OMB No:

Form No.: N/A.

Title: Partner Information Form.

Type of Review: New Information Collection.

Purpose: The United States Agency for International Development USAID). Office of Security, intends to collect information from approximately 2000 individuals and/or officers of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who apply for USAID contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, other funding from USAID, or who apply for registration with USAID as Private and Voluntary Organizations (PVO). Collection of personally identifiable information from these individuals is specifically used to conduct screening to ensure that neither USAID funds nor USAID-funded activities inadvertently provide support to entities or individuals associated with terrorism.

Annual Reporting Burden:

   Respondents: 2000.

   Total annual responses: 2000.

   Total annual hours requested: 500 hours.

Title: “Regulations Governing Inspection and Certification of Processed Fruits and Vegetables and Related Products—7 CFR 52”.

OMB Number: 0581-0123.

Expiration Date of Approval: February 29, 2008.

Type of Request: Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621— et seq. ) (AMA) directs and authorizes the Department to develop standards of quality, grades, grading programs, and other services to facilitate trading of agricultural products and assure consumers of quality products which are graded and identified under USDA programs. Section 203(h) of the AMA specifically directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to inspect, certify, and identify the grade, class, quality, quantity, and condition of agricultural products under such rules and regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, including assessment and collection of fees for the cost of the service. The regulations for such services for processed fruits and vegetables and related products may be found at 7 CFR Part 52.

AMS also provides other types of voluntary services under the same regulations, e.g., contract and specification acceptance services, facility assessment services and certifications of quantity and quality. Grading services are available on a resident basis or a lot-fee basis. Respondents may request resident service on a continuous basis or on an as-needed basis. The service is paid for by the user (user-fee). The AMA and these regulations do not mandate the use of these services; they are provided only to those entities that request or apply for a specific service.

In order for the Agency to satisfy those requests for service, the Agency must request certain information from those who apply for service. The information collected is used only by Agency personnel and is used to administer services requested by the respondents. The information request requires personal data, such as, name of the product, name and address of the packer or plant, location of the product, type and size of containers, and designation of services requested. Affected public may include any partnership, association, business trust, corporation, organized group, and State, County or Municipal government, and any authorized agent that has a financial interest in the commodity involved and requests service.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.05 hours per response (1124 total hours divided by 21,068 total annual responses).

Respondents: Applicants who are applying for grading and inspection services.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,437.

Estimated Number of Responses: 21,068.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 0.07.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,124.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Mr. Terry B. Bane, Processed Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 0247, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0247; fax (202) 690-1527; or e-mail “ terry.bane@usda.gov ”.

All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

On June 5, 1991, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on PET film from Korea. See Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film Sheet and Strip From Korea , 56 FR 25660 (June 5, 1991). On November 14, 1996 , the Department revoked the order with respect to Kolon after having determined that Kolon sold the merchandise at not less than normal value for a period of at least three consecutive years. See Revocation . The three administrative reviews forming the basis of the revocation are the June 1, 1992 through May 31, 1993, review; the June 1, 1993, through May 31, 1994, review; and the June 1, 1994, through May 31, 1995, review. The final results of the June 1992 through May 31, 1993, and the June 1993 through May 31, 1994, administrative reviews were published on July 5, 1996. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film Sheet and Strip from Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Revocation in Part 61 FR 35177, (July 5, 1996) ( Second and Third Final Results ). The final results of the June 1994 through May 31, 1995, administrative review were published on November 14, 1996. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Revocation in Part 61 FR 58374, (November 14, 1996) ( Fourth Final Results ). Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.25(b) of the regulations in effect at the time, and as part of its request for revocation, on June 28, 1996, Kolon agreed to immediate reinstatement in the Order should the Department conclude that subsequent to the revocation, Kolon sold the subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV). (19 CFR 353.25(b) has been superceded by 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i)(B).) However, the language in 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i)(B) is largely unchanged from 19 CFR 353.25. See CCR Initiation at 530.

Due to allegations of resumed dumping submitted by DuPont Teijin Films (DuPont), Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc. (Mitsubishi), and Toray Plastics America Inc. (Toray) (collectively DuPont, Mitsubishi, and Toray are the Petitioners), we initiated a changed circumstance review on January 5, 2007, 1 to determine whether Kolon has resumed dumping and whether we should reinstate the antidumping duty order for subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Kolon. See CCR Initiation at 528-9.

On December 27, 2006, we documented our analysis regarding the reasonableness of the data presented by Petitioners in their allegations. See the December 27, 2006, “Initiation Checklist for the Changed Circumstances Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film Sheet and Strip from Korea.” On January 4, 2007, we issued a questionnaire to Kolon. Kolon submitted its response to Sections A, B, C, and D of our questionnaire on February 28, 2007. On April 3, 2007, we issued our first supplemental questionnaire to Kolon. Kolon submitted its response to our April 3, 2007, questionnaire on April 30, 2007. On June 8, 2007, we issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Kolon to which Kolon responded on June 29, 2007. Based on our analysis of Kolon's home market and U.S. sales data, we preliminarily determine that Kolon sold PET film at issue at less than NV during the July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 period of review.

As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), the Department verified the cost of production (COP), constructed value (CV), home market sales, and U.S. sales questionnaire responses of Kolon. We conducted the COP/CV verification from August 6 to August 10, 2007. We conducted the home market and U.S. sales verification from August 11 to August 15. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of Kolon's facilities, and examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the COP/CV and home market and U.S. sales verification reports for Kolon. For a further discussion, see Memorandum to the file through Neal Halper, from Ernest Gziryan (“COP/CV verification report”), and Memorandum to the File through Robert James, from Michael Heaney and Maryanne Burke (“Home market and U.S. sales verification report”.)

Imports covered by this review are shipments of all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip, whether extruded or coextruded. The films excluded from this review are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches (0.254 micrometers) thick.

PET film is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheading 3920.62.00. The HTS subheading is provided for convenience and for customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage.

This changed circumstances review covers Kolon and the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006

In requesting revocation, Kolon certified, pursuant to the Department's regulations, that it agreed to immediate reinstatement of the order, so long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Secretary concluded that subsequent to the revocation, Kolon sold PET film at less than NV. See Revocation at 58374. Under both 19 CFR 353.25(b) (the regulation in effect at the time the Department revoked the order with respect to Kolon) and 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i)(B) (the current regulation governing revocation) as long as an antidumping duty order remains in force, an entity previously granted a revocation may be reinstated under that order if it is established that the entity has resumed the dumping of subject merchandise.

In this case, because other exporters in Korea remain subject to the antidumping duty order on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Korea, the order remains in effect, and Kolon may be reinstated in the order. The Department granted Kolon revocation based in part upon its agreement to immediate reinstatement in the antidumping duty order if the Department were to find that the company resumed dumping of PET film from Korea. See Revocation at 58374.

As described in the “U.S. Price” and “Normal Value” sections, below, we have examined Kolon's response and have preliminarily found that Kolon's dumping margin for the review period is greater than de minimis . Accordingly, we preliminarily intend to reinstate Kolon in the antidumping order.

To determine whether sales of PET film from Korea to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared Kolon's constructed export (CEP) and export price (EP) sales made in the United States to unaffiliated purchasers, to NV as described in the “United States Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared individual CEP and EP sales to monthly weighted-average NVs.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act we considered all products produced by Kolon covered by the description in the “Scope of the Review” section, above, and sold in the home market during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We first attempted to compare contemporaneous U.S. and comparison-market sales of products that are identical with respect to the following characteristics: 1) specification; 2) thickness, 3) surface treatment, and 4) grade. Where we were unable to compare sales of the identical merchandise, we compared U.S. sales to comparison-market sales of the most similar merchandise based on the above characteristics. Where there were no sales of foreign like product to compare to a U.S. sale, we compared the price of the U.S. sale to constructed value (CV).

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we base NV on sales made in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the CEP or EP transaction. The NV LOT is defined as the starting-price sales in the home market or, when NV is based on constructed value (CV), as the sales from which selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit are derived. The EP LOT is defined as the starting price in the United States to the unaffiliated U.S. customer. With respect to CEP transactions in the U.S. market, the CEP LOT is defined as the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. See 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). 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 a 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). See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes From Canada , 67 FR 8781 (February 26, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 8; see also Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 70 FR 17406, 17410 (April 6, 2005); unchanged in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil , 70 FR 58683 (October 7, 2005). For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and CEP profit under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We expect that if the claimed LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that the LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Administrative Review , 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 6 .

We obtained information from Kolon regarding the marketing stages involved in making its reported foreign market and U.S. sales to unaffiliated customers. Kolon provided a description of all selling activities performed, along with a flowchart and tables comparing the levels of trade among each channel of distribution and customer category for both markets. See Kolon's February 28, 2007 questionnaire response at A-3.

For the home market, Kolon identified two channels of distribution described as follows: 1) direct shipments ( i.e. , products produced to order) and 2) warehouse shipments from inventory. Within each of these two channels of distribution, Kolon made sales to unaffiliated customers. See Kolon's February 28, 2007, questionnaire response at A-5. We reviewed the level at which Kolon performed each of these selling functions with respect to each claimed channel of distribution and customer category. For all of the activities listed (which included sales forecasting, strategic and economic planning, sales promotion, order processing, and technical assistance), the level of performance for both direct shipments and warehouse shipments was identical across all types of customers. Based on our analysis of all of Kolon's home market selling functions, we find all home market sales were made at the same LOT, the NV LOT. We also found that Kolon provided a similar level of selling functions on all of its EP sales, and that the level of these EP selling functions was comparable to the level of selling functions that Kolon performed on its home market sales. Id . Based on the foregoing, we determine that there is one level of trade on Kolon's EP sales and that the EP LOT is comparable to the HM LOT.

Kolon also indicated it made CEP sales through its U.S. affiliate, Kolon USA. Id . We then compared the CEP LOT to the NV LOT. The CEP LOT is based on the selling activities associated with the transaction between Kolon and its affiliated importer, Kolon USA, whereas the NV LOT is based on the selling activities associated with the transactions between Kolon and unaffiliated customers in the home market. Our analysis indicates the selling functions performed for home market customers are either performed at a higher degree of intensity or are greater in number than the selling functions performed for Kolon USA. For example, in comparing Kolon's selling activities, we find there are more functions performed in the home market which are not a part of CEP transactions ( e.g. , sales promotion, inventory maintenance, sales and marketing support, customs clearance). For selling activities performed for both home market sales and CEP sales ( e.g. , processing customer orders, freight and delivery arrangements), we find Kolon actually performed each activity at a higher level of intensity in the home market. We note that CEP sales from Kolon to Kolon USA generally occur at the beginning of the distribution chain, representing essentially a logistical transfer of inventory that resembles ex-factory sales. In contrast, all sales in the home market occur closer to the end of the distribution chain and involve smaller volumes and more customer interaction which, in turn, require the performance of more selling functions. Id . Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage than the CEP LOT.

Because we found the home market and U.S. sales were made at different LOTs, we examined whether a LOT adjustment or a CEP offset may be appropriate in this review. As we found only one LOT in the home market, it was not possible to make a LOT adjustment to home market prices, because such an adjustment is dependent on our ability to identify a pattern of consistent price differences between the home market sales on which NV is based and home market sales at the LOT of the export transaction. See 19 CFR 351.412(d)(1)(ii). Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a LOT adjustment. Because the data available do not form an appropriate basis for making a LOT adjustment, and because the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT, we have made a CEP offset to NV in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States.” Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter.” For purposes of this changed circumstances review, Kolon classified all of its U.S. sales shipped directly from Korea to the United States as EP sales. Kolon reported all sales that were invoiced through its U.S. subsidiary Kolon USA as CEP transactions. For these preliminary results, we have accepted these classifications. The merchandise shipped directly to unaffiliated customers in the U.S. market was not sold through an affiliated U.S. importer, and we find no other grounds for treating these transactions as CEP sales. We, therefore, preliminarily determine that these transactions were EP sales. We have classified as CEP transactions the merchandise that was invoiced through Kolon USA because these sales were “sold in the United States” within the meaning of the Act.

We calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We based EP on packed prices to customers in the United States. We made adjustments for billing adjustments and early payment discounts. We also made adjustments for the following movement expenses: foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling charges, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. customs duties.

In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, for those sales to the first unaffiliated purchaser that took place after importation into the United States, we calculated CEP. We based CEP on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made adjustments for billing adjustments and early payment discounts. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling charges, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. customs duties. As further directed by section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activity in the United States including direct selling expenses ( i.e. , commissions, warranties, warehousing, and U.S. credit expenses), inventory carrying costs, and other U.S. indirect selling expenses. Based upon our findings at verification, we used the verified amounts for brokerage and handling ( see Home Market and U.S. sales verification report at page 2), international freight ( Id . at page 23), inventory carrying costs ( Id . at page 2), and U.S. indirect selling expenses ( Id .). We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Finally, we made an addition to U.S. price for duty drawback in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( i.e. , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared Kolon's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because Kolon's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for subject merchandise, we determined the home market was viable. See, e.g. , Kolon's February 28, 2007 supplemental questionnaire response at Appendix A-1.

Based upon a timely allegation from Petitioners that Kolon made sales below the cost of production during the POR, we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of NV in this review may have been made at prices below the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. See letter from Ronald Meltzer to Department, dated July 19, 2006 at 15. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation of sales by Kolon. See CCR Intiation at 529.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of Kolon's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative expenses (G&A), and interest expenses. We relied on the COP information provided by Kolon except in the following three instances:

First, during the POR, Kolon purchased PET chips used in the production of PET film. At verification, Kolon did not provide supporting documents showing how the cost of purchased chips was allocated to products, rendering the allocation of the purchased chips cost unverified. Therefore, in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, as partial facts available, we increased the reported cost of manufacturing of all products by the percentage representing the total cost of purchased chips in the total reported cost of manufacturing. See Cost Verification Report section V.C. and the Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results. Second, we adjusted the reported G&A expense rate to disallow the offset for the gain on sale of certain assets. Third, we recalculated the interest expense ratio using a cost of sales denominator in which packing costs was removed. See Cost verification report at page 21.

To determine whether Kolon's home market sales had been made at prices below the COP, we computed weighted-average COPs during the POR, and compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market sales prices of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Act. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices net of billing adjustments, discounts and rebates, any applicable movement charges, selling expenses and packing expenses.

In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Where less than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales of a given model were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time and in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's home market sales of a given model were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because: (1) they were made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities,” in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act; and (2) based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.

Our cost test for Kolon revealed that, for home market sales of certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales of those models were at prices below the COP. We therefore retained all such sales in our analysis and used them as the basis for determining NV. Our cost test also indicated that for home market sales of other models, more than 20 percent were sold at prices below the COP within an extended period of time and were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we excluded these below-cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for determining NV.

In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of Kolon's material and fabrication costs, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the COP component of CV as described above in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country.

We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers in Korea. We used Kolon's adjustments and deductions as reported. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, for comparisons involving similar merchandise, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise compared pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments for imputed credit expenses. As noted above in the “Level of Trade” section of this notice, we also made an adjustment for the CEP offset in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

If we were unable to find a home market match of such or similar merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV on CV. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act.

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act.

As a result of our review we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006:

The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within ten days of the date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 39 days after the publication of this notice or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice.

Since we have preliminarily established that PET film from Korea manufactured and exported by Kolon is being sold at less than NV, Kolon is hereby preliminarily reinstated in the antidumping duty order. We will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Kolon entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Furthermore, a cash-deposit requirement of 6.00 percent will be in effect for all shipments of the subject merchandise manufactured and produced by Kolon entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice. This requirement shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review unless the Department finds that Kolon has not resumed dumping in the final results of this changed circumstance review.

The Department intends to complete this review within 120 days of the date on which it publishes the preliminary results of this changed circumstances review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i), the final results of the changed circumstance review will set forth the factual and legal conclusions upon which our results are based, a description of any action proposed based on those results, and our analysis of any comments received. This notice is in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.222.

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

An authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for certain subsistence uses and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as ”...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization.

On March 30, 2007, NMFS issued an IHA to UOCC under the authority of Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, to take by harassment small numbers of Cook Inlet beluga whales ( Delphinapterus leucas ), Steller sea lions ( Eumetopias jubatus ), Pacific harbor seals ( Phoca vitulina richardsi ), harbor porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena ), and killer whales ( Orcinus orca ) incidental to conducting open water seismic operations in northwestern Cook Inlet, Alaska, between May 1 and June 15, 2007 (72 FR 17118, April 6, 2007). However, as a result of ice conditions in Cook Inlet during spring 2007, UOCC was unable to begin seismic operations planned for May. As a result, on May 17, 2007, UOCC requested that NMFS change the effective date of its IHA to the time period September 4 through November 15, 2007.

On May 15, 2007, MMFS received an application from MOC requesting an IHA for the harassment of small numbers of Cook Inlet beluga whales, Steller sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and killer whales incidental to conducting open water seismic operations in portions of Cook Inlet, Alaska for the period from October 1 to November 30, 2007.

Both proposed operations use an ocean-bottom cable (OBC) system to conduct seismic surveys. OBC seismic surveys are used in waters that are too shallow for the data to be acquired using a marine-streamer vessel or too deep to have static ice in the winter. This type of seismic survey requires the use of multiple vessels for cable layout/pickup, recording, shooting, and possibly one or two vessels smaller than those used in streamer operations. The utility boats can be very small, in the range of 10 - 15 m (33 - 49 ft). A detailed description of the open water seismic surveys using OBC system was published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2007 (72 FR 536), and is not repeated here.

The proposed operations would be active 24 hours per day, but the airguns would only be active for 1 - 2 hours during each of the 3 - 4 daily slack tide periods. The source for the proposed OBC seismic surveys would be a 900-in 3 BOLT airgun array situated on the source vessel, the Peregrine Falcon . The array would be made up of 2 sub-arrays, each with 2, 3-airgun clusters separated by 1.5 m (4.9 ft) off the stern of the vessel. One cluster will consist of 3, 225-in 3 airguns and the second cluster will have 3, 75-in 3 airguns. During seismic operations, the sub-arrays will fire at a rate of every 10 - 25 seconds and focus energy in the downward direction as the vessel travels at 4 - 5 knots (4.6 - 5.8 mph). Source level of the airgun array is 249 dB re 1 microPa at 1 m (0 - peak), and the dominant frequency range is 8 - 40 Hz.

The geographic region for the seismic operation proposed by UOCC remains the same as published in the previous Federal Register notice (72 FR 536), which is in the northwestern Cook Inlet, paralleling the shoreline offshore of Granite Point, and extending from shore into the inlet to an average of about 1.6 km (1 mi).

The geographic region for the activity proposed by MOC encompasses a 68.51 km 2 (26.45 square miles) area in lower Cook Inlet on the eastern shore, paralleling the shoreline for about 15.2 km (9.5 mi) and extending from shore into the inlet an average of about 6.1 km (3.8 mi). The approximate boundaries of the region of the proposed project area are 61°09′N, 151°30′W; 61°12′N, 151°34′W; 61°17′N, 151°25′W; and 60°16′N, 151°21′W. There are no major rivers flowing into the open water seismic project area. Water depths range from 0 to 15 m (48 ft), with most of the area less than 7.3 m (24 ft) deep. The proposed seismic operations would begin as early as October 1 and end by November 30, 2007.

A notice of receipt and request for public comment on the applications and proposed authorizations was published on August 10, 2007 (72 FR 45014). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received the following comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc. (CPAI), and one private citizen.

Comment 1: The Commission recommends that NMFS issue the IHA to MOC subject to various monitoring and mitigation stipulations. The Commission states that the seismic survey area proposed by MOC appears to be well to the south of the area that is used by Cook Inlet beluga whales during the period in question. And because a considerable portion of the survey is on land and the marine area to be surveyed is close to shore in shallow water, the Commission believes that the survey activities are not likely to lead to significant disturbance of beluga whales or other marine mammals.

Response: NMFS agrees with the Commission's comments and recommendation that the IHA be issued to MOC subject to various monitoring and mitigation measures.

Comment 2: The Commission recommends that NMFS defer changing the timing of the authorization for the UOCC survey until NMFS can demonstrate a clear temporal separation in the distribution of beluga whales and the seismic operations to ensure that beluga whales are not being taken in unanticipated ways or numbers and that any effects will, indeed, be negligible. The Commission expresses its concern that the requested delay in the UOCC project appears to increase the possibility that beluga whales will be in the survey area during the period in question.

Response: NMFS has conducted extensive research and analyses before making its determination that the proposed seismic surveys by UOCC will have no more than a negligible impact on marine mammal species and stocks in the area. As stated in the Federal Register notice for the proposed issuance of the IHAs (72 FR 45014, August 10, 2007), NMFS is aware of the relative more frequent use by beluga whales in Granite Point during the proposed UOCC seismic surveys. Therefore, as an additional measure of marine mammal monitoring, NMFS requires that UOCC conduct aerial monitoring of Cook Inlet beluga whales in the vicinity of the project area during seismic surveys between September and November to ensure that beluga whales are not being taken in unanticipated ways or numbers and that any effects will be negligible (see Monitoring Section later in this document).

Comment 3: CPAI urges NMFS to issue the IHAs to UOCC and MOC. CPAI states that seismic and other projects conducted over the 40 year span of oil and gas exploration and development in Cook Inlet demonstrate the industry's ability to operate, with minimal impacts, in a challenging environment. CPAI states that continued Cook Inlet exploration and development is needed to provide jobs and energy for South-Central Alaska's economy.

Response: Comments noted. As stated in this document, IHAs shall be granted to UOCC and MOC if NMFS finds that incidental taking of marine mammals will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth.

Comment 4: The HSUS urges NMFS to deny the IHAs per its comments provided in February 2007 on NMFS' proposed IHA issuance to CPAI and UOCC's seismic surveys in Cook Inlet. The HSUS states that impacts from this sort of noise is dangerous for the fragile stocks of marine mammals in Cook Inlet.

Response: NMFS disagrees. NMFS has addressed HSUS's previous comments in its Federal Register notice for the issuance of two IHAs to CPAI and UOCC (72 FR 17118, April 6, 2007). The HSUS did not provide any scientific data or references to support its claim as the airgun noises in the proposed seismic surveys are “dangerous” to the marine mammal stocks in Cook Inlet. Detailed analyses of underwater noise, especially those from airguns, and impacts to marine mammals are provided in various documents related to the proposed projects. These include (1) Federal Register notice for the issuance of IHAs to CPAI and UOCC (72 FR 17118, April 6, 2007), (2) Federal Register notice for the proposed issuance of IHAs to UOCC and MOC (72 FR 45014, August 10, 2007), (3) an EA for the CPAI and UOCC seismic surveys, and (4) the draft SEA for the UOCC and MOC seismic surveys. All these analyses, which are supported by extensive scientific research and data, point out that the proposed seismic surveys in Cook Inlet will have negligible impacts on marine mammal species and stocks in Cook Inlet.

Comment 5: A private citizen expresses her concerns that there is a threat of serious injury and mortality to marine mammals from the proposed seismic surveys.

Response: As described in detail in a Federal Register notice (72 FR 45014) published on August 10, 2007, and in the draft SEA for the proposed action, NMFS has performed a thorough analysis on the levels of potential impacts to Cook Inlet beluga whales and four other species of marine mammals as a result of seismic operations in the upper Cook Inlet. Based on this analysis, which is supported by the best available scientific information, NMFS has come to the conclusion that only a few beluga whales, Pacific harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and killer whales may be taken incidental to seismic surveys, by no more than Level B harassment, and that such taking will have a negligible impact on such species or stocks.

No take by Level A harassment (injury) or death is anticipated or authorized, and harassment takes should be at the lowest level practicable due to incorporation of strict monitoring and mitigation requirements in the IHA. Please refer to the Federal Register notice (72 FR 45014, August 10, 2007) and the SEA for a detailed description of the analysis.

Marine mammal species potentially occurring within the proposed action area include Cook Inlet beluga whales, Steller sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and killer whales. Among these species, only the Steller sea lion is listed as endangered under the ESA, and it is also designated as depleted under the MMPA. The Cook Inlet beluga whale is designated as depleted under the MMPA. General information for these species can be found in Angliss and Outlaw (2007), which is available at the following URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2007.pdf . A more detailed description of these species and stocks within Cook Inlet is provided in the January 5, 2007, Federal Register (72 FR 536) and is not repeated here.

Seismic surveys using acoustic energy may have the potential to adversely impact marine mammals in the vicinity of the activities (Gordon et al. , 2004). The sound source levels (zero to peak) associated with the OBC seismic survey can be as high as 233 - 240 dB re 1 microPa at 1 m. However, most energy is in the low-frequency spectra below 250 Hz and is directed downward (Richardson et al. , 1995), and the short duration of each pulse limits the total energy. Received levels within several kilometers typically exceed 160 dB re 1 microPa (Richardson et al. , 1995), depending on water depth, bottom type, ice cover, etc. Although relatively high levels of airgun pulses and frequencies above 500 Hz were detected at certain depths of water much further away during the Sperm Whale Seismic Study's controlled exposure experiments conducted in the Gulf of Mexico (DeRuiter et al. , 2006; Madsen et al. , 2006), this was probably due to the existence of convergence zones where long-range refraction occurred in a much deeper ocean with a critical depth and sufficient depth excess (Urick, 1983; Etter, 2003). Within the proposed project areas in Cook Inlet, where average water depth is less than 15 m (50 ft), no convergence zone can exist.

Intense acoustic signals from seismic surveys have been known to cause behavioral alteration such as reduced vocalization rates (Goold, 1996), avoidance (Malme et al. , 1986, 1988; Richardson et al. , 1995; Harris et al. , 2001), and changes in blow rates (Richardson et al. , 1995) in several marine mammal species.

The proposed surveys would use a 900-in 3 BOLT airgun array consisting of 3, 225-in 3 airguns and 3, 75-in 3 airguns. Acoustic measurements of the airgun array were obtained using calibrated, high-resolution Ocean Bottom Hydrophone recorders in April 2007 in Cook Inlet by JASCO Research Ltd (JASCO). The results show that the nominal ranges to the decibel thresholds 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 microPa rms, computed using the 90 percent fit equation, are 140, 454, and 3,027 m (or 459, 1,490, and 9,931 ft), respectively (Collins et al. , 2007).

The seismic surveys would introduce acoustic energy into the water column and no objects would be released into the environment. The survey vessels would travel at a speed of 4 - 5 knots and the two projects would be conducted in a small area of Cook Inlet for a short period.

There is relatively limited knowledge about the potential impacts of seismic energy on marine fish and invertebrates that are marine mammal prey. Available data suggest that there may be physical impacts on eggs and on larval, juvenile, and adult stages of fish at very close ranges (within meters) to a seismic energy source. Considering typical source levels associated with seismic arrays, close proximity to the source would result in exposure to very high energy levels. Although eggs and larval stages are not able to escape such exposures, juvenile and adult fish most likely would avoid them. In the cases of eggs and larvae, it is likely that the numbers adversely affected by such exposure would be very small in relation to natural mortality. Studies on fish confined in cages that were exposed under intense sound for extended period showed physical or physiological impacts (Scholik and Yan, 2001; 2002; McCauley et al. , 2003; Smith et al. , 2004). While limited data on seismic surveys regarding physiological effects on fish indicate that impacts are short-term and are most apparent after exposure at very close range (McCauley et al. , 2000a; 2000b; Dalen et al. , 1996), other studies have demonstrated that seismic guns had little effect on the day-to-day behavior of marine fish and invertebrates (Knudsen et al. , 1992; Wardle et al. , 2001). It is more likely that fish will swim away upon hearing the approaching seismic impulses (Engås et al. , 1996). Based on the foregoing, NMFS finds preliminarily that the proposed seismic surveys would not cause any permanent impact on the physical habitats and marine mammal prey species in the proposed project area.

NMFS estimates that approximately 11 beluga whales and 3 harbor porpoises could be taken by behavioral harassment by the proposed UOCC seismic surveys, and approximately 26 whales and 6 porpoises by the proposed MOC seismic surveys. Thus a total of 37 Cook Inlet beluga whales out of a population of 302 whales could be harassed incidentally by the two proposed seismic operations from September to November, 2007, if no mitigation and monitoring measures are implemented. This represents 12.1 percent of the population. This number is based on the animal density, length of track planned, and the assumption that all animals will be harassed at distances where noise at received level is at and above 160 dB re 1 microPa rms. Beluga whale density (0.03 whale/km 2 ) was calculated by dividing the population (302) by 50 percent of the surface area of Cook Inlet (19,863 km 2 , or 7,672 mi 2 ), assuming their distribution is limited to the upper portion of the Inlet (Hobbs et al. , 2005). The number of beluga whales that could be taken by both proposed seismic projects is calculated by multiplying the whale density by the total length of the track lines (57 km or 35.4 mi for UOCC and 146 km or 90.7 mi for MOC) and by twice the 160 dB isopleths range (3.0 km). This estimate is conservative as it assumes that all animals exposed to seismic impulses over 160 dB re 1 microPa would be harassed and disturbed. As the majority of acoustic energy of low frequency airgun impulses falls outside the beluga whale's most sensitive hearing range (Richardson et al. , 1995), it is most likely that only a portion of whales within the 160 dB re 1 microPa isopleth would be disturbed. In addition, it is also possible that many of the animals would be habituated to this level of acoustic disturbances. Furthermore, mitigation measures, including the ramp-up requirement during the initiation of the seismic operations (see below) should eliminate most, if not all, startle behavior from animals near the proposed project area. Therefore, NMFS believes that the actual number of Level B harassment takes of Cook Inlet beluga whale would be much lower than the estimated 37 whales.

There are no similar population surveys for harbor seals, harbor porpoises, Steller sea lions, and killer whales conducted within the proposed project area. However, based on an abundance survey of harbor porpoises within the entire Cook Inlet (Dahlheim et al. , 2000), it is estimated that the population density of harbor porpoise in the entire Inlet is 0.0072 animal per km 2 . Based on this density data, NMFS estimates that about 9 harbor porpoises out of a population of 30,506 porpoises could be harassed incidentally by the two proposed seismic operations from September to November, 2007. This number of take represents less than 0.03 percent of harbor porpoises that could be taken by Level B harassment.

Average counts were used to estimate take instead of density for harbor seals, since count data were available (Boveng et al. , 2005a; 2005b) but density data were not. Although no seals were counted in the vicinity of the proposed project areas, it is likely a small number of seals transit through the project areas in the fall. In order to account for seal occurrence in the proposed project areas, the count (1 - 10) at the location (Anchor Point) nearest to the MOC project area was used as the basis for calculating take. This count was quadrupled to account for seals in the water for both proposed project areas, since it is the conservative estimate of take, it is more likely to be high than low. Therefore, the estimated take of the Gulf of Alaska stock of harbor seals is 40 seals, which represent approximately 0.14 percent of the total population (29,175, Angliss and Outlaw, 2007).

There are no density estimates available for Steller sea lions, harbor porpoises, and killer whales with in Cook Inlet. However, their appearance in Upper Cook Inlet is rare and none of these species were sighted in the upper Inlet during the 2004 survey (Rugh et al. , 2005). Therefore, NMFS concludes that the estimated takes of harbor seals and killer whales within the proposed project areas are significantly lower than those of beluga whales and harbor seals, and that it is unlikely there will be any incidental take of Steller sea lions as a result of the proposed seismic projects.

Tyonek, which is predominately a Dena'ina Athabaskan community, is approximately 6.4 km (4 mi) east of the eastern boundary of the proposed UOCC project area, and is about 100 km (62 mi) north of the proposed MOC project area. While it is the only village that hunts beluga whales, Alaska natives unaffiliated with a Cook Inlet community who have moved to the region and visited the region also have historically harvested beluga whales in the Inlet (Mahoney and Shelden, 2000). The role of marine mammals in the subsistence economy of Tyonek and other Alaska natives has been diminished by the almost complete elimination of the harvest of Cook Inlet beluga whales because of their greatly reduced stock size. In recent years, Tyonek natives harvested one beluga whale per year and occasionally harbor seals (Huntington, 2000), but their primary source of red meat is moose (Foster, 1982). Salmon and other fish also contribute substantially to their subsistence diet (Foster, 1982). The Tyonek village announced (April 16, 2007) that they would not harvest any belugas in 2007 due to the status of the population.

In addition, the project areas are not important subsistence areas for other subsistence species of marine mammals (harbor seals). Tyonek native subsistence activities have become focused closer to the village as more non-natives utilize and occupy traditional subsistence areas, combined with harvest regulation restrictions of beluga whales, changes in the abundance and distribution of subsistence resources, and other factors.

Therefore, the proposed projects will have no significant effects on subsistence use of marine mammals in the proposed project areas.

The following mitigation measures are required under the IHAs that were issued to UOCC and MOC for conducting seismic operations in Cook Inlet. NMFS believes that the implementation of these mitigation measures will: (1) result in the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; and (2) ensure that no unmitigable adverse impacts on the availability of marine mammals species or stocks for subsistence harvest would result.

Seismic operations will be limited from September to late November in small portions of Cook Inlet. During the seismic operations, airguns would only be active for 1 - 2 hours during each of the 3 - 4 slack tide periods, with the vessel moving at a speed of 4 - 5 knots (4.6 - 5.8 mph).

The IHA holders will establish a 454-m (1,490-ft) radius safety zone for cetaceans and a 140-m (459-ft) radius safety zone for pinnipeds for the seismic operations. These safety zone radii are based on empirical measurements conducted by JASCO on the same airgun array operated in Cook Inlet, where the received sound pressure levels (SPL) attenuated to 180 dB and 190 dB re 1 microPa rms, respectively.

Safety zones will be surveyed and monitored prior to, during, and after the airgun seismic operations. A detailed description of marine mammal monitoring is described in the Monitoring and Reporting section below.

If a marine mammal is detected outside the safety radius and based on its position and the relative course of travel is likely to enter the safety zone, the vessel's speed and/or direct course may, when practicable and safe, be changed to avoid the impacts to the animal. The marine mammal's activities and movements relative to the seismic and support vessels must be closely monitored to ensure that the animal does not (1) approach the safety radius, or (2) enter the safety zone. If either of these scenarios occurs, further mitigation measures must be taken (i.e., either further course alterations or power down or shut down of the airgun(s)).

A power down involves decreasing the number of airguns in use so that the radius of the 180- or 190-dB zone is decreased to the extent that marine mammals are not in the safety zone. During a power-down, one airgun is operated. The continued operation of one airgun is intended to alert marine mammals to the presence of the seismic guns in the area.

The Council will convene the LEAP to review a generic amendment that would potentially allow offshore aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico. The LEAP will also review Amendment 30A to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) that would establish restrictions on the harvest of gray triggerfish and a rebuilding plan for this overfished stock, as well as additional restrictions on greater amberjack to maintain its rebuilding target. Furthermore, the LEAP will review an Options Paper that will likely result in the development of Amendment 30B to the Reef Fish FMP to further restrict the harvest of gag and possibly relax some of the current restrictions on the harvest of red grouper. Finally, the LEAP will consider an options paper that could potentially result in the implementation of a limited access privilege program (LAPP) for groupers and possibly other reef fish.

The LEAP consists of principal law enforcement officers in each of the Gulf States, as well as the NMFS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Coast Guard, and NOAA General Counsel. A copy of the agenda and related materials can be obtained by calling the Council office at (813) 348-1630.

Although other non-emergency issues not on the agendas may come before the LEAP for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the LEAP will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agendas and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Tina Trezza at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) 5 working days prior to the meeting.

On Tuesday, October 16, the Joint Dogfish Committee will meet from 10 a.m. until noon. The RSA Committee will meet from 1 p.m. until 4 p.m. The Law Enforcement Committee will meet from 4 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. The Council will convene at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, October 17 and remain in session until 4:15 p.m. at which time the Executive Committee will meet until 5:30 p.m. On Thursday October 18, the Council will convene at 9 a.m. and remain in session until approximately 1 p.m.

Agenda items by day for the Council's committees and the Council itself are:

Tuesday, October 16 - the Joint Dogfish Committee will review and develop the Dogfish Monitoring Committee's recommendations regarding the 2008/09 fishing year quota and related management measures for Council consideration and action. The Research Set-Aside Committee (RSA) will review the New England Council's policy for incorporation of research results into fishery management programs. The Law Enforcement Committee will review Fisheries Achievement Award (FAA) nominations, recommend recipient(s) for that award recognition, and review the Council's Award Recognition Program Survey results.

Wednesday, October 17 - the Council will swear in new and reappointed Council members and elect Council officers. The Council will receive a report by Dr. Jim Weinberg on the recent Monkfish Stock Assessment. The Council will consider adjustments to the current Monkfish Management Program and discuss the need for a new framework for the 2008 fishing year and if necessary initiate such a framework. The Council will review and discuss the Dogfish Committee's recommendations for the dogfish quota and related management measures for the 2008/09 fishing year and adopt the quota and related management measures for the 2008/09 fishing year and beyond. The Council will then receive a presentation by Dr. Mike Fogarty on the Northeast Fisheries Science Center's current ecosystem activities. The Council will conduct its business session, receive organizational reports, receive the New England Council liaison report, the Executive Director's report, status of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Fishery Management Plans (FMP), and Committee reports. The Council will receive a presentation by Preston Pate on the NMFS' Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP). The Executive Committee will then review the highlights of the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act Workshop, review the highlights of the Northeast Regional Coordinating Council (NRCC) meeting, and review the Council's proposed 2008 Annual Work Plan (AWP).

Thursday, October 18 - the Council will convene at 9 a.m. to review and approve the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) and public hearing document (PHD) for Amendment 10 to the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish FMP which is intended to rebuild the butterfish fishery. The Council will then consider any continuing and/or new business.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion, these issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during these meetings. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final actions to address such emergencies.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Bryan, (302) 674-2331 ext. 18, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The items of discussion in the committee's agenda are as follows:

The Multispecies (Groundfish) Oversight Committee will meet to continue development of Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. The Committee will review suggestions for changes to the effort control systems for common pool vessels. They will identify which suggestions will impact fishing mortality and may develop recommendations on those measures that should be pursued in Amendment 16. This discussion may include, but is not limited to, changes to the days-at-sea system, access to closed areas, trip limits, annual catch limits, etc. The Committee may continue its discussion of sector management issues. The Committee may also discuss other Amendment 16 issues. Committee recommendations will be forwarded to the Council for action at a future date.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The SSLMC will initiate proposal analysis which will include the following steps: (a) review 2001/02 Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives process and criteria; (b) review applicable federal laws and orders (Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act); (c) review jeopardy and adverse modification standards/criteria; (d) review status quo critical habitat harvest data; (e) adopt SSLMC goals and objectives; (f) initiate proposal analysis using Outside The Model Considerations; (g) review preliminary data sets; (h) identify information needs and develop data requests.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen, (907) 271-2809, at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.

The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Propose ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

A 60-day public comment Notice was published in the Federal Register on May 30, 2007. This comment period ended July 30, 2007. No public comments were received from this notice.

Description: The Spirit of Service Awards enable the Corporation to recognize exceptional organizations and program participants from each of the Corporation's three programs, Senior Corps, AmeriCorps, and Learn and Serve America. The Corporation plans to continue to utilize specific nomination guidelines for each of the programs and follow a formal nomination process, which involves voluntary information collections from non-government individuals.

Since 2004 the Corporation has honored distinguished individuals and organizations with the Spirit of Service Awards. Prior to 2003, AmeriCorps recognized its outstanding members annually through the All-AmeriCorps Awards, which were initiated in 1999 and presented by President Clinton as part of the 5th anniversary celebration of the program. Senior Corps had recognized its outstanding projects and volunteers at its own national conference, and Learn and Serve America through its Leader School selection and the President's Student Service Awards.

Type of Review: Renewal.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: Spirit of Service Awards Nomination Guidelines and Application—Senior Corps.

OMB Number: 3045-0091.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: Nonprofit organizations

Total Respondents: 200.

Frequency: Annually.

Average Time per Response: 3 hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 600 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

Type of Review: Renewal.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: Spirit of Service Awards Nomination Guidelines and Application—AmeriCorps.

OMB Number: 3045-0092.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: Nonprofit organizations.

Total Respondents: 200.

Frequency: Annually.

Average Time Per Response: 3 hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 600 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

Type of Review: Renewal.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: Spirit of Service Awards Nomination Guidelines and Application—Learn and Serve America.

OMB Number: 3045-0093.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: Nonprofit organizations.

Total Respondents: 200.

Frequency: Annually.

Average Time Per Response: 3 hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 600 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Propose ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

A 60-day public comment Notice was published in the Federal Register on May 30, 2007. This comment period ended July 30, 2007. No public comments were received from this notice.

Description: The Corporation sends the AmeriCorps Alumni Profile Card to former AmeriCorps and AmeriCorps*VISTA members' home addresses requesting that they complete the card and return it to the AmeriCorps Recruitment Office. The card is only used by Corporation personnel and other organizations (only with the explicit written permission of the respondent). The purpose of the card is to enhance communications between the Corporation and former AmeriCorps members, to provide them with information on Corporation activities, and to seek their assistance in volunteer recruitment activities.

Type of Review: Renewal.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: AmeriCorps Alumni Profile Card.

OMB Number: 3045-0048.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: Individuals.

Total Respondents: 20,000.

Frequency: One time.

Average Time Per Response: 4 minutes.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,333 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The specific changes to the record systems being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The specific changes to the record systems being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The specific changes to the record systems being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: New.

Title: Evaluation of Evidence-based Practices in Online Learning.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs; Businesses or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 380.

 Burden Hours: 360.

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to document characteristics associated with prevalent types of online learning and evidence-based practices that strengthen implementation of online learning. The data collection activities to be conducted by this study will provide three types of products for the education community: (1) Reader-friendly research synthesis and evaluation reports, (2) recommendations for future research, and (3) tools and instruments for use by schools, districts and states in evaluating online courses.

Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3410. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Requests to make oral comments or provide written comments to the Committees should be sent to Oscar Carrillo, Designated Federal Officer, at the contact information above.

Meeting Access: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Oscar Carrillo at 202-564-0347 or carrillo.oscar@epa.gov. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Oscar Carrillo, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

In the Federal Register of April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20553), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0016. The approval expires on August 31, 2010. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets .

FDA is requesting emergency processing of this proposed collection of information under section 3507(j) of the PRA, (44 U.S.C. 3507 (j) and 5 CFR 1320.13). The Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (MDUFMA) (Public Law 107-250), which expires September 30, 2007, amended section 738 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U. S.C. 379j) to provide FDA with new responsibilities and resources to keep up with the rapidly growing device industry and changing medical device technology. Congress recently passed an omnibus FDA bill that includes the “Medical Device User Fee Amendments of 2007,” (the 2007 Amendments), which will reauthorize medical device user fees for fiscal years 2008 through 2012 and will make significant changes to the medical device user fee provisions of the act. The 2007 Amendments will provide a new way for a foreign business to qualify as a “small business” eligible to pay a significantly-lower fee when a medical device user fee must be paid. The user fee provisions of the 2007 Amendments provide for an October 1, 2007, effective date, and FDA expects foreign businesses will want to request small business status immediately upon enactment.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Congress recently passed an omnibus FDA bill that includes the 2007 Amendments, which will reauthorize medical device user fees for fiscal years 2008 through 2012 and will makes significant changes to the medical device user fee provisions of the act. The 2007Amendments will provide a new way for a foreign business to qualify as a “small business” eligible to pay a significantly-lower fee when a medical device user fee must be paid.

Under existing law, the only way a business could qualify as a “small business” was to submit a Federal (U.S.) income tax return showing its gross receipts or sales that did not exceed a statutory threshold, currently, $100 million. If a business could not provide a Federal income tax return, it did not qualify as a small business and had to pay the standard (full) fee. Since many foreign businesses have not, and cannot, filed a Federal (U.S.) income tax return, this requirement has effectively prevented those businesses from qualifying for the small business fee rates. Thus, foreign governments, including the European Union, have objected.

In lieu of a Federal income tax return, the 2007 Amendments will allow a foreign business to qualify as a “small business” by submitting a certification form, from its “national taxing authority,” the foreign equivalent of our Internal Revenue Service. This certification, referred to as a “National Taxing Authority Certification” must:

• Be in English;

• Be from the national taxing authority of the country in which the business is headquartered;

• Provide the business's gross receipts or sales for the most recent year, in both the local currency and in United States dollars, and the exchange rate used in converting local currency to U.S. dollars;

• Provide the dates during which the reported receipts or sales were collected; and

• Bear the official seal of the national taxing authority.

The new FDA Form 3602A, “ FY 2008 MDUFMA Foreign Small Business Qualification Certification,” will collect the information required by the statute and will allow a foreign business to qualify for the same small business benefits as a domestic U.S. small business. The user fee provisions of 2007 Amendments provide for an October 1, 2007, effective date, and FDA expects foreign businesses will want to request small business status immediately upon enactment.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

In the Federal Register of April 14, 2006 (71 FR 19526), FDA published a notice of availability of a draft guidance entitled “Recommended Study Design and Evaluation of Effectiveness Studies for Swine Respiratory Disease Claims.” The notice gave interested persons until June 28, 2006, to comment on the draft guidance. FDA received a few comments on the draft guidance. We considered those comments as we finalized the guidance. The guidance, announced in this document, finalizes the draft guidance that we announced on April 14, 2006.

The purpose of the guidance is to provide the Center for Veterinary Medicine's (CVM's) current thinking regarding the recommended design and evaluation of effectiveness studies for swine respiratory disease (SRD) claims. This guidance identifies specific, detailed recommendations for sponsors of new animal drug applications to consider when they design and write protocols for SRD effectiveness studies.

This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR 514.1 have been approved under OMB Control Number 0910-0032.

This level 1 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the agency's current thinking on the topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

Interested persons may, at any time, submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding the guidance. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the full title of the guidance and the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. A copy of the guidance and received comments are available for public examination in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance from either the CVM home page ( http://www.fda.gov/cvm ) or the Division of Dockets Management Web site ( http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm ).

The following applicants have applied for scientific research permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“we”) solicits review and comment from local, State, and Federal agencies, and the public on the following permit requests. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The applicant requests a permit to take (survey, capture, handle, mark, collect biological samples, radio collar, translocate, and release) the Peninsular bighorn sheep ( Ovis canadensis nelsonii ) in conjunction with ecological research, population monitoring, and life history studies throughout the range of the species in San Diego, Imperial, and Riverside Counties, California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

The applicant requests a permit to take (survey, capture, and release) the tidewater goby ( Eucyclogobius newberryi ) in conjunction with surveys for the purpose of enhancing their survival throughout the range of the species in California.

The applicant requests a permit to take (survey, collect, captive rear, captive propagate, and release to the wild) the desert pupfish ( Cyprinodon macularius ) in conjunction with ecological and disease control research in Riverside County, California, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

The applicant requests a permit to take (survey, capture, collect, PIT tag, biological sample, radio collar, captive breed, perform veterinary examinations, and release) the Santa Cruz Island Fox ( Urocyon littoralis santacruzae ) in conjunction with ecological, genetic, and reproductive research on Santa Cruz Island, Santa Barbara County, California, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

The applicant request an amendment to take (harass by survey, capture, and release) the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) in conjunction with surveys for the purpose of enhancing their survival throughout the range of the species in California.

We solicit public review and comment on each of these recovery permit applications. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment, but you should be aware that we may be required to disclose your name and address pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

The following applicants have applied for scientific research permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“we”) solicits review and comment from local, State, and Federal agencies, and the public on the following permit requests. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The applicant requests a permit to take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly ( Euphydryas editha quino ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

The applicant requests an amendment to take (survey, capture, and release) the tidewater goby ( Eucyclogobius newberryi ) in conjunction with surveys for the purpose of enhancing their survival throughout the range of the species in Monterey, and Santa Cruz Counties, California.

The applicant requests a permit to take (survey, collect, captive rear, captive propagate, and release to the wild) the Mohave tui chub ( Siphateles bicolor mohavensis ) in conjunction with ecological research in San Bernardino County, California, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, and collect and kill) the Conservancy fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta conservatio ), the longhorn fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta longiantenna ), the Riverside fairy shrimp ( Streptocephalus wootoni ), the San Diego fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta sandiegonensis ), and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp ( Lepidurus packardi ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of each species in California for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, capture, and mark) the San Francisco garter snake ( Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia ) in conjunction with surveys and monitoring activities throughout the range of the species in Santa Cruz and San Mateo Counties, California, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

The applicant requests an amendment to take (harass by survey, capture by mist net, take feathers for DNA analysis, and release) the least Bell's vireo ( Vireo bellii pusillus ) in conjunction with surveys and research at the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge in Nye County, California, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, and collect and kill) the Conservancy fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta conservatio ), the longhorn fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta longiantenna ), the Riverside fairy shrimp ( Streptocephalus wootoni ), the San Diego fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta sandiegonensis ), and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp ( Lepidurus packardi ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of each species in California, for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

The permittee requests a permit to take (harass by survey, capture, and release) the California tiger salamander ( Ambystoma californiense ) in conjunction with surveys in Alameda, Amador, Calaveras, Contra Costa, Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, Sacramento, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tulare, and Yolo Counties, California, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, and monitor populations) the marbled murrelet ( Brachyramphus marmoratus ) in conjunction with surveys, population monitoring, and research at the United States Department of Agriculture's Redwood Experimental Forest in Del Norte County, California, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, mark, and release) the Morro Bay kangaroo rat ( Dipodomys heermanni morroensis ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

The applicant requests an amendment to take (harass by survey) the Delhi sands flower-loving fly ( Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of the species in California, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

The applicant requests an amendment to take (capture, and collect and kill) the Conservancy fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta conservatio ), the longhorn fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta longiantenna ), and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp ( Lepidurus packardi ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of each species in California, for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

The permittee requests a permit to take (harass by survey, capture, and release) the California tiger salamander ( Ambystoma californiense ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of the species in, California, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

The applicant requests an amendment to take (survey, electrofish, capture, collect biological samples, PIT tag, collect, and release) the bonytail chub ( Gila elegans ) and razorback sucker ( Xyrauchen texanus ) in conjunction with surveys, population monitoring, and genetic study for the purpose of enhancing their survival throughout the range of the species in Clark County, Nevada, and San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial Counties, California.

The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, and nest monitor) the least Bell's vireo ( Vireo bellii pusillus ) in conjunction with surveys and monitoring throughout the range of the species in California, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

The applicant requests an amendment to take (harass by survey) the Southwestern willow flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii extimus ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of the species in California, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

We solicit public review and comment on each of these recovery permit applications. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment, but you should be aware that we may be required to disclose your name and address pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

We specifically request information, views, and opinions from the public via this notice on the Federal action, including the identification of any other aspects of the human environment not already identified in the Environmental Assessment (EA). Further, we specifically solicit information regarding the adequacy of the HCP as measured against our ITP issuance criteria found in 50 CFR parts 13 and 17.

The permit authorizes take of RCWs on approximately 99 of 971 acres owned by the Permittee in Livingston Parish, Louisiana. The proposed take would be incidental to otherwise lawful activities, including timber harvest and typical forest management activities on the Permittee's property. The extension request covers the same activities covered by the HCP and existing permit. There will be no increase in take beyond that anticipated in the original permit.

The previously prepared HCP specifies the impacts that are likely to result from the taking and the measures the Permittee has taken to minimize and mitigate such impacts. The ITP authorized take of three RCW groups on the Permittee's property incidental to timber management activities. The mitigation and minimization measures in the HCP include: No take of RCWs during the breeding season; establishment of three replacement groups on Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge by provisioning recruitment territories; translocating juveniles fledged on the Permittee's property; monitoring the formation of breeding pairs; funding an endowment for habitat management (prescribed burning); and, translocating adult RCWs from the Permittee's property to Fort Polk Military Reservation in Louisiana prior to harvesting timber. The Permittee successfully completed the required minimization and mitigation measures outlined in the HCP by July 2004.

RCW nesting and foraging habitat were removed in one cluster incidental to the timber harvest that was completed in that cluster. Due to poor market conditions, the Permittee had not harvested timber in the remaining two RCW clusters by the time the ITP expired and thus requests extension of the ITP. If renewed, annual reporting will no longer be required because the Permittee has completed the specified minimization and mitigation requirements. However, all other permit terms and conditions will remain the same, and no additional take will be authorized. The existing HCP satisfies all statutory issuance criteria and is therefore applicable to the extension of this ITP.

If you wish to comment, you may submit comments by any one of several methods. Please reference permit number TE037661-0, The Woodlands Group, LLC, in such comments. You may mail comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service's Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ). You may also comment via the internet to aaron_valenta@fws.gov. Please include your name and return address in your internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation from us that we have received your internet message, contact us directly at either telephone number listed previously (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Finally, you may hand-deliver comments to either Fish and Wildlife Service office listed (see ADDRESSES ). Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the administrative record. We will honor such requests to the extent allowable by law. There may also be other circumstances in which we would withhold from the administrative record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. We will not, however, consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

We will evaluate whether the extension of the section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP complies with section 7 of the Act by reviewing our previously prepared intra-Service section 7 consultation. The results of the biological opinion, in combination with the above findings, will be used in the final analysis to determine whether or not to issue an extension of this ITP.

The EIS will assess the effects of the proposed action to permit a transportation facility on federal lands consisting of construction, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of a covered, above ground conveyor belt up to approximately 7 miles in length for the purpose of transporting crushed limestone from a quarry to a proposed rail load-out facility at Dewey, South Dakota. The analysis area includes BLM-administered public lands, National Forest System lands administered by the Black Hills National Forest, and private lands along the proposed conveyor route in Custer County, South Dakota.

NEPA requires the BLM to take into account the environmental impacts of its actions.

The EIS will be prepared in accordance with applicable Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and applicable BLM and Forest Service regulations. The analysis will determine whether the proposed action is consistent with land use guidelines as set forth in the BLM RMP and the Forest Service's Revised Forest Plan for the Black Hills National Forest, as Amended, along with other state and federal laws and regulations.

The analysis in the EIS will serve the following two purposes: (1) Analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of construction, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of the proposed covered conveyor belt transportation facility; and (2) Disclose the information used by the Responsible Officials in making their decisions on whether to approve or deny the application for a ROW grant.

The following preliminary issues have been identified:

• Native American Concerns.

• Cultural Resources.

• Noise.

• Visual Quality.

• Public Safety.

• Land Use.

• Fish and Wildlife.

• Air Quality.

• Geology, Soils, and Minerals.

• Water Quality and Quantity.

• Vegetation.

• Social and Economic Values.

Alternatives will initially include the No Action Alternatives and the Proposed Action Alternative; however, other alternatives may be identified during the public scoping process.

Comments are being solicited so as to identify and define: (1) The scope of this analysis, (2) significant issues or concerns related to the proposed action, (3) reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, and (4) information having a bearing on the proposed action. Your response is important and will be considered in the EIS process.

The BLM and Forest Service will provide further information at the public scoping meetings regarding the locations of, and the areas that may be affected by, the transportation facility application. The purpose of the public scoping process is to provide the public an opportunity to present comments or issues that should be addressed in the environmental analysis, the scope of the analysis and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. You may submit comments in writing at any public scoping meeting, or you may submit them using one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section above.

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations and businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be available for public inspection in their entirety.

Responsible Officials: Marian Atkins, Field Manager, South Dakota Field Office, BLM, will be responsible for the analysis and documentation, and will decide whether to approve any actions on public lands administered by the BLM. Craig Bobzien, Forest Supervisor, Black Hills National Forest, representing the Forest Service as a cooperating agency, will decide whether to approve any actions on National Forest System lands in the project area.

Title: 30 CFR Part 250, Subpart E, Oil and Gas Well-Completion Operations.

OMB Control Number: 1010-0067.

Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. and 43 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., requires the Secretary of the Interior to preserve, protect, and develop oil and gas resources in the OCS in a manner that is consistent with the need to make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; balance orderly energy resources development with protection of the human, marine, and coastal environment; ensure the public a fair and equitable return on OCS resources; and preserve and maintain free enterprise competition. Section 1332(6) of the OCS Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1332) requires that “operations in the [O]uter Continental Shelf should be conducted in a safe manner by well-trained personnel using technology, precautions, and techniques sufficient to prevent or minimize the likelihood of blowouts, loss of well control, fires, spillages, physical obstruction to other users of the waters or subsoil and seabed, or other occurrences which may cause damage to the environment or to property, or endanger life or health.”

This authority and responsibility are among those delegated to the Minerals Management Service (MMS). To carry out these responsibilities, MMS issues regulations governing oil and gas and sulphur operations in the OCS. This information collection request (ICR) addresses 30 CFR Part 250, Subpart E, Oil and Gas Well-Completion Operations and the associated supplementary Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTL) intended to provide clarification, description, or explanation of these regulations.

The MMS District Managers analyze and evaluate the information and data collected under Subpart E to ensure that planned well-completion operations will protect personnel and natural resources. They use the analysis and evaluation results in the decision to approve, disapprove, or require modification to the proposed well-completion operations. Specifically, MMS uses the information to ensure: (a) Compliance with personnel safety training requirements; (b) crown block safety device is operating and can be expected to function to avoid accidents; (c) proposed operation of the annular preventer is technically correct and provides adequate protection for personnel, property, and natural resources; (d) well-completion operations are conducted on well casings that are structurally competent; and (e) sustained casing pressures are within acceptable limits.

Previously, the Gulf of Mexico Region (GOMR) met with the Offshore Operators Committee (OOC) several times to discuss conditions that required a variance from the requirements of § 250.517. The OOC recommended that sustained casing pressure (SCP) be divided into two broad categories: Production casing SCP that can be eliminated relatively easily and SCP on outer casings where no consistently successful solution has been developed. They also recommended criteria for classifying SCP. Since the initial meeting, MMS continues to work with OOC and API regularly to formulate new practices. As a result of these meetings, MMS issued an NTL to clarify and update the current GOMR procedures and requirements necessary to monitor and report SCP conditions. This NTL also gives guidance on the process for obtaining a departure to produce wells with SCP. MMS district and regional offices will use the information to determine whether production from wells with SCP continues to afford the greatest possible degree of safety under these conditions.

Responses are mandatory. No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked. The MMS protects information considered proprietary according to 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection” and 30 CFR part 252, “OCS Oil and Gas Information Program”.

Frequency: Varies by section, but is mostly “on occasion” or annual.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: Approximately 130 respondents consist of Federal OCS lessees and operators.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: The estimated annual “hour” burden for this information collection is a total of 18,756 hours. The following chart details the individual components and estimated hour burdens. In calculating the burdens, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: We have identified no paperwork “non-hour cost” burdens associated with the collection of information.

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond.

Comments: Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ) requires each agency “* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

To comply with the public consultation process, on January 29, 2007, we published a Federal Register notice (72 FR 4025) announcing that we would submit this ICR to OMB for approval. The notice provided the required 60-day comment period. In addition, § 250.199 provides the OMB control number for the information collection requirements imposed by the 30 CFR 250 regulations. The regulation also informs the public that they may comment at any time on the collections of information and provides the address to which they should send comments. We have received no comments in response to these efforts.

If you wish to comment in response to this notice, you may send your comments to the offices listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should receive public comments by November 1, 2007.

Public Availability of Comments: Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz (202) 208-7744.

Title: 30 CFR Part 250, Subpart F, Oil and Gas Well-Workover Operations.

OMB Control Number: 1010-0043.

Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. and 43 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to prescribe rules and regulations to administer leasing of the OCS. Such rules and regulations will apply to all operations conducted under a lease. Operations on the OCS must preserve, protect, and develop oil and natural gas resources in a manner that is consistent with the need to make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; to balance orderly energy resource development with protection of human, marine, and coastal environments; to ensure the public a fair and equitable return on the resources of the OCS; and to preserve and maintain free enterprise competition.

Section 5(a) of the OCS Lands Act requires the Secretary to prescribe rules and regulations “to provide for the prevention of waste, and conservation of the natural resources of the Outer Continental Shelf, and the protection of correlative rights therein” and to include provisions “for the prompt and efficient exploration and development of a lease area.” These authorities and responsibilities are among those delegated to the Minerals Management Service (MMS) to ensure that operations in the OCS will meet statutory requirements; provide for safety and protection of the environment; and result in diligent exploration, development, and production of OCS leases.

This information collection request addresses the regulations at 30 CFR Part 250, subpart F, Oil and Gas Well-Workover Operations and the associated supplementary Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) intended to provide clarification, description, or explanation of these regulations.

MMS District Supervisors use the information collected to analyze and evaluate planned well-workover operations to ensure that operations result in personnel safety and protection of the environment. They use this evaluation in making decisions to approve, disapprove, or to require modification to the proposed well-workover operations. For example, MMS uses the information to:

• Review log entries of crew meetings to verify that safety procedures have been properly reviewed.

• Review well-workover procedures relating to hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S) to ensure the safety of the crew in the event of encountering H 2 S.

• Review well-workover diagrams and procedures to ensure the safety of well-workover operations.

• Verify that the crown block safety device is operating and can be expected to function and avoid accidents.

• Verify that the proposed operation of the annular preventer is technically correct and will provide adequate protection for personnel, property, and natural resources.

• Verify the reasons for postponing blowout preventer (BOP) tests, verify the state of readiness of the equipment and to ascertain that the equipment meets safety standards and requirements, ensure that BOP tests have been conducted in the manner and frequency to promote personnel safety and protect natural resources. Specific testing information must be recorded to verify that the proper test procedures were followed.

• Assure that the well-workover operations are conducted on well casing that is structurally competent.

Responses are mandatory. No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked. MMS will protect proprietary information according to 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection”, and 30 CFR part 252, “OCS Oil and Gas Information Program”.

Frequency: The frequency varies by section, but is primarily monthly or on occasion.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: Approximately 130 Federal OCS oil and gas or sulphur lessees and operators.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: The estimated annual “hour” burden for this information collection is a total of 40,899 hours. The following chart details the individual components and estimated hour burdens. In calculating the burdens, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: We have identified no paperwork “non-hour cost” burdens associated with the collection of information.

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond.

Comments: Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ) requires each agency “ * * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * * ” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

To comply with the public consultation process, on January 23, 2007, we published a Federal Register notice (72 FR 2901) announcing that we would submit this ICR to OMB for approval. The notice provided the required 60-day comment period. In addition, § 250.199 provides the OMB control number for the information collection requirements imposed by the 30 CFR Part 250 regulations. The regulation also informs the public that they may comment at any time on the collections of information and provides the address to which they should send comments. We have received no comments in response to these efforts.

If you wish to comment in response to this notice, you may send your comments to the offices listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should receive public comments by November 1, 2007.

Public Availability of Comments: Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz (202) 208-7744.

Title: 30 CFR 216.57, Stripper Royalty Rate Reduction Notification.

OMB Control Number: 1010-0090.

Bureau Form Number: Form MMS-4377.

Abstract: The Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior is responsible for matters relevant to mineral resource development on Federal and Indian lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The Secretary, under the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 1923) and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1353), is responsible for managing the production of minerals from Federal and Indian lands and the OCS, collecting royalties from lessees who produce minerals, and distributing the funds collected in accordance with applicable laws. The MMS performs the royalty management functions for the Secretary. Public laws pertaining to mineral royalties are located on our Web site at http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/PublicLawsAMR.htm .

Under 43 CFR 3103.4-2, the Stripper Royalty Rate Reduction Program was established by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the surface management agency for Federal onshore leases. As a benefit under this program, BLM approved royalty rate reductions for operators of stripper oil properties for applicable sales periods from October 1, 1992, through January 31, 2006. Effective February 1, 2006, the benefits of reduced royalty rates under this program were terminated, although this change is not currently reflected in the CFR.

For production through January 31, 2006, reporters used Form MMS-4377, Stripper Royalty Rate Reduction Notification, to notify MMS of royalty rate changes. Although the benefits were terminated, MMS continues to verify previously submitted notifications and may require the operator to submit an amended Form MMS-4377.

The MMS requests OMB approval to continue to collect this information. Not collecting this information would limit the Secretary's ability to discharge his/her duties and may also result in loss of royalty payments. Proprietary information submitted is protected, and there are no questions of a sensitive nature included in this information collection.

Frequency: As requested.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: 150 lessees/lessors.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: 180 hours.

We have not included in our estimates certain requirements performed in the normal course of business and considered usual and customary. The following chart shows the estimated burden hours by CFR section and paragraph:

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-hour” Cost Burden: We have identified no “non-hour cost” burden associated with the collection of information.

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) provides that 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.

Comments: Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires each agency “* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *.” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

To comply with the public consultation process, we published a notice in the Federal Register on November 6, 2006 (71 FR 64978), announcing that we would submit this ICR to OMB for approval. The notice provided the required 60-day comment period. We received no comments in response to the notice.

If you wish to comment in response to this notice, you may send your comments to the offices listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should receive public comments by November 1, 2007.

Public Comment Policy: We will post all comments in response to this notice on our Web site at http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/InfoColl/InfoColCom.htm . Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. We will also make copies of the comments available for public review, including names and addresses of respondents, during regular business hours at our offices in Lakewood, Colorado. Upon request, we will withhold an individual respondent's home address from the public record, as allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you request that we withhold your name and/or address, state your request prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz (202) 208-7744.

Title: 30 CFR Part 220—OCS Net Profit Share Payment Reporting.

OMB Control Number: 1010-0073.

Bureau Form Number: None.

Abstract: The Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior is responsible for collecting royalties from lessees who produce minerals from leased Federal and Indian lands. The Secretary is required by various laws to manage mineral resources production on Federal and Indian lands, collect the royalties due, and distribute the funds in accordance with those laws. The MMS performs the royalty management functions for the Secretary.

Applicable law citations pertaining to mineral leases include the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-451—Jan. 12, 1983); Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1353; Pub. L. 212—Aug. 7, 1953, as amended by Pub. L. 93-627—Jan. 3, 1975, Pub. L. 95-372—Sept. 18, 1978, and Pub. L. 98-498—Oct. 19, 1984); and the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 1923). These citations can be viewed on our Web site at ­ http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/PublicLawsAMR.htm .

When a company or an individual enters into a lease to explore, develop, produce, and dispose of minerals from Federal or Indian lands, that company or individual agrees to pay the lessor a share of the value received from production from the leased lands. The lease creates a business relationship between the lessor and the lessee. The lessee is required to report various kinds of information to the lessor relative to the disposition of the leased minerals. Such information is similar to data reported to private and public mineral interest owners and is generally available within the records of the lessee or others involved in developing, transporting, processing, purchasing, or selling of such minerals. The information collected includes data necessary to ensure royalties or net profit share payments are properly valued and appropriately paid.

To encourage exploration and development of oil and gas leases on submerged Federal lands on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), regulations were promulgated at 30 CFR 260—Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing. Specific implementation regulations for the NPSL bidding system are promulgated at § 260.110(d). The MMS established the NPSL bidding system to balance a fair market return to the Federal Government for the lease of its public lands with a fair profit to companies risking their investment capital. The system provides an incentive for early and expeditious exploration and development and provides for sharing the risks by the lessee and the Federal Government. The NPSL bidding system incorporates a fixed capital recovery system as a means through which the lessee recovers costs of exploration and development from production revenues, along with a reasonable return on investment.

The Federal Government does not receive a profit share payment from an NPSL until the lessee shows a credit balance in its capital account; that is, cumulative revenues and other credits exceed cumulative costs. The credit balance is multiplied by the net profit share rate (30 to 50 percent), resulting in the amount of net profit share payment due the Federal Government.

The MMS requires lessees to maintain an NPSL capital account for each lease, which transfers to a new owner when sold. Following the cessation of production, lessees are also required to provide either an annual or a monthly report to the Federal Government, using data from the capital account.

The NPSL lessees must notify MMS of their intent to perform an inventory and file a report after each inventory of controllable material.

When non-operators of an NPSL call for an audit, they must notify MMS. When MMS calls for an audit, the lessee must notify all non-operators on the lease. These requirements are located at § 220.033.

This collection of information is necessary in order to determine when net profit share payments are due and to ensure royalties or net profit share payments are properly valued and appropriately paid.

The MMS will request OMB's approval to continue to collect this information. Not collecting this information would limit the Secretary's ability to discharge his/her duty and may also result in loss of royalty payments. Proprietary information submitted to MMS under this collection is protected, and there are no questions of a sensitive nature included in this information collection.

Frequency: Annually, monthly, and on occasion.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: 6 lessees.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: 1,046 hours.

All six lessees report monthly because all current NPSLs are in producing status. Because the requirements for establishment of capital accounts at § 220.010(a) and capital account annual reporting at § 220.031(a) are necessary only during non-producing status of a lease, we included only one response annually for these requirements, in case a new NPSL is established. We have not included in our estimates certain requirements performed in the normal course of business, which are considered usual and customary. The following chart shows the estimated annual burden hours by CFR section and paragraph.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-hour” Cost Burden: We have identified no “non-hour cost” burdens.

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) provides that 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.

Comments: Before submitting an ICR to OMB, PRA Section 3506(c)(2)(A) requires each agency “* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *.” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

The PRA also requires agencies to estimate the total annual reporting “non-hour cost” burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. If you have costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. You should describe the methods you use to estimate major cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup costs include, among other items, computers and software you purchase to prepare for collecting information; monitoring, sampling, and testing equipment; and record storage facilities. Generally, your estimates should not include equipment or services purchased: (i) Before October 1, 1995; (ii) to comply with requirements not associated with the information collection; (iii) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Government; or (iv) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our ICR submission for OMB approval, including appropriate adjustments to the estimated burden. We will provide a copy of the ICR to you without charge upon request. The ICR also will be posted on our Web site at http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/FRNotices/FRInfColl.htm .

Public Comment Policy: We will post all comments in response to this notice on our Web site at http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/FRNotices/FRInfColl.htm. We will also make copies of the comments available for public review, including names and addresses of respondents, during regular business hours at our offices in Lakewood, Colorado. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz (202) 208-7744.

In July 1943, the DOI, TVA, Swain County, North Carolina, and the State of North Carolina entered into a MOA that dealt with the creation of Fontana Dam and Reservoir and the flooding of lands and roads within Swain County. As part of that agreement, 44,170 acres of land were ultimately transferred to the DOI and made part of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The MOA also contained a provision by which the DOI was to construct a road through the Park, along the north shore of the newly formed Fontana Reservoir, to replace the flooded NC Hwy. 288, contingent upon funds being appropriated by Congress.

The FEIS evaluates potential environmental consequences of implementing the action alternatives on the Great Smoky Mountains and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. Impact topics include the human environment, physical environment, natural and cultural resources, aesthetics and visual resources, visitor use and experience, and Park operations. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts along with options to address potential impacts were evaluated and are described for each resource area.

The FEIS is being mailed to appropriate Federal, State and local agencies and organizations which have been involved with the project, have expressed, or are known to have an interest or legal role in this proposal.

After public review of the FEIS, a ROD will be prepared. The ROD is scheduled for completion by the end of 2007.

The authority for publishing this notice is 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C).

The responsible official for this EIS is Art Frederick, Acting Regional Director, Southeast Region, National Park Service, 100 Alabama Street, SW., 1924 Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the accomplishments of federal agencies and make recommendations on future activities to control salinity. Council members will be briefed on the status of salinity control activities and receive input for drafting the Council's annual report. The Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and United States Geological Survey of the Department of the Interior; the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture; and the Environmental Protection Agency will each present a progress report and a schedule of activities on salinity control in the Colorado River Basin. The Council will discuss salinity control activities and the contents of the reports.

Before including your name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (“VEVRAA”), 38 U.S.C. 4212(d), requires Federal contractors and subcontractors subject to the Act's affirmative action provisions in 38 U.S.C. 4212(a) to track and report annually to the Secretary of Labor the number of employees in their workforces, by job category and hiring location, who belong to the specified categories of covered veterans. VETS has issued regulations set forth in 41 CFR part 61-250 that currently require contractors to use the Federal Contractor Veterans' Employment Report VETS-100 (“VETS-100 Report”) form for reporting information on the number of covered veterans in their workforces. The VETS-100 Report is currently approved under OMB No. 1293-0005.

The Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA) (Pub. L. 107-288), which was enacted in 2002, amended VEVRAA by making two changes to the reporting requirements applicable to contracts entered into on or after December 1, 2003. The JVA amendments: (1) Increased from $25,000 to $100,000, the dollar amount of the contract that subjects a Federal contractor to the requirement to report on veterans' employment; and (2) changed the categories of covered veterans under VEVRAA, and thus the categories of veterans that contractors are required to track and report on annually.

The JVA amendments to the reporting requirements under VEVRAA apply only to contracts entered into on or after December 1, 2003. Some contractors have Government contracts that were entered into before December 1, 2003, and are still subject to the reporting requirements in 41 CFR part 61-250. Therefore, VETS has determined that it will be necessary to maintain two sets of regulations to implement the reporting requirements under VEVRAA, and use two different forms for providing the required information on the employment of covered veterans.

On August 8, 2006, VETS published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), (71 FR 44945), to implement the changes made by JVA to the reporting requirements under VEVRAA. The NPRM proposed to adopt a new set of regulations that would be codified in a new 41 CFR part 61-300. The NPRM also proposed to adopt a new form for reporting the information on veterans' employment required by the JVA amendments to VEVRAA and name it the Federal Contractor Veterans' Employment Report VETS-100A. The existing regulations at 41 CFR part 60-250 and the VETS-100 reporting requirements will continue to apply to Government contracts entered into before December 1, 2003.

Currently VETS is soliciting comments concerning the proposed revision of the currently approved information collection request to include the “Federal Contractor Veterans' Employment Report VETS-100A.” The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

The Department of Labor seeks approval of the revision of the currently approved information collection request to include the Federal Contractor Veterans' Employment Report VETS-100A in order to carry out its responsibilities to administer and enforce compliance with the contractor reporting requirements under VEVRAA, as amended by the JVA.

Type of Review: Revision of currently approved collection.

Agency: Veterans' Employment and Training Service.

Title: Federal Contractor Veterans' Report VETS-100.

OMB Number: 1293-0005.

Affected Public: Government contractors and subcontractors with a contract of $25,000 or more entered into before December 1, 2003, that are required to comply with the affirmative action provisions of the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act.

Title: Federal Contractor Veterans' Report VETS-100A.

OMB Number: 1293-0005.

Affected Public: Government contractors and subcontractors with a contract of $100,000 or more entered into or modified on or after December 1, 2003, that are required to comply with the affirmative action provisions of the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.

The Merit Systems Protection Board is publishing the names of the new and current members of the Performance Review Board (PRB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). Deborah Miron will continue to serve as Chair of the PRB. B. Chad Bungard will serve as a new member. An-Ming “Tommy” Hwang and Gail T. Lovelace, General Services Administration, will continue to serve as members.

Proposal for the following collection of information:

OMB Number: 3133-0101.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Title: 12 CFR 723.5—Develop written loan policies—and 723.11—Provide waiver requests.

Description: The general purpose of the requirements imposed by the rule is to ensure that loans are made, documented, and accounted for properly and for the ultimate protection of the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund. Respondents are federally insured credit unions who make business loans as defined in the regulation.

Respondents: Federally Insured Credit Unions.

Estimated No. of Respondents/Recordkeepers: 1,500.

Estimated Burden Hours per Response: 4 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 6000 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0.

The National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board is authorized by section 242 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Public Law 105-220 (20 U.S.C. 9252). The Board consists of 10 individuals appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Board advises and makes recommendations to the Interagency Group that administers the Institute. The Interagency Group is composed of the Secretaries of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services. The Interagency Group considers the Board's recommendations in planning the goals of the Institute and in implementing any programs to achieve those goals. Specifically, the Board performs the following functions:

(a) Makes recommendations concerning the appointment of the Director and the staff of the Institute; (b) provides independent advice on operation of the Institute; and (c) receives reports from the Interagency Group and the Institute's Director.

The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Institute's future and current program priorities; status of ongoing Institute work; other relevant literacy activities and issues; and other Board business as necessary.

On October 24, 2007 from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., the Board meeting will meet in closed session to discuss personnel issues. This discussion relates to the internal personnel rules and practices of the Institute, including consideration of the Director's term of appointment and performance. The discussion is likely to disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personnel privacy. The discussion must therefore be held in closed session under exemptions 2 and 6 of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6). A summary of the activities at the closed session and related matters that are informative to the public and consistent with the policy of 5 U.S.C. 552b will be available to the public within 14 days of the meeting.

Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (e.g., interpreting services, assistance listening devices, or materials in alternative format) should notify Steve Langley at (202) 233-2043 no later than October 12, 2007. We will attempt to meet requests for accommodations after this date but cannot guarantee their availability. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities.

Request for Public Written Comment: The public may send written comments to the Advisory Board no later than 5 p.m. on October 15, 2007, to Steve Langley at the National Institute for Literacy, 1775 I St., NW., Suite 730, Washington, DC 20006, e-mail: slangley@nifl.gov.

Records are kept of all Committee proceedings and are available for public inspection at the National Institute for Literacy, 1775 I St., NW., Suite 730, Washington, DC 20006, from the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time Monday through Friday.

Electronic Access to This Document: You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/federegister.

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.

The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (tel. 202-551-5850).

1. Each Trust is an open-end management investment company registered under the Act and organized as a Delaware statutory trust. The Trusts are organized as series funds with multiple series. The Adviser, an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”), will serve as investment adviser to the New Funds. The Adviser may retain sub-advisers (“Sub-Advisers”) to manage the assets of a New Fund. Any Sub-Adviser will be registered under the Advisers Act. The Distributor, a broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), will serve as the principal underwriter of the New Funds' shares.

2. Each Trust is currently permitted to offer series based on equity securities indices (the “Equity Funds,” and together with the New Funds and the Future Funds (defined below), the “Funds”) in reliance on the Prior Order. Applicants seek to amend the Prior Order to permit the Trusts to offer the New Funds that, except as described in the application, would operate in a manner identical to the existing Equity Funds that are subject to the Prior Order.

3. Each New Fund will invest in fixed-income securities (“Portfolio Securities”) selected to correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of a specified securities index (an “Index”). 2 No entity that creates, compiles, sponsors, or maintains an Index is or will be an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, or an affiliated person of an affiliated person, of the Trusts, the Adviser, the Distributor or any Sub-Adviser, or promoter to a New Fund.

4. The investment objective of each New Fund will be to provide investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance of the relevant Index. The Adviser may fully replicate a New Fund's relevant Index or use a representative sampling strategy where the New Fund will seek to hold a representative sample of the component securities of the Index. Applicants currently expect that each New Fund will use a sampling technique to track its Index.

5. Under the Prior Order, applicants stated that each Equity Fund would invest at least 90% of its total assets in common stocks that comprise the relevant Index, and may invest up to 10% of its total assets in securities, options and futures not included in its Index which the Adviser believes would help the Equity Fund track the Index. Applicants seek to amend the Prior Order to provide that each Fund generally will invest at least 80% or 90% of its total assets in the securities that comprise the relevant Index, but at times may invest up to 20% of its total assets in certain futures, options, and swap contracts, cash and cash equivalents, including money market funds, as well as securities not included in its Index which the Adviser believes will help the Fund track its Index. At all times, a Fund will hold, in the aggregate, at least 80% of its total assets in component securities and investments that have economic characteristics that are substantially identical to the economic characteristics of the component securities of its Index. Applicants expect that each New Fund will have a tracking error relative to the performance of its respective Index of less than 5 percent.

6. Applicants state that a New Fund will comply with the federal securities laws in accepting a deposit of a portfolio of securities designated by the Adviser to correspond generally to the price and yield of the New Fund's Index (“Deposit Securities”)  3 and satisfying redemptions with portfolio securities of the New Fund (“Fund Securities”), including that the Deposit Securities and Fund Securities are sold in transactions that would be exempt from registration under the Securities Act. 4 The specified Deposit Securities and Fund Securities generally will correspond pro rata, to the extent practicable, to the Portfolio Securities of a New Fund.

7. Applicants state that the New Funds will operate in a manner identical to the operation of the existing Equity Funds in the Prior Order, except as specifically noted by applicants (and summarized in this notice), and will comply with all of the terms, provisions and conditions of the Prior Order, as amended by the present application. Applicants believe that the requested relief continues to meet the necessary exemptive standards.

8. Applicants also seek to amend the Prior Order to modify the terms under which the Trusts may offer additional series in the future based on other securities indices (“Future Funds”). The Prior Order is currently subject to a condition that does not permit applicants to register the shares of any Future Fund by means of filing a post-effective amendment to a Trust's registration statement or by any other means, unless applicants have requested and received with respect to such Future Fund, either exemptive relief from the Commission or a no-action letter from the Division of Investment Management of the Commission, or if the Future Fund could be listed on a national securities exchange (“Exchange”) without the need for a filing pursuant to rule 19b-4 under the Exchange Act.

9. The order would amend the Prior Order to delete this condition. Any Future Funds will: (a) Be advised by the Adviser or an entity controlled by or under common control with the Adviser; (b) track Indexes that are created, compiled, sponsored or maintained by an entity that is not an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, or an affiliated person of an affiliated person, of the Adviser, the Distributor, the Trusts or any Sub-Adviser or promoter of a Future Fund; and (c) comply with the respective terms and conditions of the Prior Order, as amended by the present application.

10. Applicants believe that the modification of the future relief available under the Prior Order would be consistent with sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act and that granting the requested relief will facilitate the timely creation of Future Funds and the commencement of secondary market trading of such Future Funds by removing the need to seek additional exemptive relief. Applicants submit that the terms and conditions of the Prior Order have been appropriate for the existing series of the Trusts and would remain appropriate for Future Funds. Applicants also submit that tying exemptive relief under the Act to the ability of a Future Fund to be listed on an Exchange without the need for a rule 19b-4 filing under the Exchange Act is not necessary to meet the standards under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act.

Applicants agree that any amended order granting the requested relief will be subject to the same conditions as those imposed by the Prior Order, except for condition 1 to the Prior Order, which will be deleted.

The Commission today is announcing a new program for informing the public about unregistered entities engaged in solicitations of securities transactions. Through this new program, “Public Alert: Unregistered Soliciting Entities” (“PAUSE”), the Commission will publish on its Web site certain factual information about unregistered soliciting entities that have been the subject of complaints forwarded by investors and others, including fellow securities regulators. By making this information readily available, the Commission expects investors to be better able to evaluate solicitations to buy and sell securities. Before the program and Web site become operational December 3, 2007 the Commission is interested in receiving comments and suggestions on the PAUSE program.

Generally, entities that solicit purchases or sales of securities for the accounts of other persons in the United States are required to register with the SEC. The Commission regularly receives complaints and inquiries from investors and others, including foreign securities regulators, about solicitations made by entities claiming to be registered, licensed and/or operating in the United States, and in some cases, entities soliciting U.S. investors that are not registered in the United States. When an entity claims to be registered with the SEC, it is in effect claiming that it has made itself available for SEC regulation and oversight. For this reason, it is important for prospective investors to consider whether a soliciting entity is, in fact, registered with the SEC.

The Commission's Office of Investor Education and Advocacy (“OIEA”) fields investor complaints and inquiries. The single largest number of investor complaints received by OIEA concern solicitations of investors by unregistered entities that appear to be involved in boiler room and secondary advance fee schemes. 1 In 2005 and 2006, OIEA received respectively 1,385 and 1,418 complaints from investors who were solicited by unregistered entities, many of which purported to be U.S.-based securities firms trading in securities of U.S.-based issuers.

Moreover, perpetrators of boiler rooms and advance fee schemes increasingly use new devices to convince investors that their solicitations are legitimate, including:

• Impersonating U.S. registered securities firms by, for example, using the same or a similar name or providing an address that closely resembles that of a U.S. registered securities firm;

• Making false reference to, including false claims of endorsement by, governmental agencies and international organizations (sometimes even impersonating them); and

• Claiming endorsements by, or making other reference to, governmental agencies and international organizations that sound official, but do not exist. 2

Our staff is frequently able to determine quickly the accuracy of various claims made by the soliciting entities. For example, a claim by an entity that it is a U.S. registered broker-dealer is easily verifiable by checking public sources, including the Central Registration Depository database administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (formerly, the NASD). 3 Entities that use names that are the same as, or similar to, the names of U.S. registered securities firms can also be verified by checking public sources and obtaining information from officials at the firms. In this way, our staff can also determine whether the complained-of entity has any actual affiliation with the registered firm. A claim that an entity operates from a particular location in the United States can also be established. Finally, if a soliciting entity claims that the securities it offers are approved or endorsed by a particular governmental agency, that claim can usually also be quickly confirmed.

In appropriate cases, our staff's review may lead to a referral to the Division of Enforcement, which may begin an investigation of possible securities law violations, and the Commission may ultimately bring an enforcement action for such violations. However, in a significant number of cases there may be obstacles to effective enforcement action. Soliciting entities change names frequently, often before law enforcement action can be taken. Often the subjects of complaints purport to be based in the United States, but in fact operate from numerous jurisdictions overseas. Notwithstanding cooperation with foreign counterparts, investigations of offshore operations can be complex and time-consuming. Even if the Division of Enforcement's investigation determines that the entities involved in such activities have sufficient contacts with the United States to grant the Commission and U.S. courts with jurisdiction over their conduct, there can be substantial obstacles to completing legal action against these foreign operators and obtaining meaningful relief, while in the meantime investors can suffer significant harm.

In light of the challenges associated with taking enforcement action against such operations, the Commission believes that it is useful to devise a complementary approach that serves to empower prospective investors. The goal of the PAUSE Program is to provide prospective investors with relevant information about unregistered soliciting entities before they invest.

To implement the PAUSE Program, the Commission will post on its public Web site specific information about unregistered soliciting entities that have been the subject of complaints. For each of these entities, the Commission's staff will have determined either (1) That there is no U.S. registered securities firm with that name, or (2) that there is a U.S. registered securities firm with the same (or a similar) name but that solicitations appear to have been made by persons not affiliated with the U.S. registered securities firm.

In addition, the PAUSE list will contain a “Comments” section for each entry. The Comments section will reflect certain results of the staff's investigation addressing the entity's U.S. registration status; any use of a name that is the same or similar to that of a U.S. registered securities firm; and any references to governmental agencies and international organizations in the solicitations. The Comments section may include other relevant information that may be helpful to investors, such as the use of addresses that do not appear to exist.

A second PAUSE list will name fictitious governmental agencies and international organizations referred to by complained-of entities.

The Commission's intent is to publish factual information that may be valuable to investors in connection with their investment decisions. 4 A listing on the PAUSE web page does not mean that the Commission has found violations of U.S. federal securities laws or made a judgment about the merits of any securities offered by listed entities. As well, the PAUSE web page will not necessarily include information about all unregistered entities or entities that have been the subject of complaints. There may be various reasons, including law enforcement and policy, which may militate against including information about an entity on the PAUSE web page. The Commission intends to regularly update the PAUSE lists and archive information approximately nine months from the date of last observed activity.

The Commission is committed to providing accurate information under the PAUSE Program. Before listing an entity on PAUSE, the Commission's staff will notify the entity and provide an opportunity—two calendar days from the date of the staff's notification letter—for the entity to respond. If, after being listed on PAUSE, an entity believes it should be removed from a list because information included about it is incorrect, or for other reasons, it should notify the Commission's staff and provide such documents and other information as reasonably necessary to support its assertion.

To notify the Commission of a factual error or to request removal from a list, please write to the following address: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Attn: PAUSE Program Administrator, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-5631, enf-pauseresponse@sec.gov , Fax: 202-772-9278.

Submissions will be reviewed for appropriate action by Commission staff.