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 · 2008-05-13 · Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

64,241 words·~292 min read·/register/2008/05/13/08-1254

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 93 Tuesday, May 13, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0540; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-031-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the CL-600-2C10/CL-600-2D24 aircraft fuel system against new fuel tank safety standards, introduced in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of Proposed Amendment
(NPA)2002-043. The identified non-compliances were assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001 to determine if mandatory corrective action is required. This assessment showed that rupture of the fuel tank climb vent loop pipe or leakage from pipe couplings could result in fuel coming in contact with hot anti-ice ducts, creating potential fire on top of the centre fuel tank. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 12, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Fiesel, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone
(516)228-7304; fax
(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0540; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-031-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-01, dated January 3, 2008 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the CL-600-2C10/CL-600-2D24 aircraft fuel system against new fuel tank safety standards, introduced in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of Proposed Amendment
(NPA)2002-043. The identified non-compliances were assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001 to determine if mandatory corrective action is required. This assessment showed that rupture of the fuel tank climb vent loop pipe or leakage from pipe couplings could result in fuel coming in contact with hot anti-ice ducts, creating potential fire on top of the centre fuel tank. To correct the unsafe condition, this directive mandates the modification of the fuel tank climb vent loop by installing shrouding boots that direct leaked fuel safely overboard. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate
(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Relevant Service Information Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-28-011, Revision B, dated July 4, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 297 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 22 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $13,768 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $4,611,816, or $15,528 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair)** : Docket No. FAA-2008-0540; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-031-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by June 12, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10003 through 10169; and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial numbers 15001 though 15025; certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 28: Fuel. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the CL-600-2C10/CL-600-2D24 aircraft fuel system against new fuel tank safety standards, introduced in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of Proposed Amendment
(NPA)2002-043. The identified non- compliances were assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001 to determine if mandatory corrective action is required. This assessment showed that rupture of the fuel tank climb vent loop pipe or leakage from pipe couplings could result in fuel coming in contact with hot anti-ice ducts, creating potential fire on top of the centre fuel tank. To correct the unsafe condition, this directive mandates the modification of the fuel tank climb vent loop by installing shrouding boots that direct leaked fuel safely overboard. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Within 4,500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, modify the fuel tank climb vent loop pipes by installing shrouding boots according to the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-28-011, Revision B, dated July 4, 2007.
(2)Modification of the climb vent pipe prior to the effective date of this AD according to Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-28-011, dated November 7, 2005; or Revision A, dated January 22, 2007; is acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Richard Fiesel, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone
(516)228-7304; fax
(516)794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-01, dated January 3, 2008, and Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-28-011, Revision B, dated July 4, 2007, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 5, 2008. Michael J. Kaszycki, Acting Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-10647 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0541; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-063-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Jetstream) Model 4101 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Resulting from the assessment of fuel tank wiring installations required by SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88) and equivalent JAA/EASA (Joint Aviation Authorities/European Aviation Safety Agency) policy, BAE Systems identified two features in the Jetstream 4100 where the need for design changes was apparent. * * * Insufficient or defective bonding in the fuel tank area, if not corrected, could lead to ignition of fuel vapours and subsequent fuel tank explosion. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 12, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1175; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0541; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-063-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2008-0040, dated February 27, 2008 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Resulting from the assessment of fuel tank wiring installations required by SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88) and equivalent JAA/EASA (Joint Aviation Authorities/European Aviation Safety Agency) policy, BAE Systems identified two features in the Jetstream 4100 where the need for design changes was apparent. One of these is addressed by Service Bulletin
(SB)J41-28-013 which introduces additional bonding leads between pipes, structure and various components to improve the electrical bond paths within the fuel tank areas. This design change is identified by modification number JM41659. Additionally, SB J41-28-013 provides instructions to inspect the existing bonding leads, to replace any defective leads and to examine all fuel system pipe runs in the wings to ensure appropriate clearances are maintained. Insufficient or defective bonding in the fuel tank area, if not corrected, could lead to ignition of fuel vapours and subsequent fuel tank explosion. For the reason stated above, this EASA Airworthiness Directive
(AD)requires the installation of additional bonding leads, inspection [for defects] of existing bonding leads and [for clearance of] all fuel system pipe runs in the wings and follow-on corrective actions, as necessary. Corrective actions include replacing any defective bonding leads and adjusting clearances of the fuel system pipe runs. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate
(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. The Joint Aviation Authorities
(JAA)has issued a regulation that is similar to SFAR 88. (The JAA is an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference
(ECAC)representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Relevant Service Information BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued Service Bulletin J41-28-013, Revision 1, dated January 10, 2008. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 7 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 80 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,700 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $56,700, or $8,100 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Formerly British Aerospace Regional Aircraft)** : Docket No. FAA-2008-0541; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-063-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by June 12, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model Jetstream 4101 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 28: Fuel. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Resulting from the assessment of fuel tank wiring installations required by SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88) and equivalent JAA/EASA (Joint Aviation Authorities/European Aviation Safety Agency) policy, BAE Systems identified two features in the Jetstream 4100 where the need for design changes was apparent. One of these is addressed by Service Bulletin
(SB)J41-28-013 which introduces additional bonding leads between pipes, structures and various components to improve the electrical bond paths within the fuel tank areas. This design change is identified by modification number JM41659. Additionally, SB J41-28-013 provides instructions to inspect the existing bonding leads, to replace any defective leads and to examine all fuel system pipe runs in the wings to ensure appropriate clearances are maintained. Insufficient or defective bonding in the fuel tank area, if not corrected, could lead to ignition of fuel vapours and subsequent fuel tank explosion. For the reason stated above, this EASA Airworthiness Directive
(AD)requires the installation of additional bonding leads, inspection [for defects] of existing bonding leads and [for clearance of] all fuel system pipe runs in the wings and follow-on corrective actions, as necessary. Corrective actions include replacing any defective bonding leads and adjusting clearances of the fuel system pipe runs. Actions and Compliance
(f)Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Inspect the bonding leads between ribs 1 and 9, and between ribs 16 and 19, in the left-hand
(LH)and right-hand
(RH)wings in accordance with paragraph 2.B.(2) of the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin J41-28-013, Revision 1, dated January 10, 2008; and, before next flight, replace all defective bonding leads with airworthy parts in accordance with the service bulletin.
(2)Inspect all fuel system pipe runs inside the LH and RH wings in accordance with paragraph 2.B.(3) of the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin J41-28-013, Revision 1, dated January 10, 2008; and, if incorrect clearances are found, before next flight, adjust clearances in accordance with the service bulletin.
(3)Install additional electrical bonding of components within the LH and RH wings in accordance with paragraphs 2.B.(4) to 2.B.(15) of the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin J41-28-013, Revision 1, dated January 10, 2008. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1175; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2008-0040, dated February 27, 2008, and BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin J41-28-013, Revision 1, dated January 10, 2008, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 6, 2008. Michael J. Kaszycki, Acting Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-10648 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0543; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-092-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Model FU-24 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: To prevent the possible in-flight failure of the vertical fin, leading to loss of control of the aircraft * * * The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 12, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4146; fax:
(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0543; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-092-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, which is the aviation authority for New Zealand, has issued AD DCA/FU24/176C, dated September 27, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: To prevent the possible in-flight failure of the vertical fin, leading to loss of control of the aircraft * * * The MCAI requires inspections of the vertical fin for cracking, corrosion, scratches, dents, creases or buckling and the repair of any damaged area. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information The Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, which is the aviation authority for New Zealand, makes reference to Pacific Aerospace Limited Chapter 05, page 25 of the FU-24-950 Series Maintenance Manual, issued December 1978. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 2 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $160, or $80 per product. In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 24 work-hours and require parts costing $1,000, for a cost of $2,920 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Pacific Aerospace Limited** : Docket No. FAA-2008-0543; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-092-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by June 12, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to FU-24 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association of America
(ATA)Code 53: Fuselage. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: To prevent the possible in-flight failure of the vertical fin, leading to loss of control of the aircraft * * * The MCAI requires inspections of the vertical fin for cracking, corrosion, scratches, dents, creases or buckling, and the repair of any damaged area. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, after the effective date of this AD, do the following actions following Chapter 05, page 25 of the FU-24-950 Series Maintenance Manual:
(1)Before the first flight of the day, visually inspect the vertical stabilizer leading edge skin and fin for any cracking, corrosion, scratches, dents, creases or buckling, and repair as necessary. All non-transparent protective coatings and their adhesive must be removed for this inspection.
(2)Within 100 hours time-in-service
(TIS)after the effective date of this AD and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS, perform a detailed inspection of the vertical stabilizer leading edge skin, leading edge, fin skin, and the fin forward attachment point for any cracking, corrosion, scratches, dents, creases, or buckling to include:
(i)Inspection of the entire leading edge down to the forward attach fitting; and removal of dorsal fin extensions if installed in order to inspect the obscured areas of the fin.
(ii)Inspection of the fin skin for corrosion and cracks, paying particular attention to the center rib rivet holes and the skin joint at the fin base.
(iii)Inspection of the fin forward attachment point for corrosion, removal of the fin tip, and inspection of the top rib for cracks at the skin stiffener cut outs.
(3)If any damage is found during any inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, before further flight, obtain an FAA-approved repair scheme from the manufacturer and incorporate that repair.
(4)The following transparent polyurethane protective tapes have been assessed as suitable for use to re-protect the leading edge and may remain in situ for subsequent inspections, provided they are sound and in a condition to permit visual inspection of the skin beneath them: Manufacturer Product
(i)3M 8591, or 8671, 8672 and 8681HS (aeronautical grade).
(ii)Scapa Aeroshield P2604 (transparent). Note 1: You may apply for an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC)for an alternative to the transparent polyurethane protective tapes listed above. FAA AD Differences Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows:
(1)The inspections required in this AD must be performed by a person authorized under 14 CFR part 43 to perform inspections, as opposed to the MCAI, which allows the holder of a pilot license to perform the inspections.
(2)The 50-hour inspection required in the MCAI goes away because the “before each flight” inspection captures the intent. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4146; fax:
(816)329-4090. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand AD DCA/FU24/176C, dated September 27, 2007, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 6, 2008. Margaret Kline, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-10649 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0417; Airspace Docket No. 08-AEA-20] Modification of Class E Airspace; Roanoke, VA AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class E Airspace at Roanoke, VA. Additional airspace is necessary to allow for a lower vectoring altitude known as the Minimum Vectoring Altitude
(MVA)for vectoring of both Visual Flight Rule
(VFR)and Instrument Flight Rule
(IFR)aircraft for spacing within 20 miles of Roanoke, VA. This action would enhance the safety and airspace management around the Roanoke Regional/Woodrum Field Airport area. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 27, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U. S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12 140, 1200 New Jersey, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-800 647-5527; Fax: 202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA 2008-0417; Airspace Docket No. 08-AEA-20, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* You may review the public docket containing the rule, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daryl Daniels, Airspace Specialist, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone
(404)305-5610. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Those wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2008-0417; Airspace Docket No. 08-AEA-20.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of NPRMs An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through *http://www.regulations.gov.* Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at *http://www.faa.gov* or the Federal Register's web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.* Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,
(202)267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is considering an amendment to Part 71 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) to modify Class E airspace at Roanoke, VA. Analysis of operations has determined that there is a need for additional Class E5 airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the Earth to enhance the management, safety, and efficiency of air traffic services in the area. Higher Minimum Vectoring Altitudes
(MVAs)were established due to a change in FAA Order 8260.64, Criteria and Guidance for Radar Operations. That change recommends the FAA “provide a 300 foot buffer above the floor of controlled airspace”. This Class E airspace modification would allow the FAA at Roanoke to satisfy that requirement and lower the MVA to a point to facilitate a better operation for intercepting the glide slopes and enhance the visual approach operation at the Roanoke Airport. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order. The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore,
(1)is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and
(3)does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it proposes to modify Class E airspace at Roanoke, VA. Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air). The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 will continue to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, effective September 15, 2007, is proposed to be amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AEA VA E5 Roanoke, VA [Revised] Roanoke Regional/Woodrum Field Airport, Roanoke, VA (Lat. 37°19′32″ N., long. 79°58′32″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the Earth within a 15-mile radius of Roanoke Regional/Woodrum Field Airport beginning at the 036 bearing from the airport, thence clockwise until the 128 bearing thence, within a 20-mile radius from the 128 bearing clockwise until the 273 bearing, thence direct to the point of beginning. Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 25, 2008. Kathy Swann, Acting Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. [FR Doc. E8-10414 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 45 CFR Parts 1606 and 1623 Termination, Limited Reductions in Funding, and Debarment Procedures; Recompetition; Suspension Procedures AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation. ACTION: Notice of Rulemaking Workshop and Request for Expressions of Interest in Participation in Workshop. SUMMARY: LSC is conducting a Rulemaking Workshop in connection with its rulemaking to consider revisions to its regulations on termination and suspension. LSC hereby solicits expressions of interest in participation in the Workshop from the regulated community, its clients, advocates, the organized bar and other interested parties. DATES: Expressions of interest must be received by May 23, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victor M. Fortuno, Vice President & General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K St., NW., Washington, DC 20007;
(202)295-1620 (phone); 202-337-6831
(fax)or *vfortuno@lsc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Legal Services Corporation (“LSC”) has initiated a rulemaking to consider revisions to 45 CFR Part 1606, Termination and Debarment Procedures; Recompetition, and 45 CFR Part 1623, Suspension. As part of this rulemaking proceeding, LSC is convening a Rulemaking Workshop on June 17, 2008 from 9 a.m.-5 p.m, EDT. The Rulemaking Workshop will be held in LSC's Conference Center, on the 3rd floor of 3333 K St., NW., Washington, DC 20007. *Under the LSC Rulemaking Protocol:* Rulemaking Workshops [enable LSC staff to meet with stakeholders] to discuss, but not negotiate, LSC rules and regulations. * * * The Workshop will be a meeting at which the participants hold open discussions designed to elicit information about problems or concerns with the regulation (or certain aspects thereof) and provide an opportunity for sharing ideas regarding how to address those issues. The Workshop is not intended [to] develop detailed alternatives or to obtain consensus on regulatory proposals. 67 FR 69762, 69763 (November 19, 2002). With this notice, LSC is inviting expressions of interest from the interested stakeholder community to participate in the Rulemaking Workshop. Expressions of interest should be forwarded in writing to Victor M. Fortuno, Vice President & General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, via e-mail to *vfortuno@lsc.gov* or via fax to 202-337-6831. Such expressions of interest may be alternatively by sent via hard copy to 3333 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20007. All expressions of interest must be received by 5:30 p.m. E.D.T. on May 23, 2008. LSC will select participants shortly thereafter and will inform all those who expressed interest of whether or not they have been selected. The Workshops will be open to public observation but only persons selected will be allowed to participate. Participants are expected to cover their own expenses (travel, lodging, etc.). LSC may consider providing financial assistance to participants for whom travel costs would represent a significant hardship and barrier to participation. Any such person should so note in his/her expression of interest for LSC's consideration. Victor M. Fortuno, Vice President & General Counsel. [FR Doc. E8-10563 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7050-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [FWS-R8-ES-2007-0007; 92210-1117-0000-B4] RIN 1018-AU86 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Acanthomintha ilicifolia (San Diego thornmint) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period and revisions to proposed critical habitat boundaries. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat for *Acanthomintha ilicifolia* (San Diego thornmint) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are reopening the comment period because of new information we received following the close of the last public comment period on this proposed action. This new information leads us to propose revised boundaries for Subunit 1A and to update the areas we are proposing for exclusion from the final designation. The reopened comment period will provide the public; Federal, State, and local agencies; and Tribes with an additional opportunity to submit comments on the original proposed rule and the revisions proposed in this document. Comments previously submitted on the proposed critical habitat designation for *A. ilicifolia* need not be resubmitted as they have already been incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in any final decision. DATES: We will consider comments and information received or postmarked on or before June 12, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *U.S. mail or hand-delivery:* Public Comments Processing, Attn: RIN 1018-AU86; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on *http://www.regulations.gov.* This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the “Public Comments” section below for more information). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone 760-431-9440; facsimile 760-431-5901. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Comments We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed critical habitat designation for *Acanthomintha ilicifolia* published in the **Federal Register** on March 14, 2007 (72 FR 11945), the corrections to the proposed designation published in the **Federal Register** on November 27, 2007 (72 FR 66122), and the new information provided in this document. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:
(1)The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as critical habitat under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), including whether the benefit of designation would outweigh threats to the species caused by the designation, such that the designation of critical habitat is prudent.
(2)Specific information on: • The amount and distribution of *Acanthomintha ilicifolia* habitat, • What areas within the geographical area occupied at the time of listing that contain features essential for the conservation of the species we should include in the designation and why, and • What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential to the conservation of the species and why.
(3)Any proposed critical habitat areas covered by conservation or management plans that we should consider for exclusion from the designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We specifically request information on any operative or draft habitat conservation plans that include *Acanthomintha ilicifolia* as a covered species that have been prepared under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, or any other management plan, conservation plan, or agreement that benefits the species or its physical and biological features.
(4)Land use designations and current or planned activities in the proposed critical habitat areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat for the species.
(5)Specific information concerning whether the benefits of excluding areas proposed for critical habitat within the City of San Diego subarea plan and the County of San Diego subarea plan under the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP), the Carlsbad and Encinitas subarea plans under the San Diego Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP), and the Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank under section 4(b)(2) of the Act outweigh the benefits of their inclusion in designated critical habitat.
(6)Additional scientific or commercial information that will help us to better delineate areas that contain the primary constituent elements laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential for the conservation of the species, specifically, information pertaining to the amount and distribution of the primary constituent elements in Subunit 1A.
(7)Information about potential impacts that the designation of critical habitat in Subunit 1A may have on the operation of McClellan-Palomar Airport, specifically, whether the benefits of excluding this area would outweigh the benefits of including this area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(8)Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any impacts on small entities.
(9)Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments. Comments and information submitted on the proposed rule (72 FR 11945) during the initial comment period from March 14, 2007, to May 14, 2007, or the second comment period (72 FR 66122) from November 27, 2007, to December 27, 2007, do not need to be resubmitted as they have already been incorporated into the public record. Our final determination concerning the designation of critical habitat will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive during all comment periods. On the basis of information provided during the public comment periods on the critical habitat proposal and the associated draft economic analysis (DEA), we may, during the development of our final determination, find that areas proposed do not meet the definition of “critical habitat” under section 3(5)(A) of the Act, or are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. You may submit your comments and materials concerning our proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not consider comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit a comment via *http://www.regulations.gov,* your entire comment—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy comments on *http://www.regulations.gov.* Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this notice, will be available for public inspection on *http://www.regulations.gov,* or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and DEA by mail from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) or by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Background It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat in this notice. For more information on the taxonomy and biology of *Acanthomintha ilicifolia,* refer to the final listing rule published in the **Federal Register** on October 13, 1998 (63 FR 54938) and the proposed critical habitat rule published on March 14, 2007 (72 FR 11945). On August 10, 2004, the Center for Biological Diversity and California Native Plant Society challenged our failure to designate critical habitat for *Acanthomintha ilicifolia* as well as four other plant species ( *Center for Biological Diversity, et al.* v. *Norton,* C-04-3240 JL (N. D. Cal.)). In settlement of the lawsuit, the Service agreed to submit to the **Federal Register** a proposed rule to designate critical habitat, if prudent, on or before February 28, 2007, and a final designation by February 28, 2008. On March 14, 2007, we published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for *A. ilicifolia* (72 FR 11945), identifying a total of approximately 1,936 acres
(ac)(783 hectares (ha)) of land in San Diego County, California. We proposed 1,302 ac (527 ha) of land for exclusion from the final designation of critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. On November 27, 2007, we reopened the comment period on the proposed rule, announced the availability of the draft economic analysis for the proposed rule, and made several corrections to the proposed rule (72 FR 66122). As a result of the corrections, the proposed critical habitat (1,936 acres
(ac)(783 hectares (ha))) was reduced by approximately 69 ac (27 ha) and the area being proposed for exclusion (1,302 ac (527 ha)) was reduced by 168 ac (68 ha). Therefore, the total amount of land proposed as critical habitat was 1,867 ac (756 ha). Of the total amount of land proposed as critical habitat, we proposed to exclude 1,134 ac (459 ha) from the final designation. Due to the substantive nature of the comments and new information received on this proposed rule, we requested an extension of the February 28, 2008, court-ordered date for the completion of the final designation. An extension was granted on April 15, 2008, which now requires us to submit to the **Federal Register** the final critical habitat designation by August 14, 2008. Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act. New Information Relating to the Proposed Critical Habitat, Revisions to Proposed Critical Habitat Boundaries, and Updated Areas Proposed for Exclusion On March 14, 2007, we proposed to designate critical habitat in four units comprising a total of 1,936 ac (783 ha) (72 FR 11945). At that time we proposed to exclude 1,302 ac (527 ha) under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (72 FR 11945, March 14, 2007). In the notice of availability for the draft economic analysis
(DEA)published on November 27, 2007 (72 FR 66122), we announced corrections to the proposed designation that reduced the size of several subunits. As a result of those corrections, the total identified proposed critical habitat area was reduced from 1,936 ac (783 ha) to 1,867 ac (756 ha). Of the total amount of land proposed as critical habitat, the total area proposed for exclusion from the final designation was reduced from 1,302 ac (527 ha) to 1,134 ac (459 ha). Following publication of the November 27, 2007, document, we received new information for Subunit 1A that leads us to reduce the proposed critical habitat by an additional 17 ac (7 ha). Therefore, at this time we are proposing a total of 1,850 ac (749 ha) as critical habitat for *Acanthomintha ilicifolia.* Additionally, we have become aware of information indicating that excluding Subunits 1A, 1B, and 1C within the MHCP may not be appropriate. Of the 1,850 ac (749 ha) we are proposing as critical habitat, we are intending to exclude 964 ac (390 ha) from the final designation. The information we received that led to these intended changes is presented below. We are opening this comment period to provide the public the opportunity to comment on these items. We received two comments indicating some areas in Subunit 1A are developed as agricultural land and some areas are actively used for maintenance and navigation purposes for McClellan-Palomar Airport. Further, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)requested the Service to consider impacts associated with the designation of critical habitat in Subunit 1A (Palomar Airport) on the operation of McClellan-Palomar Airport. Specifically, the FAA requested that we not designate critical habitat in areas of Subunit 1A that encompass a series of navigational devices (i.e., Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (MALSRs)) and an associated dirt maintenance road. We met with the County of San Diego and the FAA at Subunit 1A on January 9, 2008, and we mapped agricultural fields and areas that are actively used for maintenance and navigation purposes at McClellan-Palomar Airport. We found that portions of the agricultural fields immediately adjacent to known occurrences of *Acanthomintha ilicifolia* do contain the primary constituent element
(PCE)(PCE subparts 1b and 1c; clay lenses on gently sloping terrain and derived from gabbro and soft calcareous sandstone substrates) laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement for the conservation of the species and contribute to the stability and function of the habitat in Subunit 1A. However, the developed agricultural areas farther than approximately 100 feet
(ft)(30 meters (m)) from known occurrences of *A. ilicifolia,* and the entirety of the dirt maintenance road within Subunit 1A, no longer appear to contain the features essential to the conservation of *A. ilicifolia.* While the agricultural fields have the same clay soil that supports *A. ilicifolia,* these areas no longer support the species because the soil structure has been altered by discing and other agricultural practices, and the soil no longer has the crumbly texture and deep fissures that are indicative of this species' habitat (PCE subpart 1c). Additionally, the area is infested with nonnative plants, and open areas no longer exist to support *A. ilicifolia* (PCE subpart 1d). We have determined that the developed areas of Subunit 1A have been altered to a point where these areas no longer contain the features essential for the conservation of *A. ilicifolia.* Therefore, the developed areas in Subunit 1A greater than 100 ft (30 m) from known occurrences of *A. ilicifolia* and the entirety of the dirt maintenance road do not meet the definition of critical habitat. A total of 17 ac (7 ha) have been removed from the area proposed as Subunit 1A; the resulting area now identified as critical habitat in this unit is 71 ac (29 ha). As noted above, we are requesting additional information from the public pertaining to the proposed designation of critical habitat encompassing the MALSRs and whether the benefits of excluding this area would outweigh the benefits of including this area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. In the March 14, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 11945), we proposed the exclusion of and requested public comment on lands in Subunits 1A and 1B covered by the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP; i.e., the Carlsbad Subarea Plan) under the MHCP from the designation of critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Upon further analysis of the Carlsbad HMP, we found that coverage of *Acanthomintha ilicifolia* under this habitat conservation plan
(HCP)is contingent on a funded management plan being in place for this species and the completion of the San Marcos subarea plan under the MHCP. In the time that has elapsed since the development and publication of the proposed rule (March 14, 2007, 72 FR 11945), the City of San Marcos has not completed its subarea plan. Therefore, we believe that excluding land covered by the Carlsbad HMP in Subunits 1A and 1B is inappropriate. With the information we have at this time, we intend to designate the lands covered by the Carlsbad HMP in Subunits 1A and 1B as critical habitat. While we have received one comment indicating that some land in Subunit 1A is conserved and managed, we do not believe this meets the requirements for *A. ilicifolia* to be covered under the Carlsbad HMP. We are requesting additional information from the public on the appropriateness of excluding lands covered by the Carlsbad HMP. In the March 14, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 11945), we proposed the exclusion of, and requested public comment on, the lands in Subunit 1C covered by the pending Encinitas subarea plan under the MHCP from the designation of critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. At this time, the Encinitas subarea plan has not been completed and we believe excluding land based solely on its inclusion within the boundaries of this incomplete subarea plan would be inappropriate. Conversely, the majority of Subunit 1C (72 ac (29 ha)) is part of the Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank and is actively managed for *Acanthomintha ilicifolia* (Spiegelberg 2005, pp. 1-33). We believe the benefits of exclusion may outweigh the benefits of including these lands in a critical habitat designation and that this exclusion would not result in extinction of the species. Therefore, we are considering the possibility of excluding 72 ac (29 ha) of Subunit 1C under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and designating the remaining 20 ac (8 ha) of private lands outside the Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank as critical habitat. We are requesting public comment on benefits of including and benefits of excluding lands from critical habitat designation that are:
(1)Covered by the Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank; and
(2)outside of the Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank, but within the pending Encinitas subarea plan. We hereby notify the public that the final designation of critical habitat may differ from the proposed rule published on March 14, 2007 (72 FR 11945), as corrected on November 27, 2007 (72 FR 66122). We intend to use the best available scientific and commercial data available to delineate the specific geographic areas that contain the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of *Acanthomintha ilicifolia* (i.e., the PCE laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement) or that are otherwise essential for the conservation of the species and in making decisions regarding exclusions under 4(b)(2) of the Act. Therefore, we are requesting any additional information that may be useful in reassessing the proposed boundaries of critical habitat. Additionally, we request any information that may be useful in determining whether or not the benefits of excluding areas from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act outweigh the benefits of including areas in critical habitat, specifically regarding the exclusion of areas covered by the MHCP as discussed in the proposed rule (72 FR 11945, March 14, 2007) (i.e., the areas within the cities of Carlsbad and Encinitas, California), considering the new information summarized above. Additional comments and information on these issues will help make the final rule as accurate as possible. Table 1 contains the corrected area values based on revisions to proposed critical habitat Subunits 1A and 1C. The revisions to Subunit 1A change the boundary description published in the March 14, 2007, proposed rule. This document publishes the boundary description for Subunit 1A, incorporating the revisions described in this document, along with a map depicting the revised location of proposed critical habitat for *Acanthomintha ilicifolia.* Table 1.—Areas Proposed as Critical Habitat for Acanthomintha ilicifolia After the Corrections and Amendments to the Areas Proposed as Critical Habitat on March 14, 2007 (72 FR 11945), as Described in This Document and the Document Published on November 27, 2007 (72 FR 66122), and Areas Being Proposed and Considered for Exclusion From the Final Critical Habitat Designation Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act (Acres (ac), Hectares (ha), CNDDB Element Occurrences (EO)) Critical habitat unit Land ownership Area proposed as critical habitat in March 14, 2007, proposed rule Area proposed as critical habitat after corrections and amendments Area proposed for exclusion from final critical habitat Area being considered for exclusion from final critical habitat Unit 1: Northern San Diego County 1A. Palomar Airport (EO 70) Private 7 ac (3 ha) 7 ac (3 ha) 0 ac (0 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). State/Local 81 ac (33 ha) 64 ac (26 ha) 0 ac (0 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). 1B. Southeast Carlsbad (EO 47) Private 73 ac (29 ha) 73 ac (29 ha) 0 ac (0 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). 1C. Manchester (EO 28, EO 42 and EO 54) Private 92 ac (37 ha) 92 ac (37 ha) 0 ac (0 ha) 72 ac (29 ha). Unit 2: Central San Diego County 2A. Los Peñasquitos Canyon (EO 19) State/Local 63 ac (25 ha) 63 ac (25 ha) 63 ac (25 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). 2B. Sabre Springs (EO 36) Private 1 ac (<1 ha) 1 ac (<1 ha) 1 ac (<1 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). State/Local 51 ac (21 ha) 51 ac (21 ha) 51 ac (21 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). 2C. Sycamore Canyon (EO 32) Private 30 ac (12 ha) 30 ac (12 ha) 30 ac (12 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). State/Local 276 ac (112 ha) 276 ac (112 ha) 276 ac (112 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). 2D. Slaughterhouse Canyon (EO 64) Private 77 ac (31 ha) 77 ac (31 ha) 77 ac (31 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). Unit 3: Viejas Mountain and Poser Mountain 3A. Viejas Mountain (EO 73) Private 33 ac (13 ha) 33 ac (13 ha) 33 ac (13 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). 3B. Viejas Mountain (EO 50) Private 156 ac (63 ha) 156 ac (63 ha) 156 ac (63 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). Federal 52 ac (21 ha) 52 ac (21 ha) 0 ac (0 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). 3C. Viejas Mountain (EO 51) Private 38 ac (15 ha) 38 ac (15 ha) 0 ac (0 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). Federal 280 ac (113 ha) 280 ac (113 ha) 0 ac (0 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). 3D. Viejas Mountain (EO 62) Private 50 ac (20 ha) 50 ac (20 ha) 0 ac (0 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). Federal 32 ac (13 ha) 32 ac (13 ha) 0 ac (0 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). 3E. Poser Mountain (EO 74) Federal 34 ac (14 ha) 34 ac (14 ha) 0 ac (0 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). 3F. Poser Mountain (EO 12) Private 7 ac (3 ha) 7 ac (3 ha) 0 ac (0 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). Federal 156 ac (63 ha) 156 ac (63 ha) 0 ac (0 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). Unit 4: Southern San Diego County 4A. McGinty Mountain (EO 21) Private 18 ac (7 ha) 18 ac (7 ha) 18 ac (7 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). Federal 0 ac (0 ha) 2 ac (1 ha) 0 ac (0 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). 4B. McGinty Mountain (EO 22) Private 210 ac (85 ha) 141 ac (57 ha) 141 ac (57 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). State/Local 10 ac (4 ha) 7 ac (3 ha) 7 ac (3 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). 4C. McGinty Mountain (EO 30) Private 27 ac (11 ha) 27 ac (11 ha) 27 ac (11 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). Federal 0 ac (0 ha) 1 ac (<1 ha) 0 ac (0 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). 4D. Hollenbeck Canyon (EO L) Private 23 ac (9 ha) 23 ac (9 ha) 23 ac (9 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). State/Local 61 ac (25 ha) 61 ac (25 ha) 61 ac (25 ha) 0 ac (0 ha). Total * 1,936 ac (783 ha) 1,850 ac (749 ha) 964 ac (390 ha) 72 ac (429 ha). * Some columns may not sum exactly due to rounding of values. Below, we present brief descriptions of the revised proposed subunits and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for *Acanthomintha ilicifolia.* These revised subunit descriptions replace those provided in the March 14, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 11945). California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) element occurrences are identified as EO in the subunit descriptions below. Unit Descriptions Subunit 1A, Palomar Airport (EO 70) Subunit 1A was occupied by *Acanthomintha ilicifolia* at the time of listing. Subunit 1A contains several habitat patches known to support *A. ilicifolia* and contains the features essential for the conservation of the species. Subunit 1A is located in Carlsbad, California, northeast of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. Subunit 1A consists of 64 ac (26 ha) of land owned by the County of San Diego and 7 ac (3 ha) of private land. Subunit 1A meets our selection criteria because it supports a population on a unique soil type (criterion 1). This is the only area where *A. ilicifolia* is still known to occupy calcareous clay soils. The features essential to the conservation of the species may require special management considerations or protection in this subunit to address threats from exotic plant species and unauthorized recreational activities. Subunit 1C, Manchester (EO 42, EO 28, and EO 54) Subunit 1C was occupied by *Acanthomintha ilicifolia* at the time of listing. Subunit 1C contains several habitat patches known to support *A. ilicifolia* and contains the features essential for the conservation of the species. Subunit 1C is located in Encinitas, California, northeast of the intersection of Manchester Avenue and South El Camino Real. Subunit 1C consists of 92 ac (37 ha) of private land. Subunit 1C meets our selection criteria because it supports one of the most stable populations of *A. ilicifolia* (criterion 3). The features essential to the conservation of the species may require special management considerations or protection in this subunit to address threats from exotic plant species and unauthorized recreational activities. The majority of the land that meets the definition of critical habitat in this area (72 ac (29 ha)) is in the Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank. The Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank is owned and managed by the Center for Natural Lands Management (CNLM). There is long-term management in place on this site to conserve several sensitive species, including *Acanthomintha ilicifolia* (Spiegelberg 2005, p. 1). The Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank is covered by the Manchester Habitat Conservation Area Management Plan (Spiegelberg 2005). This plan provides for the management and monitoring of the portion of Subunit 1C owned by CNLM. Additionally, there is funding in place to provide for the long-term management of this area in a manner that will conserve *A. ilicifolia.* Therefore, we are considering the possibility of excluding 72 ac (29 ha) of Subunit 1C under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and soliciting public comment based on this consideration (see “Public Comments” section). References Cited A complete list of all references we cite in the proposed rule and this document is available on *http://www.regulations.gov.* Author The primary author of this notice is the staff of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation. Proposed Regulation Promulgation Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be amended at 72 FR 11945, March 14, 2007, as set forth below: PART 17—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 2. Critical habitat for *Acanthomintha ilicifolia* (San Diego thornmint) in § 17.96(a), which was proposed to be added on March 14, 2007, at 72 FR 11945, is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (6)(i) and by revising paragraph (6)(iv), as follows: § 17.96 Critical habitat—plants.
(a)*Flowering plants.* Family Lamiaceae: *Acanthomintha ilicifolia* (San Diego thornmint)
(6)* * *
(i)Subunit 1A. Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E,N): 475760, 3666013; 475747, 3665994; 475724, 3665985; 475692, 3665974; 475699, 3665944; 475697, 3665944; 475678, 3665937; 475677, 3665937; 475667, 3665934; 475657, 3665931; 475655, 3665931; 475629, 3665949; 475547, 3665912; 475552, 3665862; 475586, 3665824; 475639, 3665823; 475697, 3665853; 475706, 3665850; 475706, 3665850; 475707, 3665847; 475709, 3665845; 475710, 3665842; 475711, 3665840; 475713, 3665837; 475714, 3665834; 475715, 3665832; 475716, 3665829; 475717, 3665826; 475718, 3665823; 475719, 3665821; 475720, 3665818; 475721, 3665815; 475721, 3665812; 475722, 3665809; 475723, 3665807; 475723, 3665804; 475724, 3665801; 475724, 3665798; 475725, 3665795; 475725, 3665792; 475726, 3665789; 475726, 3665787; 475726, 3665784; 475726, 3665781; 475726, 3665778; 475726, 3665775; 475726, 3665772; 475726, 3665769; 475726, 3665766; 475726, 3665763; 475726, 3665760; 475726, 3665758; 475725, 3665755; 475725, 3665752; 475725, 3665751; 475690, 3665758; 475660, 3665748; 475563, 3665702; 475501, 3665704; 475399, 3665720; 475354, 3665731; 475352, 3665670; 475356, 3665635; 475364, 3665617; 475351, 3665612; 475329, 3665607; 475298, 3665608; 475276, 3665597; 475267, 3665596; 475257, 3665597; 475244, 3665599; 475234, 3665595; 475221, 3665587; 475164, 3665590; 475133, 3665640; 475096, 3665684; 475097, 3665687; 475098, 3665697; 475100, 3665707; 475103, 3665716; 475107, 3665725; 475111, 3665735; 475114, 3665741; 475123, 3665756; 475124, 3665759; 475129, 3665767; 475135, 3665775; 475142, 3665783; 475148, 3665790; 475156, 3665797; 475161, 3665801; 475175, 3665813; 475178, 3665815; 475186, 3665821; 475195, 3665826; 475203, 3665831; 475212, 3665835; 475215, 3665836; 475216, 3665844; 475216, 3665854; 475218, 3665864; 475220, 3665873; 475223, 3665883; 475227, 3665892; 475231, 3665901; 475236, 3665910; 475241, 3665919; 475247, 3665927; 475253, 3665934; 475260, 3665942; 475267, 3665948; 475286, 3665965; 475286, 3665965; 475294, 3665972; 475302, 3665977; 475310, 3665983; 475319, 3665987; 475328, 3665991; 475337, 3665995; 475338, 3665995; 475372, 3666006; 475381, 3666009; 475390, 3666011; 475400, 3666013; 475410, 3666014; 475420, 3666014; 475430, 3666014; 475440, 3666013; 475450, 3666011; 475452, 3666011; 475478, 3666005; 475474, 3666011; 475472, 3666014; 475466, 3666022; 475461, 3666030; 475456, 3666039; 475452, 3666048; 475448, 3666057; 475445, 3666067; 475443, 3666077; 475441, 3666087; 475440, 3666096; 475440, 3666106; 475440, 3666116; 475441, 3666126; 475443, 3666134; 475446, 3666150; 475446, 3666152; 475448, 3666162; 475451, 3666171; 475455, 3666181; 475459, 3666190; 475464, 3666199; 475468, 3666205; 475479, 3666223; 475480, 3666225; 475486, 3666233; 475492, 3666241; 475496, 3666245; 475511, 3666260; 475514, 3666263; 475518, 3666267; 475517, 3666269; 475517, 3666272; 475517, 3666275; 475516, 3666278; 475516, 3666281; 475516, 3666284; 475516, 3666287; 475516, 3666289; 475516, 3666292; 475516, 3666295; 475516, 3666298; 475517, 3666301; 475517, 3666304; 475517, 3666307; 475518, 3666310; 475518, 3666313; 475519, 3666315; 475519, 3666318; 475520, 3666321; 475520, 3666324; 475521, 3666327; 475522, 3666330; 475523, 3666332; 475524, 3666335; 475524, 3666338; 475525, 3666341; 475526, 3666343; 475528, 3666346; 475529, 3666349; 475530, 3666351; 475531, 3666354; 475532, 3666357; 475534, 3666359; 475535, 3666362; 475536, 3666364; 475538, 3666367; 475539, 3666369; 475541, 3666372; 475543, 3666374; 475544, 3666376; 475546, 3666379; 475548, 3666381; 475550, 3666383; 475551, 3666386; 475553, 3666388; 475555, 3666390; 475557, 3666392; 475559, 3666394; 475561, 3666396; 475563, 3666398; 475565, 3666400; 475568, 3666402; 475570, 3666404; 475572, 3666406; 475574, 3666408; 475577, 3666410; 475579, 3666411; 475581, 3666413; 475584, 3666415; 475586, 3666416; 475589, 3666418; 475591, 3666419; 475594, 3666421; 475596, 3666422; 475599, 3666424; 475601, 3666425; 475604, 3666426; 475607, 3666427; 475609, 3666428; 475612, 3666430; 475615, 3666431; 475617, 3666432; 475620, 3666433; 475623, 3666433; 475626, 3666434; 475628, 3666435; 475631, 3666436; 475634, 3666437; 475637, 3666437; 475640, 3666438; 475643, 3666438; 475645, 3666439; 475648, 3666439; 475651, 3666439; 475654, 3666440; 475657, 3666440; 475660, 3666440; 475663, 3666440; 475666, 3666440; 475669, 3666440; 475671, 3666440; 475674, 3666440; 475677, 3666440; 475680, 3666440; 475683, 3666440; 475686, 3666439; 475689, 3666439; 475692, 3666439; 475695, 3666438; 475697, 3666438; 475700, 3666437; 475703, 3666437; 475706, 3666436; 475709, 3666435; 475712, 3666434; 475714, 3666433; 475717, 3666433; 475717, 3666433; 475720, 3666432; 475723, 3666431; 475725, 3666430; 475728, 3666428; 475731, 3666427; 475733, 3666426; 475736, 3666425; 475738, 3666424; 475741, 3666422; 475744, 3666421; 475746, 3666419; 475749, 3666418; 475751, 3666416; 475753, 3666415; 475756, 3666413; 475758, 3666411; 475761, 3666410; 475763, 3666408; 475765, 3666406; 475767, 3666404; 475770, 3666402; 475772, 3666400; 475774, 3666398; 475776, 3666396; 475778, 3666394; 475780, 3666392; 475782, 3666390; 475784, 3666388; 475786, 3666386; 475788, 3666383; 475789, 3666381; 475791, 3666379; 475793, 3666376; 475794, 3666374; 475796, 3666372; 475798, 3666369; 475799, 3666367; 475801, 3666364; 475802, 3666362; 475803, 3666359; 475805, 3666357; 475806, 3666354; 475807, 3666351; 475808, 3666349; 475810, 3666346; 475811, 3666343; 475812, 3666341; 475813, 3666338; 475814, 3666335; 475814, 3666332; 475815, 3666330; 475816, 3666327; 475817, 3666324; 475817, 3666321; 475818, 3666318; 475819, 3666315; 475819, 3666313; 475820, 3666310; 475820, 3666307; 475820, 3666304; 475820, 3666301; 475821, 3666298; 475821, 3666295; 475821, 3666292; 475821, 3666289; 475821, 3666287; 475821, 3666284; 475821, 3666281; 475821, 3666278; 475820, 3666275; 475820, 3666272; 475820, 3666269; 475820, 3666266; 475819, 3666263; 475819, 3666261; 475818, 3666258; 475817, 3666255; 475817, 3666252; 475816, 3666249; 475815, 3666246; 475814, 3666244; 475814, 3666241; 475813, 3666238; 475812, 3666235; 475811, 3666233; 475810, 3666230; 475808, 3666227; 475807, 3666225; 475806, 3666222; 475806, 3666222; 475810, 3666213; 475814, 3666204; 475818, 3666195; 475821, 3666185; 475823, 3666176; 475825, 3666166; 475825, 3666166; 475828, 3666141; 475829, 3666132; 475829, 3666122; 475829, 3666118; 475791, 3666114; 475770, 3666086; 475762, 3666044.
(iv)Note: Map of Unit 1, subunits 1A, 1B, and 1C (Map 2), follows: BILLING CODE 4310-55-P EP13MY08.000 Dated: May 1, 2008. Lyle Laverty, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E8-10499 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-C 73 93 Tuesday, May 13, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Idaho Panhandle/Kootenai/Lolo National Forests; Lincoln and Sanders Counties, MT; Boundary and Bonner Counties, ID; and Pend Oreille County, WA; Forest Plan Amendments for Motorized Access Management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement to amend land and resource management plans for the Idaho Panhandle, Kootenai and Lolo National Forests. SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(SETS)for Motorized Access Management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones to present additional information on grizzly bear mortality and population trends and account for uncertainty in relevant grizzly bear research. The SEIS will include a detailed analysis of Alternative D Modified and Alternative E that reflect the current condition of habitat security for grizzly bears. The Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS was published in the **Federal Register** (66 FR 57717) on November 16, 2001 and notice of the Final EIS (67 FR 11692) was published on March 15, 2002. On March 24, 2004, the Record of Decision
(ROD)was signed that amended the Forest Plans for the Kootenai, Lolo and Idaho Panhandle National Forests. The ROD amended the objectives, standards, and guidelines that address grizzly bear management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones. Alternative E was selected for implementation, with the incorporation of terms and conditions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Biological Opinion. On December 13, 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy ruled against the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in a lawsuit brought by the Cabinet Resource Group, Great Bear Foundation, Idaho Conservation League, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Selkirk Conservation Alliance. Judge Molloy ordered that the 2002 Final Environmental Impact Statement and 2004 Record of Decision be set aside as contrary to law and that the matter be remanded to the Forest Service for preparation of a new environmental analysis that complies with 40 CFR 1502.22
(a)and (b). As a result of an action considered no longer valid, on May 17, 2007, the USFWS withdrew its Biological Opinion for the Forest Service's proposed action. DATES: Scoping is not required for supplements to environmental impact statements (40 CFR 1 502.9(c)(4)). There was extensive public involvement in the development of the proposed action, the 2001 Draft ETS and the 2002 Final EIS, and the Forest Service is not inviting comments at this time. The agency expects to file a Draft SETS with the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)and make it available for public, agency and tribal government comment in July 2008. A Final SETS is expected to be filed in April 2009. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Paul Bradford, Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest, 31374 U.S. Hwy 2 West, Libby, MT 59923-3022. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirsten Kaiser, Grizzly Bear Access Amendment Interdisciplinary Team Leader
(406)283-7659. *Responsible Officials:* Ranotta McNair, Idaho Panhandle National Forests-Forest Supervisor; Paul Bradford, Kootenai National Forest-Forest Supervisor; and Deborah Austin, Lob National Forest-Forest Supervisor. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Forest Service will supplement the Final EIS for Motorized Access Management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones to respond to the December 2006 court order. The SEIS will incorporate best and current scientific information available on grizzly bear mortality and population trends and account for the Wakkinen study's authors' uncertainty for bears' studied habitat. The SEIS will include a detailed analysis of Alternative D Modified and Alternative E that reflect the current condition of habitat security for grizzly bears. The analysis will result in a new decision that amends the Forest Plans of the Kootenai, Lolo and Idaho Panhandle National Forests; and the values that address grizzly bear management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Zones. The SEIS and the supporting environmental documents will be programmatic and will examine the effects of setting predetermined levels of human (motorized) access within grizzly bear recovery zones. Site-specific decisions on individual roads or trails will be addressed in project-level planning. Purpose and Need for Action The purpose and need for action is to amend the three Forest Plans to include a set of motorized access and security guidelines that meet the agency's responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act to conserve and contribute to recovery of grizzly bears. More specifically, there were needs to comply with:
(1)The 1994 Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee
(IGBC)Task Force Report;
(2)the 1995 Amended Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statements on the Kootenai and Lob National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans;
(3)the 1995 decision by the Chief of the Forest Service on the Appeal of the Kootenai Forest Plan; and
(4)the Stipulations of a 2001 Settlement Agreement in a Lawsuit Challenging Implementation of the Interim Rule Set developed by the Selkirk/Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Subcommittee of the IGBC. The Forest Supervisors are proposing to amend their respective Forest Plans regarding Forest Plan standards and monitoring requirements that respond to the recommendations of the Interim Access Management Strategy and Interim Access Management Rule Set developed by the Selkirk/Cabinet-Yaak Subcommittee of the IGBC. The decision to be made is whether to adopt the preferred alternative as designed and identified as Alterative E in the 2004 Record of Decision (ROD), or with different requirements, or to select another alternative. This amendment would result in a new appendix to the Idaho Panhandle and Lolo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (Forest Plans). It would result in an addendum to the Kootenai National Forest, Forest Plan, Appendix 8. Copies of the environmental documents and 2004 ROD are available on the Kootenai National Forest internet Web site at: *http://www.fs.fed.us/rl/kootenai/projects/planning/documents/forest_plan/amendments/index.shtml.* Documents may also be requested by contacting Kirsten Kaiser, Team Leader, at 406-283-7659. Preliminary Issues and Alternatives Issues raised during the comment period on the DEIS centered around three main topics:
(1)grizzly bear and best available science, specifically the science that was used in the environmental analysis and by the IGBC including the biological defensibility of the 55 percent Core, 33 percent OMRD and 26 percent TMRD standards;
(2)reductions in motorized public access; and
(3)impacts to employment and income. Early Notice of Environmental Review The Forest Supervisors are giving notice that the Idaho Panhandle, Kootenai, and Lolo National Forests are supplementing an existing environmental analysis for this proposed action so that interested or affected people can participate in the analysis and contribute to the final decision. The Forest Service is seeking comments from individuals, organizations, tribal governments, and Federal, State, and local agencies that are interested or may be affected by the proposed action. The draft SETS is intended to provide additional evaluation of current information on grizzly bears, and provide that information to the public. The public is invited to help identify issues and concerns related to the preferred alternative and the supplemental analysis documented in the draft SEIS. Estimated Dates for Filing The draft SEIS is expected to be filed with the EPA and to be available for public review in July 2008. The comment period on the draft SEIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA publishes the Notice of Availability in the **Federal Register** . The draft SEIS will be distributed to all parties that received the 2002 FEIS and Record of Decision as well as to those who expressed interest. The final SEIS is scheduled to be completed by April 2009. In the final SEIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to comments received during the comment period that pertain to the environmental consequences discussed in the draft SEIS and applicable laws, regulations, and policies considered in making a decision regarding the proposal. The Reviewer's Obligation To Comment The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers notice at this early stage 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 reviewer's 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 [ *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 90-day comment period so that 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 preferred alternative and the supplemental analysis, comments on the draft SEIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or sections of the draft SEIS. 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. Dated: May 1, 2008. Paul Bradford, Kootenai National Forest Supervisor [FR Doc. E8-10408 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS Meeting *Date and Time:* Tuesday, May 13, 2008, 2 p.m.-3 p.m. *Place:* Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Conference Room, 1201 Connecticut Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20036. *Closed Meeting:* The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors
(BBG)will meet in closed session to review and discuss a number of issues relating to U.S. Government-funded nonmilitary international broadcasting. They will address internal procedural, budgetary, and personnel issues, as well as sensitive foreign policy issues relating to potential options in the U.S. international broadcasting field. This meeting is closed because if open it likely would either disclose matters that would be properly classified to be kept secret in the interest of foreign policy under the appropriate executive order (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1)) or would disclose information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(9)(B)) In addition, part of the discussion will relate solely to the internal personnel and organizational issues of the BBG or the International Broadcasting Bureau. (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)
(2)and (6)) *Contact Person for More Information:* Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact Timi Nickerson Kenealy at
(202)203-4545. Dated: May 6, 2008. Timi Nickerson Kenealy, Acting Legal Counsel. [FR Doc. E8-10409 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8610-01-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Docket 29-2008] Foreign-Trade Zone 234 - Gregg County, Texas, Application for Expansion An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by Gregg County, Texas, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 234, requesting authority to expand its zone to include a site in Kilgore, Texas, adjacent to the Shreveport-Bossier Customs and Border Protection port of entry. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR Part 400). It was formally filed on May 5, 2008. FTZ 234 was approved on November 4, 1998 (Board Order 1003, 63 FR 63671, 11/16/98). On December 15, 2006, a minor boundary modification was approved to include an additional site in Longview, Gregg County, Texas. The zone project currently consists of two sites: *Site 1* : (239 acres) located at the Gregg County Airport; and, *Site 2* : (60 acres) located at 1320 East Harrison Road, Longview. The applicant is now requesting authority to expand the general- purpose zone to include the Synergy Park at Elder Lake (217 acres) located at 1000 Synergy Boulevard, Kilgore, Texas. The site is primarily owned by Kilgore Economic Development Corporation and will be designated as Site 3. No specific manufacturing requests are being made at this time. Such requests would be made to the Board on a case-by-case basis. In accordance with the Board's regulations, Claudia Hausler of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board. Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is July 14, 2008. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to July 28, 2008. A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at each of the following locations: Gregg County Courthouse, 101 East Methvin Street, Suite 300, Longview, Texas 75601 Office of the Executive Secretary), Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2111, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 For further information contact Claudia Hausler at *Claudia_Hausler@ita.doc.gov* or
(202)482-1379. Dated: May 6, 2008. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10657 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Docket T-2-2008] Foreign-Trade Zone 26 Atlanta, GA, Application for Temporary/Interim Manufacturing Authority, Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia, Inc. (Motor Vehicles), West Point, GA An application has been submitted to the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Georgia Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 26, requesting temporary/interim manufacturing (T/IM) authority within FTZ 26 at the Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia, Inc.
(KMMG)facility in West Point, Georgia. The application was filed on May 7, 2008. The KMMG facility (about 2,500 employees) is located at 700 Kia Parkway in West Point (Troup County), Georgia (Site 1 T1). Under T/IM procedures, KMMG would produce up to 350,000 light-duty passenger vehicles (sedans, sport utility vehicles, minivans) (HTSUS 8703.23, 8703.24) annually for the U.S. market and export. Foreign components that would be used in production (representing about 25% of total material inputs) include: oils (HTSUS 2710.11), paints (3208.10, 3209.90), plastic tubes/pipes/hoses (3917.31, 3917.40), plastic sheets/strips/plates (3919.90, 3921.90), rubber tubes/hoses (4009.11, 4009.31), rubber belts (4010.31, 4010.33), tires (4011.20), gaskets/washers/o-rings (4016.93, 4016.99), carpet sets (5703.20), safety glass (7007.11, 7007.21), mirrors (7009.10), tube fittings (7307.22, 7307.99), fasteners (7318.14), locks/keys (8301.20, 8301.40), engines (8407.34), engine parts (8409.91), pumps (8413.30), valves (8481.80), and bumpers (8708.10) (duty rates: free - 8.6%). FTZ procedures could exempt KMMG from customs duty payments on foreign components used in export production (estimated to be 10% of plant shipments). On its domestic sales, KMMG would be able to choose the duty rate that applies to finished passenger vehicles (2.5%) for the foreign inputs noted above that have higher rates. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment. Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the following address: Office of the Executive Secretary, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002. For further information, contact Pierre Duy at *pierre_duy@ita.doc.gov* , or
(202)482-1378. The closing period for receipt of comments is June 12, 2008. A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at the address listed above. Dated: May 7, 2008. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10653 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-122-853, A-570-937] Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 13, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terre Keaton Stefanova (Canada) or Hallie Zink (People's Republic of China), AD/CVD Operations, Office 2 and China/NME Group, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1280 or
(202)482-6907, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petitions On April 14, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received petitions concerning imports of citric acid and certain citrate salts from Canada (Canada petition) and the People's Republic of China
(PRC)(PRC petition) filed in proper form by Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill, Incorporated, and Tate & Lyle Americas, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners). *See* the Petitions on Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada and the PRC filed on April 14, 2008. On April 17, 2008, the Department issued a request for additional information and clarification of certain areas of the petitions. Based on the Department's request, the petitioners filed supplements to the petitions for both countries on April 22, 2008 (Supplement to the Petition). The Department requested further clarifications from the petitioners by phone. *See* Memorandum to the File: Conference Call Regarding Scope Language, Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada and the PRC, dated April 28, 2008. On May 1, 2008, the petitioners filed a revised scope. *See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada and the People's Republic of China; Revision of Scope Definition* , dated May 1, 2008. In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of citric acid and certain citrate salts from Canada and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports materially injure, or threaten material injury to, an industry in the United States. The Department finds that the petitioners filed these petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the investigations that they are requesting the Department to initiate ( *see* “Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions” below). Scope of Investigations The scope of these investigations includes all grades and granulation sizes of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate in their unblended forms, whether dry or in solution, and regardless of packaging type. The scope also includes blends of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate; as well as blends with other ingredients, such as sugar, where the unblended form(s) of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate constitute 40 percent or more, by weight, of the blend. The scope of these investigations also includes all forms of unrefined calcium citrate, including dicalcium citrate monohydrate, and tricalcium citrate tetrahydrate, which are intermediate products in the production of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate. The scope of these investigations includes the hydrous and anhydrous forms of citric acid, the dihydrate and anhydrous forms of sodium citrate, otherwise known as citric acid sodium salt, and the monohydrate and monopotassium forms of potassium citrate. Sodium citrate also includes both trisodium citrate and monosodium citrate, which are also known as citric acid trisodium salt and citric acid monosodium salt, respectively. Citric acid and sodium citrate are classifiable under 2918.14.0000 and 2918.15.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), respectively. Potassium citrate and calcium citrate are classifiable under 2918.15.5000 of the HTSUS. Blends that include citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate are classifiable under 3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Comments on Scope of Investigations During our review of the petitions, we discussed the scope with the petitioners to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the regulations ( *Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments by May 27, 2008, the next business day after 20 calendar days from the date of signature of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires We are requesting comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of citric acid and certain citrate salts to be reported in response to the Department's antidumping questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to more accurately report the relevant factors and costs of production, as well as to develop appropriate product comparison criteria. Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate listing of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as
(1)general product characteristics and
(2)the product comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, while there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe citric acid and certain citrate salts, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in product matching. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last. In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the antidumping duty questionnaires, we must receive comments at the above-referenced address by May 27, 2008. Additionally, rebuttal comments must be received by June 3, 2008. Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for:
(i)At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(ii)more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall:
(i)Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or
(ii)determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method. Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. *See USEC, Inc.* v. *United States,* 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing *Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd.* v. *United States,* 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), *aff'd* 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), *cert. denied* 492 U.S. 919 (1989). Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this subtitle.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation,” ( *i.e.* , the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition). With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that citric acid and certain citrate salts (unrefined calcium citrate, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate) constitute a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, *see* Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada (Canada Initiation Checklist), and Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the PRC (PRC Initiation Checklist) at Attachment II (Industry Support), on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117 of the main Department of Commerce building. Our review of the data provided in the petitions, supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioners have established industry support. First, the petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support ( *e.g.* , polling). *See* Section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act. Second, the domestic producers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. Finally, the domestic producers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petitions. Accordingly, the Department determines that the petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. *See* Canada Initiation Checklist and PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Industry Support). The Department finds that the petitioners filed the petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping investigations that they are requesting the Department initiate. *See* Canada Initiation Checklist and PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Industry Support). Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by the reduced market share, reduced production and capacity utilization, reduced employment, underselling and price depressing and suppressing effects, lost revenue and sales, a decline in financial performance, and an increase in import penetration. The Department has assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and the Department determines that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. *See* Canada Initiation Checklist and PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment III. Period of Investigations In accordance with 19 CFR 351.204(b), because these petitions were filed on April 14, 2008, the anticipated period of investigation
(POI)is April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008, for Canada, and October 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008, for the PRC. Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department has based its decision to initiate investigations with respect to Canada and the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the Canada Initiation Checklist and the PRC Initiation Checklist. Should the need arise to use any of this information as facts available under section 776 of the Act, we may reexamine the information and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate. Canada Export Price The petitioners calculated export price
(EP)based on a POI price quote for subject merchandise produced by Jungbunzlauer Canada Inc. (JBL Canada), a potential Canadian respondent. The petitioners made adjustments for U.S. inland freight and brokerage and handling expenses. To calculate the transportation charges, the petitioners obtained freight estimates for transporting the subject merchandise by truck from the location of JBL Canada to the location of JBL Canada's U.S. customer. The petitioners obtained an estimate for brokerage fees related to crossing the border, by truck, from Canada to the United States. See Petition, Volume II at pages 10 through 13, and Exhibits II-6 and II-7; and Supplement to the Petition. Normal Value The petitioners calculated NV based on:
(1)A published POI list price for citric acid in eastern Canada from a Canadian chemical industry publication; and
(2)a POI price quote from a Canadian purchaser of subject merchandise, adjusted for a distributor mark-up amount. The petitioners adjusted both starting prices for freight expenses, calculated using a rate obtained from a trucking company that operates in Canada. The petitioners made a circumstance-of-sale
(COS)adjustment to the home market prices for differences in imputed credit expenses between the Canadian and U.S. markets. The petitioners' calculated home market and U.S. imputed credit expenses using prime rates from the Bank of Canada and the U.S. Federal Reserve, respectively. We revised the petitioners' margin calculations to correct certain errors in the application of the COS adjustment for credit expenses. See Petition, Volume II, Supplement to the Petition, Volume II and Canada Initiation Checklist and Checklist Attachment V: Revised Margin Calculations. Sales-Below-Cost Allegation The petitioners provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of citric acid in the Canadian market were made at prices below the fully absorbed cost of production (COP), within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation. The Department's practice is to consider allegations of below-cost sales in the aggregate for a foreign country. *See Sodium Metal from France: Notice of Initiation of an Antidumping Duty Investigation,* 72 FR 65295, 65297 (November 20, 2007). Cost of Production Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM), selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and packing. The petitioners calculated COM and packing based on a U.S. producer's cost experience, adjusted for known differences to manufacture citric acid in Canada using publicly available data since actual Canadian cost information was not reasonably available to the petitioners. To calculate an SG&A rate, including financial expenses, the petitioners relied on cost data for a U.S. producer of citric acid. We recalculated SG&A and interest expenses using the 2007 financial statements for Corn Products International (CPI), a company with substantial operations in Canada and in the same general industry as JBL Canada. Based upon a comparison of the prices of the foreign like product in the home market to the calculated COP of the product, we find 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, the Department is initiating a country-wide cost investigation. Constructed Value
(CV)Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the COM, SG&A expenses, financial expenses, packing expenses and profit. Consistent with their calculation of COP above, the petitioners calculated COM and packing based on a U.S. producer's cost experience, adjusted for known differences to manufacture citric acid in Canada using publicly available data. See Canada Initiation Checklist for details of the calculation of COM. To calculate an SG&A rate, including financial expenses, the petitioners relied on cost data for a U.S. producer of citric acid. To calculate profit, the petitioners relied on the financial statements of CPI because it has substantial operations in Canada and is in the same general industry as JBL Canada. See Volume II of the Petition at pages 9 and 10, and Exhibit II-18, dated April 14, 2008. To be consistent with the calculation of CV profit, we recalculated SG&A and financial expenses using CPI's financial statements. See Canada Initiation Checklist. PRC Export Price The petitioners calculated the EP based on official U.S. import unit values for citric acid from the PRC during October 2007-February 2008, imported under the HTS subheading 2918.14.0000 (citric acid). 1 *See* Petition, Volume III, at page 12, Supplement to the Petition, at Revised Exhibit III-22, and PRC Initiation Checklist. Official U.S. import unit values for subject merchandise imported under HTS 2918.14.0000 do not differentiate between anhydrous and monohydrate forms of citric acid. Using PIERS data for the same time period, the petitioners were able to determine that the majority of citric acid imported under HTS 2918.14.0000, entered in the form of anhydrous citric acid. Because, however, some of the subject merchandise entered as citric acid monohydrate, the petitioners explain that it is necessary to adjust the unit vale to reflect that citric acid monohydrate is relatively cheaper than the anhydrous form of the merchandise. *See* Petition, Volume III, at page 12, and PRC Initiation Checklist. Therefore, the petitioners converted the official U.S. import unit values for citric acid, imported under HTS 2918.14.0000, from the monohydrate form of citric acid to the anhydrous equivalent and used that figure to calculate an average unit, free on board (“FOB”), value. *See* Supplement to the Petition, at Revised Exhibit III-17, and PRC Initiation Checklist. 1 As reflected in the official U.S. import unit values, the bulk of U.S. imports of citric acid from the PRC ( *i.e.,* citric acid (HTS 2918.14.0000), sodium citrate (HTS 2818.15.1000), and other salts and esters of citric acid (2918.15.5000)), entered under HTS subheading 2918.14.0000 (citric acid). *See* Petition, Volume I, at Exhibit I-10. The petitioners calculated foreign brokerage and handling using Indian data because Indonesian data was not readily available. See Petition, Volume III, at page 14, and Supplement to the Petition, at Revised Exhibit III-18, and PRC Initiation Checklist. The petitioners inflated their calculated foreign brokerage and handling rate to the POI using the Wholesale Price Index
(WPI)for India from the International Financial Statistics
(IFS)of the International Monetary Fund
(IMF)and converted imports valued in Rupees/kilogram (Rs/Kg) to U.S. Dollars/kilogram (US$/Kg) using the exchange rates on the Department's Web site at: *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. See* Supplement to the Petition, Volume III, at pages 2-3, and Revised Exhibits III-18-21, and PRC Initiation Checklist. The petitioners then deducted the foreign brokerage and handling charge from the anhydrous equivalent average unit value. *See* Supplement to the Petition, Volume III, at Revised Exhibit III-21, and PRC Initiation Checklist. The petitioners did not adjust EP for inland freight charges in China. *See* Petition, Volume III, at page 14, and PRC Initiation Checklist. Normal Value The petitioners note that the Department's long-standing treatment of the PRC as a non-market economy
(NME)country remains in effect until revoked by the Department, and notes that no such revocation determination has been made to date. *See* Volume III of the Petition, at page 1, and PRC Initiation Checklist. The Department has previously examined the PRC's market status and determined that NME status should continue for the PRC. *See* Memorandum from the Office of Policy to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding The People's Republic of China Status as a Non-Market Economy, dated May 15, 2006. 2 In addition, in recent investigations, the Department has continued to determine that the PRC is an NME country. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China,* 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007); *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China,* 72 FR 9508 (March 2, 2007). 2 This document is available online at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nme-status/prc-nme-status-memo.pdf.* In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act), the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product is appropriately based on factors of production valued in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of this investigation, all parties will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual exporters. The petitioners assert that of the five countries normally considered as alternative surrogate market economies for the PRC, *i.e.* , India, Egypt, Indonesia, the Philippines and Sri Lanka, only Indonesia appears to have production of subject merchandise. *See* Petition, Volume I, at Exhibit I-2, and Volume III, at page 2, and PRC Initiation Checklist. The petitioners note that although the Department has regularly used India as its preferred surrogate country for determining the NV of merchandise from the PRC, they were unable to identify any current producers of subject merchandise in India. *See* Petition, Volume III, at page 2, Supplement to the Petition, Volume III, at pages 3-4, and Revised Exhibit III-22, and PRC Initiation Checklist. According to the petitioners, however, Indonesia is a significant producer of subject merchandise. Further, a significant producer of subject merchandise in Indonesia, Budi Acid Jaya PT (Budi Jaya), employs similar manufacturing techniques, equipment and economics to that of a large Chinese producer of subject merchandise. *See* Petition, Volume III, at page 4, Supplement to the Petition, Volume III, at pages 4-6, and PRC Initiation Checklist. In addition, the petitioners contend that Indonesia is a regular importer of corn (which, the petitioners state, is the principal input of the subject merchandise in China), and information on raw materials, energy inputs and import data for additional bulk chemicals are readily available for Indonesia. *See* Petition, Volume III, at pages 4-5, and PRC Initiation Checklist. Thus, the petitioners have used Indonesia as the surrogate country for China. However, after initiation of the investigation, interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value factors of production within 40 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. The petitioners provided dumping margin calculations using the Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 351.408. *See* Petition, Volume III, at page 5, and PRC Initiation Checklist. The petitioners calculated NV, with adjustments made for known differences, based on their own experience and knowledge, which the petitioners state, reflects the experience of a large Chinese producer of subject merchandise. *See* Petition, Volume III, pages at 5-7, and PRC Initiation Checklist. As noted above, the petitioners made adjustments in their calculation of NV to take into account known differences in the PRC production process, which included adjustments related to corn usage, labor hours and usage factors for calcium carbonate and sulphuric acid. *See* Petition, Volume III, at page 6, Supplement to the Petition, Volume III, at page 12 and Revised Exhibits III-6 and III-7, and PRC Initiation Checklist. The petitioners valued the factors of production based on reasonably available, public surrogate country data, including Indonesian government import statistics. *See* Petition, Volume III, at page 8, and PRC Initiation Checklist. The petitioners sourced the Global Trade Atlas for the latest available six-month period, *i.e.* , July 2007-December 2007, excluding values from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME countries, as well as imports into Indonesia from India, the Republic of Korea, and Thailand because they maintain broadly available, non-industry specific, export subsidies. Where the petitioners were unable to find imports into Indonesia for a particular input during that time period, they used imports during the next most recent time period. *See* Supplement to the Petition, Volume III, at Revised Exhibit III-8, and PRC Initiation Checklist. The petitioners also relied on Global Trade Atlas data to value packing inputs. *See* Petition, Volume III, at page 11 and Exhibit III-16, Supplement to the Petition, Volume III, at page 10, and Revised Exhibit III-8, and PRC Initiation Checklist. The petitioners valued electricity using a World Bank publication, *Electricity for All: Options for Increasing Access in Indonesia.* Specifically, the petitioners used the Batam and Tarakan average electricity tariffs from 2004, the most recent time period for which data is available. *See* Petition, Volume III, at pages 9-10, and Exhibit III-12, Supplement to the Petition, at Revised Exhibit III-12, and PRC Initiation Checklist. The petitioners valued steam using a methodology developed in *Hot-Rolled Steel from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,* 66 FR 22183 (May 3, 2001), and accompanying Factors of Production Memorandum at Exhibit 7, and used in *Tissue Paper from the PRC.* 3 *See* Petition, Volume III, at page 10, Supplement to the Petition, at Revised Exhibit III-13, and PRC Initiation Checklist. The petitioners valued water based on information contained in a United Nations Report from 2006 which discusses the average water tariff in Jakarta for large factories. *See* Petition, Volume III, at page10, Supplement to the Petition, at Revised Exhibit III-14, and PRC Initiation Checklist. 3 *Certain Tissue Paper Products and Certain Crepe Paper Products From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination for Certain Tissue Paper Products,* 69 FR 56407 (September 21, 2004) (“ *Tissue Paper from the PRC* ”). The petitioners valued labor using US$ 0.83/hour labor rate for the PRC currently available for 2004 on the Department's Web site. *See* Supplement to the Petition, Volume III, at pages 8-9, and Revised Exhibit III-11, and PRC Initiation Checklist. For the surrogate financial expenses for factory overhead, SG&A, and profit, the petitioners relied on the financial ratios of Budi Jaya, a significant producer of subject merchandise in Indonesia. *See* Petition, Volume I, at Exhibit I-2, Volume III, at page 4, and Exhibit III-3 at 30, 41, 42, and PRC Initiation Checklist. Where the petitioners were unable to find input prices contemporaneous with the POI, they adjusted for inflation using the WPI for Indonesia, as published in IFS by the IMF. *See* Supplement to the Petition, at page 11, and Revised Exhibit III-9, and PRC Initiation Checklist. For exchange rates to convert Indonesian rupiah to U.S. dollars, the petitioners averaged the foreign currency exchanges rates, as provided on the Department's Web site, for each day of the POI. Monetary conversions were applied only after having first applied a rupiah-based inflator to the original source rupiah value, as necessary. *Id.* , at 11 and Revised Exhibit III-10, and PRC Initiation Checklist. Fair-Value Comparisons Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of citric acid and certain citrate salts from Canada and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV that we revised as discussed above, the estimated dumping margins for Canada are 22.91 percent (EP-to-NV comparison where NV is based on a home market price quote), 111.83 percent (EP-to-NV comparison where NV is based on a published list price), and 57.06 percent (EP-to-CV comparison). Based on a comparison of EP to NV, the estimated dumping margin for the PRC is 156.87 percent. Initiation of Antidumping Investigations Based upon the examination of the petitions on citric acid and certain citrate salts from Canada and the PRC and other information reasonably available to the Department, the Department finds that these petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether imports of citric acid and certain citrate salts from Canada and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation. Respondent Selection Canada For Canada, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)data for U.S. import during the POI. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order
(APO)to all parties with access to information protected by APO within five days of publication of this **Federal Register** notice, and make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within 10 days of publication of this **Federal Register** notice. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department's Web site at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo.* PRC For the PRC, the Department will request quantity and value information from all known exporters and producers identified, with complete contact information, in the petition. The quantity and value data received from NME exporters/producers will be used as the basis to select the mandatory respondents. The Department requires that the respondents submit a response to both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rate application by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. *See Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation,* 73 FR 10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008); and *Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas From the People's Republic of China,* 70 FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005). Appendix I of this notice contains the quantity and value questionnaire that must be submitted by all NME exporters/producers no later than May 27, 2008. In addition, the Department will post the quantity and value questionnaire along with the filing instructions on the Import Administration Web site, at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html.* The Department will send the quantity and value questionnaire to those PRC companies identified in the petition, Volume I, at Exhibit I-8. Separate Rates In order to obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate status application. *See Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations,* 73 FR 23188, 23193 (April 29, 2008) ( *Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the PRC* ). The specific requirements for submitting the separate-rate application in this investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, available on the Department's Web site at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html* on the date of publication of this initiation notice in the **Federal Register** . The separate-rate application will be due sixty
(60)days from the date of publication of this initiation notice in the **Federal Register** . Use of Combination Rates in an NME Investigation The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. The Separate Rates/Combination Rates Bulletin states: [w]hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of combination rates because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question *and* produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. *See Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the PRC.* Distribution of Copies of the Petitions In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the petitions have been provided to the representatives of the Governments of Canada and the PRC. Because of the particularly large number of producers/exporters identified in the petitions, the Department considers the service of the public version of the petitions to the foreign producers/exporters satisfied by the delivery of the public version to the Governments of Canada and the PRC, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). International Trade Commission
(ITC)Notification We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determination by the International Trade Commission The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than May 27, 2008, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of citric acid and certain citrate salts from Canada and the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination covering all classes or kinds of merchandise covered by the petitions would result in the investigations being terminated. Otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 5, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Where it is not practicable to examine all known exporters/producers of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, permits us to investigate
(1)a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid based on the information available at the time of selection, or
(2)exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume and value of the subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined. In the chart below, please provide the total quantity and total value of all your sales of merchandise covered by the scope of this investigation (see “Scope of Investigation” section of this notice), produced in the PRC, and exported/shipped to the United States during the period October 1, 2007, through March 31, 2007. Market Total quantity in metric tons Terms of sale Total value United States 1. Export Price Sales 2. a. Exporter Name b. Address c. Contact d. Phone No. e. Fax No. 3. Constructed Export Price Sales 4. Further Manufactured Total Sales Total Quantity: • Please report quantity on a metric ton basis. If any conversions were used, please provide the conversion formula and source. Terms of Sales: • Please report all sales on the same terms (e.g., free on board at port of export). Total Value: • All sales values should be reported in U.S. dollars. Please indicate any exchange rates used and their respective dates and sources. Export Price Sales: • Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated customer occurs before importation into the United States. • Please include any sales exported by your company directly to the United States. • Please include any sales exported by your company to a third-country market economy reseller where you had knowledge that the merchandise was destined to be resold to the United States. • If you are a producer of subject merchandise, please include any sales manufactured by your company that were subsequently exported by an affiliated exporter to the United States. • Please do not include any sales of subject merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures. Constructed Export Price Sales: • Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a constructed export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated customer occurs after importation. However, if the first sale to the unaffiliated customer is made by a person in the United States affiliated with the foreign exporter, constructed export price applies even if the sale occurs prior to importation. • Please include any sales exported by your company directly to the United States; • Please include any sales exported by your company to a third-country market economy reseller where you had knowledge that the merchandise was destined to be resold to the United States. • If you are a producer of subject merchandise, please include any sales manufactured by your company that were subsequently exported by an affiliated exporter to the United States. • Please do not include any sales of subject merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures. Further Manufactured: • Sales of further manufactured or assembled (including re-packaged) merchandise is merchandise that undergoes further manufacture or assembly in the United States before being sold to the first unaffiliated customer. • Further manufacture or assembly costs include amounts incurred for direct materials, labor and overhead, plus amounts for general and administrative expense, interest expense, and additional packing expense incurred in the country of further manufacture, as well as all costs involved in moving the product from the U.S. port of entry to the further manufacturer. [FR Doc. E8-10515 Filed 5-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-428-840] Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that lightweight thermal paper
(LWTP)from Germany is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are listed in the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Pursuant to requests from interested parties, we are postponing for 60 days 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. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 13, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Robinson or George McMahon, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-3797 or
(202)482-1167, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 29, 2007, the Department initiated the antidumping duty investigations of LWTP from Germany, the Republic of Korea, and the People's Republic of China (PRC). *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany, the Republic of Korea, and the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 62430 (November 5, 2007) ( *Initiation Notice* ). The petitioner in this investigation is Appleton Papers, Inc. The Department 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* . *See Initiation Notice* , 72 FR at 62431; *see also Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). On November 19, 2007, the petitioner submitted scope comments in which it requested that the Department add several additional categories from the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) to the scope of the investigations. In response, on December 18, 2007, the Department requested comments from interested parties regarding the petitioner's proposed scope modification. However, no reply comments were received in any of the aforementioned respective cases. *See Scope Comments* section, below. On November 14, 2007, the petitioner submitted comments on the proposed model-matching criteria. The Department requested comments on model-matching criteria in its letter to the interested parties, dated November 16, 2007. In response, the Department received several comments on model-matching criteria from certain interested parties. See Model Match section, below. Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the subject merchandise. The Department identified a large number of producers and exporters of LWTP in Germany and determined that it was not practicable to examine each known exporter/producer of the subject merchandise, as provided in section 777A(c)(1) of the Act. Thus, we selected for examination Papierfabrik August Koehler AG and Koehler America, Inc. (collectively, Koehler). This particular exporter/producer accounts for the largest volume of subject merchandise exported to the United States from Germany during the period of investigation (POI). *See* section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act; *See* Memorandum from Melissa Skinner, Director, Office 3, to Deputy Assistant Secretary Stephen J. Claeys, entitled “Selection of Respondent(s) for Individual Review,” dated December 4, 2007, on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117 of the main Department building. We subsequently issued the antidumping duty questionnaire 1 to Koehler on December 7, 2007. 1 Section A of the questionnaire requests general information concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests a complete listing of all home market sales or, if the home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market. Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of production of the foreign like product and the constructed value of the merchandise under investigation. Section E requests information on further manufacturing. On November 16, 2007, the United States International Trade Commission
(ITC)preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of certain lightweight thermal paper from Germany and the PRC that are alleged to be sold in the United States at LTFV. The ITC also determined that imports of LTWP from the Republic of Korea were negligible, and therefore, terminated the investigation with regard to the Republic of Korea. *See Certain Lightweight Thermal Paper from China, Germany, and Korea* , *Investigation Nos. 701-TA-451 and 731-TA-1126-1128 (Preliminary)* , 72 FR 70343 (December 11, 2007). The ITC notified the Department of these findings. In the petition filed on September 19, 2007, the petitioner provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of LWTP in the home market were made at prices below the fully absorbed COP, within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct a sales-below-cost investigation. *See* September 19, 2007, Petition, Volume III: Germany Dumping Allegation, at page 8. We found that the petitioner provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that German producers were selling LWTP in Germany at prices below the COP. *See* section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department initiated a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation and requested that Koehler respond to section D of the Department's questionnaire. *See Initiation Notice* ; *see also* , the Department's questionnaire issued to Koehler on December 7, 2007. On January 14, 2008, the Department received the Section A questionnaire response from Koehler. On January 30, 2008, the Department received the Sections B, C and D responses from Koehler. On February 11, 2008, the Department received comments from the petitioner on the Sections A through D responses for Koehler. After reviewing the Sections A through D responses from Koehler, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Koehler. On March 27, 2008, the petitioner submitted additional comments on Koehler's questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses. The Department issued additional supplemental questions, after reviewing Koehler's supplemental questionnaire response. On February 6, 2008, the petitioner requested that the Department postpone the preliminary determination by 50 days and requested that the Department extend the deadline for filing a targeted dumping allegation for Germany. On February 25, 2008, the Department advised the petitioner that the deadline to file a targeted dumping allegation would be 30 days from any revised deadline for the preliminary determination. *See* Memorandum from George McMahon to the File, entitled “Extension of the Deadline to File a Targeted Dumping Allegation in the Antidumping Duty Investigations on Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany and the People's Republic of China,” dated February 25, 2008. On February 25, 2008, the Department postponed the preliminary determination by 50 days. *See Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany and the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations* , 73 FR 9997 (February 25, 2008). Targeted Dumping Allegation The petitioner submitted an allegation of targeted dumping with respect to Koehler on March 27, 2008. *See* section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act. In its allegation, the petitioner asserts that there are patterns of export prices (EPs), or constructed export prices
(CEPs)for comparable merchandise that differ significantly among purchasers, regions, and time periods. Specifically, the petitioner based its allegation on four targeted purchasers, the west region as defined by the Census Bureau, and the last four months of the POI. The Department requested more information from the petitioner with respect to its targeted dumping allegation. See Letter from James Terpstra to the petitioner, dated April 8, 2008. On April 14, 2008, the petitioner provided its response to the Department's request for additional information regarding its targeted dumping allegation. On April 16, 2008, the Department received comments from Koehler objecting to the targeted dumping allegation on the basis that it does not meet the statutory standard for targeted dumping. Specifically, Koehler argues that the petitioner failed to: 1) explain any statistical tests that should be applied, 2) demonstrate a pattern exists within the context of market conditions, 3) explain why a two-percent threshold is significant for all three types of alleged targeting, 4) explain why differences cannot be taken into account using the average-to-average analysis, 5) explain why the Department should ignore the statutory application of the term “or” (instead filing allegations based on purchasers, regions, *and* time periods), and 6) justify the counterintuitive conclusion that, when all three targeting allegations are considered together, over half of Koehler's sales are allegedly targeted. On April 23, 2008, the Department also received comments from Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Flensburg GmbH and Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld GmbH, and Mitsubishi International Corporation (collectively, Mitsubishi) objecting to the targeted dumping allegation. First, Mitsubishi objects to the use of zeroing to calculate dumping margins in any situation. Second, Mitsubishi asserts that the threshold requirements advocated by the petitioner are unworkable. Finally, Mitsubishi argues that, should the Department find that Koehler targeted sales of LWTP during the POI, the Department may not apply any weighted-average margins calculated for sales within the targeted subset to Mitsubishi. New Targeted Dumping Test applied in Steel Nails The statute allows the Department to employ the average-to-transaction methodology in its margin calculations if: 1) there is a pattern of EPs that differ significantly among purchasers, regions, or periods of time; and 2) the Department explains why such differences cannot be taken into account using the average-to-average or transaction-to-transaction methodology. *See* section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The Department has developed a new test to determine whether targeted dumping has occurred. This new test is a two-stage test: the first test to address the pattern requirement and the second test to address the significant difference requirement. For additional detail, *see* the memorandum entitled “Antidumping Duty Investigations of Certain Steel Nails from the Peoples Republic of China
(PRC)and the United Arab Emirates (UAE): Post-Preliminary Determinations on Targeted Dumping (Steel Nails Targeted Dumping Determination), dated April 21, 2008, and placed on the record of this investigation on April 30, 2008. Results of the Application of the New Targeted Dumping Test For purposes of this preliminary determination on targeted dumping, we have applied the above test to the U.S. sales data reported by the respondent, Koehler. In applying the Steel Nails test, we clarified various aspects of the test, applied the Steel Nails methodology to multiple allegations in this investigation (customer, region, and time period), and made certain corrections to the underlying programming applied in Steel Nails. We clarified the price gap test described in Steel Nails as involving only average prices to non-targets that are *above* the average price charged to the alleged target. That is, the price gap test only “looks up” when calculating price gaps for non-targets. We also made corrections to the SAS code underlying the price gap test. Our observations and results are discussed in more detail in a separate memorandum placed on the record of this investigation. *See* “Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination - Koehler,” dated May 6, 2008, on file in the CRU. As outlined in the separate memorandum, we did not find a pattern of EPs for comparable merchandise that differ significantly among customers, regions or by time period. As a result, we applied the average-to-average methodology to the EPs of all of Koehler's sales to the United States during the POI. Comments by Interested Parties Although the Department has not yet established explicit criteria or standards for defining “region” in the targeted dumping context, we have accepted the petitioner's use of U.S. Census-based regions for purposes of our targeted dumping analysis for the preliminary determination in this investigation. As we did in the investigations covering Steel Nails, the Department invites comments on standards and criteria for definitions of “region” that are reflective of the industry and commercial market in the United States. *See* Steel Nails Targeted Dumping Determination at 9. Parties may also comment on the Department's overall preliminary determination application of the new targeted dumping test in this proceeding. Consistent with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2), all comments should be filed in the context of the case and rebuttal briefs. *See* the “Public Comment” section below for details regarding the briefing schedule for this investigation. Period of Investigation The POI is July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition. Scope of the Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation includes certain lightweight thermal paper, which is thermal paper with a basis weight of 70 grams per square meter (g/m 2 ) (with a tolerance of ± 4.0 g/m 2 ) or less; irrespective of dimensions; 2 with or without a base coat 3 on one or both sides; with thermal active coating(s) 4 on one or both sides that is a mixture of the dye and the developer that react and form an image when heat is applied; with or without a top coat; 5 and without an adhesive backing. Certain lightweight thermal paper is typically (but not exclusively) used in point-of-sale applications such as ATM receipts, credit card receipts, gas pump receipts, and retail store receipts. The merchandise subject to this investigation may be classified in the HTSUS under subheadings 4811.90.8040 and 4811.90.9090. 6 As discussed below, we added to the scope of the investigation the following HTSUS subheadings: 3703.10.60, 4811.59.20, 4820.10.20, and 4823.40.00. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive. 2 LWTP is typically produced in jumbo rolls that are slit to the specifications of the converting equipment and then converted into finished slit rolls. Both jumbo rolls and converted rolls (as well as LWTP in any other forms, presentations, or dimensions) are covered by the scope of these investigations. 3 A base coat, when applied, is typically made of clay and/or latex and like materials and is intended to cover the rough surface of the paper substrate and to provide insulating value. 4 A thermal active coating is typically made of sensitizer, dye, and co-reactant. 5 A top coat, when applied, is typically made of polyvinyl acetone, polyvinyl alcohol, and/or like materials and is intended to provide environmental protection, an improved surface for press printing, and/or wear protection for the thermal print head. 6 HTSUS subheading 4811.90.8000 was a classification used for LWTP until January 1, 2007. Effective that date, subheading 4811.90.8000 was replaced with 4811.90.8020 (for gift wrap, a non-subject product) and 4811.90.8040 (for “other,” including LWTP). HTSUS subheading 4811.90.9000 was a classification for LWTP until July 1, 2005. Effective that date, subheading 4811.90.9000 was replaced with 4811.90.9010 (for tissue paper, a non-subject product) and 4811.90.9090 (for “other,” including LWTP). Scope Comments 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* . On November 19, 2007, the petitioner submitted scope comments in which it requested that the Department add the following additional HTSUS subheadings to the scope of the investigations: HTSUS subheading 3703.10.60, 4811.59, 4820.10, and 4823.40 based on the claim that subject merchandise may also enter under these HTSUS subheadings. On December 18, 2007, the Department requested comments from interested parties regarding the petitioner's proposed scope modification. However, no reply comments were received in this, or any of the aforementioned simultaneous investigations. On April 11, 2008, and April 16, 2008, the Department received letters from the National Import Specialists at U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)requesting that HTSUS subheadings 3703.10.60, 4811.59.20, 4820.10.20, and 4823.40.00 be added to the scope of the antidumping duty investigations of LWTP from Germany and the PRC, and the countervailing duty investigation of LWTP from the PRC on the basis that entries of subject merchandise could be classified therein. *See* Memorandum to the File from the Team to the File through James Terpstra, entitled “Request from Customs and Border Protection to update AD /CVD Module,” dated April 17, 2008. The Department has added these additional subheadings to the scope of this investigation. Model Match In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products produced by the respondent covered by the description in the *Scope of the Investigation* section, above, and sold in Germany during the POI are considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied on 12 criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like product: 1) form, 2) thermal active coating, 3) top coating, 4) basis weight, 5) maximum optical density units, 6) static sensitivity, 7) dynamic sensitivity, 8) coating color, 9) printing, 10) width, 11) length, and 12) core material. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above. On November 14, 2007, and November 21, 2007, the petitioner filed proposed model-matching criteria to use in the Department's questionnaire. On November 23, 2007, and November 28, 2007, Koehler submitted comments on the proposed model-matching criteria. On November 26, 2007, and November 28, 2007, Mitsubishi also submitted comments on the proposed model-matching criteria. On December 3, 2007, the petitioner filed comments in response to the model-matching criteria comments submitted by Koehler and Mitsubishi. On December 4, 2007, Koehler submitted additional comments challenging the petitioner's proposed ranges of the dynamic sensitivity model-match criterion as overly broad. On December 7, 2007, the Department issued the questionnaire containing the criteria identified above. *See* the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire issued to Koehler on December 7, 2007, at pages B-8 through B-14. Date of Sale Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that the Department normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the producer's or exporter's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale. The regulations further provide that the Department may use a date other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale are established. The Department has a long-standing practice of finding that, where shipment date precedes invoice date, shipment date better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale are established. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(i); *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand* , 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10; and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams from Germany* , 67 FR 35497 (May 20, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Therefore, we used the earlier of shipment date or invoice date as the date of sale in accordance with our practice. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of LWTP from Germany were made in the United States at less than normal value (NV), we compared the EP or CEP to the NV, as described in the *Export Price and Constructed Export Price* and *Normal Value* sections below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1) of the Act, we calculated the weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to the weighted average of EP (and CEP). Export Price and Constructed Export Price For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or CEP, in accordance with sections 772(a) and
(b)of the Act. Pursuant to section 772(a) of the Act, we used the EP methodology when the merchandise was first sold by the producer or exporter outside the United States directly to the unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and when CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated CEP for those sales where a person in the United States, affiliated with the foreign exporter or acting for the account of the exporter, made the first sale to the unaffiliated purchaser in the United States of the subject merchandise. *See* section 772(b) of the Act. We based EP and CEP on the packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States and the applicable terms of sale. When appropriate, we adjusted prices to reflect billing adjustments, rebates, and early payment discounts, and commissions. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including U.S. warehouse expense, inland freight, inland insurance, brokerage & handling, international freight, marine insurance, and U.S. customs duties. For CEP, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, when appropriate, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, including direct selling expenses (cost of credit, warranty, and other direct selling expenses). These expenses include certain indirect selling expenses incurred by affiliated U.S. distributors. *See* “Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination - Koehler.” We also deducted from CEP an amount for profit in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and
(f)of the Act. We made additions, where appropriate, for freight rebate revenue and other transportation revenue. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability and Comparison Market Selection To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the respondents' volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, because Koehler had an aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. B. Arm's-Length Test Koehler reported that its sales of the foreign like product were made to unaffiliated customers. Therefore, the arm's-length test is not applicable to Koehler's sales of the foreign like product. C. Cost of Production Analysis Based on our analysis of the petitioner's allegation stated in the petition, we initiated a sales-below-cost investigation to determine whether Koehler had sales that were made at prices below their COP pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act. *See* Petition at page 8. *See also* ; *Initiation Notice* at page 62432. 1. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated Koehler's COP based on the sum of its costs of materials and conversion for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative (G&A) expenses and interest expenses ( *see* the *Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices* section below for the treatment of home market selling expenses). The Department relied on the COP data submitted by Koehler and its supplemental section D questionnaire responses for the COP calculation, except for the following instances where the information was not appropriately quantified or valued: a. We adjusted the denominator of Koehler's reported G&A expense ratio to reflect Koehler's 2006 cost of goods sold. b. We adjusted Koehler's reported financial expense ratio to include the total foreign exchange gains and losses reported in Koehler Holding's 2006 consolidated financial statements. We adjusted the denominator of the financial expense ratio to reflect Koehler Holding's 2006 consolidated cost of goods sold. Our revisions to Koehler's COP data are discussed in the Memorandum from Robert Greger, Senior Accountant, to Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Determination - Koehler,” dated May 6, 2008. 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether the sales prices were below the COP. For purposes of this comparison, we used the COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, direct and indirect selling expenses, and packing expenses. In addition, we included an amount for freight rebate revenue and other transportation revenue. 3. Results of the COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product during the POI were at prices less than COP, we determined that such sales have been made in “substantial quantities.” *See* section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, the sales were made within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because we examined below-cost sales occurring during the entire POI. In such cases, because we compared prices to POI-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Our preliminary findings show that we did not find that more than 20 percent of Koehler's sales were at prices less than the COP. The Department excluded certain sales transactions reported as samples by Koehler. However, we did not exclude any additional sales as a result of the COP test. Therefore, we used all of Koehler's home market sales as the basis for determining NV. D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices We based home market prices on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Germany. We adjusted the starting price for billing adjustments, early payment discounts, rebates, warehouse expense, and inland freight where appropriate, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, for comparisons made to EP sales, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale
(COS)pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expense, warranty directly linked to sales transactions, and other direct selling expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, commissions, warranty directly linked to sales transactions, and other direct selling expenses), where appropriate. *See* 19 CFR 351.410. When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise. *See* 19 CFR 351.411(b). E. Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade
(LOT)as the EP or CEP transaction. In identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales ( *i.e.* , NV based on home market), we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. *See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States* , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP-offset provision). Koehler reported its sales in the home market and the U.S. market at the same single LOT. In the home market, Koehler reported that its sales were made through two channels of distribution:
(1)direct sales and
(2)consignment sales. In the U.S. market, Koehler reported that its sales were made through four channels of distribution:
(1)direct sales through its U.S. affiliate ( *i.e.* , CEP sales)
(2)consignment sales,
(3)warehouse sales, and
(4)direct sales from Koehler AG ( *i.e.* , EP sales). Based on our analysis, we found that Koehler's sales to the U.S. and home market were made at the same LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment was warranted. Furthermore, our analysis shows that Koehler's home market sales were not made at a more advanced LOT than Koehler's U.S. sales. Accordingly, we have not made a CEP offset to NV. *See* 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of company-specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, see our analysis contained in the “Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination - Koehler.” Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act based on exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. All-Others Rate Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins of all respondents investigated, excluding zero or *de minimis* margins or margins determined entirely using facts available. Koehler is the only respondent in this investigation for which the Department has calculated a company-specific rate and it is not zero, *de minimis* or based entirely upon facts available. Therefore, for purposes of determining the all-others rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Koehler for the all- others rate, as referenced in the *Suspension of Liquidation* section, below. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify all information upon which we will rely in making our final determination. Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of LWTP from Germany that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . We are also instructing CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average dumping margin, as indicated in the chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (percent) Papierfabrik August Koehler AG and Koehler America, Inc. 6.49 All Others 6.49 Disclosure We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). ITC Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of the Department's preliminary affirmative determination. If the Department's final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether imports of LWTP from Germany are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. Because we have postponed the deadline for our final determination to 135 days from the date of the publication of this preliminary determination, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days of our final determination. Public Comment Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the Department no later than seven days after the date of the issuance of the final verification report in this proceeding. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days from the deadline date for the submission of case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1) and (2). 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. Further, we request that parties submitting briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the Department with a copy of the public version of such briefs on diskette. In accordance with section 774 of the Act, the Department will hold a public hearing, if requested, 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 this investigation, the hearing will tentatively be held two days after the rebuttal brief deadline date at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in a room to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone, the date, time, and location of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled date. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate in a hearing 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 of the publication of this notice. Requests should contain:
(1)The party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2)the number of participants; and
(3)a list of the issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). At the hearing, oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on February 19, 2008, Koehler, which accounts for a significant proportion of exports of LWTP from Germany, requested that in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department fully extend the final determination ( *i.e.* , postpone its final determination by 60 days). In its February 19, 2008, letter, Koehler also requested, pursuant to section 733(d) of the Act, that in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department extend the maximum duration of provisional measures from four months to six months from the date of implementation. *See* section 735(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2). In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because
(1)our preliminary determination is affirmative,
(2)the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and
(3)no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are granting its request and are postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Suspension of liquidation will be extended accordingly. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 6, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-10659 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-920] Lightweight Thermal Paper 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 DATES: *Effective Date:* May 13, 2008. SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that lightweight thermal paper (“LWTP”) 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 requests from interested parties, 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. *See* the “Postponement of the Final Determination” section below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Veith or Marin Weaver, 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)482-4295 or
(202)482-2336, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Initiation On September 19, 2007, Appleton Papers, Inc. (“petitioner” or “Appleton”), filed an antidumping petition in proper form on behalf of the domestic industry and workers producing LWTP, concerning imports of LWTP from Germany, the Republic of Korea (“Korea”), and the PRC, in addition to a countervailing duty petition on LWTP from the PRC. See Antidumping Duty Petition on Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany, the Republic of Korea, and the People's Republic of China and Countervailing Duty Petition on Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China, dated September 19, 2007 (the “ *Petition* ”). On October 16, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”), pursuant to section 732(c)(1)(B) of the Act, extended the deadline for the initiation determination in order to determine the adequacy of the petition. 1 1 *See Notice of Extension of the Deadline for Determining the Adequacy of the Antidumping Duty Petitions: Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany, the Republic of Korea, and the People's Republic of China; and the Countervailing Duty Petition: Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China,* 72 FR 58639 (October 16, 2007). The Department initiated this investigation on October 29, 2007. 2 In the *Initiation Notice,* the Department notified parties of the application 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”). 3 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 Web site *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html* on November 5, 2007. The due date for filing an SRA was December 28, 2007. No party filed an SRA in this investigation. 2 *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany, the Republic of Korea, and the People's Republic of China,* 72 FR 62430 (November 5, 2007) (“Initiation Notice”). 3 *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/bulletin05-1.pdf>* . On December 5, 2007, the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) determined that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of LWTP from the PRC. 4 4 *See Investigation Nos. 701-TA-451 and 731-TA-1126-1128 (Preliminary): Certain Lightweight Thermal Paper from China, Germany, and Korea,* 72 FR 70343 (December 11, 2007). 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. *See* 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). Postponement of Preliminary Determination On February 6, 2008, petitioner made a timely request pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2) and
(e)for a 50-day postponement of the preliminary determination. On February 25, 2008, the Department published a postponement of the preliminary antidumping duty determination on LWTP from the PRC. 5 5 *See Lightweight Thermal Paper From Germany and the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations,* 73 FR 9997 (February 25, 2008). Postponement of Final Determination On April 14, 2008, and May 2, 2008, Hanhong International Limited, Shanghai Hanhong Paper Co., Ltd., and Hong Kong Hanhong Ltd. (collectively (“Hanhong”)) and Guangdong Guanhao High-Tech Co., Ltd. (“Guanhao”), respectively, made a timely request pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii) that the Department extend the final determination by the full amount of time allowed by law. On May 6, 2008, Hanhong and Guanhao supplemented their requests to extend the final determination to include requests to extend provisional measures pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2). Scope of the Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation includes certain lightweight thermal paper, which is thermal paper with a basis weight of 70 grams per square meter (g/m 2 ) (with a tolerance of ± 4.0 g/m 2 ) or less; irrespective of dimensions; 6 with or without a base coat 7 on one or both sides; with thermal active coating(s) 8 on one or both sides that is a mixture of the dye and the developer that react and form an image when heat is applied; with or without a top coat; 9 and without an adhesive backing. Certain lightweight thermal paper is typically (but not exclusively) used in point-of-sale applications such as ATM receipts, credit card receipts, gas pump receipts, and retail store receipts. The merchandise subject to this investigation may be classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under subheadings 4811.90.8040, 4811.90.9090, 3703.10.60, 4811.59.20, 4820.10.20, and 4823.40.00. 10 Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. 6 LWTP is typically produced in jumbo rolls that are slit to the specifications of the converting equipment and then converted into finished slit rolls. Both jumbo and converted rolls (as well as LWTP in any other form, presentation, or dimension) are covered by the scope of these investigations. 7 A base coat, when applied, is typically made of clay and/or latex and like materials and is intended to cover the rough surface of the paper substrate and to provide insulating value. 8 A thermal active coating is typically made of sensitizer, dye, and co-reactant. 9 A top coat, when applied, is typically made of polyvinyl acetone, polyvinyl alcohol, and/or like materials and is intended to provide environmental protection, an improved surface for press printing, and/or wear protection for the thermal print head. 10 HTSUS subheading 4811.90.8000 was a classification used for LWTP until January 1, 2007. Effective that date, subheading 4811.90.8000 was replaced with 4811.90.8020 (for gift wrap, a nonsubject product) and 4811.90.8040 (for “other” including LWTP). HTSUS subheading 4811.90.9000 was a classification for LWTP until July 1, 2005. Effective that date, subheading 4811.90.9000 was replaced with 4811.90.9010 (for tissue paper, a nonsubject product) and 4811.90.9090 (for “other,” including LWTP). Petitioner indicated that, from time to time, LWTP also may have been entered under HTSUS subheading 3703.90, HTSUS heading 4805, and perhaps other subheadings of the HTSUS, including HTSUS subheadings: 3703.10.60, 4811.59.20, 4820.10.20, and 4823.40.00. Scope Comments We set aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). The Department encouraged all interested parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of signature of the *Initiation Notice* , 72 FR at 62431. We only received comments on the scope from petitioner. *See* petitioner's letter to the Department regarding, “Lightweight Thermal Paper From China, Germany, And Korea,” dated November 19, 2007. Petitioner requested that the Department include in LWTP's scope language the HTSUS subheadings 3703.10.60, 11 4811.59, 12 4820.10, 13 and 4823.40 14 because LWTP may enter the United States under one of these HTSUS subheadings. Specifically, the petitioner contends that HTSUS subheading 3703.1060 should be included because LWTP is sensitive to heat radiation; LWTP with certain latex topcoats could enter as paper coated with plastic under HTSUS subheading 4811.59; HTSUS subheading 4820.10's description may encompass products converted from thermal paper; and HTSUS subheading 4823.40's description appears to encompass LWTP not elsewhere specified within the HTSUS. 11 *See* ITC Web site located at *http://usitc.gov/,* which describes 3703.1060 as “photographic paper, paperboard, and textiles, sensitized: other.” 12 *See id.* , which describes HTSUS subheading 4859.10 as “other: In strips or rolls of a width exceeding 15 cm or in rectangular (including square) sheets with one side exceeding 36 cm and the other side exceeding 15 cm in the unfolded state.” 13 *See id.* , which describes HTSUS subheading 4820.10 as “Registers, account books, notebooks, order books, receipt books, letter pads, memorandum pads, diaries and similar articles.” 14 *See id.* , which describes HTSUS subheading 4823.40 as “Rolls, sheets and dials, printed for self-recording apparatus.” In the *Petition* we stated that merchandise subject to this investigation may be classified in the HTSUS under subheadings 4811.90.8040 and 4811.90.9090. On April 11, 2008 and April 16, 2008, the Department received a request from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to update the antidumping and countervailing duty (“AD/CVD”) module for LWTP from the PRC. Specifically, CBP requested that the Department add HTSUS subheadings 3703.10.60, 4811.59.20, 4820.10.20, and 4823.40.00 to the AD/CVD module. *See* the Department's memorandum to the file entitled, “Request from Customs and Border Protection to update AD/CVD Module,” dated April 17, 2008. We have reviewed petitioner's and CBP's request and have updated the AD/CVD module accordingly. Non-Market Economy Country For purposes of initiation, petitioner submitted an LTFV analysis for the PRC as an NME. 15 Recently, the Department examined the PRC's market status and determined that NME status should continue for the PRC. 16 Additionally, in two recent investigations, the Department also determined that the PRC is an NME country. 17 In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of the NME status of the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of this investigation. 15 *Initiation Notice* , 72 FR at 62433. 16 *See* the Department's memorandum entitled, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China (“China”)—China's status as a non-market economy (“NME”),” dated August 30, 2006. This document is available online at: *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nmestatus/prc-lined-paper-memo-08302006.pdf* . 17 *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 9508 (March 2, 2007), and *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007). Selection of Respondents In accordance with section 777A(c)(2) of the Act, the Department selected the two largest exporters of LWTP ( *i.e.* , Hanhong and Kosoku Business Paper Ltd. (“Kosoku”)) by volume as the mandatory respondents in this investigation based on CBP entry data listed in the data under the HTSUS subheadings 4811.9080.00, 4811.9080.40, 4811.9090.90, 4811.9090.00. 18 These two companies appeared to cover a significant share of the total U.S. imports by volume, and both had been identified in the public realm. 19 18 *See* the Department's memorandum entitled, “Antidumping Duty Investigation on Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China: Selection of Respondents,” dated November 29, 2007 (“ *Respondent Selection Memo* ”). 19 *See* the Department's memorandum regarding “Release of Customs Entry data from U.S. Customs and Border Security,” dated November 5, 2007. The Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to Hanhong and Kosoku on December 3, 2007. 20 In its questionnaire, the Department requested that the two firms provide a response to section A of the Department's questionnaire on December 24, 2007, and to sections C and D of the questionnaire on January 8, 2008. Additionally we asked Hanhong and Kosoku to notify the official in charge if they did not export/ship any merchandise falling within the scope of the investigation that entered the United States during the POI. On December 11, 2007, Kosoku contacted the Department and stated that it did not export or ship any merchandise falling under investigation that entered the United States during the POI. 21 20 *See, e.g.* , the Department's letter to Hanhong entitled, “Antidumping Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China: Questionnaire,” dated December 3, 2007. 21 *See* the Department's memorandum to the file entitled, “Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China: No Shipments,” dated December 12, 2007. Because our *Respondent Selection Memo* stated that we had resources to investigate two firms with the largest export volume during the POI, and one of the two firms selected ( *i.e.* , Kosoku) reported that it did not export or ship merchandise under investigation during the POI, we looked to the next four companies listed in the CBP data to identify and select the next largest exporter by volume as a mandatory respondent. On December 17, 2007, the Department sent Ampress Enterprises Ltd. (“Ampress”), Arting Stationery Products Factory Ltd. (“Arting”), Xiamen Anne Paper Co., Ltd. (“Anne Paper”), and Yalong Paper Product (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. (“Yalong”) a shipment questionnaire asking each whether the company exported merchandise under investigation that entered the United States during the POI. Responses were due by close of business on December 27, 2007. 22 The Department did not receive any responses from any of the four parties as of that deadline. The Department sent a second letter to each of the four parties noted above on December 28, 2007, again requesting information on shipments of merchandise under investigation. Responses were due to the Department no later than January 11, 2008. 23 22 *See, e.g.* , the Department's letter to Ampress entitled, “Antidumping Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China: Shipment Questionnaire,” dated December 17, 2007. 23 *See, e.g.* , the Department's letter to Ampress entitled, “Antidumping Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China: Shipment Questionnaire,” dated December 28, 2007. On January 2, 2008, Ampress submitted a response to the Department stating that it did not have any shipments of LWTP during the POI. 24 On January 11, 2008, Arting submitted a response to the Department stating that it did not have any shipments of LWTP during the POI. 25 Anne Paper and Yalong did not respond to the Department's first or second requests for information. 26 *See* “Facts Available and the PRC-wide Entity” section below for further information on Anne Paper and Yalong. 24 *See* the Department's memorandum to the file entitled, “Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China: Ampress Enterprises Ltd. Shipment Questionnaire Response,” dated January 3, 2008. 25 *See* the Department's memorandum to the file entitled, “Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China: Arting Stationery Products Factory Ltd. Shipment Questionnaire Response,” dated January 11, 2008. 26 *See id* . Section 782(a) of the Act states that the Department shall examine voluntary respondents:
(1)if they submit information within the deadlines established by the Department, and
(2)if the number of voluntary respondents is not so large as to be unduly burdensome and inhibit the Department's timely completion of the review. In the *Respondent Selection Memo* , we noted that, in the event a mandatory respondent failed to participate, we might, at our discretion, accept a voluntary respondent for review, provided that the voluntary respondent had met the two criteria outlined above. As noted above, one of the two firms selected for investigation, Kosoku, did not ship the merchandise under investigation during the POI. Also, as noted above, the Department was unsuccessful in its attempts to select a second mandatory firm for investigation from the next four firms listed in the CBP data. Because of our statutory deadlines, we determined that we could not expend additional resources in attempting to identify the next largest exporter by volume of merchandise subject to this investigation during the POI to serve as the second firm to be investigated. 27 27 *See Respondent Selection Memorandum* . On December 4, 2007, Guanhao reported that it had shipped merchandise under consideration during the POI, and requested that it be treated as a voluntary respondent in this investigation. Further, Guanhao submitted sections A, C, and D questionnaire responses on December 21, 2007, January 9, 2008, and January 16, 2008, respectively, within the Department's deadlines established in this investigation. Therefore, on January 18, 2008, we determined to accept the voluntary respondent ( *i.e.* , Guanhao), pursuant to section 782(a) of the Act. 28 Thus, the Department is examining two firms ( *i.e.* , Hanhong and Guanhao) in this investigation. 28 *See* the Department's memorandum regarding, “Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Investigation: Selection of Voluntary Respondent: Guangdong Guanhao High-Tech co., Ltd.,” dated January 18, 2008. We noted, however, that as explained in our *Respondent Selection Memorandum* , the Department will exclude any individually calculated rate for voluntary respondents ( *i.e.* , Guanhao) from the calculation of the rate to be applied to exporters/producers which qualify for a separate rate but were not selected for examination as mandatory respondents. As stated in the “Initiation” section above, no party filed an SRA in this investigation. Thus, it is not necessary to calculate a weighted-average margin for exporters/producers that were not selected for examination as mandatory respondents in this investigation. Surrogate Value Comments Surrogate factor valuation comments and surrogate value information with which to value the factors of production (“FOPs”) in this proceeding were filed on February 28, 2008, by Guanhao and on February 29, 2008, by petitioner and Hanhong. On March 12, 2008, petitioner and Hanhong filed rebuttal comments on surrogate factor valuation comments and surrogate value information. For a detailed discussion of the surrogate values used in this LTFV proceeding, *see* the “Factor Valuation” section below and the Department's memorandum to the file entitled, “Antidumping Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China: Factor Valuations for the Preliminary Determination,” dated concurrently with this notice (“ *Surrogate Value Memorandum* ”). Surrogate Country Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base normal value (“NV”) on the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a surrogate market economy (“ME”) country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall use, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of the FOPs in one or more ME countries that are:
(1)At a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and
(2)significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the “Factor Valuations” section below. *See also Surrogate Value Memorandum* . On December 20, 2007, the Department determined that India, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Colombia are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. 29 On January 15, 2008, the Department requested comments on the selection of a surrogate country from the interested parties in this investigation. Petitioner submitted comments on February 12, 2008, and Hanhong submitted comments on February 13, 2008. 29 *See* the Department's Office of Policy memorandum entitled, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries,” dated December 20, 2007 (“ *Policy Memorandum* ”). Customarily, we select an appropriate surrogate country from the *Policy Memorandum* based on the availability and reliability of data from the countries that are significant producers of comparable merchandise. In this case, we found that India is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC; is a significant producer of comparable merchandise ( *i.e.* , LWTP); and has publicly available and reliable data. 30 Accordingly, we selected India as the primary surrogate country for purposes of valuing the FOPs in the calculation of NV because it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate country selection. 31 We obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever possible. 30 *See* the Department's memorandum to the file entitled, “Antidumping Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country,” dated April 21, 2008 (“ *Surrogate Country Memorandum* ”) 31 *See id.* In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final determination in antidumping investigations, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value FOPs under 19 CFR 351.408(c) within 40 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination. 32 32 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 surrogate value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). *See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part,* 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007) and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 2. Separate Rates In the *Initiation Notice,* the Department notified parties of the recent application process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations. *See Initiation Notice* at 62434. The process requires exporters and producers to submit an SRA. *See also Policy Bulletin 05.1.* 33 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. 33 *Policy Bulletin 05.1* states: “while 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 applied 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.” *See Policy Bulletin 05.1* at 6. 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 this 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 merchandise subject to this investigation under a test arising from the *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China,* 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ *Sparklers* ”), as further developed in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China,* 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ *Silicon Carbide* ”). 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. A. Separate-Rate Recipients No company reported that it is wholly owned by individuals or companies located in a market economy or that it is located outside the PRC in this investigation. Therefore, we are not addressing these ownership structures in this preliminary determination. 1. Joint Ventures between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly Chinese-Owned Companies In this investigation no company reported that its ownership structure is a joint venture between Chinese and Foreign companies. However, both respondents examined ( *i.e.* , Hanhong and Guanhao) reported that they are wholly Chinese-owned companies. Therefore, the Department must analyze whether Hanhong and Guanhao can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* government control over their 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. *See Sparklers,* 56 FR at 20589. The evidence provided by Hanhong and Guanhao 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. *See, e.g.* , Hanhong's and Guanhao's section A submissions dated January 4, 2008, and December 21, 2007, respectively. 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. *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). 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. In this case petitioner alleged that Guanhao should not receive a separate rate because there is *de facto* control over Guanhao by the PRC government. *See* petitioner's March 20, 2008, submission regarding its comments on the Second Supplemental A Questionnaire Response of Guanhao. Among other things, petitioner alleged that Guanhao's chairman of the board of directors (“BoD”) and general manager (“GM”) are PRC government officials. We solicited additional information from Guanhao regarding petitioner's allegations as they relate to the Department's criteria in determining whether there is *de facto* control by the PRC government over a company's export activities. *See, e.g.* , Guanhao's April 4, 2008, and April 18, 2008, supplemental questionnaire responses. In response, Guanhao reported that in addition to its chairman of the BoD and GM, there are several company officials ( *e.g.* directors, managers) that have authority to sign and negotiate sales contracts. Guanhao further reported descriptions of the roles and duties that the BoD and GM assume in their respective non-Guanhao positions in various associations and government-owned entities. The mere fact that Guanhao's chairman of the BoD is a board member of a government-owned entity does not in itself demonstrate that he is a government official or is controlled by the PRC central government, nor does membership in various associations, committees, *etc.* mean that the chairman of the BoD or the GM are controlled by the central PRC government. Instead, we examine whether their roles, duties, *etc.* in these outside entities and at Guanhao, may potentially or effectively allow these officials to exercise control over certain activities at Guanhao. We do not believe that the roles and duties undertaken by these company officials outside of Guanhao confer government control over the day-to-day activities and decisions regarding its export activities. Furthermore, neither of these company officials have majority control over the disposition of Guanhao's profits. Guanhao reported that the BoD determined the plan for Guanhao's disposition of profits, which is then presented to the general shareholders for a vote of approval. Based on the information on the record, there is no evidence that would lead us to conclude that Guanhao's export prices, sales negotiations or management decisions are controlled by the PRC government. The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Hanhong and Guanhao demonstrate an absence of *de jure* and *de facto* government control with respect to their respective exports of the merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in *Sparklers* and *Silicon Carbide.* B. Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate The Department has determined that all parties applying for a separate rate in this segment of the proceeding have demonstrated an absence of government control both in law and in fact (see discussion above), and is, therefore, not denying separate-rate status to any respondent ( *i.e.* , Hanhong and Guanhao). Facts Available and the PRC-Wide Entity Sections 776(a)(1) and
(2)of the Act provide that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia,* necessary information is not on the record or an interested party:
(A)Withholds information requested by the Department,
(B)fails to provide such information by the deadline, or in the form or manner requested,
(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, subject to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, 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 December 17, 2007, and December 28, 2007, the Department sent Anne Paper and Yalong a questionnaire asking each whether the company exported merchandise under investigation that entered the United States during the POI. 34 We have confirmed that the questionnaires were delivered to Anne Paper and Yalong. 35 Responses were due by close of business on December 27, 2007 and January 11, 2008, respectively. 36 The Department did not receive any responses from Anne Paper and Yalong. 34 *See Respondent Selection Memorandum.* 35 *See* the Department's memorandum regarding, “Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China: Delivery of Shipment Questionnaires,” dated March 12, 2008. 36 *See, e.g.* , the Department's letter to Ampress entitled, “Antidumping Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China: Shipment Questionnaire,” dated December 17, 2007. Because Anne Paper and Yalong did not provide any information, we determine that sections 782(d) and
(e)of the Act are not relevant to our analysis. We further find that the Anne Paper and Yalong failed to respond to the Department's requests for information and, therefore, failed to demonstrate that they operate free of government control and that they are entitled to a separate rate. Based on the above facts, the Department preliminarily determines that there were exports of the merchandise subject to this investigation from PRC exporters/producers that did not respond to the Department's shipment questionnaire, and we are treating these PRC exporters/producers as part of the PRC-wide entity. Moreover, because the PRC-wide entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability when it did not respond to our questionnaire asking whether it exported merchandise under investigation that entered the United States during the POI, use of facts available pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) and
(B)of the Act is warranted for the PRC entity, which includes Anne Paper and Yalong. 37 37 *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”). Section 776(b) of the Act provides that if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department may employ adverse inferences. 38 We find that, because the PRC-wide entity did not 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. 38 *See, e.g., Artist Canvas,* 71 FR 16116, 16118 (March 30, 2006). *See also,* Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep No. 103-316 (“SAA”) at 870. Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate In deciding which facts to use as adverse facts available (“AFA”), section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the Department may rely on information derived from
(1)The petition,
(2)a final determination in the investigation,
(3)any previous review or determination, or
(4)any information placed on the record. In 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.” 39 It is also the Department's practice to 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.” 40 39 *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). 40 *See 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); *see also,* SAA at 870. Generally, the Department finds selecting the highest rate in any segment of the proceeding as AFA to be appropriate. 41 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. 42 In the instant investigation, as AFA, we have preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide entity, including Anne Paper and Yalong, the highest calculated rate on the record of this proceeding, which in this case is the calculated margin for Hanhong. The Department preliminarily determines that this information is the most appropriate from the available sources to effectuate the purposes of AFA. 41 *See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind in Part,* 70 FR 76755, 76761 (December 28, 2005) Unchanged in *Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 71 FR 38366, (July 6, 2006), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 10. 42 *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.” The Department will consider all margins on the record at the time of the final determination for the purpose of determining the most appropriate AFA rate for the PRC-wide entity including Anne Paper and Yalong. 43 43 *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin from the People's Republic of China,* 67 FR 79049, 79053-54 (December 27, 2002), unchanged in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin From the People's Republic of China,* 68 FR 27530 (May 20, 2003). Corroboration Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described as “information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning merchandise subject to this investigation, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the merchandise subject to this investigation.” 44 To “corroborate” means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. 45 Independent sources used to corroborate may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. 46 To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. 47 44 *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China,* 73 FR 6479, 6481 (February 4, 2008); *see also,* SAA at 870. 45 *See id.* 46 *See id.* 47 *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 *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; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part,* 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 1997). As we did not rely upon secondary information, no corroboration was required under section 776(c) of the Act; rather we used the highest margin rate calculated for any respondent in this investigation as the AFA rate for this investigation. 48 *See* the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice below. 48 *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China,* 73 FR 6479 (February 4, 2008). Consequently, we are applying a single antidumping rate—the PRC-wide rate—to producers/exporters that failed to respond to the Department's antidumping questionnaires, or requests for shipment information, or did not apply for a separate rate, as applicable. The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the merchandise under investigation except for entries from respondents, Hanhong and Guanhao. These companies and their corresponding antidumping duty cash deposit rates are listed below in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of LWTP to the United States by the respondents 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 merchandise subject to this investigation is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the merchandise subject to this investigation 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 Hanhong's and Guanhao's U.S. sales because the merchandise subject to this investigation was sold directly to the unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to importation and because constructed export price (“CEP”) was not otherwise indicated. In response to questions raised by the Petitioner, we reviewed Hanhong's relationship with its U.S. customer and find that Hanhong and its U.S. customer were not affiliated during the POI under the meaning of section 771(33) of the Act. Our determination in this regard is based on Hanhong's response that:
(1)Its U.S. customer controls the price at which it resells the merchandise under consideration to its U.S. customers;
(2)Hanhong's U.S. customer takes title to the merchandise and thus bears the risk of loss; and
(3)the written agreement between Hanhong and its U.S. customer allows Hanhong to sell to other U.S. customers and does not restrict its U.S. customer from purchasing thermal paper from other U.S. domestic or foreign suppliers. Accordingly, we treated Hanhong's reported sales to the United States as EP transactions for the preliminary determination. We calculated EP based on the packed FOB delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for any movement expenses ( *e.g.* , foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, domestic brokerage) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 49 Where foreign inland freight or foreign brokerage and handling fees were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based those charges on surrogate value rates from India. *See* “Factor Valuation” section below for further discussion of surrogate value rates. 49 For a detailed description of all adjustments, *see* the Department's Memorandum to the File entitled, “Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation for Hanhong” dated May 6, 2008 ( *“Hanhong Preliminary Analysis Memorandum”* ); and the Department's Memorandum to the File entitled, “Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation for Guangdong Guanhao High-Tech Co., Ltd.” dated May 6, 2008 ( *“Guanhao Preliminary Analysis Memorandum”* ). In determining the most appropriate surrogate values to use in a given case, the Department's stated practice is to use period-wide price averages, prices specific to the input in question, prices that are net of taxes and import duties, prices that are contemporaneous with the POI, and publicly available data. 50 The data we used for brokerage and handling expenses fulfill all of the foregoing criteria except that they are not specific to the merchandise subject to this investigation. There is no information of that type on the record of this investigation. The Department used two sources to calculate a surrogate value for domestic brokerage expenses:
(1)data from the January 9, 2006, public version of the Section C questionnaire response from Kejriwal Paper Ltd. (“Kejriwal”) in the investigation of certain lined paper products from India; 51 and
(2)data from Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. in the administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India. 52 Because these values were not concurrent with the POI of this investigation, we adjusted these rates for inflation using the Wholesale Price Indices (“WPI”) for India as published in the International Monetary Fund's (“IMF's”) *International Financial Statistics,* available at *http://ifs.apdi.net/imf,* and then calculated a simple average of the two companies' brokerage expense data. 53 50 *See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 71 FR 38366 (July 6, 2006), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 1. 51 Kejriwal was a respondent in the certain lined paper products from India investigation for which the POI was July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2005. *See 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) ( *“CLPP”* ) (unchanged in final determination). 52 *See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 70 FR 37757 (June 30, 2005) (unchanged in final results). 53 *See, e.g., Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 72 FR 52073, 52076 (September 12, 2007) (unchanged in final results). Normal Value Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department 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 the Department's normal methodologies. *See, e.g., CLPP,* 71 FR at 19703 (unchanged in final determination). Guanhao has not provided a complete cost reconciliation to the Department nor has it shown that Guanhao's reported FOPs tie to its accounting system. However, the Department is using Guanhao's reported FOPs to calculate its margin for the preliminary determination and is providing Guanhao with a final opportunity to provide a complete cost reconciliation as requested by the Department in the original questionnaire issued on December 3, 2008, and in the two supplemental questionnaires, issued to Guanhao on February 5, 2008, and March 25, 2008. A complete cost reconciliation, including all requested support documentation, is hereby due to the Department no later than 14 days after its receipt of our supplemental questionnaire requesting Guanhao to provide its complete cost reconciliation, which we soon intend to issue to Guanhao. Given the fact that Guanhao was first instructed to provide this cost reconciliation on December 3, 2008, the fact that the Department has granted numerous extensions to Guanhao in which to provide its complete cost reconciliation, and in light of the impending verification, which is currently scheduled for early June 2008, and statutorily prescribed deadlines, it is unlikely that the Department will be able to grant Guanhao any additional time to provide a complete cost reconciliation in accordance with the Department's instructions and questions. If Guanhao does not provide a complete cost reconciliation in accordance with the Department's instructions, we may not conduct verification or consider this company's data usable for the final determination and may resort to the use of facts available or AFA for all of Guanhao's data pursuant to sections 776(a) and
(b)of the Act. We may revisit this issue for the final determination pending receipt of the data. Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on FOPs reported by respondents for the POI. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available Indian surrogate values. In selecting the surrogate values, 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 surrogate values 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision in *Sigma Corp.* v. *United States,* 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Guanhao reported that certain of its reported raw material inputs were sourced from a ME country and paid for in ME currencies. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a respondent sources inputs from an ME supplier in meaningful quantities ( *i.e.* , not insignificant quantities), we use the actual price paid by respondents for those inputs, except when prices may have been distorted by findings of dumping by the PRC and/or subsidies. 54 Guanhao's reported information demonstrates that it has both significant and insignificant quantities of certain raw materials purchased from ME suppliers. Where we found ME purchases to be of significant quantities, in accordance with our statement of policy as outlined in *Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,* 55 we used the actual purchases of these inputs to value the inputs. Accordingly, we valued Guanhao's inputs using the ME prices paid for in ME currencies for the inputs where the total volume of the input purchased from all ME sources during the POI exceeded 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from all sources during the period. 56 Where the quantity of the reported input purchased from ME suppliers was below 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from all sources during the POI, and were otherwise valid, we weight averaged the ME input's purchase price with the appropriate surrogate value for the input according to their respective shares of the reported total volume of purchases. 57 Where appropriate, we added freight to the ME prices of inputs. For a detailed description of the actual values used for the ME inputs reported, *see Guanhao Preliminary* . 54 *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,* 62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997). 55 *See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments,* 71 FR 61716, 61717 (October 19, 2006) (“ *Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs* ”). 56 *See* Guanhao's December 21, 2007 section D submission at Exhibit 10. *See also* Guanhao's March 20, 2008, supplemental D submission at Exhibit 3. 57 *See* *Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs* at 71 FR 61718. Analysis Memorandum. For this preliminary determination, in accordance with past practice, we used import values from the World Trade Atlas online (“Indian Import Statistics”), 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 surrogate values for the respondents' reported material inputs. 58 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, surrogate values which are non-export average values, most contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. 59 58 *See Surrogate Value Memorandum.* 59 *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 *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). Where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with the POI with which to value FOPs, we adjusted the surrogate values using, where appropriate, the Indian WPI as published in the IMF's. Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based surrogate values, 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. 60 We are also directed by the legislative history not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. 61 Rather, Congress directed the Department to base 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 surrogate values. In instances where an ME input was obtained solely from suppliers located in these countries, we used Indian import-based surrogate values to value the input. In addition, we excluded Indian import data from NME and undesignated countries from our surrogate value calculations. 62 60 *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. 61 *See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conference Report to Accompanying H.R. 3,* H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988). 62 *See Surrogate Value Memorandum.* In this case, parties have debated which surrogate value is the best available information for valuing coated jumbo rolls of thermal paper (“CJRs”). Hanhong argues in favor of using the average of three Indonesian HTS categories contending that these data account for much larger import quantities than Indian imports of CJRs and represent average unit prices that are more comparative to the “normal value” German benchmark which it calculated from publicly available data from the companion German investigation. Hanhong also asserts that Indian import values for CJRs during the POI are aberrational because of small quantities and specialized imports. 63 63 *See,* *e.g.* , Hanhong's submission regarding, “Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China: Rebuttal regarding Surrogate Values,” dated March 12, 2008, at pages 3 and 4. Petitioner argues that the single Indian HTS category is more appropriate as a surrogate value because it is the only value that is specific to CJRs. Additionally, petitioner asserts that these Indian data are not aberrational as evidenced by the pattern of the WTA yearly data for the category showing average prices remaining constant over a three-year period. Petitioner claims that two of the three Indonesian HTS categories submitted by Hanhong do not exist, and the third is incorrect. All the HTS data, including the Indian and Indonesian values that parties have proposed that the Department use to value the CJRs in this preliminary determination are contemporaneous with the POI and are tax-exclusive values. However, the Indonesian HTS categories submitted by Hanhong are broad basket categories. Where a category is more specific to an input it is the Department's preference to use that category rather than a basket category. *See Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China,* 72 FR 46957 (August 22, 2007), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 13; *See also 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), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 3 (where the Department declined to use a broad basket category because it was not as specific to the input being valued as other potential sources on the record of the proceeding). Furthermore, we have not considered using the German value as a benchmark (provided by Hanhong) because Germany is not on the list of possible surrogate countries due to its advanced level of economic development, and we have a value on the record from India, a country deemed in this proceeding to be economically comparable to the PRC, which is specific to CJRs. Therefore, the Department has valued CJRs with Indian imports from HTS 4811.90.94 for this preliminary determination because this Indian HTS category is more specific to CJRs reported by the respondent, and as such, is the best available information currently on the record. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), we encourage interested parties to submit additional publicly available information for consideration in valuing CJRs within 40 days after the date of publication of this determination. We used Indian transport information to value the inland truck, rail, and waterway freight cost of the raw materials. The Department valued truck freight using Indian freight rates published by Indian Freight Exchange available at *http://www.infreight.com.* This source provided daily rates from six major points of origin to six destinations in India for the period April 2005, through October 2005. We averaged the monthly rates for each rate observation to obtain a surrogate value. The Department determined the best available information for valuing rail freight to be from *http://www.indianrailways.gov.in.* To value waterway freight, we used an Indian domestic ship rate from Indian Waterways Authority. For data that were not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the rates for inflation using WPI, where applicable. 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 web 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. 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. The Department is currently in the process of updating its regression-based wage rate for the PRC for 2007. The deadline for submitting comments on the 2007 expected wages of selected NME countries' calculation was May 1, 2008 and the Department intends to finalize its calculations based on 2005 GNI within one month thereafter. *See http://www.trade.gov/ia/.* Therefore, for the final determination of this investigation we intend to update our PRC Expected Hourly Wage Rate with the finalized 2007 expected wages calculation. 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 value for inflation. The Department valued water using data from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation *http://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 for the year ending March 31, 2006, of two Indian producers of identical and comparable merchandise, Parag Copigraph Pvt. Ltd. (“Parag”) and Alpha Carbonless Paper Ltd. (“Alpha”). 64 The Department may consider other publicly available financial statements for the final determination, as appropriate. 64 *See* petitioner's submission entitled, “Lightweight Thermal Paper From China,” dated March 19, 2008, and *Surrogate Value Memorandum.* 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 Hanhong and Guanhao upon which we will rely in making our final determination. However, as noted in the “Normal Value” section above, should Guanhao fail to provide a complete cost reconciliation, the Department may determine that there is insufficient cost reconciliation information to warrant verification of any of Guanhao's information on the record. Combination Rates In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. 65 This practice is described in the *Separate Rate Policy Bulletin* . 65 *See Initiation Notice,* 72 FR at 62435. Preliminary Determination The weighted-average dumping margin percentages are as follows: Exporter/producer combination Customs ID No. Percent margin Exporter: Shanghai Hanhong Paper Co., Ltd., also known as, Hanhong International Limited; Producer: Shanghai Hanhong Paper Co. Ltd A-570-920-001 132.95 Exporter: Guangdong Guanhao High-Tech Co., Ltd.; Producer: Guangdong Guanhao High-Tech Co., Ltd A-570-920-002 2.30 PRC-Wide Entity* A-570-920-000 132.95 * Includes Anne Paper and Yalong. 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 CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of merchandise subject to this investigation, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . The Department has determined in its *Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination,* 73 FR 13850 (March 14, 2008) ( *“CVD LWTP Prelim”* ), that the product under investigation, exported and produced by Guanhao, benefitted from an export subsidy. Normally, where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty investigation, we instruct CBP to require an antidumping cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the EP, as indicated above, minus the amount determined to constitute an export subsidy. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India,* 69 FR 67306, 67307 (November 17, 2007). Therefore, for merchandise under consideration entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date of this preliminary determination exported and produced by Guanhao, we will instruct CBP to require an antidumping cash deposit or the posting of a bond for each entry equal to the weighted-average margin indicated above, adjusted for the export subsidy rate determined in *CVD LWTP Prelim.* For the remaining exporter/producer combinations listed in the chart above, the following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the preliminary determination for all shipments of merchandise under consideration entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date:
(1)The rate for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the chart above will be the rate we have determined in this preliminary determination, except as noted above for Guanhao;
(2)for all PRC exporters of merchandise subject to this investigation that have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate;
(3)for all non-PRC exporters of merchandise subject to this investigation that have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. 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 LWTP, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the merchandise under consideration 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. The Department also requests that parties provide an electronic copy of its case and rebuttal brief submissions in either a “Microsoft Word” or a “pdf” format. 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. 66 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 of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 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. 66 *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. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 6, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-10663 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts (OMB Control Number 0704-0255) AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement. SUMMARY: In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. DoD invites comments on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved this information collection requirement for use through May 31, 2008. DoD proposes that OMB extend its approval for use for three additional years. DATES: DoD will consider all comments received by July 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0255, using any of the following methods: ○ Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. ○ E-mail: *dfars@osd.mil* . Include OMB Control Number 0704-0255 in the subject line of the message. ○ Fax: 703-602-7887. ○ Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy Williams, OUSD(AT&L) DPAP (DARS), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. ○ Hand Delivery/Courier: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Crystal Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-3402. Comments received generally will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Williams, 703-602-0328. The information collection requirements addressed in this notice are available on the World Wide Web at: *http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfarspgi/current/index.html.* Paper copies are available from Ms. Amy Williams, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title and OMB Number:* Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 236, Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts, and related clauses at DFARS 252.236; OMB Control Number 0704-0255. *Needs and Uses:* DoD contracting officers need this information to evaluate contractor proposals for contract modifications; to determine that a contractor has removed obstructions to navigation; to review contractor requests for payment for mobilization and preparatory work; to determine reasonableness of costs allocated to mobilization and demobilization; and to determine eligibility for the 20 percent evaluation preference for United States firms in the award of some overseas construction contracts. *Affected Public:* Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions. *Annual Burden Hours:* 263,281. *Number of Respondents:* 2,595. *Responses Per Respondent:* Approximately 1. *Annual Responses:* 2,630. *Average Burden Per Response:* Approximately 100 hours. *Frequency:* On occasion. Summary of Information Collection DFARS 236.570(a) prescribes use of the clause at DFARS 252.236-7000, Modification Proposals—Price Breakdown, in all fixed-price construction contracts. The clause requires the contractor to submit a price breakdown with any proposal for a contract modification. DFARS 236.570(b) prescribes use of the following clauses in fixed-price construction contracts as applicable:
(1)The clause at DFARS 252.236-7002, Obstruction of Navigable Waterways, requires the contractor to notify the contracting officer of obstructions in navigable waterways.
(2)The clause at DFARS 252.236-7003, Payment for Mobilization and Preparatory Work, requires the contractor to provide supporting documentation when submitting requests for payment for mobilization and preparatory work.
(3)The clause at DFARS 252.236-7004, Payment for Mobilization and Demobilization, permits the contracting officer to require the contractor to furnish cost data justifying the percentage of the cost split between mobilization and demobilization, if the contracting officer believes that the proposed percentages do not bear a reasonable relation to the cost of the work. DFARS 236.570(c) prescribes use of the following provisions in solicitations for military construction contracts that are funded with military construction appropriations and are estimated to exceed $1,000,000:
(1)The provision at DFARS 252.236-7010, Overseas Military Construction—Preference for United States Firms, requires an offeror to specify whether or not it is a United States firm.
(2)The provision at DFARS 252.236-7012, Military Construction on Kwajalein Atoll—Evaluation Preference, requires an offeror to specify whether it is a United States firm, a Marshallese firm, or other firm. Michele P. Peterson, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. [FR Doc. E8-10668 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-08-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests. 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: An emergency review has been requested in accordance with the Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 3507 (j)), since public harm is reasonably likely to result if normal clearance procedures are followed. Approval by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has been requested by May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written comments regarding the emergency review should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Bridget Dooling, Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget; 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or faxed to
(202)395-6974. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Director of OMB provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Office of Management and Budget
(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 this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. 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. ED 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 respondents, including through the use of information technology. Dated: May 8, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Federal Student Aid *Type of Review:* New. *Title:* Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program Agreement to Serve. *Abstract:* The TEACH Grant Program Agreement to Serve must be signed by a student each year before receiving a TEACH Grant. By signing the Agreement to Serve, the student promises to meet the teaching service requirements of the TEACH Grant program as described in the Agreement, and to repay with interest the full amount of any TEACH Grant as a Direct Unsubsidized Loan if the student does not complete the required teaching service or otherwise fails to meet the requirements of the TEACH Grant Program. *Additional Information:* The U.S. Department of Education requests that OMB grant an emergency clearance of the Agreement to Serve to be used in the TEACH Grant Program. Section 420N(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, requires an applicant for a TEACH Grant to complete an Agreement to Serve before receiving a TEACH Grant. The TEACH Grant Program was established under the HEA by the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 1007 (the CCRAA). In accordance with section 4200 of the CCRAA, the effective date for the TEACH Grant Program is July 1, 2008. The Department is requesting an emergency clearance because the regular clearance process would not enable us to make an OMB-approved Agreement to Serve available to TEACH Grant applicants by the statutory effective date for the TEACH Grant Program. The Department requests emergency clearance of the Agreement to Serve by May 14, 2008, to ensure that systems work and testing necessary to implement the electronic Agreement to Serve can be completed by July 1, 2008. Upon receiving emergency clearance of the Agreement to Serve, the Department will submit the Agreement to Serve for the regular information clearance process, including notice of a 60-day public comment period. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Affected Public:* Individuals or household. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* * Responses:* 55,800. * Burden Hours:* 27,900. 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 3685. 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 the Internet address *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. E8-10632 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Postsecondary Education; Overview Information; Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural Program; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year
(FY)2008 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number: 84.345A. *DATES: Applications Available:* May 13, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* June 12, 2008. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* August 11, 2008. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of Program:* The Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural Program
(URR)makes grants to nonprofit educational organizations that are established to research, display, interpret, and collect artifacts relating to the history of the Underground Railroad. Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1153. *Applicable Regulations:* The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98 and 99. Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Discretionary grants. *Estimated Available Funds:* $1,943,510 Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2009 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition. *Estimated Average Size of Awards:* $500,000-$1,000,000 total for up to three years. *Estimated Number of Awards:* 2. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. *Project Period:* Up to 36 months. III. Eligibility Information 1. *Eligible Applicants:* Nonprofit educational organizations that are established to research, display, interpret, and collect artifacts relating to the history of the Underground Railroad. 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* The Federal Government may provide no more than 20 percent of the total funds for any project funded under this competition. See 20 U.S.C. 1153(b)(2). Applicants must provide the remaining 80 percent funding from private entities. As part of the application process, applicants will be required to demonstrate their ability to meet the cost sharing requirement. 3. *Other:* Each nonprofit educational organization awarded a grant under this competition must create an endowment to fund any and all shortfalls in the costs of the on-going operations of the facility. Grantees must establish a network of satellite centers throughout the United States to help disseminate information regarding the Underground Railroad. These satellite centers must raise 80 percent of the funds required to establish the satellite centers from non-Federal public and private sources. In addition, grantees must establish the capability to electronically link the facility with other local and regional facilities that have collections and programs that interpret the history of the Underground Railroad. As part of the application process, applicants will be required to document their ability to create an endowment, establish satellite centers, and establish the electronic capability described above. For specific requirements on reporting, please go to *http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.* IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address to Request Application Package:* Claire D. Cornell, Underground Railroad Program, Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 6145, Washington, DC 20006-8544. Telephone:
(202)502-7609 or by e-mail: *claire.cornell@ed.gov.* If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format ( *e.g.* , Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the program contact person listed in this section. 2. *Content and Form of Application Submission:* Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this program. *Page Limit:* The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit the application narrative to the equivalent of no more than 30 pages, using the following standards: • A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Page numbers and an identifier may be outside of the 1″ margin. • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures and graphs. • Use a font that is either 12-point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted. • The page limit does not apply to Part I, the Application for Federal Assistance Form (SF-424); Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the Table of Contents, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section. We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit. 3. *Submission Dates and Times:* *Applications Available:* May 13, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* June 12, 2008. Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, please refer to section IV. 6. *Other Submission Requirements* in this notice. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* August 11, 2008. We will not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this program. 5. *Funding Restrictions:* We specify unallowable costs in 34 CFR 74.27. We reference additional regulations outlining funding restriction in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. 6. *Other Submission Requirements:* Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section. a. *Electronic Submission of Applications* . Applications for grants under the Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural Program, CFDA Number 84.345A, must be submitted electronically using the Government wide Grants.gov Apply site at *http://www.Grants.gov* . Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us. We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under *Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement* . You may access the electronic grant application for The Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural Program at *http://www.Grants.gov* . You must search for the downloadable application package for this program by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.345, not 84.345A). Please note the following: • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the application requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov. • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this program to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov at *http://e-Grants.ed.gov/help/GrantsgovSubmissionProcedures.pdf* . • To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all steps in the Grants.gov registration process (see *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp* ). These steps include
(1)Registering your organization, a multi-part process that includes registration with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR);
(2)registering yourself as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and
(3)getting authorized as an AOR by your organization. Details on these steps are outlined in the Grants.gov 3-Step Registration Guide (see *http://www.grants.gov/section910/Grants.govRegistrationBrochure.pdf)* . You also must provide on your application the same D-U-N-S Number used with this registration. Please note that the registration process may take five or more business days to complete, and you must have completed all registration steps to allow you to submit successfully an application via Grants.gov. In addition you will need to update your CCR registration on an annual basis. This may take three or more business days to complete. • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format. • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. Please note that two of these forms—the SF 424 and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424—have replaced the ED 424 (Application for Federal Education Assistance). • You must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified in this paragraph or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice. • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by e-mail. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application). • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date. *Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System:* If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it. If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice. If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted. Note: The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system. *Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement:* You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because— • You do not have access to the Internet; or • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days; or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application. If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. Address and mail or fax your statement to: Claire D. Cornell, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 6145, Washington, DC 20006-8544. FAX:
(202)502-7877. Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice. b. *Submission of Paper Applications by Mail* . If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address: *By mail through the U.S. Postal Service:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.345A), 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260; or *By mail through a commercial carrier:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Stop 4260, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.345A), 7100 Old Landover Road, Landover, MD 20785-1506. Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1)A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2)A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3)A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4)Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1)A private metered postmark.
(2)A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service. If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application. Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office. c. *Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery* . If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.345A), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260. The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1)You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2)The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at
(202)245-6288. V. Application Review Information *Selection Criteria* . The selection criteria for this program are from 34 CFR 75.210 and include: Project significance (10 points); quality of the project design (40 points); adequacy of project resources (20 points); quality of project personnel (10 points); and quality of the project evaluation (20 points). Additional information regarding these criteria is in the application package for this competition. In making grant awards for this program, the Department will consider information concerning the applicant's performance and use of funds from a prior grant in this program or in any other Department program and will consider the applicant's failure to submit an acceptable performance report for a grant in this program or in any other Department program. 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3). VI. Award Administration Information 1. *Award Notices:* If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN). We may notify you informally, also. If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you. 2. *Administrative and National Policy Requirements:* We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant. 3. *Reporting:* At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary and as outlined in the text below. For each fiscal year for which an organization receives funding under this program, those organizations must submit to the Department a report that contains:
(a)A description and evaluation of the programs and activities supported by the funding;
(b)the audited financial statement of the organization for the preceding fiscal year; and
(c)a plan for the programs and activities to be supported by the funding. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to: *http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms/appforms.html* and review a more detailed explanation in the application package. 4. *Performance Measures:* Under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the following measure will be used by the Department in assessing the performance of the Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural Program: • The extent to which funded projects have been institutionalized and continued after URR funding ends. VII. Agency Contact *For Further Information Contact:* Claire D. Cornell, Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural Program, FIPSE, OPE, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 6145, Washington, DC 20006-8544. Telephone:
(202)502-7609 or by e-mail: *claire.cornell@ed.gov* . If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. VIII. Other Information *Alternative Format:* Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact person listed in this section. *Electronic Access to This Document:* You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister* . To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html* . Dated: May 8, 2008. Diane Auer Jones, Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education. [FR Doc. E8-10669 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Postsecondary Education; Overview Information; College Cost Reduction and Access Act Hispanic-Serving Institutions (CCRAA-HSI) Program; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year
(FY)2008 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number: 84.031C. *DATES:* *Applications Available:* May 13, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* June 27, 2008. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* August 26, 2008. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of Program:* The College Cost Reduction and Access Act Hispanic-Serving Institutions (CCRAA-HSI) Program provides grants to assist Hispanic-serving institutions
(HSIs)to develop and carry out activities to improve and expand the HSI's capacity to serve Hispanic and other low-income students. *Priorities:* In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(iv) and section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act, these priorities are from section 499A(b)(2)(B) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), as amended by the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007. *Competitive Preference Priorities:* For FY 2008, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we award an additional ten points to an application that meets both priorities. Applicants must address both priorities to receive the additional points. Applicants that do not address both priorities will not receive any competitive preference priority points. These priorities are: Competitive Preference Priority 1 In accordance with Section 499A(b)(2)(B)(i) of the HEA, Individual Development or Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants that propose to increase the number of Hispanic and other low income students attaining degrees in the fields of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics; and Competitive Preference Priority 2 In accordance with Section 499A(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the HEA, Individual Development or Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants that propose to develop model transfer and articulation agreements between two-year HSIs and four-year institutions in such fields. *Program Authority:* 20 U.S.C. 1101-1101d, 1103-1103g. *Applicable Regulations:*
(a)The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
(b)The applicable regulations for this program in 34 CFR 606.2(a) and (b), 606.3, 606.4, 606.5, 606.6, 606.7, 606.10(b)(c)(d), and 606.30. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Discretionary grant. *Estimated Available Funds:* $100,000,000. *Estimated Range of Awards:* $850,000-2,500,000. *Estimated Average Size of Awards:* Individual Development Grant: $862,000. Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant: $1,200,000. *Maximum Awards:* Individual Development Grant: $2,500,000. Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant: $2,500,000. The Department of Education (Department) will not fund any application at an amount exceeding these maximum amounts for a single budget period of 12 months. During our initial review, we may choose not to further consider or review an application with a budget that exceeds the applicable maximum amount. The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education may change the maximum amount through a notice published in the **Federal Register** . *Estimated Number of Awards:* Individual Development Grants: 58. Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants: 42. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. Applicants should periodically check the CCRAA-HSI Program Web site for further information. The address is: *http://www.ed.gov/programs/hsiccraa/index.html* . *Project Period:* Up to 24 months. III. Eligibility Information 1. *Eligible Applicants:* Institutions of higher education
(IHEs)that qualify as eligible HSIs are eligible to apply for new Individual Development Grants and Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants under the CCRAA-HSI Program. To be an eligible HSI, an IHE must—
(1)Be accredited or preaccredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association that the Secretary has determined to be a reliable authority as to the quality of education or training offered;
(2)Be legally authorized by the State in which it is located to be a junior college or community college or to provide an educational program for which it awards a bachelor's degree;
(3)Be designated as an “eligible institution” by demonstrating that it:
(a)Has an enrollment of needy students as described in 34 CFR 606.3; and
(b)has low average educational and general expenditures per full-time equivalent
(FTE)undergraduate student as described in 34 CFR 606.4;
(4)Have an enrollment of undergraduate FTE students that is at least 25 percent Hispanic students at the end of the award year immediately preceding the date of application. Note: The Third Higher Education Extension Act of 2006 amended section 502(a) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1101a(a)(5)(B)) to require that institutions have an enrollment of undergraduate FTE students that is at least 25 percent Hispanic students at the end of the award year immediately preceding the date of application. Funds for the CCRAA-HSI Program are awarded each fiscal year, thus, for this program, the end of the award year refers to the end of the fiscal year prior to the application due date. The end of the fiscal year occurs on September 30 for any given year. Therefore, for purposes of making the determination described in paragraph
(4)IHEs must report their undergraduate Hispanic FTE percent based on the student enrollment count closest to, but not after, September 30, 2007. The Third Higher Education Extension Act of 2006 also amended section 502(a) of the HEA to eliminate the previous statutory requirement in the HSI Program that an IHE applying for a grant provide an assurance that not less than 50 percent of the institution's Hispanic students are low-income individuals. The Notice Inviting Applications for Designation as Eligible Institutions for FY 2008 was published in the **Federal Register** on March 10, 2008 (73 FR 12721). The CCRAA-HSI Program eligibility requirements are in 34 CFR 606.2 through 606.5 and can be accessed from the following Web site: *http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/34cfr606_01.html* . These regulations do not reflect the changes made to the HSI Program requirements by the Third Higher Education Extension Act of 2006. Note 1: An eligible HSI that submits more than one application may be awarded both an Individual Development Grant and a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant, for the CCRAA-HSI Program only, as long as the proposed activities are different for each grant application and are different from the activities funded by the institution's current Title V, HSI grant. Note 2: In considering applications for grants under this program, the Department will verify data reported by the institution on its application with the information reported by the institution to the Department's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), the IHE's State-reported enrollment data, and the institutional annual report. If there are any differences in the percentages reported in the IPEDS and the percentages reported in the CCRAA-HSI grant application, the IHE should explain the differences as a part of its eligibility documentation. Note 3: If you are a four-year HSI institution planning to submit a CCRAA-HSI application supporting the competitive preference priorities, the two-year HSI will be required to submit its assurance of 25 percent enrollment of undergraduate FTE Hispanic students. 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* There are no cost sharing or matching requirements unless the grantee uses a portion of its grant for establishing or improving an endowment fund. If a grantee proposes to use a portion of its grant for endowment fund purposes, it must match those grant funds with an equivalent amount of non-Federal funds. (20 U.S.C. 1101b(c)(2)). IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address to Request Application Package:* Carnisia M. Proctor, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20006-8513. Telephone:
(202)502-7606 or by e-mail: *Carnisia.Proctor@ed.gov* . If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the program contact person listed in this section. 2. *Content and Form of Application Submission:* Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this program. Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We have established mandatory page limits for both the Individual Development Grant and the Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant applications. You must limit the section of the narrative that addresses the selection criteria to no more than 35 pages for the Individual Development Grant application and 55 pages for the Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant application, using the following standards: • A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman and Arial Narrow) will not be accepted. The page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications, or the one-page abstract. We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit. 3. *Submission Dates and Times:* Applications Available: May 13, 2008. Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 27, 2008. Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 6. *Other Submission Requirements* in this notice. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice. Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 26, 2008. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this program. 5. *Funding Restrictions:* We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. Applicability of Executive Order 13202 Applicants that apply for construction funds under the CCRAA-HSI Program must comply with Executive Order 13202 signed by President Bush on February 17, 2001, and amended on April 6, 2001. This Executive order provides that recipients of Federal construction funds may not “require or prohibit bidders, offerors, contractors, or subcontractors to enter into or adhere to agreements with one or more labor organizations, on the same or other construction project(s)” or “otherwise discriminate against bidders, offerors, contractors, or subcontractors for becoming or refusing to become or remain signatories or otherwise adhere to agreements with one or more labor organizations, on the same or other construction project(s).” However, the Executive order does not prohibit contractors or subcontractors from voluntarily entering into these agreements. Projects funded under this program that include construction activity will be provided a copy of this Executive order and will be asked to certify that they will adhere to it. 6. *Other Submission Requirements:* Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section. a. *Electronic Submission of Applications.* Applications for grants under the CCRAA-HSI Program, CFDA Number 84.031C, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at *http://www.Grants.gov* . Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us. We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under *Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement* . You may access the electronic grant application for the CCRAA-HSI Program at *http://www.Grants.gov* . You must search for the downloadable application package for this program by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.031, not 84.031C). Please note the following: • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov. • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this program to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov at *http://e-Grants.ed.gov/help/GrantsgovSubmissionProcedures.pdf* . • To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all steps in the Grants.gov registration process (see *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp* ). These steps include
(1)Registering your organization, a multi-part process that includes registration with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR);
(2)registering yourself as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and
(3)getting authorized as an AOR by your organization. Details on these steps are outlined in the Grants.gov 3-Step Registration Guide (see *http://www.grants.gov/section910/Grants.govRegistrationBrochure.pdf* ). You also must provide on your application the same D-U-N-S Number used with this registration. Please note that the registration process may take five or more business days to complete, and you must have completed all registration steps to allow you to submit successfully an application via Grants.gov. In addition, you will need to update your CCR registration on an annual basis. This may take three or more business days to complete. • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format. • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. Please note that two of these forms—the SF 424 and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424 —have replaced the ED 424 (Application for Federal Education Assistance). • You must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified in this paragraph or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice. • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by e-mail. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application). • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date. *Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System:* If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it. If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice. If you submit an application after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and the problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted. Note: The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system. *Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement:* You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because— • You do not have access to the Internet; or • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application. If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. Address and mail or fax your statement to: Carnisia M. Proctor, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20006-8513. FAX:
(202)502-7861. Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice. b. *Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.* If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address: *By mail through the U.S. Postal Service:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.031C), 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260; or *By mail through a commercial carrier:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Stop 4260, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.031C), 7100 Old Landover Road, Landover, MD 20785-1506. Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1)A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2)A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3)A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4)Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1)A private metered postmark.
(2)A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service. If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application. Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office. c. *Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.* If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.031C), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260. The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1)You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2)The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at
(202)245-6288. V. Application Review Information 1. *Selection Criteria:* The selection criteria for this program are from 34 CFR 75.209(a) and 75.210, and are as follows: Need for the project (20 points). Quality of the project design (15 points). Quality of project services (15 points). Quality of project personnel (10 points). Adequacy of resources (5 points); Quality of the management plan (20 points); and Quality of project evaluation (15 points). Additional information regarding these criteria is in the application package for this competition. 2. *Review and Selection Process:* Applicants must provide, as an attachment to the application, the documentation the institution relied upon in determining that at least 25 percent of the institution's undergraduate FTE students are Hispanic. Note: The 25 percent requirement applies only to undergraduate Hispanic students and is calculated based upon FTE students. Instructions for formatting and submitting the verification documentation to Grants.gov are in the application package for this competition. VI. Award Administration Information 1. *Award Notices:* If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN). We may notify you informally, also. If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you. 2. *Administrative and National Policy Requirements:* We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant. 3. *Reporting:* At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary in 34 CFR 75.118, 34 CFR 75.720 and in 34 CFR 606.31. 4. *Performance Measures:* The Secretary has established the following key performance measures for assessing the effectiveness of the CCRAA-HSI Program:
(1)The percentage change, over the five-year grant period, of the number of full-time degree-seeking undergraduates enrolled at HSIs.
(2)The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same institution.
(3)The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at four-year HSIs graduating within six years of enrollment.
(4)The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at two-year HSIs graduating within three years of enrollment.
(5)Federal cost for undergraduate and graduate degrees at institutions in the CCRAA HSI program. 5. *CCRAA Special Analyses:* The HSI Program created under the CCRAA includes two priorities:
(1)To increase the number of Hispanic and other low-income students attaining degrees in the fields of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM); and
(2)To develop model transfer and articulation agreements between two-year HSIs and four-year institutions in such fields. To assess the impact of the adoption of these priorities on program outcomes, the Department will conduct special analyses to determine the changes that occur during the course of the grant period in:
(1)The percentage of students receiving STEM-related degrees from grantee institutions that select this priority; and
(2)The percentage of students transferring from two-year grantee institutions that select this priority to other institutions. VII. Agency Contacts For Further Information Contact : Carnisia M. Proctor, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20006-8513. Telephone:
(202)502-7606 or by e-mail: *Carnisia.Proctor@ed.gov* If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. VIII. Other Information *Alternative Format:* Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact person listed under For Further Information Contact in section VII in this notice. *Electronic Access to This Document:* You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html* . Dated: May 8, 2008. Diane Auer Jones, Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education. [FR Doc. E8-10681 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Postsecondary Education; Overview Information Predominantly Black Institutions Program; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year
(FY)2008 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number: 84.382A. *DATES: Applications Available:* May 13, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* June 27, 2008. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* August 26, 2008. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of Program:* The purpose of the Predominantly Black Institutions
(PBI)Program is to strengthen predominantly Black institutions to carry out programs in the following areas: Science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM); health education; internationalization or globalization; teacher preparation; or improving educational outcomes of African-American males. *Program Authority:* Title IV, Part J, Section 499A of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), as amended by the College Cost Reduction and Access Act (CCRAA) of 2007. *Applicable Regulations:* The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Discretionary grants. *Estimated Available Funds:* $15,000,000. *Estimated Size of Awards:* $600,000 per year. *Estimated Number of Awards:* 25. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. *Project Period:* Up to 24 months. III. Eligibility Information 1. *Eligible Applicants:* An institution of higher education that—
(A)Has an enrollment of needy students as defined by the CCRAA of 2007. The term *enrollment of needy students* means the enrollment at an institution of higher education with respect to which not less than 50 percent of the undergraduate students enrolled in an academic program leading to a degree—
(a)In the second fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the determination is made, were Federal Pell Grant recipients for such year;
(b)Come from families that receive benefits under a means-tested Federal benefit program (as defined in paragraph (5));
(c)Attended a public or nonprofit private secondary school—
(i)That is in the school district of a local educational agency that was eligible for assistance under part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 for any year during which the student attended such secondary school; and
(ii)Which for the purpose of this paragraph and for that year was determined by the Secretary (pursuant to regulations and after consultation with the State educational agency of the State in which the school is located) to be a school in which the enrollment of children counted under a measure of poverty described in section 1113(a)(5) of such Act exceeds 30 percent of the total enrollment of such school; or
(d)Are first-generation college students (as that term is defined in section 402A(g)), and a majority of such first-generation college students are low-income individuals. The term low-income individual has the meaning given such term in section 402A(g).
(B)Has an average educational and general expenditure which is low, per full-time equivalent undergraduate student in comparison with the average educational and general expenditure per full-time equivalent undergraduate student of institutions of higher education that offer similar instruction. The Secretary may waive this requirement, in accordance with section 392(b) of the HEA in the same manner as the Secretary applies the waiver requirements to grant applicants under section 312(b)(1)(B) of the HEA;
(C)Has an enrollment of undergraduate students— i. That is at least 40 percent Black American students; ii. That is at least 1,000 undergraduate students; iii. Of which not less than 50 percent of the undergraduate students enrolled at the institution are low-income individuals or first-generation college students (as that term is defined in section 402A(g); The term *first generation college student* means—(A) an individual both of whose parents did not complete a baccalaureate degree; or
(B)in the case of any individual who regularly resided with and received support from only one parent, an individual whose only such parent did not complete a baccalaureate degree; and iv. Of which not less than 50 percent of the undergraduate students are enrolled in an educational program leading to a bachelor's or associate's degree that the institution is licensed to award by the State in which the institution is located;
(D)Is legally authorized to provide, and provides within the State, an educational program for which the institution of higher education awards bachelor's degree, or in the case of a junior or community college, an associate's degree;
(E)Is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association determined by the Secretary to be a reliable authority as to the quality of training offered, or is, according to such an agency or association, making reasonable progress toward accreditation; and
(F)Is not receiving assistance under Part B of Title III of the HEA, as amended by the CCRAA of 2007. 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* This program does not require cost sharing or matching. IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address to Request Application Package:* Karen W. Johnson, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 6032, Washington, DC 20006-8515. Telephone:
(202)502-7777 or by e-mail: *karen.johnson@ed.gov* or Bernadette Miles, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 6047, Washington, DC 20006-8515. Telephone:
(202)502-7616 or by e-mail: *bernadette.miles@ed.gov.* If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the program contact person listed in this section. 2. *Content and Form of Application Submission:* Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package and instructions for this program. Page Limit: The program narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit the section of the narrative that addresses the selection criteria to the equivalent of no more than 30 pages, using the following standards: • A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Page numbers and an identifier may be outside of the 1″ margin. • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, except titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions. Charts, tables, figures, and graphs in the application narrative may be single spaced and will count toward the page limit. • Use a font that is either 12-point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). However, you may use a 10-point font in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New or Arial. Applications submitted in any other font (including Times Roman and Arial Narrow) will be rejected. • The page limit does not apply to Part I, the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF-424 form (SF-424); Part II, the Budget Information Non-Construction Programs form (ED 524); and Part IV, the Assurances and Certifications. The page limit also does not apply to a table of contents. If you include any attachments or appendices not specifically requested, these items will be counted as part of the program narrative (Part III) for purposes of the page limit requirement. You must include your complete response to the selection criteria in the program narrative. We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit or if you apply other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit. 3. *Submission Dates and Times:* *Applications Available:* May 13, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* June 27, 2008. Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 6. *Other Submission Requirements* in this notice. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice. Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 26, 2008. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this program. 5. *Funding Restrictions:* We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. 6. *Other Submission Requirements:* Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section. a. *Electronic Submission of Applications.* Applications for grants under the Predominantly Black Institutions Program, CFDA Number 84.382A, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at *http://www.Grants.gov.* Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us. We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under *Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.* You may access the electronic grant application for the Predominantly Black Institutions program at *http://www.Grants.gov.* You must search for the downloadable application package for this program by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.382, not 84.382A). Please note the following: • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov. • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this program to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov at *http://e-Grants.ed.gov/help/GrantsgovSubmissionProcedures.pdf.* • To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all steps in the Grants.gov registration process (see *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp* ). These steps include
(1)Registering your organization, a multi-part process that includes registration with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR);
(2)registering yourself as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and
(3)getting authorized as an AOR by your organization. Details on these steps are outlined in the Grants.gov 3-Step Registration Guide (see *http://www.grants.gov/section910/Grants.govRegistrationBrochure.pdf* ). You also must provide on your application the same D-U-N-S number used with this registration. Please note that the registration process may take five or more business days to complete, and you must have completed all registration steps to allow you to submit successfully an application via Grants.gov. In addition you will need to update your CCR registration on an annual basis. This may take three or more business days to complete. • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format. • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF-424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. Please note that two of these forms—the SF 424 and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424—have replaced the ED 424 (Application for Federal Education Assistance). • You must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified in this paragraph or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. • Your electronic application must comply with any page limit requirements described in this notice. • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by e-mail. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an Ed-specified identifying number unique to your application). • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date. *Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System:* If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it. If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice. If you submit an application after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact either of the persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted. Note: The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system. *Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement:* You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because— • You do not have access to the Internet; or • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application. If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. Address and mail or fax your statement to: Karen W. Johnson, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 6032, Washington, DC 20006-8515, FAX:
(202)502-7861. Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice. b. *Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.* If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address: *By mail through the U.S. Postal Service:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.382A), 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260; or *By mail through a commercial carrier:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Stop 4260, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.382A), 7100 Old Landover Road, Landover, MD 20785-1506. Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1)A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2)A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3)A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4)Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1)A private metered postmark.
(2)A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service. If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application. Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office. c. *Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.* If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.382A), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260. The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1)You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2)The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at
(202)245-6288. V. Application Review Information 1. *Selection Criteria:* The selection criteria for this program are from 34 CFR 75.209(a) and 75.210, and are as follows— Need for the project (20 points); Quality of the project design (15 points); Quality of project services (15 points); Quality of project personnel (10 points); Adequacy of resources (5 points); Quality of the management plan (20 points); Quality of project evaluation (15 points). Additional information regarding these criteria is in the application package for this competition. 2. *Review and Selection Process:* Applicants must provide, as an attachment to the application, the documentation the institution relied upon to determine that at least 40 percent of the institution's undergraduate full-time equivalent
(FTE)students are Black American students. Note: The 40 percent requirement applies only to *undergraduate* Black American students and is calculated based upon FTE students. Instructions for formatting and submitting the verification documentation to Grants.gov are in the application package for this competition. VI. Award Administration Information 1. *Award Notices:* If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN). We may notify you informally, also. If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we will notify you. 2. *Administrative and National Policy Requirements:* We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant. 3. *Reporting:* At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. Grantees are required to use the electronic data instrument *Caliber Annual Performance Reporting System* to complete the final report. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to *http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.* 4. *Performance Measures:* The Secretary has established the following key performance measures for assessing the effectiveness of the Predominantly Black Institutions program:
(1)The number of full-time degree-seeking undergraduates enrolling at Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI).
(2)The increase in the persistence rate for students enrolled at PBIs. VII. Agency Contact *For Further Information Contact:* Karen W. Johnson, Institutional Development and Undergraduate Education Service, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 6032, Washington, DC 20006-8515. Telephone:
(202)502-7777 or by e-mail: *karen.johnson@ed.gov* or Bernadette D. Miles, Institutional Development and Undergraduate Education Service, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 6047, Washington, DC 20006-8515. Telephone:
(202)502-7616 or by e-mail: *bernadette.miles@ed.gov.* If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. VIII. Other Information *Alternative Format:* Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice. *Electronic Access to This Document:* You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Dated: May 8, 2008. Diane Auer Jones, Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education. [FR Doc. E8-10680 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC08-521-001, FERC-521] Commission Information Collection Activities, Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Submitted For OMB Review May 6, 2008. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review of this information collection requirement. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission received no comments in response to an earlier **Federal Register** notice of February 19, 2008 (73 FR 9108-09) and has made this notation in its submission to OMB. DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by June 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: Address comments on the collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. Comments to OMB should be filed electronically, c/o *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* and include the OMB Control No. as a point of reference. The Desk Officer may be reached by telephone at 202-395-4650. A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, ED-34, Attention: Michael Miller, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments may be filed either in paper format or electronically. Those persons filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. For paper filings, such comments should be submitted to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 and should refer to Docket No. IC08-521-001. Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in the acceptable filing format and in compliance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's submission guidelines. Complete filing instructions and acceptable filing formats are available at ( *http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/electronic-media.asp* ). To file the document electronically, access the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp* ), and then follow the instructions for each screen. First time users will have to establish a user name and password. The Commission will send an automatic acknowledgement to the sender's e-mail address upon receipt of comments. All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the Internet through FERC's homepage using the eLibrary link. For user assistance, contact *ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at
(866)208-3676 or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by telephone at
(202)502-8415, by fax at
(202)273-0873, and by e-mail at *michael.miller@ferc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Description The information collection submitted for OMB review contains the following: 1. *Collection of Information:* FERC-521 “Payments for Benefits from Headwater Improvements”. 2. *Sponsor:* Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 3. *Control No.:* 1902-0087. The Commission is now requesting that OMB approve with a three-year extension of the expiration date, with no changes to the existing collection. The information filed with the Commission is mandatory. 4. *Necessity of the Collection of Information:* The information is used by the Commission to implement the statutory provisions of section 10(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA). The FPA authorizes the Commission to determine headwater benefits received by downstream hydropower project owners. Headwater benefits are the additional energy production possible at a downstream hydropower project resulting from the regulation of river flows by an upstream storage reservoir. When the Commission completes a study of a river basin, it determines headwater benefits charges that will be apportioned among the various downstream beneficiaries. A headwater benefits charge, and the cost incurred by the Commission to complete an evaluation are paid by downstream hydropower project owners. In essence, the owners of non-federal hydropower power projects that directly benefit from a headwater(s) improvement must pay an equitable portion of the annual charges for interest, maintenance, and depreciation of the headwater project to the U.S. Treasury. The regulations provide for the apportionment of these costs between the headwater project and downstream projects based on a downstream energy gains and propose equitable apportionment methodology that can be applied to all river basins in which headwater improvements are built. The data the Commission requires owners of non-federal hydropower projects to file for determining annual charges is specified in 18 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)Part 11. 5. *Respondent Description:* The Commission estimates that it will receive annually on average 3 filings per year. 6. *Estimated Burden:* 120 total hours, 3 respondents (average per year), 1 response per respondent, and .40 hours per response (average). 7. *Estimated Cost Burden to respondents:* The estimated total cost to respondents is $7,291. (120 hours ÷ 2080 × $126,384.) Statutory Authority: Section 10(f) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 803. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10611 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP06-466-001; Docket No. CP06-467-001] Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.; Somerset Gas Gathering of Pennsylvania, LLC; Notice of Application May 6, 2008. Take notice that on March 31, 2008, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia) and Somerset Gas Gathering of Pennsylvania, LLC (Somerset), filed in Docket Nos. CP06-466-001 and CP06-467-001, to amend the pending applications filed in Docket Nos. CP06-466-000 and CP06-467-000 to modify Somerset's plan for future operations of the facilities to be acquired and to provide additional technical and factual details regarding the 1818/1862 System. Specifically, Somerset clarifies that it plans to cut and cap certain portions of 1818/1862 System in order to better facilitate the functionalization of the facilities as gathering lines while ensuring the limited nature of the transportation service provided to Columbia as described in Columbia and Somerset applications. Specifically, Columbia proposes to operate two sections of the system independently—one offering limited transportation service as described in the Columbia and Somerset Applications and the other operating as part of a gathering system—while two other sections will remain inactive, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call
(202)502-8659 or TTY,
(202)208-3676. Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Gregory D. Russell, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLP, 52 East Gay Street, P.O. Box 1008, Columbus, Ohio 43216-1008; telephone
(614)464-5468, fax
(614)719-4935, and/or Fredric J. George, Lead Counsel, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, P.O. Box 1273, Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1273; telephone
(304)357-2359, fax
(304)357-3206. Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment
(EA)and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement
(FEIS)or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA. There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding. However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest. Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is 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 docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* May 27, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10616 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP08-207-000] Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Application May 6, 2008. Take notice that on April 29, 2008, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco), Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, filed in Docket No. CP08-207-000, an application, pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), for an order authorizing Transco to:
(1)Abandon its Hester Storage Field and a portion of the connecting pipeline (Hester Lateral), located in St. James Parish, Louisiana; and
(2)install temporary compression to facilitate the withdrawal of recoverable injected base gas from the Hester Storage Field, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is 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 docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Transco states that the abandonment of the Hester Storage Field is necessary because of continuing gas losses from the reservoir. Transco estimates that the complete abandonment of the storage field will take approximately three years (2009-2011) with the first two years devoted to withdrawing the recoverable injected base gas from the reservoir. During the final year of the abandonment process Transco will remove all above ground facilities, plug all wells, and remove gathering lines. In addition, Transco will abandon in place 4.75 miles of the 8.66 mile Hester Lateral. The remaining part of the Hester Lateral will continue to be used to provide service to a chemical plant owned by Occidental Chemical Corporation. Transco intends to sell the recovered injected base gas and, in accordance with Article V, Section A, Subsection 1 of the Stipulation and Agreement filed with the Commission on November 28, 2007 in Docket Nos. RP06-569-000, *et. al.,* share the proceeds from the sale with its customers. Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Ingrid Germany, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251 at
(713)215-4015. Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment
(EA)and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement
(FEIS)or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA. There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding. However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is 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 docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* May 28, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10608 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 13112-000] Hydro Green Energy, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests May 6, 2008. Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection: a. *Type of Application:* Preliminary Permit. b. *Project No.:* P-13112-000. c. *Date Filed:* February 8, 2008. d. *Applicant:* Hydro Green Energy, LLC. e. *Name of the Project:* New York 1 Project. f. *Location:* The project would be located on the Niagara River in Niagara County, New York. The project uses no dam or impoundment. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r. h. *Applicant Contact:* Mr. Wayne F. Krouse, Chairman & CEO, Hydro Green Energy, LLC, 5090 Richmond Avenue #390, Houston, TX 77056,
(877)556-6566, Fax
(713)339-9537. i. *FERC Contact:* Patricia W. Gillis,
(202)502-8735. j. *Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene:* 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-13112-000) on any comments or motions filed. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. k. *Description of Project:* The proposed project would consist of:
(1)36 proposed Hydro Green Energy, LLC generating units having a total installed capacity of 7-megawatts,
(2)a proposed 2,000 to 5,000-foot-long 6.7-kV transmission line, and
(4)appurtenant facilities. The project would have an average annual generation of 550-gigawatt-hours and be sold to a local utility. l. *Location of Application:* A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling
(202)502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Competing Preliminary Permit* —Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36). Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36. o. *Competing Development Application* —Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36. p. *Notice of Intent* —A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice. q. *Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit* —A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project. r. *Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene* —Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the “e-Filing” link. s. *Filing and Service of Responsive Documents* —Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “PROTEST”, and “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. t. *Agency Comments* —Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10613 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 13113-000] Hydro Green Energy, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests May 6, 2008. Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection: a. *Type of Application:* Preliminary Permit. b. *Project No.:* P-13113-000. c. *Date Filed:* February 8, 2008. d. *Applicant:* Hydro Green Energy, LLC. e. *Name of the Project:* New York 2 Project. f. *Location:* The project would be located on the Niagara River in Niagara County, New York. The project uses no dam or impoundment. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r. h. *Applicant Contact:* Mr. Wayne F. Krouse, Chairman & CEO, Hydro Green Energy, LLC, 5090 Richmond Avenue #390, Houston, TX 77056,
(877)556-6566, Fax
(713)339-9537. i. *FERC Contact:* Patricia W. Gillis,
(202)502-8735. j. *Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene:* 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-13113-000) on any comments or motions filed. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. k. *Description of Project:* The proposed project would consist of:
(1)54 proposed Hydro Green Energy, LLC generating units having a total installed capacity of 7-megawatts,
(2)a proposed 2,000 to 5,000-foot-long 6.7-kV transmission line, and
(3)appurtenant facilities. The project would have an average annual generation of 552.7-gigawatt-hours and be sold to a local utility. l. *Location of Application:* A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling
(202)502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Competing Preliminary Permit* —Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36). Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36. o. *Competing Development Application* —Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36. p. *Notice of Intent* —A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice. q. *Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit* —A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project. r. *Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene* —Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the “e-Filing” link. s. *Filing and Service of Responsive Documents* —Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “PROTEST”, and “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. t. *Agency Comments* —Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10614 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 April 30, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* EC08-81-000. *Applicants:* PPM Wind Energy LLC; Dillon Wind LLC; Providence Heights Wind, LLC; Winnebago Windpower LLC; IBERDROLA RENEWABLES, Inc.; Aeolus Wind Power V LLC; Iberdrola Renewable Energies USA, Ltd.; GE Energy Financial Services, Inc.; Wachovia Investment Holdings, LLC. *Description:* Joint Application for Section 203 Authorization for Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for Confidential Treatment, Waiver of Filing Requirements and 21-Day Comment Period of Iberdrola Renewable Energies USA, Ltd., *et. al.* *Filed Date:* 04/29/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080429-5191 *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 20, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings: *Docket Numbers:* EG08-69-000. *Applicants:* Silver Star I Power Partners, LLC. *Description:* Notice of Self-Certification of Silver Star I Power Partners, LLC as an Exempt Wholesale Generator. *Filed Date:* 04/29/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080429-5139. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 20, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER05-1511-002. *Applicants:* Noble Thumb Windpark I, LLC. *Description:* Noble Thumb Windpark I, LLC submits a Substitute First Revised Sheet 1 in both clean and redline formats in compliance with Order 697. *Filed Date:* 04/28/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080429-0208. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 9, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1372-007. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. submits proposed clarifications and revisions to the Midwest ISO's Open Access Transmission, Energy and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff to comply with the 60-day compliance etc. *Filed Date:* 04/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080429-0105. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-680-000. *Applicants:* Arizona Public Service Company. *Description:* Withdrawal of proposed changes to its FERC Electric Tariff, Volume 5 of Arizona Public Service Company. *Filed Date:* 04/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080417-5034. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 7, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-687-000. *Applicants:* Stockton CoGen Company. *Description:* Motion of Stockton CoGen Company to withdraw application for blanket authorizations, certain waivers and order approving market-based rate tariff. *Filed Date:* 04/22/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080424-0206. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 13, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-873-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC submits three executed interconnection service agreements with Indiana Michigan Power Co et. al. *Filed Date:* 04/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080429-0001. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-875-000. *Applicants:* Virginia Electric and Power Company. *Description:* Virginia Electric and Power Company et. al submits a revised Generator Interconnection and Operating Agreement with Southernwestern Public Service Authority of Virginia. *Filed Date:* 04/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080429-0107. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 16, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings: *Docket Numbers:* ES08-48-000. *Applicants:* PHI Service Company. *Description:* PHI Service Company Form 523 Joint Application Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act for Authorization to Issue Securities. *Filed Date:* 04/29/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080429-5130. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 20, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following open access transmission tariff filings: *Docket Numbers:* OA07-82-001. *Applicants:* Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC. *Description:* Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC submits Substitute Original Sheet 184 et al., to FERC Electric Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1 in compliance with the Commission's 3/27/08 Order. *Filed Date:* 04/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080429-0101. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA07-87-001. *Applicants:* Tampa Electric Company. *Description:* Tampa Electric Company submits Substitute First Revised Sheet 94 et al., in its open access transmission tariff. *Filed Date:* 04/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080429-0104. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA07-92-001. *Applicants:* Southern Company Services, Inc. *Description:* Order No. 890 OATT Attachment C compliance Filing of Southern Company Services, Inc. *Filed Date:* 04/29/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080429-5068. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 20, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA07-93-001. *Applicants:* E.ON U.S. LLC. *Description:* EON U.S. LLC et al., submits revised Open Access Transmission Tariff sheets for Attachment C, incorporating the changes required by the Commission in the Letter Order. *Filed Date:* 04/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080429-0103. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA07-110-001. *Applicants:* NorthWestern Corporation (South Dakota). *Description:* Northwestern Corporation submits Revised Attachments C and K to their South Dakota Open Access Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume 2. *Filed Date:* 04/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080416-0054. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 1, 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. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10606 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 May 6, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER08-649-001. *Applicants:* EFS Parlin Holdings LLC. *Description:* EFS Parlin Holdings, LLC submits Market-Based rate Authority and Request for Waivers and Pre-Approvals revisions to Attachment 1 to its March 10th filing. *Filed Date:* 04/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080429-0106. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-831-000. *Applicants:* Progress Energy, Inc. *Description:* Carolina Power & Light Co submit proposed modifications to the Joint OATT effective 6/10/08. *Filed Date:* 04/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080417-0197. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 05, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-865-000. *Applicants:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company. *Description:* Pacific Gas and Electric Co submits the agreements for load interconnection facilities with the City and County of San Francisco under ER08-865. *Filed Date:* 04/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080501-0152. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-879-000. *Applicants:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Description:* Entergy Services, Inc submits an amended Interconnection and Operating Agreement between Sabine Cogen L.P. and EGS and a corrected copy of the Service Agreement designation page. *Filed Date:* 04/29/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080501-0063. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 20, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-880-000. *Applicants:* Arizona Public Service Company. *Description:* Arizona Public Service Company submits certain additional exhibits to a 1991 Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement of Facilities Agreement with Western Area Power Administration. *Filed Date:* 04/29/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080501-0055. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 20, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-881-000. *Applicants:* Wisconsin Power and Light Company. *Description:* Wisconsin Power and Light Company submits proposed changes to their book depreciation rates related to all depreciable assets including non-nuclear production plant. *Filed Date:* 04/29/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080501-0062. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 20, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-882-000. *Applicants:* California Power Exchange Corporation. *Description:* California Power Exchange Corporation submits proposed amendments to its Rate Schedule 1 in order to recover projected expenses for the period July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008. *Filed Date:* 04/29/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080501-0061. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 20, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-883-000. *Applicants:* Xcel Energy Services Inc. *Description:* On behalf of Northern States Power Company submits Notice of Cancellation for 113 legacy transmission service agreements etc. *Filed Date:* 04/28/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080501-0065. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 19, 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. E8-10644 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IN07-26-000] Amaranth Advisors L.L.C., Amaranth LLC, Amaranth Management Limited Partnership, Amaranth International Limited, Amaranth Partners LLC, Amaranth Capital Partners LLC, Amaranth Group Inc., Amaranth Advisors (Calgary) ULC, Brian Hunter, Matthew Donohoe; Supplemental Notice of Designation of Commission Staff May 6, 2008. On February 1, 2008, a notice was issued designating the staff of the Office of Enforcement as non-decisional in deliberations by the Commission in this docket, with certain limited exceptions. Exceptions to this designation are the Director of the Office of Enforcement and the Directors of the Divisions of Investigations, Energy Market Oversight, Audits, and Financial Regulation in the Office of Enforcement. This supplemental notice designates Shauna Coleman, an attorney in the Division of Investigations, Office of Enforcement, as an exception to the designation of the staff of the Office of Enforcement as non-decisional. Ms. Coleman joined the Commission after the February 1, 2008 notice was issued and did not participate in the investigation at issue in this proceeding. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10612 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2479-010] Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Errata Notice May 6, 2008. On March 25, 2008, the Commission issued a “Notice of Intent to File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Commencement of Licensing Proceeding, Scoping, Solicitation of Comments on the PAD and Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated Study Requests” in the above-referenced proceeding. Paragraph
(o)of the notice stated an incorrect due date and should read as follows: o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to the address above in paragraph (h). In addition, all comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits of the potential application (an original and eight copies) must be filed with the Commission at the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. All filings with the Commission must include on the first page, the project name (French Meadows Transmission Line Project) and number (P-2479-010), and bear the heading “Comments on Pre-Application Document,” “Study Requests,” “Comments on Scoping Document 1,” “Request for Cooperating Agency Status,” or “Communications to and from Commission Staff.” Any individual or entity interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so by May 27, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10615 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. ER08-631-000; ER08-631-001] Raider Dog, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order May 6, 2008. Raider Dog, LLC (Raider Dog) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule. The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of energy and capacity at market-based rates. Raider Dog also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, Raider Dog requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Raider Dog. On May 6, 2008, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development-West, granted the requests for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the **Federal Register** establishing a period of time for the filing of protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Raider Dog, should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004). The Commission encourages the electronic submission of protests using the FERC Online link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is June 5, 2008. Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket approvals by the deadline above, Raider Dog is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Raider Dog, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes. The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of Raider Dog's issuance of securities or assumptions of liability. Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10610 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. ER08-537-000; ER08-537-001] Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation; Notice of Issuance of Order May 6, 2008. Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation (Safe Harbor) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule. The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of energy and capacity at market-based rates. Safe Harbor also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, Safe Harbor requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Safe Harbor. On May 6, 2008, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development-West, granted the requests for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the **Federal Register** establishing a period of time for the filing of protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Safe Harbor, should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004). The Commission encourages the electronic submission of protests using the FERC Online link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is June 5, 2008. Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket approvals by the deadline above, Safe Harbor is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Safe Harbor, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes. Docket Nos. ER08-537-000 and ER08-537-001 The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of Safe Harbor's issuance of securities or assumptions of liability. Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10609 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PR08-21-000] Regency Intrastate Gas LLC; Notice of Petition for Rate Approval May 6, 2008. Take notice that on April 29, 2008, Regency Intrastate Gas LLC filed a petition for rate approval for NGPA section 311 maximum interruptible transportation rate equal to $0.2000 per MMBtu, a monthly firm demand charge of $4.5625 per MMBtu ($0.1500 per MMBtu daily), and a firm usage rate of $0.0500 per MMBtu pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2) of the Commission's regulations, with a proposed effective date of May 1, 2008. Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing 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). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is 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 docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time Tuesday, May 20, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10607 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8564-9] Agency Information Collection Activities OMB Responses AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This document announces the Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB)responses to Agency Clearance requests, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). 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 are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Westlund
(202)566-1682, or e-mail at *westlund.rick@epa.gov* and please refer to the appropriate EPA Information Collection Request
(ICR)Number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB Responses to Agency Clearance Requests OMB Approvals EPA ICR Number 2156.02; Populations, Usage and Emissions of Diesel Nonroad Equipment (Renewal); was approved 04/08/2008; OMB Number 2060-0553; expires 04/30/2010. EPA ICR Number 0661.09; NSPS for Asphalt Processing and Roofing Manufacturing (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 60, subpart UU; was approved 04/08/2008; OMB Number 2060-0002; expires 04/30/2011. EPA ICR Number 1741.05; Correction of Misreported Chemical Substances on the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA)Chemical Substances Inventory; was approved 04/09/2008; OMB Number 2070-0145; expires 04/30/2011. EPA ICR Number 2268.02; NESHAP for Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating at Area Sources (Final Rule); in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH; was approved 04/10/2008; OMB Number 2060-0607; expires 04/30/2011. EPA ICR Number 1767.05; NESHAP for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 63, subpart LL; was approved 04/14/2008; OMB Number 2060-0360; expires 04/30/2011. EPA ICR Number 1626.10; National Recycling and Emissions Reduction Program (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 82, subpart F; was approved 04/25/2008; OMB Number 2060-0256; expires 04/30/2011. EPA ICR Number 1975.05; NESHAP for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (Final Rule); in 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ; was approved 05/01/2008; OMB Number 2060-0548; expires 04/30/2011. EPA ICR Number 2047.02; Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Procurement under Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)Financial Assistance Agreements (Final Rule); was approved 05/01/2008; OMB Number 2090-0030; expires 01/31/2011. Dated: May 7, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-10658 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0986; FRL-8365-6] Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee; Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, EPA gives notice of a public meeting of the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee
(PPDC)on May 21 and 22, 2008. A draft agenda has been developed that includes web-based labeling; toxicity testing; harmonization and global registration activities; endangered species; pesticide program resources; updates on spray drift, cause marketing, volatilization, endocrine disruptors, and inerts; and reports from the PPDC PRIA Process Improvements Work Group. DATES: The PPDC meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 21, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 5:15 p.m., and Thursday, May 22, 2008, from 9 a.m. to noon. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT , preferably at least 5 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Conference Center on the lobby level at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's location at One Potomac Yard South, 2777 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. This location is approximately a half mile from the Crystal City Metro Station. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margie Fehrenbach, Office of Pesticide Programs (7501P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)308-4775; fax number:
(703)308-4776; e-mail address: *fehrenbach.margie@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 particular interest to persons who work in agricultural settings or persons who are concerned about implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the amendments to both of these major pesticide laws by the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA)of 1996; and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: Agricultural workers and farmers; pesticide industry and trade associations; environmental, consumer, and farmworker groups; pesticide users and growers; pest consultants; State, local and Tribal governments; academia; public health organizations; food processors; and the public. 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-2007-0986. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is
(703)305-5805. 2. *Electronic access* . You may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at *http://www.epa.gov/edocket/* to view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select search, then key in the appropriate docket ID number. A draft agenda has been developed and is posted on EPA's web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/* . II. Background OPP is entrusted with the responsibility to help ensure the safety of the American food supply, the education and protection from unreasonable risk of those who apply or are exposed to pesticides occupationally or through use of products, and general protection of the environment and special ecosystems from potential risks posed by pesticides. The Charter for the Environmental Protection Agency's Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee
(PPDC)was established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, in September 1995, and has been renewed every 2 years since that time. PPDC's Charter was renewed November 2, 2007, for another 2-year period. The purpose of PPDC is to provide advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on issues associated with pesticide regulatory development and reform initiatives, evolving public policy and program implementation issues, and science issues associated with evaluating and reducing risks from use of pesticides. It is determined that PPDC is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Agency by law. The following sectors are represented on the PPDC: Pesticide industry and trade associations; environmental/public interest, consumer, and animal rights groups; farm worker organizations; pesticide user, grower, and commodity groups; Federal and State/local/Tribal governments; the general public; academia; and public health organizations. Copies of the PPDC Charter are filed with appropriate committees of Congress and the Library of Congress and are available upon request. III. How Can I Request to Participate in this Meeting? PPDC meetings are open to the public and seating is available on a first-come basis. Persons interested in attending do not need to register in advance of the meeting. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Agricultural workers, Agriculture, Chemicals, Foods, Pesticides and pests, Public health. Dated: May 7, 2008. Steven Bradbury, Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-10678 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD Sunshine Act Meeting Notice; Announcing a Partially Open Meeting of the Board of Directors Time and Date: The open meeting of the Board of Directors is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, May 14, 2008. The closed portion of the meeting will follow immediately the open portion of the meeting. Place: Board Room, First Floor, Federal Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. Status: The first portion of the meeting will be open to the public. The final portion of the meeting will be closed to the public. Matter To Be Considered at the Open Portion: *2008 Designation of Directorships.* Matter To Be Considered at the Closed Portion: *Periodic Update of Examination Program Development and Supervisory Findings.* FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Shelia Willis, Paralegal Specialist, Office of General Counsel, at 202-408-2876 or *williss@fhfb.gov.* Dated: May 7, 2008. By the Federal Housing Finance Board. Christopher T. Curtis, General Counsel. [FR Doc. 08-1254 Filed 5-8-08; 4:00 pm]
Connectionstraces to 48
Traces to 48 documents
CFR
36 references not yet in our index
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 14 CFR 43
  • 14 CFR 71
  • 45 CFR 1606
  • 45 CFR 1623
  • 50 CFR 17
  • 16 USC 1361-1407
  • 16 USC 1531-1544
  • 16 USC 4201-4245
  • Pub. L. 99-625
  • 100 Stat. 3500
  • 40 CFR 1502.22
  • 40 CFR 1
  • 435 U.S. 519
  • 490 F. Supp. 1334
  • 40 CFR 1503.3
  • 19 USC 81a-81u
  • 15 CFR 400
  • 132 F. Supp. 2d 1
  • 688 F. Supp. 639
  • 865 F.2d 240
  • 492 U.S. 919
  • 243 F.3d 1301
  • 117 F.3d 1401
  • 34 CFR 86
  • 34 CFR 79
  • 34 CFR 74.27
  • 20 USC 1101-1101d
  • 34 CFR 606
  • 16 USC 791a-825r
  • 18 CFR 34
  • 40 CFR 9
  • 40 CFR 60
  • 40 CFR 63
  • 40 CFR 82
  • Pub. L. 92-463
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 106
C.F.R.§ 39.19
U.S.C.§ 3501
C.F.R.§ 71.1
U.S.C.§ 1531
U.S.C.§ 552b
C.F.R.§ 351.204
SCOTUS435 U.S. 519
F. Supp.490 F. Supp. 1334
F. Supp.132 F. Supp. 2d 1
Cites 84 · 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.