWE-1, “Organization Climate and Safety Conscious Work Environment Survey,” which is available at *http://ocrwm.doe.gov/contact/outreach/shtml.* III. Request for Comments Prospective respondents and other interested parties should comment on the proposed request discussed in item II. The following guidelines are provided to assist in the preparation of comments. General Issues A. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, and does the information have practical utility? Practical utility is defined as the actual usefulness of information to or for an agency, taking into account its accuracy, adequacy, reliability, timeliness, and the agency's ability to process the information it collects. B. What enhancements can be made to the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? As a Potential Respondent to the Request for Information A. What actions could be taken to help ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the information to be collected? B. Are the instructions and definitions clear and sufficient? If not, which instructions need clarification? C. Potential respondents will be given 21 days to complete the form. Can the information be submitted by the due date? D. The public reporting burden to complete the proposed form: RW-SCWE-1, “Organization Climate and Safety Conscious Work Environment Survey,” is estimated at 25 minutes per respondent. Data will be collected on an annual basis. The estimated burden includes the total time necessary to provide the requested information. In your opinion, how accurate is this estimate? E. The agency estimates that there are no costs to respondents, because such respondents are employees of Federal agencies, contractors, or national laboratories funded by OCRWM. Similarly, respondents who participate in planning, administration, analysis, and developing actions in response to the information collected are also employees of those same Federal agencies, contractors, or national laboratories. In your opinion, are there other costs associated with the collection of information that OCRWM did not anticipate? F. What additional actions could be taken to minimize the burden of this collection of information? Such actions may involve the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. G. Does any other Federal, State, or local agency collect similar information? If so, specify the agency, the data element(s), and the methods of collection. As a Potential Data User of the Information To Be Collected A. What actions could be taken to help ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the information disseminated? B. Is the information useful at the levels of detail to be collected? C. For what purpose(s) would the information be used? Be specific. D. Are there alternate sources for the information and are they useful? If so, what are their weaknesses and/or strengths? Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in their entirety in the request for OMB approval of the proposed form. They also will become a matter of public record. Statutory Authority: Sections 3507(h)(1) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Issued in Washington, DC, March 21, 2008. Alan B. Brownstein, Chief Operating Officer, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. [FR Doc. E8-6138 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. This notice announces a meeting of the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee. Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat.770) requires that notice of these meetings be announced in the **Federal Register** . DATES: Thursday, April 24, 2008, 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Friday, April 25, 2008, 8 a.m. to noon. ADDRESSES: La Jolla Shores Hotel, 8110 Camino Del Oro, La Jolla, CA 92037. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edith Allison, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, Washington, DC 20585. Phone: 202-586-1023. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Purpose of the Committee:* The purpose of the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee is to provide advice on potential applications of methane hydrate to the Secretary of Energy, and assist in developing recommendations and priorities for the Department of Energy Methane Hydrate Research and Development Program. Tentative Agenda Thursday, April 24 • Reports and discussion of key Department of Energy-supported field projects. • Report and discussion of code comparison for various reservoir simulators. • Report and discussion on methane hydrate role in global climate change. • Report and discussion of the Minerals Management Service assessment of Gulf of Mexico methane hydrate resource. Friday, April 25 • Report and discussion of Department's solicitation for new research and development projects. • Report and discussion of international activities. • Discussion of committee recommendations to the Secretary of Energy. • Adjourn. *Public Participation:* The meeting is open to the public. The Chairman of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Edith Allison at the address or telephone number listed above. You must make your request for an oral statement at least five business days prior to the meeting, and reasonable provisions will be made to include the presentation on the agenda. Public comment will follow the 10 minute rule. *Minutes:* The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying within 60 days at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, Room 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Issued at Washington, DC, on March 21, 2008. Rachel Samuel, Deputy Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-6141 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 March 19, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* EC08-53-000. *Applicants:* Chandler Wind Partners, LLC. *Description:* Terra-Gen Power LLC submits an application for authorization for indirect disposition of jurisdictional facilities etc. *Filed Date:* 03/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080318-0050. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 4, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER96-25-031; ER01-1363-009. *Applicants:* Coral Power, L.L.C.; Coral Energy Management, LLC. *Description:* Coral Power LLC and Coral Energy Management, LLC submit a second supplement to the 12/3/07 Notice of Change in Status. *Filed Date:* 03/13/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-0130. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 3, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER99-3151-009; ER97-837-008; ER03-327-003; ER08-447-001; ER08-448-001; PSEG Nuclear LLC. *Applicants:* PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC; Public Service Electric and Gas Company; PSEG Power Connecticut LLC; PSEG Fossil LLC. *Description:* Amendment to Application of PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC, *et al.* *Filed Date:* 03/13/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080313-5142. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 3, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER01-205-025; ER98-2640-023; ER98-4590-021; ER99-1610-029. *Applicants:* Xcel Energy Services Inc.; Northern States Power Company; Public Service Company of Colorado; New Century Pub Svc Co. of Co. *Description:* Southwestern Public Service Company submits a change in status report relating to their market-based rate authority. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080319-0044. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 7, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-670-000. *Applicants:* Illinois Power Co. *Description:* Illinois Power Company and Ameren Illinois Transmission Company submits a revised Exhibit A to the Joint Ownership Agreement between AmerenIP and Ameren Transco, which the Commission accepted for filing on 9/17/07. *Filed Date:* 03/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080318-0008. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 4, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-671-000. *Applicants:* Florida Power Corporation. *Description:* Florida Power Corp. submits long-term Service Agreement between Progress Energy Florida, Inc and the City of Gainesville, Florida under PEF's Cost-Based Rates Tariff (CR-1), FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume 9. *Filed Date:* 03/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080318-0009. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 4, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-672-000. *Applicants:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Description:* Entergy Arkansas, Inc. submits the Thirty-Eighth Amendment to the Power Coordination, Interchange and Transmission Service Agreement between EAI and Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation dated March 7, 2008. *Filed Date:* 03/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080318-0010. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 4, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-673-000. *Applicants:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Description:* Entergy Services, Inc. on behalf of Entergy Operating Companies submits an executed Third Revised Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement with Cleco Power LLC. *Filed Date:* 03/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080318-0011. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 4, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-674-000. *Applicants:* Southern California Edison Company. *Description:* Southern California Edison Company submits the Title, Transfer, Assignment and Assumption Agreement with Dillon Wind LLC. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080318-0012. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 7, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-675-000. *Applicants:* Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. *Description:* Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. submits an amendment to its OATT FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 3 to be made effective 4/1/08. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080318-0013. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 7, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-677-000. *Applicants:* Western Kentucky Energy Corp. *Description:* Western Kentucky Energy Corp. submits notices of cancellation of Rate Schedule 2, FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 2, Original Service Agreement 1 *et al.* *Filed Date:* 03/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080318-0017. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 4, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-678-000. *Applicants:* LG&E Energy Marketing Inc. *Description:* LG&E Energy Marketing Inc. submits a Generation Dispatch Support Services Agreement with Big Rivers Electric Corporation. *Filed Date:* 03/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080318-0018. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 4, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-679-000. *Applicants:* Tallgrass Energy Partners. *Description:* Tallgrass Energy Partners submits the FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080318-0019. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 7, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-681-000. *Applicants:* Maine Public Service Company. *Description:* Maine Public Service Company submits informational filing setting forth the changed loss factor effective 3/1/08 together with back-up materials. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080319-0047. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 7, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings: *Docket Numbers:* ES08-35-000. *Applicants:* New York State Electric & Gas Corp. *Description:* Application of New York State Electric & Gas Corporation for supplemental authorization to issue securities under section 204 of the FPA. *Filed Date:* 03/19/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080319-5009. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 9, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ES08-37-000. *Applicants:* Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation. *Description:* Application of Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation for supplemental authorization to issue securities under section 204 of the FPA. *Filed Date:* 03/19/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080319-5039. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 9, 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. E8-6133 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 March 20, 2008. Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: *Docket Numbers:* RP96-312-180. *Applicants:* Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company. *Description:* Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co submits a Gas Transportation Agreement with Statoil Natural Gas, LLC. *Filed Date:* 03/18/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080319-0223. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 31, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP99-176-157. *Applicants:* Natural Gas Pipeline Co Of America. *Description:* Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC submits Original Sheet 26Q.02 & Original Sheet 26Q.03 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1, to be effective April 1, 2008. *Filed Date:* 03/19/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080320-0026. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 31, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-274-000. *Applicants:* Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation. *Description:* Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation submits Second Revised Sheet 127 et al part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1-A, to become effective April 14, 2008. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-0223. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 31, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-275-000. *Applicants:* Rockies Express Pipeline LLC. *Description:* Rockies Express Pipeline LLC submits Original Sheet 10 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, to be effective April 1, 2008. *Filed Date:* 03/18/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080319-0041. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 31, 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. E8-6136 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 March 18, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings: *Docket Numbers:* EG08-50-000. *Applicants:* EFS Parlin Holdings LLC. *Description:* Self Certification Notice of EFS Parlin Holdings LLC. *Filed Date:* 03/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080314-5082. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 04, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER01-2214-010. *Applicants:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Description:* Entergy Services, Inc. submits its refund report related to refunds ordered by FERC. *Filed Date:* 03/12/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080314-0126. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 02, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-18-012. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc. submits proposed revisions to their Open Access Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff to comply with FERC's 2/12/08 Order. *Filed Date:* 03/13/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-0073. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 03, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-521-002. *Applicants:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Status Report of New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Regarding Its Compliance With “Guideline Three” of the Commission's Rules on Long-Term Transmission Rights in Organized Markets. *Filed Date:* 03/12/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080312-5013. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 02, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1172-003; ER07-1315-003. *Applicants:* Idaho Power Company. *Description:* Idaho Power Co. submits Substitute First Revised Sheet 82-A et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume 6, effective 9/4/07. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080318-0016. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-80-000. *Applicants:* The Detroit Edison Company. *Description:* Arizona Public Service Co. submits their compliance filing, with changes to its Fourteenth Revised Volume 2 Open Access Transmission Tariff. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080318-0058. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-245-001. *Applicants:* PacifiCorp. *Description:* PacifiCorp submits a refund report in accordance with the Commission Letter Order issued on 1/15/08. *Filed Date:* 03/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080318-0005. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 04, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-334-001. *Applicants:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. *Description:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits proposed revisions to its Open Access Transmission Tariff etc. in compliance with FERC's 2/18/08 Order. *Filed Date:* 03/12/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080314-0101. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 02, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-337-002. *Applicants:* Watson Cogeneration Company. *Description:* Watson Cogeneration Company submits revised asset appendix to its market-based rate application that includes a description of the energy assets owned or controlled by EME and SCE. *Filed Date:* 03/13/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-0075. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 03, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-364-002. *Applicants:* APX, Inc. *Description:* APX, Inc. submits proposed revisions to its FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume 10. *Filed Date:* 03/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080318-0007. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 04, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-494-001. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC resubmits the corrected interconnection service agreement with Lookout WindPower, LLC *et al.* *Filed Date:* 03/12/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080314-0103. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 02, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-506-001. *Applicants:* Southern Company Services, Inc. *Description:* Southern Companies et al submits an Amendment to their filing made on 1/31/08 of an unexecuted network integration transmission service agreement and network operating agreement with Florida Public Co. *Filed Date:* 03/13/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-0074. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 03, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-541-001. *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corporation. *Description:* The American Electric Power Service Corp on behalf of the AEP Operating Companies submits an amendment to the Revised Interconnection and Local Delivery Service Agreement 1448. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080318-0015. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-657-000. *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corporation. *Description:* American Electric Power Service Corp submits amendments to FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume 6. *Filed Date:* 03/12/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080314-0102. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 02, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-658-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC submits an executed Wholesale Market Participation Agreement with Wenning Poultry *et al.* *Filed Date:* 03/13/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080314-0110. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 03, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-659-000. *Applicants:* Kentucky Utilities Company. *Description:* Kentucky Utilities Co submits Exhibit A, an executed copy of Amendment 1 to Contract for Electric Service with Bardstown Municipal Electric Light & Power. *Filed Date:* 03/13/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080314-0109. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 03, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-660-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC submits an executed Wholesale Market Participation Agreement with Bethlehem Renewable Energy, LLC *et al.* Filed Date: 03/13/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080314-0108. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 03, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-661-000. *Applicants:* PacifiCorp. *Description:* PacifiCorp submits First Revised Service Agreement 66 for Network Integration Transmission Service between PacifiCorp Energy and PacifiCorp Transmission. *Filed Date:* 03/12/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080314-0107. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 02, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-662-000. *Applicants:* UniSource Energy Development Company. *Description:* UniSource Energy Development Co submits a power sales agreement with UNS Electric, Inc. *Filed Date:* 03/12/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080314-0127. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 02, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-663-000. *Applicants:* Nevada Power Company. *Description:* Nevada Power Co submits a notice of cancellation of as Service Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service with the City of Needles. *Filed Date:* 03/13/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080314-0106. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 03, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-664-000. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc et al submits proposed revisions to Appendix C, Section III.B of the Agreement of Transmission Facilities Owners etc. *Filed Date:* 03/13/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080314-0105. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 03, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-665-000. *Applicants:* Eastland Power LLC. *Description:* Eastland Power LLC submits an application for market-based authority, request for certain waivers, blanket authorizations and a request for expedited treatment. *Filed Date:* 03/13/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080314-0104. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 03, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-666-000. *Applicants:* NRG Southaven LLC. *Description:* Application of NRG Southaven LLC for market-based rate authority, expedited action, associated waivers, blanket approvals and notification of price reporting status. *Filed Date:* 03/12/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080314-0111. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 02, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-667-000. *Applicants:* Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC. *Description:* Duke Energy Carolinas LLC submits a revised Network Integration Service Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service with Piedmont Municipal Power Agency. *Filed Date:* 03/13/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-0071. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 03, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-668-000. *Applicants:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Description:* Entergy Louisiana LLC et al submits the First Revised Service Agreement 453 and Amended Interconnection and Operating Agreement ELL and EAI for the 789 natural gas fired combined-cycle. *Filed Date:* 03/13/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-0072. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 03, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-669-000. *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corporation. *Description:* American Electric Power Service Corporation submits amendments to the Open Access Transmission Tariff on file with FERC their FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume 6. *Filed Date:* 03/13/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-0070. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 03, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-676-000. *Applicants:* Winnebago Windpower LLC. *Description:* Application of Winnebago Windpower LLC for order accepting initial tariff etc. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080318-0014. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings: *Docket Numbers:* ES08-32-001. *Applicants:* Noble Bellmont Windpark, LLC. *Description:* Noble Bellmont Windpark, LLC et al submits a joint application for authorization to guarantee obligations related to debt financing of the wind energy projects being developed. *Filed Date:* 03/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080318-0048. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 24, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following open access transmission tariff filings: Docket Numbers: OA08-67-000. *Applicants:* Progress Energy, Inc. *Description:* Order No. 890-A Compliance Filing of Progress Energy, Inc. on behalf of Carolina Power & Light Co. and Florida Power Corp. updating their Joint OATT. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-5029. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-68-000. *Applicants:* Cleco Power LLC. *Description:* Cleco Power LLC submits its order 890-A compliance filing, refiling its entire OATT, redesignated as FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 1, to be effective 3/17/08. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-4000. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-69-000. *Applicants:* Tucson Electric Power Company. *Description:* Order No. 890-A OATT Filing of Tucson Electric Power Company. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-5041. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-70-000. *Applicants:* UNS Electric, Inc. *Description:* UNS Electric, Inc submits revised Open Access Transmission Tariff sheets as Exhibit A pursuant to Section 206 of the FPA and Order No. 890-A. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-5042. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-71-000. *Applicants:* Xcel Energy Services, Inc. *Description:* Xcel Energy Services, Inc submits revised tariff sheets to their Joint Open Access Transmission Tariff pursuant to Order 890-A. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-5047. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-72-000. *Applicants:* NORTHWESTERN CORP. *Description:* Order No. 890 OATT Filing of Northwestern Corporation. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-5048. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-73-000. *Applicants:* Puget Sound Energy, Inc. *Description:* Order No. 890 OATT Filing of Puget Sound Energy, Inc. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-5049. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-74-000. *Applicants:* Tampa Electric Company. *Description:* Tampa Electric Company submits revisions to its Open Access Transmission Tariff pursuant to Order 890-A. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-5050. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-75-000. *Applicants:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Description:* Order No. 890-A Compliance Filing of Entergy Services, Inc. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-5061. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-76-000. *Applicants:* E.ON U.S. LLC; Kentucky Utilities Company; Louisville Gas & Electric Company. *Description:* Order No. 890-A OATT Filing of E.ON U.S. LLC on behalf of Louisville Gas and Electric Co. and Kentucky Utilities Co. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-5062. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-77-000. *Applicants:* Florida Power & Light Company. *Description:* Order No. 890-A OATT Filing of Florida Power & Light Company. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-5065. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-78-000. *Applicants:* MidAmerican Energy Company. *Description:* MidAmerican Energy Company submits revised tariff sheets to conform its Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT?) to the Order No. 890-A pro formal OATT MidAmerican Energy requests an effective date of March 17, 2008. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-5074. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-79-000. *Applicants:* Southern Company Services, Inc. *Description:* Order No. 890-A OATT Compliance Filing of Southern Company Services, Inc. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-5076. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-81-000. *Applicants:* NorthWestern Corporation. *Description:* NorthWestern Corporation Order No. 890-A compliance filing for its South Dakota OATT FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 2 (SD). *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-5088. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-82-000. *Applicants:* Avista Corporation. *Description:* Order 890-A Compliance filing of Avista Corporation. Transmittal letter and Clean and Redline versions of Avista's OATT. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-5090. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-83-000. *Applicants:* Idaho Power Company. *Description:* Order No. 890 OATT Filing of Idaho Power Company. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-5092. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-84-000. *Applicants:* Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-op. *Description:* Order No. 890 OATT Filing of Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-5107. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-85-000. *Applicants:* Sierra Pacific Resources Operating Company. *Description:* Order No. 890-A OATT Compliance Filing of Sierra Pacific Resources Operating Companies. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-5110. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-86-000. *Applicants:* Maine Public Service Company. *Description:* Order No. 890 OATT Filing of Maine Public Service Company. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-5115. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-87-000. *Applicants:* NewCorp Resources Electric Cooperative. *Description:* Order No. 890 OATT Filing of NewCorp Resources Electric Cooperative, Inc. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080317-5116. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-88-000. *Applicants:* PacifiCorp. *Description:* Order No. 890-A OATT Filing of PacifiCorp. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080318-5003. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-89-000. *Applicants:* Mid-Continent Area Power Pool. *Description:* Order No. 890-A OATT Filing of Mid-Continent Area Power Pool. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080318-5004. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-90-000; OA07-44-002. *Applicants:* El Paso Electric Company. *Description:* El Paso Electric Company's Order Nos. 890 and 890-A Compliance Filings. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080318-5005. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-91-000. *Applicants:* Black Hills Power, Inc.; Powder River Energy Corp; Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. *Description:* Order No. 890-A OATT Filing of Black Hills Power, Inc., Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., and Powder River Energy Corporation. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080318-5006. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-92-000. *Applicants:* Entergy Services Inc. *Description:* Motion of Entergy Services, Inc. For Limited Waiver of Order No. 890-A Compliance Requirement. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080318-5027. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-93-000; OA07-111-001. *Applicants:* South Carolina Electric & Gas Company. *Description:* Order No. 890-A OATT Filing of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company. *Filed Date:* 03/18/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080318-5032. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 08, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings: *Docket Numbers:* RR07-16-002. *Applicants:* North American Electric Reliability Corp. *Description:* Corrected Filing—Request of North American Electric Reliability Corporation for Approval of Amendment to 2008 Business Plan and Budget of Western Electricity Coordinating Council. *Filed Date:* 03/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080318-5017. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 28, 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. E8-6137 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1183; FRL-8546-5] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Emissions Certification and Compliance Requirements for Nonroad Spark-ignition
(SI)Engines (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 1695.09, OMB Control No. 2060-0338 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request
(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1183, to
(1)EPA online using *http://www.regulations.gov* (our preferred method), by e-mail to *a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov* or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Mailcode 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and
(2)OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nydia Yanira Reyes-Morales, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Mail Code 6403J, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-343-9264; fax number: 202-343-2804; e-mail address: *reyes-morales.nydia@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On January 15, 2008 (73 FR 2489), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments during the comment period. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1183, which is available for online viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or in person viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is 202-566-1742. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *http://www.regulations.gov* , to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov* as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* *Title:* Emissions Certification and Compliance Requirements for Nonroad Spark-ignition
(SI)Engines (Renewal). *ICR Numbers:* EPA ICR No. 1695.09, OMB Control No. 2060-0338. *ICR Status:* This ICR is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2008. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* Under Title II of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 *et seq.* ; CAA), EPA is charged with issuing certificates of conformity for engine prototypes that comply with applicable emission standards. Such a certificate must be issued before engines produced after these prototypes may be legally introduced into commerce. EPA regulations pertaining to spark-ignition engines rated at or below 19 kilowatts (small SI engines) are found at 40 CFR part 90. Regulations pertaining to spark-ignition engines rated above 19 kilowatts (‘large SI engines’) are found at 40 CFR part 1048; recreational vehicle regulations are found at 40 CFR part 1051; testing requirements and compliance regulations that apply to multiple engine types are found at parts 1065 and 1068. Manufacturers electing to participate in an Averaging, Banking and Trading
(ABT)Program are also required to submit information regarding the calculation, actual generation, and usage of credits in an initial report, end-of-the-year report, and final report. These reports are used for certification and enforcement purposes. Manufacturers will also maintain records for eight years on the engine families included in the program. The CAA also mandates that EPA verify that manufacturers have successfully translated their certified prototypes into mass produced engines, and that these engines comply with emission standards throughout their useful lives. Under the Production-line Testing
(PLT)Program, manufacturers are required to test a sample of engines as they leave the assembly line. This self-audit program (referred to as the “PLT Program”) allows manufacturers to monitor compliance with statistical certainty and minimize the cost of correcting errors through early detection. Through Selective Enforcement Audits (SEAs), EPA verifies that test data submitted by engine manufacturers is reliable and testing is performed according to EPA regulations. Compliance with emission regulations throughout the useful life of an engine is verified through the In-use Testing (In-use) Programs under which manufacturers test SI engines after a number of years of use. Participation in the PLT program is mandatory. The In-use Programs are voluntary for small SI engines, but mandatory for large SI engines. All manufacturers are subject to SEAs. This information is collected by the Heavy-Duty and Nonroad Engines Group (HDNEG), Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division (CISD), Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ), Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Besides CISD, this information could be used by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA)and the Department of Justice for enforcement purposes. Non-confidential portions of the information submitted to EPA could be disclosed in a public database and over the Internet. This information is used by trade associations, environmental groups, and the public. Respondents usually submit this information in an electronic format and HDNEG stores it in a database. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1,158 hours per respondent. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Entities potentially affected by these actions are manufacturers of marine spark-ignition engines. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 241. *Frequency of Response:* Annual, quarterly and on occasion. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 279,182. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $26,167,036, includes $7,004,857 annualized capital or O&M costs. *Changes in the Estimates:* Overall burden hours are higher due to an agency adjustment; an increased number of respondents are anticipated for this collection. Dated: March 20, 2008. Sarah Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-6172 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0061; FRL-8355-1] Azinphos-methyl: Product Cancellation Order and Amendments to Terminate Uses; Correction AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice; correction. SUMMARY: EPA issued a notice in the **Federal Register** of Wednesday, February 20, 2008, concerning the cancellation of products and amendments to terminate uses of products containing azinphos-methyl. This document is being issued to correct typographical errors. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Myers, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)308-8589; e-mail address: *myers.tom@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? The Agency included in the notice a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. *Docket* . EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0061. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. 2. *Electronic access* . You may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . II. What Does this Correction Do? FR Doc. E8-3112 published in the **Federal Register** of Wednesday, February 20, 2008 (73 FR 9328) (FRL-8349-8) is corrected as follows: 1. On page 9328, under SUMMARY : the third sentence is corrected to read: Subject to the terms and conditions described in Unit II below and except as provided in the existing stocks provisions of the cancellation order, the order terminates distribution and sale of AZM products labeled for use on Brussels sprouts and nursery stock effective as of February 20, 2008; and prohibits use of such products on Brussels sprouts and nursery stock effective September 30, 2008; terminates AZM use on walnuts, almonds, and pistachios effective October 30, 2009; and cancels all AZM products effective September 30, 2012. 2. On page 9328, the DATES Unit is corrected to read: DATES : This order is effective February 20, 2008. 3. On page 9329, under Unit II., Table 1., and in the fourth sentence, in the paragraph that follows Table 1., the EPA Registration number for the last entry which now reads: “WA030035” is corrected to read: “WA030025.” 4. On page 9330, under Unit IV.2.a.ii., the EPA Registration number listed as WA030035 is corrected to read: WA030025. 5. On page 9330, the first sentence under Unit IV.2.b.i., is corrected to read: Use of products on Brussels sprouts and nursery stock is prohibited as of September 30, 2008. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: March 12, 2008. Peter Caulkins, Acting Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-6186 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0047; FRL-8353-3] Barium Metaborate Registration Review; Antimicrobial Pesticide Dockets Opened for Review and Comment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: EPA has established registration review dockets for the pesticides listed in the table in Unit III.A. With this document, EPA is opening the public comment period for this registration review. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Registration review dockets contain information that will assist the public in understanding the types of information and issues that the Agency may consider during the course of registration reviews. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments identified by the docket identification
(ID)number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the table in Unit III.A., by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to the docket ID numbers listed in the table in Unit III.A. for the pesticides you are commenting on. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about the pesticides included in this document, contact the specific Chemical Review Manager as identified in the table in Unit III.A. for the pesticide of interest. For general questions on the registration review program, contact Peter Caulkins, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)308-8000; fax number:
(703)308-8090; e-mail address: *caulkins.peter@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farmworker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Authority EPA is initiating its reviews of the pesticides identified in this document pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. **** ** section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be periodically reviewed. The goal is a review of a pesticide's registration every 15 years. Under FIFRA section 3(a), a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food. III. Registration Reviews A. What Action is the Agency Taking? As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is periodically reviewing pesticide registrations to assure that they continue to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration—that is, they can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. The implementing regulations establishing the procedures for registration review appear at 40 CFR part 155. A pesticide's registration review begins when the Agency establishes a docket for the pesticide's registration review case and opens the docket for public review and comment. At present, EPA is opening registration review dockets for the case identified in the following table. **Table—Registration Review Dockets Opening** Registration Review Case Name and Number Pesticide Docket ID Number Chemical Review Manager, Telephone Number, E-mail Address Barium Metaborate 0632 EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0047 Nathan Mottl 703-305-0208 mottl.nathan@epa.gov B. Docket Content 1. *Review dockets* . The registration review dockets contain information that the Agency may consider in the course of the registration review. The Agency may include information from its files including, but not limited to, the following information: • An overview of the registration review case status. • A list of current product registrations and registrants. • **Federal Register** notices regarding any pending registration actions. • **Federal Register** notices regarding current or pending tolerances. • Risk assessments. • Bibliographies concerning current registrations. • Summaries of incident data. • Any other pertinent data or information. Each docket contains a document summarizing what the Agency currently knows about the pesticide case and a preliminary work plan for anticipated data and assessment needs. Additional documents provide more detailed information. During this public comment period, the Agency is asking that interested persons identify any additional information they believe the Agency should consider during the registration reviews of these pesticides. The Agency identifies in each docket the areas where public comment is specifically requested, though comment in any area is welcome. 2. *Other related information* . More information on these cases, including the active ingredients for each case, may be located in the registration review schedule on the Agency's website at *http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/schedule.htm.* Information on the Agency's registration review program and its implementing regulation may be seen at *http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review.* 3. *Information submission requirements* . Anyone may submit data or information in response to this document. To be considered during a pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must meet the following requirements: • To ensure that EPA will consider data or information submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider data or information submitted at a later date. • The data or information submitted must be presented in a legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or electronic form. • Submitters must clearly identify the source of any submitted data or information. • Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However, submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider the data or information in the pesticide's registration review. • As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions required in the final decision on the registration review case have been completed. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, antimicrobials, barium metaborate. Dated: March 19, 2008. Frank Sanders, Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-6182 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8546-7] Causal Analysis of Biological Impairment in Long Creek: A Sandy-Bottomed Stream in Coastal Southern Maine AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: EPA is announcing the availability of a final report entitled, “Causal Analysis of Biological Impairment in Long Creek: A Sandy-Bottomed Stream in Coastal Southern Maine” (EPA/600/R-06/065F), which was prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment
(NCEA)within EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). ADDRESSES: The document is available electronically through the NCEA Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/ncea.* A limited number of paper copies will be available from the EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242; telephone: 1-800-490-9198; facsimile: 301-604-3408; e-mail: *nscep@bps-lmit.com.* Please provide your name, your mailing address, the title, and the EPA number of the requested publication. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information Management Team, National Center for Environmental Assessment (8623P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; Telephone: 703-347-8561; e-mail: *nceadc.comment@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This assessment presents results from a complex causal assessment of a biologically impaired, urbanized coastal watershed—the Long Creek watershed. The primary goals of this case study include the following. First, the assessment serves as an example EPA Stressor Identification
(SI)case study, whereby the report may help future assessors understand the SI process for other biologically impaired ecosystems and the scientific community better understand urban-related stressor interactions. Target audience members may include government agency and consulting firm scientists attempting to conduct their own case studies and managers interested in learning what the SI process is capable of. Second, the assessment provides useful information for the specific environmental improvement of the Long Creek watershed. This is especially timely, as managers are currently considering options for promoting ecological recovery of the watershed. The Long Creek watershed is biologically impaired and located primarily in South Portland, Maine. A relatively unimpaired upstream portion of the Red Brook watershed, adjacent to and immediately south of Long Creek, provides a reference condition and is also discussed in the report. The contributing watersheds of both streams are urbanized, home to industrial, commercial, and residential land uses. The Long Creek and Red Brook watersheds showcase a wide range of topics related to resource management including the environmental implications of urban land use for coastal regions and the interactions among multiple causes linked to biological impairment. The Long Creek project team, consisting of the U.S. EPA and Maine Department of Environmental Protection, followed U.S. EPA's SI guidance to conduct the case study. A rudimentary knowledge of the SI process may assist report readers; U.S. EPA's CADDIS (Causal Analysis/Diagnosis Decision Information System) Web site, *http://www.epa.gov/caddis/,* provides causal assessors with the most recent SI methodology. The project team identified four specific biological effects defining impairment and seven candidate causes of impairment. The biological effects include decreased Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera
(EPT)generic richness, increased percentage of non-insect taxa individuals, increased Hilsenhoff Biotic Index
(HBI)score, and absence of brook trout. Candidate causes include increased onsite organic production (or autochthony), decreased dissolved oxygen, altered flow regime (increased hydrologic flashiness, including decreased baseflow and increased peaks), decreased large woody debris, increased sediment, increased temperature, and toxic substances (including, *e.g.* , metals and ionic strength). Specific biological effects and candidate causes were evaluated at three impaired sites on Long Creek. Implications associated with interactions among probable causes of impairment are discussed in terms of this case study and causal assessment in general. Dated: March 14, 2008. Rebecca Clark, Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment. [FR Doc. E8-6166 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8546-6] Underground Injection Control Program; Hazardous Waste Injection Restrictions; Petition for Exemption—Class I Hazardous Waste Injection; Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C., Port Arthur, TX AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Final Decision on a No Migration Petition Reissuance. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that exemptions to the land disposal restrictions under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act have been reissued to Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C., (Veolia) for two Class I injection wells located at Port Arthur, Texas. As required by 40 CFR Part 148, the company has adequately demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Agency by the petition and supporting documentation that, to a reasonable degree of certainty, there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the injection zone for as long as the waste remains hazardous. This final decision allows the underground injection by Veolia, of the specific restricted hazardous wastes identified in this exemption, into Class I hazardous waste injection wells Nos. WDW-160 and WDW-358 at the Port Arthur, Texas facility, until November 30, 2018, unless EPA moves to terminate these exemptions under provisions of 40 CFR 148.24. Additional conditions included in this final decision may be reviewed by contacting the Region 6 Ground Water/UIC Section. As required by 40 CFR 148.22(b) and 124.10, a public notice was issued January 17, 2008. The public comment period closed on March 3, 2008. No comments were received. This decision constitutes final Agency action and there is no Administrative appeal. This decision may be reviewed/appealed in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act. DATES: This action is effective as of March 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and all pertinent information relating thereto are on file at the following location: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Water Quality Protection Division, Source Water Protection Branch (6WQ-S), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Dellinger, Chief Ground Water/UIC Section, EPA—Region 6, telephone
(214)665-7150. Dated: March 14, 2008. Miguel I. Flores, Division Director, Water Quality Protection Division (6WQ). [FR Doc. E8-6209 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1021; FRL-8354-7] Flutolanil and Its Metabolites; Withdrawal of Tolerance Petition AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Agency is withdrawing pesticide petition (PP 6F7070) at the request of the petitioner, Nichino America, Inc., because the data submitted to the Agency do not support the proposed indirect or inadvertent tolerances for flutolanil on corn and cotton. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Jones, Registration Division (7505P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)308-9424; fax number:
(703)308-5320; e-mail address: *jones.lisa@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? Although this action only applies to the registrant in question, it is directed to the public in general. Since various individuals or entities may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be interested in this action. If you have any questions regarding this action, please 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-2007-1021. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. 2. *Electronic access* . You may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . III. What Action is the Agency Taking? EPA is announcing that Nichino America, Inc., 4550 New Linden Hill Road, Suite 501, Wilmington, DE 19808, has withdrawn its application to establish inadvertent or indirect tolerances for the fungicide flutolanil and its metabolites in or on the food commodities corn and cotton, as provided for in section 3(c)(7)(C) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). EPA issued a notice in the **Federal Register** of January 23, 2008 (73 FR 3967) (FRL-8345-7), which announced Nichino America, Inc.'s submission of pesticide petition (PP 6F7070). This petition requested that EPA amend 40 CFR 180.484 by establishing increased tolerances for residues of the fungicide flutolanil [N-(3-(1-methylethoxy)phenyl)-2-(trifluoromethyl) benzamide] and its metabolite, M-4, desisopropylflutolanil [N-3(3-hydroxyphenyl)2-(trifluromethyl) benzamide] for inadvertent or indirect tolerances in or on the food commodities corn, field, forage at 0.30 parts per million (ppm); corn, field, grain at 0.20 ppm; corn field, stover at 0.30 ppm; and cotton, undelinted seed at 0.20 ppm. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: March 13, 2008. Lois Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-6203 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8547-5] Meeting of the Total Coliform Rule Distribution System Advisory Committee-Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)is giving notice of a meeting of the Total Coliform Rule Distribution System Advisory Committee (TCRDSAC). The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Total Coliform Rule
(TCR)revision and information about distribution systems issues that may impact water quality. The TCRDSAC advises and makes recommendations to the Agency on revisions to the TCR, and on what information should be collected, research conducted, and/or risk management strategies evaluated to better inform distribution system contaminant occurrence and associated public health risks. Topics to be discussed in the meeting include options for revising the Total Coliform Rule, for example, rule construct, monitoring provisions, system categories, action levels, investigation and follow-up, public notification, and other related topics. In addition, the Committee will discuss possible recommendations for research and information collection needs concerning distribution systems and topics for upcoming TCRDSAC meetings. DATES: The public meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 9, 2008 (8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m., Eastern Time (ET)) and Thursday, April 10, 2008 (8 a.m. to 3 p.m., ET). Attendees should register for the meeting by calling Kate Zimmer at:
(202)965-6387 or by e-mail to *kzimmer@resolv.org* no later than April 4, 2008. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RESOLVE, 1255 Twenty-Third St., NW., Suite 275, Washington, DC 20037. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact Kate Zimmer of RESOLVE at
(202)965-6387. For technical inquiries, contact Sean Conley ( *conley.sean@epa.gov,*
(202)564-1781), Standards and Risk Management Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC 4607M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; fax number:
(202)564-3767. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. The Committee encourages the public's input and will take public comment starting at 5:30 p.m. on April 9, 2008, for this purpose. It is preferred that only one person present the statement on behalf of a group or organization. To ensure adequate time for public involvement, individuals interested in presenting an oral statement may notify Crystal Rodgers-Jenkins, the Designated Federal Officer, by telephone at
(202)564-5275, no later than April 4, 2008. Any person who wishes to file a written statement can do so before or after a Committee meeting. Written statements received by April 4, 2008, will be distributed to all members before any final discussion or vote is completed. Any statements received on April 7, 2008, or after the meeting will become part of the permanent meeting file and will be forwarded to the members for their information. Special Accommodations For information on access or accommodations for individuals with disabilities, please contact Crystal Rodgers-Jenkins at
(202)564-5275 or by e-mail at: *rodgers-jenkins.crystal@ epa.gov.* Please allow at least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time to process your request. Dated: March 20, 2008. Cynthia C. Dougherty, Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. [FR Doc. E8-6179 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0002; FRL-8356-3] Nortel Government Solutions, Incorporated; Transfer of Data AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces that pesticide related information submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information
(CBI)by the submitter, will be tranferred to the Nortel Government Solutions, Incorporated, in accordance with 40 CFR 2.309(c) and 2.308(h)(2). The Nortel Government Solutions, Incorporated, will perform work for OPP under an Interagency Agreement (IAG). Access to this information will enable Nortel Government Solutions, Incorporated., to fulfill the obligations of the IAG. DATES: The Nortel Government Solutions, Incorporated, will be given access to this information on or before April 7, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Felicia Croom, Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)305-0786; e-mail address: croom.felicia *]@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. *Docket.* EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0002. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. 2. *Electronic access* . You may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . II. Contractor Requirements Under IAG No. GS-35F-4366G, which supports the OPP's regulatory efforts, the Nortel Government Solutions, Incorporated, will perform services that support the development of the Section Seven Tracking System (SSTS). The contractor will perform the following: Project management support; management support to the STSS WorkGroup to further prioritize system requirements; create a detailed design document; develop and implement a fully functional STSS integration into PRISM, and provide software testing and assist in placing STSS fully into productions. During the course of performing these duties, the contractor will require access to CBI/FIFRA data to complete the terms of the contract. The OPP has determined that the IAG described involves work that is being conducted in connection with FIFRA, in that pesticide chemicals will be the subject of certain evaluations to be made under this IAG. These evaluations may be used in subsequent regulatory decisions under FIFRA. Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment. The information has been submitted to EPA under sections 3, 4, 6, and 7 of FIFRA and under sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA. In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.309(c), 2.307(h), and 2.308(h)(2), this IAG with the Nortel Government Solutions, Incorporated., prohibits use of the information for any purpose not specified in the IAG; prohibits disclosure of the information to a third party without prior written approval from the Agency; and requires that each official and employee of the subcontractor sign an agreement to protect the information from unauthorized release and to handle it in accordance with the FIFRA Information Security Manual. In addition, the Nortel Government Solutions, Incorporated, are required to submit for EPA approval a security plan under which any CBI will be secured and protected against unauthorized release or compromise. No information will be provided to the Nortel Government Solutions, Incorporated, until the requirements in this document have been fully satisfied. Records of information provided under this IAG will be maintained by EPA Project Officers for this contract. All information supplied to the Nortel Government Solutions, Incorporated, by EPA for use in connection with this IAG will be returned to EPA when the Nortel Government Solutions, Incorporated., have completed their work. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Business and industry, Government contracts, Government property, Security measures. Dated: March 19, 2008. Oscar Morales, Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-6000 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0170; FRL-8356-4] Registration Review; New Dockets Opened for Review and Comment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: EPA has established registration review dockets for the pesticides listed in the table in Unit III.A. With this document, EPA is opening the public comment period for these registration reviews. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Registration review dockets contain information that will assist the public in understanding the types of information and issues that the Agency may consider during the course of registration reviews. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments identified by the docket identification
(ID)number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the table in Unit III.A., by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to the docket ID numbers listed in the table in Unit III.A. for the pesticides you are commenting on. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about a particular pesticide included in this document, contact the specific Chemical Review Manager as identified in the table in Unit III.A. for the pesticide of interest. For general questions on the registration review program, contact Peter Caulkins, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)308-8000; fax number:
(703)308-8090; e-mail address: *caulkins.peter@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farmworker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Authority EPA is initiating its reviews of the pesticides identified in this document pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review published in the **Federal Register** of August 9, 2006, and effective on October 10, 2006 (71 FR 45719) (FRL-8080-4). **** ** You may also access the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review on the Agency's website at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2006/August/Day-09/p12904.htm.* Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be periodically reviewed. The goal is a review of a pesticide's registration every 15 years. Under FIFRA section 3(a), a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food. III. Registration Reviews A. What Action is the Agency Taking? As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is periodically reviewing pesticide registrations to assure that they continue to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration—that is, they can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. The implementing regulations establishing the procedures for registration review appear at 40 CFR part 155. A pesticide's registration review begins when the Agency establishes a docket for the pesticide's registration review case and opens the docket for public review and comment. At present, EPA is opening registration review dockets for the cases identified in the following table. ** Table 1.—Registration Review Dockets Opening** Registration Review Case Name and Number Pesticide Docket ID Number Chemical Review Manager, Telephone Number, E-mail Address Acetic Acid, and Salts Case #4001 EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0016 Joy Schnackenbeck,
(703)308-8072, *schnackenbeck.joy@epa.gov* Carbon, Carbon Dioxide, and Saw dust Case #4019 EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0705 Jennifer Howenstine,
(703)305-0741, *howenstine.jennifer@epa.gov* Inorganic Nitrate/Nitrite Case #4052 EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1118 Eric Miederhoff,
(703)347-8028, *miederhoff.eric@epa.gov* Silica and Silicates Case #4081 EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1140 James Parker,
(703)306-0469, *parker.james@epa.gov* Glufosinate Ammonium Case #7224 EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0190 Karen Santora,
(703)347-8781, *santora.karen@epa.gov* Sulfur Case #0031 EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Veronique LaCapra,
(703)605-1525, *lacapra.veronique@epa.gov* Propionic Acid, and Salts Case #4078 EPA-HQ-OPP- 2008-0024 Wilhelmena Livingston,
(703)308-8025, *livingston.wilhelmena@epa.gov* B. Docket Content 1. *Review dockets* . The registration review dockets contain information that the Agency may consider in the course of the registration review. The Agency may include information from its files including, but not limited to, the following information: i. An overview of the registration review case status. ii. A list of current product registrations and registrants. iii. **Federal Register** notices regarding any pending registration actions. iv. **Federal Register** notices regarding current or pending tolerances. v. Risk assessments. vi. Bibliographies concerning current registrations. vii. Summaries of incident data. viii. Any other pertinent data or information. Each docket contains a document summarizing what the Agency currently knows about the pesticide case and a preliminary work plan for anticipated data and assessment needs. Additional documents provide more detailed information. During this public comment period, the Agency is asking that interested persons identify any additional information they believe the Agency should consider during the registration reviews of these pesticides. The Agency identifies in each docket the areas where public comment is specifically requested, though comment in any area is welcome. 2. *Other related information* . More information on these cases, including the active ingredients for each case, may be located in the registration review schedule on the Agency's website at *http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/schedule.htm* . Information on the Agency's registration review program and its implementing regulation may be seen at *http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review* . 3. *Information submission requirements* . Anyone may submit data or information in response to this document. To be considered during a pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must meet the following requirements: i. To ensure that EPA will consider data or information submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider data or information submitted at a later date. ii. The data or information submitted must be presented in a legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or electronic form. iii. Submitters must clearly identify the source of any submitted data or information. iv. Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However, submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider the data or information in the pesticide's registration review. v. As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions required in the final decision on the registration review case have been completed. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: March 13, 2008. Peter Caulkins, Acting Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs [FR Doc. E8-5999 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the **Federal Register** . Copies of agreements are available through the Commission's Office of Agreements (202-523-5793 or *sis@fmc.gov* ). *Agreement No.:* 011928-003. *Title:* Maersk Line/HLAG Slot Charter Agreement. *Parties:* A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S and Hapag-Lloyd AG (HLAG). *Filing Party:* Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The amendment would change the amount of space to be chartered, extend the minimum duration of the agreement and reflect that not all vessels on which HLAG receives space will be operated by Maersk. *Agreement No.:* 012034. *Title:* Hamburg Sud/Maersk Line Vessel Sharing Agreement. *Parties:* Hamburg-Sud and A.P. Moeller-Maersk A/S. *Filing Party:* Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The agreement would authorize the parties to share vessel space between the U.S. East Coast and Australia/New Zealand. *Agreement No.:* 200389-003. *Title:* Houston Maritime Freight Handlers Discussion Agreement. *Parties:* Barbours Cut Intermodal Services Ltd.; Barbours Cut Truck Office, Inc.; Ceres Gulf, Inc.; Chaparral Stevedoring Co. of Texas, Inc.; CT Stevedoring, Inc.; GP Terminals LLC; Ports of America Texas, Inc.; Shippers Stevedoring Co.; Southern Stevedoring Co., Inc.; and SSA Gulf, Inc. *Filing Party:* Walter A. Niemand, Chairman; Houston Maritime Freight Handlers Discussion Agreement; 1717 East Loop, Suite 200; Houston, TX 77029 *Synopsis:* The amendment would clarify language, update the current membership, and restate the entire agreement. *Agreement No.:* 201179. *Title:* Lease and Operating Agreement between PRPA and Growmark, Inc. *Parties:* Growmark, Inc. and the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority (PRPA). *Filing Party:* Paul D. Coleman, Esq.; Hoppel, Mayer & Coleman; 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW.; 10th Floor; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The agreement provides for the lease and operation of terminal facilities at the Port of Philadelphia. Dated: March 21, 2008. By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-6161 Filed 3-25-08; 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 Applicants DLR Mercantile Shipping USA Inc., 295 Parkside Drive, Suffern, NY 10901. Officers: Gary S. Neiman, Director, (Qualifying Individual), Charles J. Marrale, Director. RS Auto Expo and Shipping Line, 174 Rue Jubile, Qt Residence Du, Benin BP 12.907, Lome, Togo. Ali Hussein Hakim, Sole Proprietor. Windsor Shipping, Inc., 88-29 183rd Street, Hollis, Queens, NY 11423. Officer: Ramtaigh Singh, President, (Qualifying Individual). PAX Global Cargo U.S.A., LLC, 9800 S. La Cienega Blvd., Inglewood, CA 90301. Officer: Chul H. Choi, Member, (Qualifying Individual). Premium Cargo, LLC, 8248 NW 68th Street, Miami, FL 33166, Officers: Sandra N. Fernandez, Member, (Qualifying Individual), Jeannina M. Sieaja, Member. TBS Logistics Incorporated dba Magnum Lines, 11731 Jones Road, Suite 200, Houston, TX 77070. Officers: Judi Copeland, Vice President, (Qualifying Individual), Donald Rawlings, President. Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder Transportation Intermediary Applicant Nova World International, LLC dba Nova Shipping, 5304 Pond Bluff, West Bloomfield, MI 48323. Officer: Yevgenly R. Epshteyn, President, (Qualifying Individual). Office Shop Inc. dba Logistics Miami, 7812 NW 46th Street, Miami, FL 33166. Officers: Juan A. Guevara, President, (Qualifying Individual), Maritza Pasquier, Vice President. Cargo Logistics Group, Inc., 7380 Coca Cola Drive, Hanover, MD 21076. Officers: Cathy Hammontree, Operations Specialist, (Qualifying Individual), David M. Cook, President. Portugalia Sales, Inc., 109 Ferry Street, Newark, NJ 07105. Officers: Carlos G. Fonseca, President, (Qualifying Individual), Rosa M. Mocreia, Vice President. PISC International, Inc., 601 Century Plaza Drive, Houston, TX 77073. Officers: Mohammed S Hassan Mohamed, Operations Manager, (Qualifying Individuals), Michael J. Hellail, President. Gibert Logistics LLC, 27 Neron Place, New Orleans, LA 70118. Officer: Stewart Gibert, Sr., Member/Manager, (Qualifying Individual). AMT Trust LLC dba BR Courier LLC, 501 Washington Avenue, Carlstadt, NJ 07072. Officers: Aloysio Bayde, Managing Member, (Qualifying Individual), Jose Moreira, Member. FJ Logistics Services, LLC, 1307 West Sixth Street, Corona, CA 92882. Officers: Winfred Kizu, General Manager, (Qualifying Individual). Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicant Golden Egg Warehouse Logistics, 5401 San Leandro Street, Unit C, Oakland, CA 94601. Chau Thai, Sole Proprietor. Dated: March 21, 2008. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-6159 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Reissuances Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary license has been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR Part 515. *License No.:* 015247NF. *Name/Address:* Amerindias, Inc., 5220 NW 72nd Avenue, Miami, FL 33166. *Date Reissued:* February 21, 2008. Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing. [FR Doc. E8-6158 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Ocean Transportation Intermediary License; Rescission of Order of Revocation Notice is hereby given that the Order revoking the following license is being rescinded by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR Part 515. *License Number:* 017279NF. *Name:* Unicom Trans, Inc. *Address:* 15500 S. Western Ave., Gardena, CA 90249. *Order Published:* FR: 03/12/08 (Volume 73, No. 49, Pg. 13236). Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing. [FR Doc. E8-6163 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices, Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank Holding Companies; Correction This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. E8-5250) published on pages 14250-24251 of the issue for Monday, March 17, 2008. Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago heading, the entry for Roger L. Lehmann and Elizabeth E. Lehmann, Harvard, Illinois, is revised to read as follows: **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago** (Burl Thornton, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414: *1. Roger L. Lehmann and Elizabeth E. Lehmann* , Harvard, Illinois, Mark W. Lehmann, Belle Mead, New Jersey, and Philip J. Lehmann, Harvard, Illinois; to retain voting shares of Harvard Bancshares, Inc., Harvard, Illinois, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Harvard State Bank, Harvard, Illinois. Comments on this application must be received by March 31, 2008. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 21, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E8-6160 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 *et seq.* ) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below. The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at *www.ffiec.gov/nic/* . Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 21, 2008. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago** (Burl Thornton, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414: *1. Minier Financial, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan w/401(k) Provisions* ; to acquire up to an additional 24 percent, for a total of up to 51 percent, of the voting shares of Minier Financial, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire additional voting shares of First Farmers State Bank, all of Minier, Illinois. **B. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco** (Tracy Basinger, Director, Regional and Community Bank Group) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579: *1. Wells Fargo & Company* , San Francisco, California; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of The Jackson State Bank & Trust, Jackson, Wyoming; and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First State Bank of Pinedale, Pinedale, Wyoming; Sheridan State Bank, Sheridan, Wyoming; Shoshone First Bank, Cody, Wyoming; and to acquire certain assets and assume certain liabilities of United Bancorporation of Wyoming, Inc., Jackson, Wyoming. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 21, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc.E8-6162 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission (“Commission” or “FTC”). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The FTC is seeking public comments on its proposal to extend through July 31, 2011, the current Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) clearance for information collection requirements contained in the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act Rule (“COPPA Rule”), which will expire on July 31, 2008. The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review, as required by the PRA. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 27, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to “FTC COPPA PRA Comment: FTC File No. P084511” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Room H-135 (Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. Because paper mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay, please consider submitting your comments in electronic form, as prescribed below. However, if the comment contains any material for which confidential treatment is requested, it must be filed in paper form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “Confidential.” 1 1 Commission Rule 4.2(d), 16 CFR 4.2(d). The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted or denied by the Commission's General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. *See* Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted by following the instructions on the web-based form at *https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-COPPARule* . To ensure that the Commission considers an electronic comment, you must file it on the web-based form at the *https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-COPPARule* weblink. If this notice appears at *www.regulations.gov* , you may also file an electronic comment through that website. The Commission will consider all comments that regulations.gov forwards to it. The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments will be considered by the Commission and will be available to the public on the FTC website, to the extent practicable, at *www.ftc.gov* . As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC website. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s privacy policy at *http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information regarding this proceeding should be addressed to Mamie Kresses,
(202)326-2070, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Division of Advertising Practices, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Mail Drop NJ-3212, Washington, D.C. 20580. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3), 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing paperwork clearance for the COPPA Rule, 16 CFR Part 312 (OMB Control Number 3084-0117). The COPPA Rule prohibits unfair and deceptive acts and practices in connection with the collection, use, and disclosure of personally identifiable information from and about children on the Internet. The FTC invites comments on:
(1)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the required collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. **Estimated annual hours burden:** 2,000 hours (rounded to the nearest thousand)
(a)*Disclosure Requirements* : 1,800 hours (rounded to the nearest hundred) The COPPA Rule contains certain statutorily-required notice requirements, which constitute a “collection of information” under the PRA:
(1)the Rule requires each website and online service directed to children, and any website or online service with actual knowledge that it is collecting personal information from children, to provide notice of how it collects, uses, and discloses such information and, with exceptions, to obtain the prior consent of the child’s parent in order to engage in such collection, use, and disclosure;
(2)the Rule requires the operator to provide the parent with notice of the specific types of personal information being collected from the child, to give the parent the opportunity to forbid the operator at any time from collecting, using, or maintaining such information, and to provide reasonable means for the parent to obtain the information;
(3)the Rule prohibits a child’s participation in a game, a prize offer, or other activity from being conditioned on the child’s disclosure of more personal information than is “reasonably necessary” for the child to participate in that activity; and
(4)the Rule requires website and online service operators to establish procedures that protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of personal information collected from children. The FTC staff retains its estimate that roughly 30 new web entrants each year will fall within the Rule’s coverage and that, on average, new entrants will spend approximately 60 hours crafting a privacy policy, designing mechanisms to provide the required online privacy notice and, where applicable, the direct notice to parents. 2 Accordingly, staff estimates that complying with the Rule’s disclosure requirements will require approximately 1,800 hours (30 new web entrants x 60 hours per entrant). Consistent with prior estimates, FTC staff estimates that the time spent on compliance would be apportioned five to one between legal (lawyers or similar professionals) and technical (computer programmers) personnel. Staff therefore estimates that lawyers or similar professionals who craft privacy policies will account for 1,500 of the 1,800 hours required. Computer programmers responsible for posting privacy policies and implementing direct notices and parental consent mechanisms will account for the remaining 300 hours. 2 Although staff cannot determine with any degree of certainty the number of new entrants potentially subject to the Rule, it believes its estimate is reasonable. The Commission received no comments challenging staff’s prior PRA analyses in its prior requests for renewed clearance for the Rule or when it most recently sought comment on the Rule itself (70 FR 21107, 21109, April 22, 2005). Accordingly, staff retains those estimates for the instant PRA analysis. For the same reasons, staff retains its prior estimate of 60 hours per new entrant. Website operators that have previously created or adjusted their sites to comply with the Rule will incur no further burden associated with the Rule, unless they opt to change their policies and information collection in ways that will further invoke the Rule’s provisions. Moreover, staff believes that existing COPPA-compliant operators who introduce additional sites beyond those they already have created will incur minimal, if any, incremental PRA burden. This is because such operators already have been through the start-up phase and can carry over the results of that to the new sites they create.
(b)*Voluntary Reporting Requirements for Safe Harbor Participants* : 100 hours (rounded to the nearest hundred) Operators can comply with the Rule by meeting the terms of industry self-regulatory guidelines that the Commission approves after notice and comment. 3 While the submission of industry self-regulatory guidelines to the agency is voluntary, the Rule includes specific reporting requirements that all safe harbor applicants must provide to receive Commission approval. Staff retains its estimate that it would require, on average, 265 hours per new safe harbor program applicant to prepare and submit its safe harbor proposal in accordance with Section 312.12(c) of the Rule. Industry sources have confirmed that this estimate is reasonable and advised that all of this time would be attributable to the efforts of lawyers. Given that several safe harbor programs are already available to website operators, FTC staff believes that it is unlikely that more than one additional safe harbor applicant will submit a request within the next three years of PRA clearance sought. Thus, annualized burden attributable to this requirement would be approximately 85 hours per year (260 hours ÷ 3 years) or, roughly, 100 hours. Staff believes that most of the records submitted with a safe harbor request would be those that these entities have kept in the ordinary course of business, and that any incremental effort associated with maintaining the results of independent assessments or other records under Section 312.10(d)(3) also would be in the normal course of business. In accordance with the regulations implementing the PRA, the burden estimate excludes effort expended for these activities. 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). 3 *See* Section 312.10(c). Approved self-regulatory guidelines can be found on the FTC’s website at *http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/privacyinitiatives/childrens_shp.html.* Accordingly, FTC staff estimates that total burden per year for disclosure requirements affecting new web entrants and reporting requirements for safe harbor applications would be approximately 2,000 hours, rounded to the nearest thousand. **Labor costs:** Labor costs are derived by applying appropriate hourly cost figures to the burden hours described above. Staff conservatively assumes hourly rates of $150 and $35, respectively, for lawyers or similar professionals and computer programmers. 4 Based on these inputs, staff further estimates that associated annual labor costs for new entrants would be $235,000 [(1,500 hours x $150 per hour for legal) + (300 hours x $35 per hour for computer programmers)] and $15,000 for safe harbor applicants (100 hours per year x $150 per hour), for a total labor cost of $250,000. 4 FTC staff estimates average legal costs at $150 per hour, which is roughly midway between Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS)mean hourly wages shown for attorneys (approximately $55) in the most recent whole-year data available online
(2006)and what staff believes may more generally reflect hourly attorney costs ($250) associated with Commission information collection activities. The $35 estimate for computer programmers is also conservatively based on the most recent whole-year data available online from the BLS (2006 National Compensation Survey and 2006 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics). **Non-labor costs:** Because websites will already be equipped with the computer equipment and software necessary to comply with the Rule’s notice requirements, the sole costs incurred by the websites are the aforementioned estimated labor costs. Similarly, industry members should already have in place the means to retain and store the records that must be kept under the Rule’s safe harbor recordkeeping provisions, because they are likely to have been keeping these records independent of the Rule. William J. Blumenthal General Counsel [FR Doc. E8-6211 Filed 3-25-08: 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0168] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on information collection provisions relating to FDA's electronic records and electronic signatures. DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by May 27, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Submit written comments on the collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of the Chief Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1482. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document. With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology. Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures—21 CFR Part 11 (OMB Control Number 0910-0303)—Extension The FDA regulations in 21 CFR part 11 (part 11) provide criteria for acceptance of electronic records, electronic signatures, and handwritten signatures executed to electronic records as equivalent to paper records. Under these regulations, records and reports may be submitted to FDA electronically provided the agency has stated its ability to accept the records electronically in an agency-established public docket and that the other requirements of part 11 are met. The recordkeeping provisions in part 11 (§§ 11.10, 11.30, 11.50, and 11.300) require standard operating procedures to assure appropriate use of, and precautions for, systems using electronic records and signatures;
(1)§ 11.10 specifies procedures and controls for persons who use closed systems to create, modify, maintain, or transmit electronic records;
(2)§ 11.30 specifies procedures and controls for persons who use open systems to create, modify, maintain, or transmit electronic records;
(3)§ 11.50 specifies procedures and controls for persons who use electronic signatures; and
(4)§ 11.300 specifies controls to ensure the security and integrity of electronic signatures based upon use of identification codes in combination with passwords. The reporting provision (§ 11.100) requires persons to certify in writing to FDA that they will regard electronic signatures used in their systems as the legally binding equivalent of traditional handwritten signatures. The burden created by the information collection provision of this regulation is a one-time burden associated with the creation of standard operating procedures, validation, and certification. The agency anticipates the use of electronic media will substantially reduce the paperwork burden associated with maintaining FDA required records. The respondents will be businesses and other for-profit organizations, state or local governments, Federal agencies, and nonprofit institutions. FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: **Table 1.—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden** 1 21 CFR Section No. of Respondents Annual Frequency per Response Total Annual Responses Hours per Response Total Hours 11.100 4,500 1 4,500 1 4,500 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. **Table 2.—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden** 1 21 CFR Section No. of Recordkeepers Annual Frequency per Recordkeeping Total Annual Records Hours per Record Total Hours 11.10 2,500 1 2,500 20 50,000 11.30 2,500 1 2,500 20 50,000 11.50 4,500 1 4,500 20 90,000 11.300 4,500 1 4,500 20 90,000 Total 280,000 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA through FDMS only. Dated: March 19, 2008. Jeffrey Shuren, Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning. [FR Doc. E8-6055 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0169] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Infant Formula Recall Regulations AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on requirements related to the recall of infant formula. DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by May 27, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Submit written comments on the collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of the Chief Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4659. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document. With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology. Infant Formula Recall Regulations—21 CFR 107.230, 107.240, 107.250, 107.260, and 107.280 (OMB Control Number 0910-0188)—Extension Section 412(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 350a(e)) provides that if the manufacturer of an infant formula has knowledge that reasonably supports the conclusion that an infant formula processed by that manufacturer has left its control and may not provide the nutrients required in section 412(i) of the act or is otherwise adulterated or misbranded, the manufacturer must promptly notify the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary). If the Secretary determines that the infant formula presents a risk to human health, the manufacturer must immediately take all actions necessary to recall shipments of such infant formula from all wholesale and retail establishments, consistent with recall regulations and guidelines issued by the Secretary. Section 412(f)(2) of the act states that the Secretary shall by regulation prescribe the scope and extent of recalls of infant formula necessary and appropriate for the degree of risk to human health presented by the formula subject to recall. FDA's infant formula recall regulations in part 107 (21 CFR part 107) implement these statutory provisions. Section 107.230 requires each recalling firm to conduct an infant formula recall with the following elements:
(1)Evaluate the hazard to human health,
(2)devise a written recall strategy,
(3)promptly notify each affected direct account (customer) about the recall, and
(4)furnish the appropriate FDA district office with copies of these documents. If the recalled formula presents a risk to human health, the recalling firm must also request that each establishment that sells the recalled formula post (at point of purchase) a notice of the recall and provide FDA with a copy of the notice. Section 107.240 requires the recalling firm to conduct an infant formula recall with the following elements:
(1)Notify the appropriate FDA district office of the recall by telephone within 24 hours,
(2)submit a written report to that office within 14 days, and
(3)submit a written status report at least every 14 days until the recall is terminated. Before terminating a recall, the recalling firm is required to submit a recommendation for termination of the recall to the appropriate FDA district office and wait for written FDA concurrence (§ 107.250). Where the recall strategy or implementation is determined to be deficient, FDA may require the firm to change the extent of the recall, carry out additional effectiveness checks, and issue additional notifications (§ 107.260). In addition, to facilitate location of the product being recalled, the recalling firm is required to maintain distribution records for at least 1 year after the expiration of the shelf life of the infant formula (§ 107.280). The reporting and recordkeeping requirements described previously are designed to enable FDA to monitor the effectiveness of infant formula recalls in order to protect babies from infant formula that may be unsafe because of contamination or nutritional inadequacy or otherwise adulterated or misbranded. FDA uses the information collected under these regulations to help ensure that such products are quickly and efficiently removed from the market. FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: **Table 1.—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden** 1 21 CFR Section No. of Respondents Annual Frequency per Response Total Annual Responses Hours per Response Total Hours 107.230 2 1 2 4,500 9,000 107.240 2 1 2 1,482 2,964 107.250 2 1 2 120 240 107.260 1 1 1 650 650 Total 12,854 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. Under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2), the time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with a collection of information are excluded from the burden estimate if the reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure activities needed to comply are usual and customary because they would occur in the normal course of activities. No burden has been estimated for the recordkeeping requirement in § 107.280 because these records are maintained as a usual and customary part of normal business activities. Manufacturers keep infant formula distribution records for the prescribed period as a matter of routine business practice. The reporting burden estimate is based on agency records, which show that there are five manufacturers of infant formula and that there have been, on average, two infant formula recalls per year for the past 3 years. Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA through FDMS only. Dated: March 18, 2008. Jeffrey Shuren, Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning. [FR Doc. E8-6060 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0170] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Premarket Notification for a New Dietary Ingredient AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the procedure by which a manufacturer or distributor of dietary supplements or of a new dietary ingredient is to submit to FDA information upon which the manufacturer or distributor has based its conclusion that a dietary supplement containing a new dietary ingredient will reasonably be expected to be safe. DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by May 27, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Submit written comments on the collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of the Chief Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4659. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document. With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology. Premarket Notification for a New Dietary Ingredient—21 CFR 190.6 (OMB Control Number 0910-0330)—Extension Section 413(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 350b(a)) provides that at least 75 days before the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of a dietary supplement that contains a new dietary ingredient, a manufacturer or distributor of dietary supplements or of a new dietary ingredient is to submit to FDA (as delegate for the Secretary of Health and Human Services) information upon which the manufacturer or distributor has based its conclusion that a dietary supplement containing a new dietary ingredient will reasonably be expected to be safe. Part 190 (21 CFR part 190) implements these statutory provisions. Section 190.6(a) requires each manufacturer or distributor of a dietary supplement containing a new dietary ingredient, or of a new dietary ingredient, to submit to the Office of Nutrition, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements notification of the basis for their conclusion that said supplement or ingredient will reasonably be expected to be safe. Section 190.6(b) requires that the notification include the following:
(1)The complete name and address of the manufacturer or distributor,
(2)the name of the new dietary ingredient,
(3)a description of the dietary supplements that contain the new dietary ingredient, and
(4)the history of use or other evidence of safety establishing that the dietary ingredient will reasonably be expected to be safe. The notification requirements described previously are designed to enable FDA to monitor the introduction into the food supply of new dietary ingredients and dietary supplements that contain new dietary ingredients, in order to protect consumers from unsafe dietary supplements. FDA uses the information collected under these regulations to help ensure that a manufacturer or distributor of a dietary supplement containing a new dietary ingredient is in full compliance with the act. FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: **Table 1.—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden** 1 21 CFR Section No. of Respondents Annual Frequency per Response Total Annual Responses Hours per Response Total Hours 190.6 71 1 71 20 1,420 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. The agency believes that there will be minimal burden on the industry to generate data to meet the requirements of the premarket notification program because the agency is requesting only that information that the manufacturer or distributor should already have developed to satisfy itself that a dietary supplement containing a new dietary ingredient is in full compliance with the act. However, the agency estimates that extracting and summarizing the relevant information from the company's files and presenting it in a format that will meet the requirements of section 413 of the act will require a burden of approximately 20 hours of work per submission. The estimated number of premarket notifications and hours per response is an average based on the agency's experience with notifications received during the last 3 years (i.e., 2005, 2006, and 2007), and information from firms that have submitted recent premarket notifications. Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA through FDMS only. Dated: March 19, 2008. Jeffrey Shuren, Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning. [FR Doc. E8-6061 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0173] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Appeals of Science-Based Decisions Above the Division Level at the Center for Veterinary Medicine AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the information collection requirements for appeals of science-based decisions above the division level at the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM). DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by May 27, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Submit written comments on the collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Jr., Office of the Chief Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1472. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document. With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology. Appeals of Science-Based Decisions Above the Division Level at the Center for Veterinary Medicine—21 CFR Part 10.75 (OMB Control Number 0910-0566)—Extension CVM's “Guidance for Industry #79—Dispute Resolution Procedures for Science-Based Decisions on Products Regulated by the Center for Veterinary Medicine” describes the process by which CVM formally resolves disputes relating to scientific controversies. A scientific controversy involves issues concerning a specific product regulated by CVM related to matters of technical expertise and requires specialized education, training, or experience to be understood and resolved. Further, the guidance details information on how the agency intends to interpret and apply provisions of the existing regulations regarding internal agency review of decisions. In addition, the guidance outlines the established recommended procedures for persons who are applicants, including sponsor applicants or manufacturers, for animal drugs or other products regulated by CVM, that wish to submit a request for review of a scientific dispute. When an applicant has a scientific disagreement and a written decision by CVM, the applicant may submit a request for review of that decision by following the established agency channels of supervision for review. Respondents to this collection of information are applicants that wish to submit a request for review of a scientific dispute. FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: **Table 1.—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden** 1 21 CFR Section No. of Respondents Annual Frequency per Response Total Annual Responses Hours per Response Total Hours 10.75 2 4 8 10 80 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. This estimated annual reporting burden is based on CVM's experience over the past 3 years in handling formal appeals for scientific disputes. The number of respondents multiplied by the annual frequency of response equals the total annual responses. The number of hours per response is based on discussions with industry and may vary depending on the complexity of the issue(s) involved and the duration of the appeal process. Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA through FDMS only. Dated: March 18, 2008. Jeffrey Shuren, Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning. [FR Doc. E8-6065 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration Anesthetic and Life Support Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public. *Name of Committee* : Anesthetic and Life Support Drugs Advisory Committee. *General Function of the Committee* : To provide advice and recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues. *Date and Time* : The meeting will be held on May 7, 2008, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. *Location* : Holiday Inn, The Ballrooms, Two Montgomery Village Ave., Gaithersburg, MD, 301-948-8900. *Contact Person* : Teresa Watkins, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane (for express delivery, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1093), Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-7001, FAX: 301-827-6776, e-mail: *Teresa.Watkins@fda.hhs.gov* , or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572) in Washington, DC area), code 3014512529. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting. A notice in the **Federal Register** about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the agency's Web site and call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting. *Agenda* : On May 7, 2008, the committee will discuss new drug application
(NDA)22-244, fospropofol disodium injection (35 milligrams/milliliter) (proposed tradename Aquavan), MGI Pharma, Inc., for the proposed indication of sedation in adult patients undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/acmenu.htm* , click on the year 2008 and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link. *Procedure* : Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before April 23, 2008. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those desiring to make formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before April 15, 2008. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by April 16, 2008. Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets. FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Teresa Watkins at least 7 days in advance of the meeting. FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at *http://www.fda.gov/oc/advisory/default.htm* for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2). Dated: March 20, 2008. Randall W. Lutter, Deputy Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E8-6193 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration Blood Products Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At least one portion of the meeting will be closed to the public. *Name of Committee* : Blood Products Advisory Committee. *General Function of the Committee* : To provide advice and recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues. *Date and Time* : The meeting will be held on May 1, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and on May 2, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. *Location* : Hilton Hotel, Washington DC/Rockville Executive Meeting Center, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. *Contact Person* : Donald W. Jehn or Pearline K. Muckelvene, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike (HFM-71), Rockville, MD 20852, 301-827-0314, or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area), code 3014519516. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting. A notice in the **Federal Register** about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the agency's Web site and call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting. *Agenda* : On the morning of May 1, 2008, the committee will hear updates on the following:
(1)Summaries of August 22-23, 2007, and January 9-10, 2008, meetings of the Department of Health and Human Services Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability;
(2)2007 West Nile Virus Epidemiology and the use of nucleic acid tests to reduce the risk of transmission of West Nile Virus in Whole Blood and blood components for transfusion and Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-based products (HCT/Ps);
(3)implementation of blood donor screening for infection with *Trypanosoma cruzi* and the use of serological tests to reduce the risk of transmission of *T. cruzi* infection in Whole Blood and blood components for transfusion and HCT/Ps;
(4)FDA's proposal to lower the minimum recommended lot release titer for measles antibodies in Immune Globulin Intravenous (Human) and Immune Globulin Subcutaneous (Human);
(5)Gambro/Fenwal Post Approval Surveillance Study of Platelet Outcomes, Release Tested (PASSPORT) Post Marketing Study—7 Day Platelets;
(6)Experience with 7 Day Platelets Versus 5 Day Platelets; and
(7)FDA Perspective on the PASSPORT Study. These updates will be followed by informational presentations on FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Safety Teams related to blood and tissue. In the afternoon, the committee will discuss the Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion Committee Report on red blood cell recovery standards. On the morning of May 2, 2008, the committee will discuss Lev Pharmaceutical's plasma-derived C1 esterase inhibitor (CINRYZE). Then, in the afternoon the committee will review the research programs in the Laboratory of Hepatitis and Related Emerging Agents, Division of Emerging and Transfusion Transmitted Diseases, Office of Blood Research and Review, CBER Site Visit of November 8, 2007. FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/acmenu.htm* , click on the year 2008 and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link. *Procedure* : The entire day of May 1, 2008, and on May 2, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., the meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before April 23, 2008. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 11:50 a.m. and 12:20 p.m. and between approximately 4:20 p.m. and 4:50 p.m. on May 1, 2008, and between approximately 10:40 a.m. and 11:10 a.m. and 2:40 p.m. and 3 p.m. on May 2, 2008. Those desiring to make formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before April 15, 2008. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by April 16, 2008. *Closed Committee Deliberations* : On May 2, 2008, between 3:15 p.m. and 4 p.m., the meeting will be closed to permit discussion where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6)). The committee will discuss reports of intramural research programs and make recommendations regarding personnel staffing decisions. Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets. FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Donald W. Jehn or Pearline K. Muckelvene at least 7 days in advance of the meeting. FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at *http://www.fda.gov/oc/advisory/default.htm* for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2). Dated: March 20, 2008. Randall W. Lutter, Deputy Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E8-6208 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0158] (formerly Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0131) Frozen Concentrate for Lemonade Deviating From Identity Standard; Temporary Permit for Market Testing; Correction AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice; correction. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration is correcting a notice that appeared in the **Federal Register** of February 29, 2008 (73 FR 11095). The document announced that a temporary permit has been issued to Florida's Natural Growers, to market test a product designated as “Frozen Concentrate for Lemonade 3+1 Ratio.” The document was published with an incorrect value for the Brix (measure of concentration of sugars in juice). This document corrects the error. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Loretta A. Carey, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301-436-2371. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. E8-3912, appearing on page 11095 in the **Federal Register** of Friday, February 29, 2008, the following correction is made: 1. On page 11095, in the second column, in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, line twenty-two, the number “56°” is corrected to read “37.6°”. Dated: March 18, 2008. Barbara Schneeman, Director, Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. [FR Doc. E8-6056 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0178] International Conference on Harmonisation; Draft Guidance on S2(R1) Genotoxicity Testing and Data Interpretation for Pharmaceuticals Intended for Human Use; Availability AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled “S2(R1) Genotoxicity Testing and Data Interpretation for Pharmaceuticals Intended for Human Use.” The draft guidance was prepared under the auspices of the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). The draft guidance updates and combines information from two ICH guidances, “S2A Specific Aspects of Regulatory Genotoxicity Tests for Pharmaceuticals” and “S2B Genotoxicity: A Standard Battery for Genotoxicity Testing of Pharmaceuticals.” The draft guidance is intended to help facilitate drug development programs, ensure patient safety, and reduce animal usage. DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance by May 12, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information (HFD-240), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or the Office of Communication, Training and Manufacturers Assistance (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. The draft guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 301-827-1800. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist the office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *Regarding the guidance* : David Jacobson-Kram, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 6488, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-0175. *Regarding the ICH* : Michelle Limoli, Office of International Programs (HFG-1), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4480. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in many meetings designed to enhance harmonization and is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies. ICH was organized to provide an opportunity for tripartite harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from consumer representatives and others. ICH is concerned with harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of pharmaceutical products among three regions: The European Union, Japan, and the United States. The six ICH sponsors are the European Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; the Centers for Drug Evaluation and Research and Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA; and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The ICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA). The ICH Steering Committee includes representatives from each of the ICH sponsors and the IFPMA, as well as observers from the World Health Organization, Health Canada, and the European Free Trade Area. In February 2008, the ICH Steering Committee agreed that a draft guidance entitled “S2(R1) Genotoxicity Testing and Data Interpretation for Pharmaceuticals Intended for Human Use” should be made available for public comment. The draft guidance is the product of the Safety Expert Working Group of the ICH. Comments about this draft will be considered by FDA and the Safety Expert Working Group. The draft guidance provides guidance on optimizing the standard genetic toxicology battery for the prediction of potential human risks, and on interpreting the results. The ultimate goal of this guidance is to improve risk characterization for carcinogenic effects induced by changes in the genetic material. The draft guidance is intended to help facilitate drug development programs, ensure patient safety, and reduce animal usage. This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. II. Comments Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding the draft guidance. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA through FDMS only. III. Electronic Access Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm* , *http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm* , or *http://www.fda.gov/cber/publications.htm* . Dated: March 21, 2008. Jeffrey Shuren, Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning. [FR Doc. 08-1076 Filed 3-21-08; 3:05 pm]
Connectionstraces to 37
Traces to 37 documents
CFR
48 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 435 U.S. 519
  • 803 F.2d 1016
  • 490 F. Supp. 1334
  • 40 CFR 1503.3
  • 40 CFR 1501.7
  • 7 CFR 1.27(b)
  • 7 USC 71-87k
  • 7 USC 181-229
  • 7 USC 201-203
  • 7 CFR 15
  • 7 CFR 3015
  • 7 CFR 3017
  • 7 CFR 3018
  • 7 CFR 3019
  • 7 CFR 3021
  • 7 CFR 3052
  • Pub. L. 110-161
  • 7 CFR 3019.36
  • Pub. L. 94-171
  • 273 F. Supp. 2d 1342
  • 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312
  • 117 F.3d 1401
  • 50 CFR 648.81(f)
  • Pub. L. 92-463
  • 5 CFR 1320.12
  • 5 CFR 1320.8(d)
  • 40 CFR 9
  • 40 CFR 90
  • 40 CFR 1048
  • 40 CFR 1051
  • 40 CFR 2
  • 40 CFR 155
  • 40 CFR 155.58
  • 40 CFR 148
  • 40 CFR 148.24
  • 40 CFR 148.22(b)
  • 40 CFR 180.484
  • 46 CFR 515
  • 12 CFR 225
+ 8 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice; request for comment
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 202
U.S.C.§ 2204b
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 1991
U.S.C.§ 3506
U.S.C.§ 141
C.F.R.§ 351.308
C.F.R.§ 351.206
SCOTUS435 U.S. 519
F. App'x803 F.2d 1016
F. Supp.490 F. Supp. 1334
Cites 85 · 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.