Notices. Notice of rate adjustments

9,236 words·~42 min read·/register/2006/04/05/06-3270

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

BILLING CODE 4311-AM-M DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation Projects AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. ACTION: Notice of rate adjustments. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs

(BIA)owns, or has an interest in, irrigation facilities located on various Indian reservations throughout the United States. We are authorized to establish rates to recover the costs to administer, operate, maintain, and rehabilitate those facilities. We are notifying you that we have adjusted the irrigation assessment rates at several of our irrigation facilities for operation and maintenance. DATES: *Effective Date:* The irrigation assessment rates shown in the tables are effective on January 1, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For details about a particular BIA irrigation project, please use the tables in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section to contact the regional or local office where the project is located. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice of Proposed Rate Adjustment was published in the **Federal Register** on October 4, 2005 (70 FR 151), to adjust the irrigation rates at several BIA irrigation facilities. The public and interested parties were provided an opportunity to submit written comments during the 60-day period prior to December 8, 2005. Did the BIA Defer Any Proposed Rate Increases? For the Fort Peck Irrigation Project, the BIA, in consultation with the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and Fort Peck Irrigation Project water users, has deferred the rate increase for 2006. For the Flathead Irrigation Project, the BIA, in consultation with the Flathead Irrigation Project water users, has deferred the rate increase for 2006 until 2007. This notice makes the rate increase final for 2007. The BIA, in consultation with the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, has decided to raise the final rates for the Pine River Irrigation Project. However, the rate will be less than was proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rate Adjustment published on October 4, 2005. Did the BIA Receive Any Comments on the Proposed Irrigation Assessment Rate Adjustments? Written comments were received for the proposed rate adjustments for the Fort Peck Irrigation Project, Montana, the San Carlos Irrigation Project—Joint Works (SCIP-JW), Arizona, and the Pine River Irrigation Project, Colorado. What Issues Were of Concern to the Commenters? The commenters were concerned with one or more of the following issues:

(1)How funds collected from stakeholders are expended on operation and maintenance;

(2)the impact of an assessment rate increase on the local agricultural economy and on individual land owners and irrigators;

(3)record keeping practices and sharing this information with water users prior to the proposed rate adjustment notice; and

(4)the timeliness of the rate adjustment notice. How Does BIA Respond to the Concern of How Funds Are Expended for Operation and Maintenance? BIA includes the following expenses in irrigation project budgets: Project personnel costs; materials and supplies; vehicle and equipment repairs; equipment; capitalization expenses; acquisition expenses; rehabilitation costs; maintenance of a reserve fund for contingencies or emergencies; and other expenses we determine necessary to properly operate and maintain the irrigation projects. The BIA's budget estimates and records of expenditures for all of its irrigation facilities are public records and available for review by stakeholders or interested parties. Stakeholders (project water users/land owners/tribes) can review these records during normal business hours at the individual agency offices. Alternatively, BIA may treat requests to review project records as requests under the Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA)and provide copies of such records to the requesting party in accordance with FOIA. To review or to obtain copies of these records, stakeholders and interested parties are directed to contact the BIA representative at the specific facility serving them using the tables in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. How Does BIA Respond to Concerns About Irrigation Assessment Rate Increases and Related Impacts on the Local Agricultural Economy and on Individual Land Owners and Irrigators? All of the BIA's irrigation projects are important economic contributors to the local communities they serve contributing millions in crop value annually. Historically, BIA tempered irrigation rate increases to demonstrate sensitivity to the economic impact on water users. This has resulted in a rate deficiency at most of the irrigation projects. Over the past several years the BIA's irrigation program has been the subject of several Office of Inspector General

(OIG)audits. In the most recent audit, No. 96-I-641, March 1996, the OIG concluded, “Operation and maintenance revenues were insufficient to maintain the projects, and some projects had deteriorated to the extent that their continued capability to deliver water was in doubt. This occurred because operation and maintenance rates were not based on the full cost of delivering water, including the costs of systematically rehabilitating and replacing project facilities and equipment, and because project personnel did not seek regular rate increases to cover the full cost of operation.” This audit recommendation is still outstanding. A previous OIG audit, No. 88-42, February 1988, reached the same conclusion. A separate audit performed on one of BIA's largest irrigation projects, Wapato Indian Irrigation Project, No. 95-I-1402, September 1995, reinforced the general findings of the OIG on the BIA's irrigation program. This pointed out a lack of response by the BIA to the original findings of the OIG in addressing this critical issue over an extended period of time. The BIA must systematically review and evaluate irrigation assessment rates and adjust them when necessary to reflect the full costs to properly operate, and perform all appropriate maintenance on, the irrigation facility infrastructure for safe and reliable operation. If this review and evaluation is not accomplished, a rate deficiency can eventually accumulate. Overcoming rate deficiencies can result in the BIA having to raise irrigation assessment rates in larger increments and over shorter time frames than would have been otherwise necessary. In the past, BIA has provided limited appropriated funds to the irrigation projects to assist the projects in their operations and maintenance. Unfortunately, the BIA does not have sufficient discretionary funding to continue this practice in the future. Without the necessary rate increases, the impacts to projects as a result of the lack of adequate operation and maintenance funds could result in the inability to adequately deliver water and maintain irrigation system components. The following two comments are specific to San Carlos Irrigation Project—Joint Works (SCIP-JW): How Does BIA Respond to Concerns That There Was Insufficient Consultation in the Rate Setting Process for FY 2007? BIA consulted with the San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District (District) several times during CY 2005 concerning the budget information for the current year as well as future years, including the 2007 rate projection. As early as December 16, 2004, at a Fact Finding Meeting, BIA provided the District with a budget and rate projection for the period 2006-2010, indicating that the annual O&M rate was projected to remain at $30/acre for this time period. BIA staff met with the District Board ten times during CY 2005 at which time BIA provided Project budget, expenditure, cash balance, income, and rate information, and reiterated BIA's projection that the $30/acre O&M rate was likely to remain constant from 2006-2010 in order for BIA to operate and maintain the Project adequately, maintain a sufficient reserve account for emergencies, and to build up a sinking fund for major capital projects that need to be funded in the future, such as well replacements. BIA was available at each of these ten meetings to respond to any questions about the 2007 O&M rate. The District's comments at these meetings made it clear that the District does not support a $30/acre annual O&M rate. BIA notes that the Arizona Water Settlement Act, Public Law 108-451, is in the implementation stage, and that under this Act and the implementing agreements, BIA's relationship with the District and the Gila River Indian Community (Community) concerning the operation and maintenance activities and associated budget and rate assessment of the SCIP-JW will be modified after 2007. During the next 2 years, BIA will be working with the District and the Community to implement these new provisions. How Does BIA Respond to Concerns That It Failed To Set the Rate in a Timely Manner? The non-Indian water users in SCIP-JW expressed concern that the 2007 rate was not set in time for the necessary taxes to be assessed by July 1, 2005, and collected by the payment due date of May 15, 2006. The proposed budget and documentation for the 2007 O&M rate was provided by the SCIP-JW to the water users by as early as December 16, 2004, indicating that the rate for 2007 was projected to remain the same as for 2006 ($30/acre), and that the $30/acre rate was likely to remain in effect for the period 2006-2010. As such, we believe water users had time to plan for the requisite tax assessments and collections for the 2007 rate assessment. Did the BIA Receive Comments on Any Proposed Changes Other Than Rate Adjustments? No. Does This Notice Affect Me? This notice affects you if you own or lease land within the assessable acreage of one of our irrigation projects, or you have a carriage agreement with one of our irrigation projects. Where Can I Get Information on the Regulatory and Legal Citations in This Notice? You can contact the appropriate office(s) stated in the tables for the irrigation project that serves you, or you can use the Internet site for the Government Printing Office at *http://www.gpo.gov.* What Authorizes You To Issue This Notice? Our authority to issue this notice is vested in the Secretary of the Interior by 5 U.S.C. 301 and the Act of August 14, 1914 (38 Stat. 583; 25 U.S.C. 385). The Secretary has in turn delegated this authority to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs under Part 209, Chapter 8.1A, of the Department of the Interior's Departmental Manual. Who Can I Contact for Further Information? The following tables are the regional and project/agency contacts for our irrigation facilities. Northwest Region Contacts Stanley Speaks, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Northwest Regional Office, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4169, Telephone:

(503)231-6702. Project name Project/Agency contacts Flathead Irrigation Project Ernest T. Moran, Superintendent, Flathead Agency Irrigation Division, P.O. Box 40, Pablo, MT 59855-0040, Telephone:

(406)675-2700. Fort Hall Irrigation Project Eric J. LaPointe, Superintendent, Alan Oliver, Irrigation Project Engineer, Fort Hall Agency, P.O. Box 220, Fort Hall, ID 83203-0220, Telephone:

(208)238-2301. Wapato Irrigation Project Pierce Harrison, Project Administrator, Wapato Irrigation Project, P.O. Box 220, Wapato, WA 98951-0220, Telephone:

(509)877-3155. Rocky Mountain Region Contacts Keith Beartusk, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, 316 North 26th Street, Billings, Montana 59101, Telephone:

(406)247-7943. Project name Project/Agency contacts Blackfeet Irrigation Project Cliff Hall, Acting Superintendent; Ted Hall, Irrigation Project Manager, Box 880, Browning, MT 59417, Telephones:

(406)338-7544, Superintendent;

(406)338-7519, Irrigation. Crow Irrigation Project Ed Lone Fight, Superintendent; Karl Helvik, Irrigation Project Manager, P.O. Box 69, Crow Agency, MT 59022, Telephones:

(406)638-2672; Superintendent

(406)638-2863, Irrigation. Fort Belknap Irrigation Project Judy Gray, Superintendent; Ralph Leo, Irrigation Project Manager, R.R.1, Box 980, Harlem, MT 59526, Telephones:

(406)353-2901, Superintendent;

(406)353-2905, Irrigation. Fort Peck Irrigation Project Spike Bighorn, Superintendent, P.O. Box 637, Poplar, MT 59255; Vacant, Irrigation Manager 602 6th Avenue North, Wolf Point, MT 59201, Telephones:

(406)768-5312, Superintendent;

(406)653-1752, Irrigation. Wind River Irrigation Project George Gover, Superintendent; Ray Nation, Acting Irrigation Project Manager, P.O. Box 158, Fort Washakie, WY 82514, Telephones:

(307)332-7810, Superintendent;

(307)332-2596, Irrigation. Southwest Region Contacts Larry Morrin, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Southwest Regional Office, 1001 Indian School Road, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104, Telephone:

(505)563-3100. Project name Project/Agency contacts Pine River Irrigation Project Ross P. Denny, Superintendent; John Formea, Irrigation Engineer, P.O. Box 315, Ignacio, CO 81137-0315, Telephones:

(970)563-4511, Superintendent;

(970)563-1017, Irrigation. Western Region Contacts Brian Bowker, Acting Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western Regional Office, P.O. Box 10, Phoenix, Arizona 85001, Telephone:

(602)379-6600. Project name Project/Agency contacts Colorado River Irrigation Project Rodney McVey, Acting Superintendent; Ted Henry, Irrigation Project Manager, R.R. 1 Box 9-C, Parker, AZ 85344, Telephone:

(928)669-7111. Duck Valley Irrigation Project Virgil Townsend, Superintendent, 1555 Shoshone Circle, Elko, NV 89801, Telephone:

(775)738-0569. Fort Yuma Irrigation Project William Pyott, Land Operations Officer, P.O. Box 11000, Yuma, AZ 85366, Telephone:

(520)782-1202. San Carlos Irrigation Project Joint Works Carl Christensen, Supervisory General Engineer, P.O. Box 250, Coolidge, AZ 85228, Telephone:

(520)723-6216 San Carlos Irrigation Project Indian Works Joe Revak, Supervisory General Engineer, Pima Agency, Land Operations, Box 8, Sacaton, AZ 85247, Telephone:

(520)562-3372. Uintah Irrigation Project Lynn Hansen, Irrigation Manager, P.O. Box 130, Fort Duchesne, UT 84026, Telephone:

(435)722-4341. Walker River Irrigation Project Robert Hunter, Superintendent, 1677 Hot Springs Road, Carson City, NV 89706, Telephone:

(775)887-3500. What Irrigation Assessments or Charges are Proposed for Adjustment by This Notice? The rate table below contains the current rates for all of our irrigation projects where we recover our costs for operation and maintenance. The table also contains the proposed rates for the 2006 season and subsequent years where applicable. An asterisk immediately following the name of the project notes the irrigation projects where rates are proposed for adjustment. Northwest Region Rate Table Project name Rate category Final 2005 rate Final 2006 rate Final 2007 rate Flathead Irrigation Project (see Note #2) * Basic Per acre $21.45 $21.45 $23.45. Fort Hall Irrigation Project * Basic Per acre 22.00 24.00 To be determined. Fort Hall Irrigation Project—Minor Units * Basic Per acre 14.00 15.00 To be determined. Fort Hall Irrigation Project—Michaud * Basic Per acre 33.00 34.00 To be determined. Pressure Per acre 46.50 48.50 To be determined. Wapato Irrigation Project—Toppenish/Simcoe Units * Billing Charge Per Tract 5.00 5.00 To be determined. Farm unit/land tracts up to one acre (minimum charge) 13.00 13.50 To be determined. Farm unit/land tracts over one acre—per acre 13.00 13.50 To be determined. Wapato Irrigation Project—Ahtanum Units * Billing Charge Per Tract 5.00 5.00 To be determined. Farm unit/land tracts up to one acre (minimum charge) 13.00 13.50 To be determined. Farm unit/land tracts over one acre—per acre 13.00 13.50 To be determined. Wapato Irrigation Project—Satus Unit * Billing Charge Per Tract 5.00 5.00 To be determined. Farm unit/land tracts up to one acre (minimum charge) 51.00 53.00 To be determined. “A” farm unit/land tracts over one acre—per acre 51.00 53.00 To be determined. Additional Works farm unit/land tracts over one acre—per acre 56.00 58.00 To be determined. “B” farm unit/land tracts over one acre—per acre 61.00 63.00 To be determined. Water Rental Agreement Lands—per acre 62.00 64.50 To be determined. Rocky Mountain Region Rate Table Project name Rate category Final 2005 rate Final 2006 rate Final 2007 rate Blackfeet Irrigation Project Basic-per acre $13.00 $13.00 To be determined. Crow Irrigation Project—Willow * Creek O&M Basic-per acre 16.00 17.30 Crow Irrigation * Project—All Others Basic-per acre 16.00 17.00 Fort Belknap * Irrigation Project Trust Land per acre 7.75 8.50 $9.25. Non-Trust Land per acre 15.50 17.00 18.50. Fort Peck Irrigation Project * Basic-per acre 17.50 17.50 To be determined. Wind River Irrigation Project Basic-per acre 14.00 14.00 Wind River Irrigation Project—LeClair District Basic-per acre 17.00 17.00 Southwest Region Rate Table Project name Rate category Final 2005 rate Final 2006 rate Pine River Irrigation Project * Minimum Charge per tract $25.00 $50.00. Basic-per acre 8.50 13.00. Carriage Contract annual rate 100.00. Western Region Rate Table Project name Rate category Final 2005 rate Final 2006 rate Final 2007 rate Colorado River Irrigation Project Basic per acre up to 5.75 acre-feet $47.00 $47.00 To be determined. Excess Water per acre-foot over 5.75 acre-feet 17.00 17.00 Duck Valley Irrigation Project Basic-per acre 5.30 5.30 Fort Yuma Irrigation Project (See Note #1) Basic-per acre up to 5.0 acre-feet 65.00 65.00 Excess Water per acre-foot over 5.0 acre-feet 10.50 10.50 San Carlos Irrigation Project (Joint Works) (See Note #2) Basic-per acre 30.00 30.00 30.00 San Carlos Irrigation Project (Indian Works) Basic-per acre 77.00 77.00 To be determined. Uintah Irrigation Project Basic-per acre 11.00 12.00 Minimum Bill 25.00 25.00 Walker River Irrigation Project Indian per acre 7.32 7.32 Non-Indian per acre 15.29 15.29 * Notes irrigation projects where rates are proposed for adjustment. Note #1—The Fort Yuma Irrigation Project is owned and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The irrigation rates assessed for operation and maintenance are established by Reclamation and are provided for informational purposes only. The BIA collects the irrigation assessments on behalf of Reclamation. Note #2—The 2007 irrigation rate per acre is established through this notice. Consultation and Coordination With Tribal Governments (Executive Order 13175) The BIA irrigation projects are vital components of the local agriculture economy of the reservations on which they are located. To fulfill its responsibilities to the tribes, tribal organizations, water user organizations, and the individual water users, the BIA communicates, coordinates, and consults on a continuing basis with these entities on issues of water delivery, water availability, costs of administration, operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation. This is accomplished at the individual irrigation projects by Project, Agency, and Regional representatives, as appropriate, in accordance with local protocol and procedures. This notice is one component of the BIA's overall coordination and consultation process to provide notice and request comments from these entities on adjusting our irrigation rates. Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (Executive Order 13211) The rate adjustments will have no adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use (including a shortfall in supply, price increases, and increased use of foreign supplies) should the proposed rate adjustments be implemented. This is a notice for rate adjustments at BIA owned and operated irrigation projects, except for the Fort Yuma Irrigation Project. The Fort Yuma Irrigation Project is owned and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation with a portion serving the Fort Yuma Reservation. Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866) These rate adjustments are not a significant regulatory action and do not need to be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. Regulatory Flexibility Act This rate making is not a rule for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because it is “a rule of particular applicability relating to rates.” (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 These rate adjustments impose no unfunded mandates on any governmental or private entity and are in compliance with the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995. Takings (Executive Order 12630) The Department has determined that these rate adjustments do not have significant “takings” implications. The rate adjustments do not deprive the public, state, or local governments of rights or property. Federalism (Executive Order 13132) The Department has determined that these rate adjustments do not have significant Federalism effects because they pertain solely to Federal-tribal relations and will not interfere with the roles, rights, and responsibilities of states. Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988) In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this notice does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 These rate adjustments do not affect the collections of information which have been approved by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The OMB Control Number is 1076-0141 and expires April 30, 2006. National Environmental Policy Act The Department has determined that these rate adjustments do not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370(d)). Dated: March 20, 2006. Michael D. Olsen, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. [FR Doc. E6-4945 Filed 4-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-W7-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [ID-200-1120-PH] Resource Advisory Council Meeting AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of May Resource Advisory Council Meeting to be Held in Twin Falls District, Idaho. SUMMARY: This notice announces the intent to hold a Resource Advisory Council

(RAC)meeting in the Twin Falls District of Idaho on Tuesday, May 9, 2006. The meeting will be held at the Red Lion Canyon Springs Hotel, 1357 Blue Lakes Boulevard, in Twin Falls, Idaho. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Twin Falls District Resource Advisory Council consists of the standard fifteen members residing throughout south central Idaho. Meeting agenda items will include updates on sub-committee efforts, Idaho State Sage Grouse Plan update, ongoing proposed energy efforts, FACA compliance, pending decisions and more. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sky Buffat, Twin Falls District, Idaho, 400 West F Street, Shoshone, Idaho 83352,

(208)732-7307. Dated: March 27, 2006. Howard Hedrick, Twin Falls District Manager. [FR Doc. E6-4920 Filed 4-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [CO-922-06-1310-FI; COC66717] Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)received a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease COC66717 from Gunnison Energy Corporation for lands in Gunnison County, Colorado. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Beverly A. Derringer, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at 303-239-3765. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 16 2/3 percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $155 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this **Federal Register** notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in section 31(d) and

(e)of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate lease COC66717 effective August 1, 2004, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above. Dated: November 4, 2005. Milada Krasilinec, Acting Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on March 31, 2006. [FR Doc. E6-4925 Filed 4-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [MT-926-06-1910-BJ-5REG] Montana: Filing of Plat of Survey AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Filing of Plat of Survey. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM Montana State Office, Billings, Montana,

(30)days from the date of publication in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin Bonorden, Cadastral Surveyor, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana, 59101-4669, telephone

(701)227-7730 or

(406)896-5009. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This survey was executed at the request of the Crow Agency, through the Rocky Mountain Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and was necessary to determine Trust and Tribal land. The lands we surveyed are: Principal Meridian, Montana Tps. 3 and 4 S., Rs. 32 E. The plat, in one sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the north boundary, a portion of the subdivisional lines (including Township 3 South, Range 32 East), a portion of the subdivision of section 2, and the adjusted original meanders of the former right bank of the Big Horn River, through section 2 (and the south half of section 35, Township 3 South, Range 32 East), the subdivision of section 2, and the survey of the meanders of the present right bank of the Big Horn River, through section 2, and certain division of accretion lines in section 2, Townships 3 and 4 South, Range 32 East, Principal Meridian, Montana, was accepted March 27, 2006. We will place copies of the plat, in one sheet, and related field notes we described in the open files. They will be available to the public as a matter of information. If BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on the plat, in one sheet, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest. We will not officially file this plat, in one sheet, until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions or appeals. Dated: March 30, 2006. Thomas M. Deiling, Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Division of Resources. [FR Doc. E6-4918 Filed 4-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-559] In the Matter of Certain Digital Processors and Digital Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting Complainant's Motion To Amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting complainant's motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Walters, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone

(202)708-5468. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone

(202)205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at *http://www.usitc.gov* . The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket

(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov* . Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on

(202)205-1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This investigation was instituted on January 9, 2006, based on a complaint filed by Biax Corporation (“Biax”) of Boulder, Colorado. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain digital processors or digital processing systems, components thereof, or products containing the same by reason of infringement of various claims of United States Patent Nos. 5,021,945, 5,517,628, and 6,253,313. The complaint named four respondents: Philips Semiconductors B.V. of the Netherlands; Philips Consumer Electronics Services B.V. of the Netherlands; Philips Consumer Electronics North America Corp. of Atlanta, Georgia; and 2Wire, Inc. of San Jose, California. On February 3, 2006, Biax moved to amend the complaint and notice of investigation in order to remove respondent Philips Consumer Electronics North America Corp. and to add Philips Electronics North America Corp. Biax requested the switch because it recently learned that Philips Consumer Electronics North America Corp. is not an independent legal entity, but rather is a division of proposed respondent Philips Electronics North America Corp. None of the respondents nor the Commission investigative attorney opposed Biax's motion. On March 1, 2006, the ALJ issued an ID granting Biax's motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation. The ALJ found that, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.14(b)(1) (19 CFR 210.14(b)(1)), there was good cause to amend the complaint and notice of investigation in order to remove respondent Philips Consumer Electronics North America Corp. and to add Philips Electronics North America Corp. No petitions for review of the ID were filed. Having examined the record of this investigation, the Commission has determined not to review the ALJ's ID. The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42). By order of the Commission. Issued: March 30, 2006. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E6-4936 Filed 4-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337-TA-523] In the Matter of Certain Optical Disk Controller Chips, and Chipsets and Products Containing, Same, Including Dvd Players and Pc Optical, Storage Devices II; Notice of Commission Decisions: To Grant Joint Motions To Terminate the Investigation as to All Respondents on the Basis of Settlement Agreements; To Grant-in-Part and Deny-in-Part Requests To Vacate a Final Initial Determination; To Grant a Motion for Leave To File Corrected Versions of a Joint Motion To Terminate; To Deny Motions for Leave To File Reply; To Deny a Petition for Reconsideration AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to grant joint motions to terminate the above-captioned investigation as to all respondents on the basis of settlement agreements. The Commission has also granted-in-part and denied-in-part the private parties' requests to vacate the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ's”) final initial determination (“ID”). Specifically, the Commission has determined to vacate those portions of the final ID that are presently under review by the Commission, and has determined to deny the request for vacatur as to those portions of the final ID that were previously adopted by the Commission. The Commission has also granted a joint motion for leave to file corrected versions of the joint motion to terminate the investigation as to respondent Sunext Technology Co., Ltd.; denied motions for leave to reply; and denied a petition for reconsideration. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clara Kuehn, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone

(202)205-3012. Copies of all nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server ( *http://www.usitc.gov* ). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS-ON-LINE) at *http://edis.usitc.gov.* Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on August 31, 2004, based on a complaint filed on behalf of MediaTek Corporation (“complainant”) of Hsin-Chu City, Taiwan. 69 FR 53089 (Aug. 31, 2004). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain optical disk controller chips and chipsets by reason of infringement of claims 1, 3-6, and 8-10 of U.S. Patent No. 5,970,031 (“the ’031 patent”) and claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 6,229,773 (“the ’773 patent”). Id. The notice of investigation named two respondents: Zoran Corporation (“Zoran”) and Oak Technology, Inc. (“Oak”), both of Sunnyvale, California. Id. On October 7, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 5) granting complainant's motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add Sunext Technology Co., Ltd. (“Sunext”) of Hsin-Chu City, Taiwan, as a respondent and to add claims of another patent, viz., claims 1-2, 5-6, 15-19, 21, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 6,170,043 (“the ’043 patent”) to the scope of the investigation. 69 FR 64588. That ID was not reviewed by the Commission. Id. A tutorial was held on June 24, 2005, and an eight-day evidentiary hearing was held from June 27, 2005, through July 7, 2005. On September 30, 2005, the ALJ issued his final ID concluding that there was no violation of section 337. Although the ALJ found that respondent Oak infringes claims 1, 2, and 3 of the ’773 patent, he found that those claims are invalid as anticipated by Japanese patent application number 08-015834 (RX-518) (“the Okuda prior art reference”). He found no infringement of claim 4 of the ’773 patent, and no infringement of any asserted claim of the ’031 or ’043 patents. The ALJ concluded that the asserted claims of the ’031 patent are invalid for lack of enablement, the asserted claims of the ’043 patent are not invalid, and the asserted claims of the ’043 patent are not unenforceable. He also found that complainant did not establish the technical or economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for any of the three patents in issue. On December 16, 2005, the Commission determined to review the final ID in part. 70 FR 76074.

(1)The Commission determined to review the ALJ's analysis of the technical and economic prongs of the domestic industry requirement in its entirety.

(2)With respect to the ’773 patent, the Commission determined to review the following portions of the ALJ's infringement analysis:

(a)The findings and analysis under the doctrine of equivalents concerning the SC series chips relating to the “radio frequency

(RF)amplifier chip” limitation of claims 1 and 3 of the ’773 patent (ID at 89-93, 97);

(b)the finding that Sunext's reference designs incorporating the SC series controller chips do not infringe claim 4 under the doctrine of equivalents (ID at 99-100);

(c)the finding that the “working optical drives” of Sunext's customers that incorporate the accused OTI-9510 and SC series controller chips infringe claims 1-3 of the ’773 patent (ID at 79, 89, 100); and

(d)the finding that Sunext does not indirectly infringe the asserted claims of the ’773 patent (ID at 102-04). As to invalidity, the Commission determined to review the ALJ's finding that the Okuda prior art reference anticipates claims 1, 2, and 3 of the ’773 patent (ID at 104-06), and his conclusion that respondents failed to establish that claims 1, 2, or 3 of the ’773 patent are made obvious by certain prior art (ID at 109-111).

(3)With respect to the ’043 patent, the Commission determined to review the ALJ's finding that PCT Publication No. W097/38367 (Hagiwara) does not anticipate claims 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, or 22 of the ’043 patent. The Commission also determined to review portions of the ALJ's determination that the ’043 patent is not unenforceable for inequitable conduct before the PTO, specifically sections X.E.1 and X.E.2 of the ID (ID at 154-56). The Commission determined not to review the remainder of the ID, thereby adopting those portions of the ID. 70 FR 76074. In its notice of review, the Commission requested briefing from the parties on the issues under review, and requested interested persons to file written submissions on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Id. On December 21, 2005, MediaTek petitioned for reconsideration of the Commission's determination not to review the ALJ's claim construction with respect to one of the three patents in issue. Zoran, Oak, and the Commission investigative attorney (“IA”) opposed MediaTek's petition, and on December 30, 2005, MediaTek filed a reply to those oppositions. On January 4, 2006, Zoran and Oak filed an opposition to MediaTek's motion for leave to file a reply, and on January 5, 2006, MediaTek filed a reply. The Commission has determined to deny MediaTek's motions for leave to file a reply. Having considered MediaTek's December 21, 2005, petition for reconsideration and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to deny the petition. Pursuant to Commission rule 210.47 (19 CFR 210.47), within 14 days after service of a Commission determination, any party may file a petition for reconsideration. Any such petition, however, “must be confined to new questions raised by the determination or action ordered to be taken thereunder and upon which the petitioner had no opportunity to submit arguments.” Commission rule 210.47 (19 CFR 210.47). The Commission has found that MediaTek's petition is not confined to new questions. Accordingly, the Commission has denied the petition for reconsideration for failure to comply with Commission rule 210.47 (19 CFR 210.47). Initial submissions in response to the Commission's notice of review were filed by all parties on January 9, 2006. On January 16, 2006, all parties filed reply submissions. On February 10, 2006, complainant MediaTek and respondents Zoran and Oak filed a joint motion pursuant to Commission rules 210.21(a) and

(b)(19 CFR 210.21(a) and (b)) to terminate the investigation as to Zoran and Oak on the basis of a settlement agreement. On the same day, MediaTek and the third respondent, Sunext, filed a joint motion pursuant to Commission rules 210.21(a) and

(b)(19 CFR 210.21(a) and (b)) to terminate the investigation as to Sunext on the basis of a settlement agreement. On February 14, 2006, MediaTek and Sunext filed a joint motion for leave to file corrected versions of their joint motion to terminate. The Commission determined to grant the joint motion for leave to file corrected versions. On February 22, 2006, the IA filed a response supporting the joint motions to terminate. In their joint motions to terminate the investigation, MediaTek, Zoran, Oak, and Sunext requested that, if the Commission grants their joint motions, the Commission vacate the ALJ's final ID in its entirety. The IA supported the private parties' request to vacate the final ID. Having examined the joint motions to terminate and the IA's response thereto, the Commission determined that the motions comply with the procedural requirements of Commission rule 210.21(b)(1) (19 CFR 210.21(b)(1)). The Commission further determined that the proposed settlement of the Commission investigation will not have an adverse effect on the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or U.S. consumers. Accordingly, the Commission determined to grant the joint motion of complainant MediaTek and respondents Zoran and Oak to terminate the investigation as to Zoran and Oak, and determined to grant the joint motion of MediaTek and Sunext to terminate the investigation as to Sunext. As to vacatur, the Commission determined to vacate those portions of the final ID that are presently under review by the Commission and to deny the request for vacatur as to those portions of the final ID previously adopted by the Commission. See 70 FR 76074 (Dec. 22, 2005). The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in §§ 210.21, 210.45, and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.21, 210.45, and 210.50). By order of the Commission. Issued: March 31, 2006. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E6-4935 Filed 4-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan: Dismissal of Request for Institution of a Section 751(b) Review Investigation AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Dismissal of a request to institute a section 751(b) review concerning the Commission's affirmative finding in investigation No. AA1921-129: Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan. SUMMARY: The Commission determines, pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) 1 and Commission rule 207.45, 2 that the subject request does not show changed circumstances sufficient to warrant institution of an investigation to review the Commission's affirmative finding in investigation No. AA1921-129, Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan. 1 19 U.S.C. 1675(b). 2 19 CFR 207.45. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George L. Deyman (202-205-3197), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server ( *http://www.usitc.gov* ). The public record for this matter may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket

(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov.* Background Information On July 31, 1973, the Treasury Department (Treasury) determined that imports of polychloroprene rubber

(PCR)from Japan are being sold in the United States at less than fair value

(LTFV)within the meaning of the Antidumping Act, 1921, as amended (19 U.S.C. 160 et seq.) (38 FR 20630, August 2, 1973), and on October 31, 1973, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States is being, or is likely to be, injured by reason of imports of such LTFV merchandise. Accordingly, Treasury ordered that antidumping duties be imposed on such imports (38 FR 33593, December 6, 1973). On December 8, 1998, the Commerce Department (Commerce) determined that revocation of the antidumping finding on PCR from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping (63 FR 67656, December 8, 1998), and on July 30, 1999, the Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping finding would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time (64 FR 41458, July 30, 1999, and 64 FR 42962, August 6, 1999). Accordingly, Commerce ordered that the antidumping finding be continued (64 FR 47765, September 1, 1999). On November 4, 2004, Commerce determined that revocation of the antidumping finding on PCR from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping (69 FR 64276, November 4, 2004), and on July 21, 2005, the Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping finding would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time (70 FR 42101, July 21, 2005). Accordingly, Commerce again ordered that the antidumping finding be continued (70 FR 44893, August 4, 2005). On November 22, 2005, the Commission received a request to review its affirmative determination in investigation No. AA1921-129 pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(b)). The request was filed by the Gates Corp. (“Gates”). Gates alleged that the October 2005 announcement by the European PCR producer Polimeri Europa (“Polimeri”) that it was permanently closing its sole manufacturing plant is a fundamental change that constitutes changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the antidumping finding. Specifically, Gates contended that this development “represents a very important change in the status quo,” that the loss of a supplier of this magnitude will have a major impact on the availability of supply and conditions of competition of PCR, that continuation of the antidumping finding undermines access to PCR, and that revocation of the antidumping finding is not likely to result in the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic PCR industry. Pursuant to Commission rule 207.45(b), 3 the Commission published a notice in the **Federal Register** on December 27, 2005, 4 requesting comments as to whether the alleged changed circumstances warranted the institution of a review. The Commission received comments in support of Gates' request from Excel Polymers L.L.C.; Gates; The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.; Mark IV Industries, Inc.; the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association; and Tosoh Corp. The Commission received letters supporting a changed circumstances review from the following PCR purchasers: Avon Custom Mixing Service, Inc.; Blair Rubber Co.; BRC Rubber & Plastics, Inc.; Carlisle Power Transmission Products, Inc.; Chardon Rubber Co.; Custom Rubber Co.; Custom Rubber Technologies, LLC; Federal-Mogul Corp.; Mount Hope Products LLC; R-H Products Co., Inc.; Specification Rubber Products, Inc.; Standard Rubber Products, Inc.; Trostel Ltd.; and Westland Technologies, Inc. The Commission also received letters supporting the institution of a changed circumstances review from Congressman John Boozman (Arkansas); and from Senators Wayne Allard (Colorado), Blanche Lambert Lincoln (Arkansas), Ken Salazar (Colorado), and James Talent (Missouri). 3 19 CFR 207.45(b). 4 70 FR 76468. The Commission received submissions opposing institution of a changed circumstances review from DuPont Performance Elastomers L.L.C., the U.S. producer of PCR, and from LANXESS Corporation, a U.S. affiliate of the German PCR producer LANXESS AG. *Analysis:* After consideration of the request for review and the responses to the notice inviting comments, the Commission has determined, pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act and Commission rule 207.45, that the information available to the Commission does not show changed circumstances sufficient to warrant institution of an investigation to review the Commission's affirmative finding in investigation No. AA1921-129: Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan. The Commission will not institute a review under section 751(b) unless it is persuaded there is sufficient information demonstrating:

(1)That there have been significant changed circumstances from those in existence at the time of the original investigation;

(2)That those changed circumstances are not the natural and direct result of the imposition of the antidumping and/or countervailing duty order, and

(3)That the changed circumstances, allegedly indicating that revocation of the order would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry, warrant full investigation. 5 5 See Gray Portland Cement and Cement Clinker From Mexico, 66 FR 65740 (Dec. 20, 2001); Heavy Forged Handtools from the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 36305 (July 7, 1997); Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Plate Products from Germany and the Netherlands, 61 FR 17319 (April 19, 1996); see generally, *A. Hirsh, Inc.* v. *United States,* 737 F. Supp. 1186 (CIT 1990); *Avesta AB* v. *United States,* 724 F. Supp. 974 (CIT 1989), aff'd 914 F.2d 233 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and *Avesta AB* v. *United States,* 689 F. Supp. 1173 (CIT 1988). The decision to undertake a review is “a threshold question, * * * [which] may be made only when it reasonably appears that positive evidence adduced by the petitioner together with other evidence gathered by the Commission leads the ITC to believe that there are changed circumstances sufficient to warrant review.” 6 6 Avesta, 689 F. Supp. at 1181 (CIT 1988); *A. Hirsh, Inc.* v. *United States,* 729 F. Supp. 1360, 1363-64 (CIT 1990), aff'd following remand, 737 F. Supp. at 1188 (CIT 1990). The asserted changed circumstance consists of the closure of Polimeri's PCR manufacturing plant in France. The closure of this plant and the consequent disappearance of Polimeri as a supplier of nonsubject imports ( *i.e.* , imports that are not subject to the antidumping finding on PCR from Japan) does not in any significant way affect the information relied on by the Commission, including existing and projected market conditions and, thus, the Commission's reasoning in its most recent five-year review of this antidumping finding. In finding that subject import volumes were likely to be significant if the antidumping finding were revoked, the Commission relied on factors such as: The production capacity of Japanese PCR producers, trends in worldwide demand for PCR, the export orientation of the Japanese PCR industry, and relatively high average prices in the United States as compared with other markets. 7 The closure of Polimeri's plant does not in any significant way alter the analysis underlying the Commission's likely volume finding. Indeed, it could be argued that Polimeri's withdrawal from the U.S. PCR market makes it more likely that subject imports would be significant if the finding were revoked. 7 Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan, Inv. No. AA-1921-129 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3786 at 9-10 (June 2005). In finding that revocation of the antidumping finding would be likely to lead to significant price effects, the Commission relied on factors such as: Moderately high substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like product, pricing of Japanese imports in the Commission's original investigation, and pricing practices of Japanese PCR producers in third-country markets. 8 As with the likely volume finding, Polimeri's plant closure does not in any significant way alter the analysis underlying the Commission's likely price effects finding. It is true—as Gates notes in its request for a review—that competition by nonsubject imports, such as those from Polimeri, was a factor in the Commission's analysis of likely price effects. 9 However, it was only one of a number of factors that went into the Commission's analysis. Moreover, based on Polimeri's past share of the U.S. market (the details of which are business proprietary), its withdrawal from that market is very unlikely to lead to the elimination of all nonsubject imports. 8 Id. at 11-12. 9 The Commission explained that “[a]s demand continues to decline and the domestic industry faces greater competition from nonsubject imports, the increased and significant volumes of subject imports that would be added to the supply of PCR in the U.S. market were the finding to be revoked would likely have significant depressing or suppressing effects on prices for the domestic like product.” Id. at 12. In finding that revocation of the antidumping finding would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time, the Commission noted that the condition of the domestic industry had deteriorated significantly since the first five-year review of the antidumping finding. It concluded that if the finding were revoked, a significant volume of low-priced subject imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on the production, shipments, sales, and revenue levels of the domestic industry; and that this reduction in the industry's production, sales, and revenue levels would have a direct adverse impact on the industry's profitability and employment levels as well as on its ability to raise capital and make and maintain necessary capital investments. 10 Again, Polimeri's plant closure does not in any significant way alter the analysis underlying the Commission's likely adverse impact finding. 10 Id. at 12-14. The Commission also notes that many of the market conditions discussed by the parties supporting the institution of a changed circumstances review (for example, the closure of one of the domestic PCR producer's plants, projected increases in worldwide demand, and strong demand for Japanese PCR in China) were known at the time of the most recent five-year review, and were explicitly considered in the Commission's analysis. 11 11 Id. at 7-8 and 10. Finally, while short supply conditions are a relevant condition of competition, as the Commission has previously noted, “there is no short supply provision in the statute” and “the fact that the domestic industry may not be able to supply all of demand does not mean the industry may not be materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports.” 12 12 Softwood Lumber from Canada, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928 (Article 1904 NAFTA Remand) at 108, n. 310 (December 2003). See also Metal Calendar Slides from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-1094 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3792 (August 2005) at 9, n. 45 (“To the extent that Respondents claim that the Commission is legally unable to make an affirmative finding of material injury by reason of subject imports because the domestic industry is incapable of supplying domestic demand, they are incorrect.”). In sum, the asserted changed circumstance in this case, the closure of a non-subject producer's plant, does not have a significant bearing on either the condition of the domestic industry or the likely effect of subject imports on that industry if the finding were revoked. In light of the above analysis, the Commission unanimously determines that institution of a review under section 751(b) of the Act concerning the Commission's affirmative finding in investigation No. AA1921-129, Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan, is not warranted. By order of the Commission. Issued: March 31, 2006. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E6-4934 Filed 4-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree: Civil Penalties and Natural Resource Damages Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 Notice is hereby given that on March 22, 2006, a proposed Consent Decree (“Decree”) in *United States and The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon* v. *American Energy, Inc,* Civil Action No. 04-CV-164-AA, was lodged with the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. In this action brought pursuant to Section 311(b)(7) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(7), and Warm Springs Tribal Code Chapter 433, the United States and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (“Warm Springs Tribes”) sought penalties from American Energy, Inc. (“AEI”) for causing the discharge of gasoline into the shorelines and waters of Beaver Creek on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, Wasco County, Oregon. The United States and the Warm Springs Tribes also are seeking damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources, including the reasonable cost of assessing the damages, caused by the discharge under Section 1002(b)(2)(A) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 33 U.S.C. 2702(b)(2)(A). The claims of penalties and natural resource damages arise out of a gasoline spill that occurred on the morning of March 4, 1999, on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. A tanker truck and trailer owned and/or operated by AEI overturned discharging approximately 5,400 gallons (128.57 barrels) of gasoline that flowed onto the adjoining shorelines and into the waters of Beaver Creek and Beaver Butte Creek. The Federal and tribal natural resource trustees prepared an informal assessment of damage to natural resources and loss of use of natural resources occasioned by the spill for use in settlement discussions with AEI. The proposed Decree provides that AEI shall pay to the United States $80,000 in settlement of the United States' claim for civil penalties, and pay to the Warm Springs Tribes $80,000 in settlement of the Warm Springs Tribes' claim for civil penalties. To address natural resource damages, the proposed Decree provides that AEI shall pay $315,222.50 to the natural resource trustees for their development and implementation of the plan to restore natural resources damaged by the spill and to recover natural resource services lost as a result of the spill, which shall be deposited into the registry of the Court. The proposed Decree requires that the defendants reimburse $94,242.98 to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) of the United States Department of Commerce, and reimburse $15,533.52 to the United States Department of the Interior for damage assessment costs. In exchange for these payments, the United States and the Warm Springs Tribes covenant not to sue the defendants for civil penalties and natural resource damages arising from the spill. The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty

(30)days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environmental and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to *United States and The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon* v. *American Energy, Inc,* DOJ Ref. 90-5-1-1-06871. The proposed consent decree may be examined at the office of the United States Attorney, 1000 SW Third Avenue, Suite 600, Portland, OR 97204-2902 at U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. During the comment period, the consent decree may be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site, *http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/open.html.* Copies of the consent decree also may obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood ( *tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov* ), fax no.

(202)514-0097, phone confirmation number

(202)514-1547. In requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $5.50 for *United States and The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon* v. *American Energy, Inc,* (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury. Robert E. Maher, Jr., Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environmental and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. 06-3270 Filed 4-4-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 18

Traces to 18 documents

U.S. Code