Notices. Notice

20,626 words·~94 min read·/register/2006/04/17/06-3635

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

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-843] Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From India AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) preliminarily determines that certain lined paper products from India (“CLPP”) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).

Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Pursuant to requests from interested parties, we are postponing for 30 days the final determination and extending the provisional measure from a four-month period to not more than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination not later than 105 days after publication of the preliminary determination. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Hargett, Joy Zhang, or James Terpstra, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-4161,

(202)482-1168, or

(202)482-3965, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 6, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated an antidumping duty investigation of certain lined paper products from India. * See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Lined Paper Products From India, Indonesia, and the People's Republic of China * , 70 FR 58374 (October 6, 2005) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). The petitioner in this investigation is the Association of American School Paper Suppliers and its individual members (MeadWestvaco Corporation; Norcom, Inc.; and Top Flight, Inc.) (“petitioner”). The Department set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the Initiation Notice. *See Initiation Notice* , 70 FR at 58374; *see also Antidumping Duties* ; *Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19,1997) (“ *Final Rule* ”). On October 31, 2005, the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that imports of CLPP from the People's Republic of China (“China”), India and Indonesia are materially injuring the U.S. industry and the ITC notified the Department of its findings. *See Certain Lined Paper School Supplies from China, India, and Indonesia, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-442-443 and 731-TA-1095-1097 (Preliminary)* , 70 FR 62329 (October 31, 2005) (“ *ITC Preliminary* Report”). On November 8, 2005, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to the following three respondents: Aero Exports (“Aero”), Kejriwal Paper Limited (“Kejriwal”), and Navneet Publications (India) Ltd. (“Navneet”), specifying that the responses to Section A and Sections B-D would be due on November 29 and December 15, 2005, respectively. 1 We received responses to Sections A-D of the antidumping questionnaire and issued supplementary questionnaires as referenced below. On November 28, 2005, petitioner alleged that critical circumstances existed with regard to imports from Indonesia, China, and India. 1 Section A of the questionnaire requests general information concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests a complete listing of all home market sales or, if the home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market. Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of production of the foreign like product and the constructed value of the merchandise under investigation. Section E requests information on further manufacturing. On December 16, 2005 the Department received section A questionnaire responses from Aero, Kejriwal, and Navneet. The Department subsequently issued a supplemental questionnaire to Aero, Kejriwal and Navneet. *See* Section A-D Supplemental Questionnaire, dated January 27, 2006. On February 21, 2006, the Department received the first supplemental questionnaire responses for Sections A-D from Aero, Kejriwal and Navneet. On February 23, 2006, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire for Section D to Aero. On February 24, 2006, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire for Section D to Kejriwal and Navneet. On March 29, 2006, the Department received the third Supplemental D questionnaire response from Aero, Kejriwal and Navneet. In its section A response, Kejriwal stated that it had neither home market nor third country sales during the period of investigation (“POI”). *See* Kejriwal's Section A Questionnaire Response, dated December 16, 2005, at 4. Kejriwal reiterated that it did not sell subject merchandise in the ordinary course of trade in its home market during the POI. *See* Kejriwal Exports Section A - D Supplemental Questionnaire Response, dated February 21, 2006, at Exhibit SB-1. As a result, the Department must use constructed value (“CV”) in its calculation of normal value (“NV”). For a discussion of the Department's calculation of CV, see the “Constructed Value” section below. Period of Investigation The POI is July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2005. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition. Scope of Investigation The scope of this investigation includes certain lined paper products, typically school supplies, 2 composed of or including paper that incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical lines on ten or more paper sheets, 3 including but not limited to such products as single- and multi-subject notebooks, composition books, wireless notebooks, looseleaf or glued filler paper, graph paper, and laboratory notebooks, and with the smaller dimension of the paper measuring 6 inches to 15 inches (inclusive) and the larger dimension of the paper measuring 8-3/4 inches to 15 inches (inclusive). Page dimensions are measured size (not advertised, stated, or “tear-out” size), and are measured as they appear in the product ( *i.e.* , stitched and folded pages in a notebook are measured by the size of the page as it appears in the notebook page, not the size of the unfolded paper). However, for measurement purposes, pages with tapered or rounded edges shall be measured at their longest and widest points. Subject lined paper products may be loose, packaged or bound using any binding method (other than case bound through the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap). Subject merchandise may or may not contain any combination of a front cover, a rear cover, and/or backing of any composition, regardless of the inclusion of images or graphics on the cover, backing, or paper. Subject merchandise is within the scope of this investigation whether or not the lined paper and/or cover are hole punched, drilled, perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject merchandise may contain accessory or informational items including but not limited to pockets, tabs, dividers, closure devices, index cards, stencils, protractors, writing implements, reference materials such as mathematical tables, or printed items such as sticker sheets or miniature calendars, if such items are physically incorporated , included with, or attached to the product, cover and/or backing thereto. 2 For purposes of this scope definition, the actual use of or labeling these products as school supplies or non-school supplies is not a defining characteristic. 3 There shall be no minimum page requirement for looseleaf filler paper. Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are: • unlined copy machine paper; • writing pads with a backing (including but not limited to products commonly known as “tablets,” “note pads,” “legal pads,” and “quadrille pads”), provided that they do not have a front cover (whether permanent or removable). This exclusion does not apply to such writing pads if they consist of hole-punched or drilled filler paper; • three-ring or multiple-ring binders, or notebook organizers incorporating such a ring binder provided that they do not include subject paper; • index cards; • printed books and other books that are case bound through the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap; • newspapers; • pictures and photographs; • desk and wall calendars and organizers (including but not limited to such products generally known as “office planners,” “time books,” and “appointment books”); • telephone logs; • address books; • columnar pads & tablets, with or without covers, primarily suited for the recording of written numerical business data; • lined business or office forms, including but not limited to: preprinted business forms, lined invoice pads and paper, mailing and address labels, manifests, and shipping log books; • lined continuous computer paper; • boxed or packaged writing stationary (including but not limited to products commonly known as “fine business paper,” “parchment paper, “ and “letterhead”), whether or not containing a lined header or decorative lines; • Stenographic pads (“steno pads”), Gregg ruled, 4 measuring 6 inches by 9 inches; Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are the following trademarked products: • Fly TM lined paper products: A notebook, notebook organizer, loose or glued note paper, with papers that are printed with infrared reflective inks and readable only by a Fly TM pen-top computer. The product must bear the valid trademark Fly TM . 5 4 “Gregg ruling” consists of a single- or double-margin vertical ruling line down the center of the page. For a six-inch by nine-inch stenographic pad, the ruling would be located approximately three inches from the left of the book. 5 Products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope. • Zwipes TM : A notebook or notebook organizer made with a blended polyolefin writing surface as the cover and pocket surfaces of the notebook, suitable for writing using a specially developed permanent marker and erase system (known as a Zwipes TM pen). This system allows the marker portion to mark the writing surface with a permanent ink. The eraser portion of the marker dispenses a solvent capable of solubilizing the permanent ink allowing the ink to be removed. The product must bear the valid trademark Zwipes TM . 6 6 Products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope. • FiveStar® TM : A notebook or notebook organizer bound by a continuous spiral, or helical, wire and with plastic front and rear covers made of a blended polyolefin plastic material joined by 300 denier polyester, coated on the backside with PVC (poly vinyl chloride) coating, and extending the entire length of the spiral or helical wire. The polyolefin plastic covers are of specific thickness; front cover is .019 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is .028 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances). Integral with the stitching that attaches the polyester spine covering, is captured by both ends of a 1” wide elastic fabric band. This band is located 2-3/8” from the top of the front plastic cover and provides pen or pencil storage. Both ends of the spiral wire are cut and then bent backwards to overlap with the previous coil but specifically outside the coil diameter but inside the polyester covering. During construction, the polyester covering is sewn to the front and rear covers face to face (outside to outside) so that when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside. Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched with a turned edge construction. The flexible polyester material forms a covering over the spiral wire to protect it and provide a comfortable grip on the product. The product must bear the valid trademarks FiveStar®Advance TM . 7 7 Products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope. • FiveStar Flex TM : A notebook, a notebook organizer, or binder with plastic polyolefin front and rear covers joined by 300 denier polyester spine cover extending the entire length of the spine and bound by a 3-ring plastic fixture. The polyolefin plastic covers are of a specific thickness; front cover is .019 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is .028 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances). During construction, the polyester covering is sewn to the front cover face to face (outside to outside) so that when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside. During construction, the polyester cover is sewn to the back cover with the outside of the polyester spine cover to the inside back cover. Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched with a turned edge construction. Each ring within the fixture is comprised of a flexible strap portion that snaps into a stationary post which forms a closed binding ring. The ring fixture is riveted with six metal rivets and sewn to the back plastic cover and is specifically positioned on the outside back cover. The product must bear the valid trademark FiveStar Flex TM . 8 8 Products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope. Merchandise subject to this investigation is typically imported under headings 4820.10.2050, 4810.22.5044, and 4811.90.9090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 9 The tariff classifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive. 9 During the investigation additional HTS codes may be identified. Scope Comments In the *Initiation Notice* , we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the *Initiation Notice* . *See Final Rule* . On October 28, 2005, Continental Accessory Corporation (“Continental”) submitted timely scope comments in which it argued that the Department should issue a ruling that the scope of this investigation does not cover “fashion stationery,” a niche lined paper product. Continental argued that fashion stationery is substantially different from subject commodity-grade lined paper products because of differences in physical appearance, production methods, costs, consumer expectations, and other factors. Continental also argued that none of the domestic petitioners has the capability of manufacturing fashion stationery in the United States. On November 16, 2005, petitioner submitted rebuttal comments. Petitioner argued that what Continental refers to as “stationery” and “fashion goods” is actually nothing more than notebooks. Contrary to Continental's allegation, petitioner claimed that these “fashion” notebooks are “substantially produced” within the United States. Petitioner further asserted that the language of the scope includes certain lined paper products regardless of the material used for a front or back cover, regardless of the inclusion of material on the front and cover, and regardless of the binding materials. Petitioner also argued that Continental's claim that fashion notebooks “are not intended to be included with covered merchandise” is baseless. *See* letter from petitioner entitled “Certain Lined Paper Products from India, Indonesia, and the People's Republic of China: Response to Scope Comments,” dated November 16, 2005, at 2. Petitioner stated that Continental had provided no evidence to demonstrate that the purchaser views fashion notebooks as a higher value product. Lastly, petitioner noted that the ITC had already rejected Continental's claims that its fashion books are not within the scope of the domestic like product or should be treated as a separate like product. *See ITC Preliminary Report* . As further discussed in the March 20, 2006, memorandum entitled “Scope Exclusion Request: Continental Accessory Corporation,” on file in Import Administration's Central Records Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (“CRU”), we denied Continental's request that its “fashion” notebooks be excluded from the scope of the investigation. Use of Facts Otherwise Available For the reasons discussed below, we determine that the use of adverse facts available (“AFA”) is appropriate for the preliminary determination with respect to Aero and Navneet. A. Use of Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party withholds information requested by the administering authority, fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the information and in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e)of section 782 of the Act, significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the administering authority determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, the administering authority shall promptly inform the responding party and provide an opportunity to remedy the deficient submission. Section 782(e) of the Act further states that the Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are met:

(1)the information is submitted by the established deadline;

(2)the information can be verified;

(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;

(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and

(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. As discussed in detail below, the Cost of Production (“COP”) questionnaire responses submitted by Aero and Navneet are not useable for purposes of calculating accurate less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) margins. The original antidumping questionnaire was issued on November 8, 2005. Since the issuance of the initial questionnaire to Aero and Navneet, we have granted both parties numerous extensions up to and including the submission of the third supplemental questionnaire response which was received on March 29, 2006. Over a five-month period, we have carefully and repeatedly identified the numerous significant deficiencies and errors where we needed more complete information in order to understand the reported information. Throughout this process, there has been a consistent pattern of non-responsiveness and confusing, incomplete, and inconsistent information provided by Aero and Navneet. As a result of numerous, serious deficiencies, we are unable to adequately determine whether the cost information contained in these responses reasonably and accurately reflects the costs incurred by these companies to produce the subject merchandise. Without this information, we cannot accurately calculate LTFV margins for these companies. Aero In accordance with section 776 of the Act, the Department preliminarily determines that the use of total AFA is warranted with respect to Aero. Throughout the course of this investigation, Aero has repeatedly failed to submit information and data on the record of this proceeding in a timely and proper manner. Generous extensions of time were given to Aero to respond to our section D questionnaire. The Department provided several opportunities for Aero to submit critical information and the Department extended deadlines to allow Aero the time to respond completely to the Department's questionnaire and supplemental questionnaires. Three sets of supplemental questionnaires were issued, repeatedly asking the same detailed questions that remained unanswered from the previous supplemental questionnaire. After the issuance of the three supplemental questionnaires, the Department is left with critical information absent from the record. In addition, questions still remain unanswered as to the accuracy and reliability of the reported cost information. Because Aero has withheld requested information, failed to provide such information by the deadlines in the form and manner required, impeded this investigation, and reported information that could not be verified, the Department may resort to facts otherwise available, in reaching its preliminary determination, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A),(B),(C) and

(D)of the Act. Due to the fact that most of the reasons regarding the use of facts available for Aero are considered business proprietary information, please see the Memorandum from Sheikh M. Hannan to Neal Halper entitled “Use of Adverse Facts Available for the Preliminary Determination - Aero Exports,” dated April 7, 2006, on file in the CRU. Navneet In accordance with section 776 of the Act, the Department preliminarily determines that the use of total AFA is warranted with respect to Navneet. The Department identified the major deficiencies with Navneet's submitted cost responses early in this proceeding and despite the Department's repeated requests, these deficiencies were not rectified by Navneet. As discussed in the memorandum mentioned below, Navneet failed to 1) provide various reconciliation schedules ( *i.e.* , the overall cost reconciliation, the overall quantity reconciliation, and the overall purchased paper reconciliation) and explanations of reconciling amounts; 2) provide a consistent explanation for its product cost calculation methodology that demonstrates the link between its reported costs and its normal books and records; and 3) provide complete supporting documentation for the matching product control number (“CONNUM”) cost build-up schedules. Without this information, the Department is unable to determine whether Navneet accounted for all its production costs relating to the merchandise under investigation. The Department is unable to rely on Navneet's submitted costs. Moreover, based on the statements made by Navneet and the exhibits provided in its questionnaire responses, it is apparent that Navneet departed from the product costs recorded in its normal books and records when calculating its reported product costs to the Department. Thus, the costs the Department should be using, the per-unit costs from its normal books and records, are not on the record of this proceeding. Section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act requires that companies normally use their normal books and records in reporting costs for an antidumping investigation. Finally, we note that Navneet failed to provide the POI job order worksheet reconciliation, which the Department requested to determine whether Navneet relied on its normal books and records and that its reported costs reconciled to those records. Because necessary information from Navneet is not available on the record, the use of facts available for the preliminary determination is warranted pursuant to section 776(a)(1) of the Act. Furthermore, because Navneet has withheld requested information, failed to provide such information by the deadlines in the form and manner required, impeded this investigation, and reported information that could not be verified, the use of facts available for the preliminary determination is warranted pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A),(B),(C) and

(D)of the Act. For further discussion, please refer to the Memorandum from Oh Ji to Neal Halper, entitled “Use of Adverse Facts Available for the Preliminary Determination - Navneet Publications (India) Ltd.,” dated April 7, 2006, on file in the CRU. B. Application of Adverse Inferences for Facts Available In applying adverse inferences to facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the administering authority finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority, in reaching the applicable determination under this title, the administering authority may use an inference adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. *See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Line Pipe From Mexico* , 69 FR 59892 (October 6, 2004); *see also Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From Mexico* , 68 FR 42378 (July 17, 2003). Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act* , H. Doc. No. 103-316, at 870

(1994)(“ *SAA* ”). Furthermore, “{a}ffirmative evidence of bad faith, or willfulness, on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” *See Final Rule* . Despite repeated requests for information concerning Aero and Navneet's costs, including extensions of time granted to submit the necessary information, neither company provided useable cost data. The series of supplemental questionnaire responses submitted by Aero and Navneet continued to remain inadequate where certain critical information questioned the accuracy and reliability of the reported cost information as well as a lack of various reconciliation schedules and explanations. The respondents were on notice as to the consequences of failing to adequately respond to the supplemental questionnaires. The Department finds that Aero and Navneet have failed to cooperate to the best of their ability because they continued to be non-responsive, despite repeated requests to provide critical data regarding their costs. Consequently, the Department has preliminarily determined that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is warranted. *See* Section 776(b) of the Act; *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Japan* , 65 FR 42985 (July 12, 2000), where the Department applied total AFA because the respondents failed to respond to the antidumping questionnaire. C. Selection and Corroboration of Information Used as Facts Available Where the Department applies AFA because a respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to rely on information derived from the petition, a final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. *See* also 19 CFR 351.308(c) and SAA at 829-831. In this case, because we are unable to calculate a margin based on Aero's and Navneet's own data and because an adverse inference is warranted, we have assigned to Aero and Navneet the highest individual margin calculated in this proceeding based on the data reported by a respondent in this investigation, rather than the margins alleged in the petition. *See* Memorandum to the File from the Team entitled, “Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Selection of Total Adverse Facts-Available Rate,” ( *Corroboration Memo* ) dated April 7, 2006. When using facts otherwise available, section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information (such as the petition), it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. The SAA clarifies that “corroborate” means the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* SAA at 870. The Department's regulations state that independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. *See* 19 CFR 351.308(d) and SAA at 870. For the purposes of this investigation, to the extent appropriate information was available, we reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the petition during our pre-initiation analysis. *See Office of AD/CVD Operations Initiation Checklist* , dated September 29, 2005 (“ *Initiation Checklist* ”), on file in the CRU. In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act and to the extent practicable, for this preliminary determination, we examined record evidence in an effort to corroborate the margins in the *Initiation Notice, i.e.* , to determine whether those margins have probative value. We find that the estimated margins we set forth in the *Initiation Notice* do not have probative value. *See Corroboration Memo* . Therefore, in selecting AFA with respect to Aero and Navneet, we have applied the margin rate of 110.43 percent, the highest individual rate calculated in this proceeding. Date of Sale Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that the Department will normally use the date of invoice, as recorded in the producer's or exporter's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale. However, the Department may use a date other than the date of invoice if the alternative better reflects the date on which the material terms of sales (e.g., price and quantity) are established. Kejriwal reported the date of invoice as the date of sale for the U.S. market, reflecting the Department's stated preference. Kejriwal stated that the invoice date is the only date entered in the accounting records. The Department is preliminarily using the invoice date as the date of sale for U.S. sales. We intend to examine this issue at verification, and will incorporate our findings in our analysis for the final determination, if we determine that another date, other than invoice date, is the appropriate date of sale. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether Kejriwal's sales of CLPP from India to the United States were made at LTFV, we compared the export price (“EP”) to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we compared POI weighted-average EP to CV. See discussion below. Export Price 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 outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c). During the POI, Kejriwal made direct sales to unaffiliated customers in the United Sates. Therefore, we have applied the EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, for sales that were produced and exported by Kejriwal from India to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation. We based EP on the packed price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions for movement expenses, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight from the plant to the distribution warehouse, warehousing, foreign inland freight from plant/warehouse to the port of exportation, foreign inland insurance, foreign brokerage and handling, U.S. brokerage and handling, international freight, and U.S. inland freight from port to warehouse. In addition, we deducted billing adjustments and discounts from EP, where appropriate. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability and Comparison Market Selection In order 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 equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared Kejriwal's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Section 773(a)(1)(C)(i) of the Act applies to the Department's determination of NV if the foreign like product is not sold (or offered for sale) for consumption in the exporting country. When sales in the home market are not viable, section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act provides that sales to a particular third country market may be utilized if:

(1)the prices in such market are representative;

(2)the aggregate quantity of the foreign like product sold by the producer or exporter in the third country market is five percent or more of the aggregate quantity of the subject merchandise sold in or to the United States; and

(3)the Department does not determine that a particular market situation in the third country market prevents a proper comparison with the U.S. price. Kejriwal reported that it made no sales to the home market and no sales to a third country. *See* Kejriwal's Section A Response, dated December 16, 2005 at 4; *see also* Kejriwal's Section A-D questionnaire responses, dated February 21, 2006, at SB-1. Therefore, for Kejriwal, we used CV as the basis for calculating NV, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, for all sales. B. Level of Trade Kejriwal reported sales only to unaffiliated distributors in the U.S. market, and no sales to either the home or third country markets. In the U.S. market, they reported only one level of trade. The selling functions, customer category, and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale was consistent for all distributors in the U.S. However, all of Kejriwal's sales are compared to CV and a level-of-trade adjustment is not necessary. C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based Kejriwal's NV on CV. In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of Kejriwal's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”), profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the cost of materials and fabrication based on the CV information provided by Kejriwal in its section D response. We disallowed Kejriwal's claimed offsets for duty-free replenishment certificates and excise duty rebated. We have recalculated Kejriwal's general and administrative (“G&A”) expense ratio based on G&A expenses for the year ending March 31, 2005, incurred by Kejriwal Paper Ltd. only and not those of the Kejriwal Group. In doing so, we have removed the imputed cost of newsprint from Kejriwal's reported cost of goods sold denominator. We also added sundry expenses to our calculation of the G&A expense ratio. We recalculated Kejriwal's interest expense ratio to include sundry expenses in the cost of goods sold denominator and have removed the imputed cost of newsprint from the cost of goods sold denominator. Because Kejriwal does not have Indian sales of the foreign like product or third country sales, the Department does not have comparison market selling expenses or profit to use in its calculations, as directed by section 773(e) of the Act. As an alternative, the Department has used as selling expenses and profit for Kejriwal, data from the March 31, 2005, financial statements of Kanoi Paper Industries Limited (“Kanoi”). Kanoi sells merchandise within the same general category of products as the foreign like product in the Indian market. *See* Memorandum from Laurens Van Houten to Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Determination- Kejriwal, dated April 7, 2006 (“COP/CV Memo”). Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act based on exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. All Others Rate Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that, where the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or *de minimis* or are determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated “all others” rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. The “all others” rate is derived exclusive of all *de minimis* margins and margins based entirely on facts available. Kejriwal is the only respondent in this investigation for which the Department has calculated a company-specific rate that is not based entirely on facts available. Therefore, for purposes of determining the “all others” rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the dumping margin calculated for Kejriwal, as referenced in the “Suspension of Liquidation” section below. Critical Circumstances A. Aero, Navneet, and Kejriwal On November 28, 2005, petitioner requested that the Department make an expedited finding that critical circumstances exist with respect to CLPP from India. Petitioner alleged that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with respect to the subject merchandise. Petitioner based its allegation on evidence of retailers engaging in negotiations that would cause a surge of imports of subject merchandise into the United States from December 2005 through February 2006 (in advance of the preliminary determination date) in order to avoid duties. Since this allegation was filed earlier than the deadline for the Department's preliminary determination, we must issue our preliminary critical circumstances determination not later than the preliminary determination. *See* 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2); *see also Policy Bulletin 98/4 regarding Timing of Issuance of Critical Circumstances Determinations* , 63 FR 55364 (October 15, 1998). Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that:

(i)there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise; or

(ii)the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, and

(B)there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. In determining whether the relevant statutory criteria have been satisfied, the Department considered:

(i)the evidence presented in the petitioners' November 28, 2005, submission,

(ii)exporter-specific shipment data submitted by Kejriwal on February 21, 2006, and

(iii)the *ITC Preliminary Report* . To determine whether there is a history of injurious dumping of the merchandise under investigation, in accordance with section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department normally considers evidence of an existing antidumping duty order on the subject merchandise in the United States or elsewhere to be sufficient. *See Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Ukraine and Moldova* , 65 FR 70696 (November 27, 2000). Petitioner makes no statement concerning a history of dumping of CLPP from India. Moreover, we are not aware of any antidumping order on CLPP from India in any other country. Therefore, the Department finds no history of injurious dumping of CLPP from India pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. To determine whether the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value, in accordance with section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for export price sales, or 15 percent or more for constructed export price transactions, sufficient to impute knowledge of dumping. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China* , 62 FR 31972, 31978 (June 11, 1997). For the reasons explained above, we have assigned a margin of 110.43 percent to Aero and Navneet. Based on this margin, we have imputed importer knowledge of dumping for Aero and Navneet. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Wax and Wax/Resin Thermal Transfer Ribbons from Japan* , 68 FR 71077 (December 22, 2003) (“ *TTR from Japan* ”). However, because the preliminary dumping margin for Kejriwal's EP sales is less than 25 percent, we preliminarily determine that the knowledge criterion has not been met. In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that an importer knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports, consistent with section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department normally will look to the preliminary injury determination of the ITC. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Japan* , 64 FR 30574, 30578 (June 8, 1999) (“ *Stainless Steel from Japan* ”). The ITC preliminarily found material injury to the domestic industry due to imports of CLPP from India, which are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and, on this basis, the Department may impute knowledge of likelihood of injury to these respondents. *See ITC Preliminary Report* . Thus, we determine that the knowledge criterion for ascertaining whether critical circumstances exist has been satisfied. Since Aero and Navneet have met the first prong of the critical circumstances test, according to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we must examine whether imports from Aero and Navneet were massive over a relatively short period. Section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the Department will preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been “massive,” the Department normally will examine:

(i)the volume and value of the imports;

(ii)seasonal trends; and

(iii)the share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2) provides that an increase in imports of 15 percent during the “relatively short period” of time may be considered “massive.” Section 351.206(i) of the Department's regulations defines “relatively short period” as normally being the period beginning on the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) and ending at least three months later. The Department's regulations also provide, however, that if the Department finds that importers, exporters, or producers had reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, the Department may consider a period of not less than three months from that earlier time. On February 21, 2006, Aero, Kejriwal, and Navneet filed company-specific monthly import data for shipments of subject merchandise to the United States for January 2003 through January 2006. However, we are disregarding the information reported by Aero and Navneet because, as noted above, we are applying AFA to Aero and Navneet and their company-specific data will not be subject to verification. Therefore, the Department must base its determination on facts available. Moreover, because of Aero and Navneet's failure to cooperate to the best of their ability, we have made an adverse inference that there were massive imports from Aero and Navneet over a relatively short period. *See TTR from Japan* , 68 FR at 71077. In this case, the Department is unable to use information supplied by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to corroborate whether massive imports occurred because the HTS numbers listed in the scope of the investigation are basket categories that include non-subject merchandise and, thus, do not permit the Department to make an accurate analysis. *See Stainless Steel from Japan* , 64 FR at 30585. In addition, the SAA states that, “{t}he fact that corroboration may not be practicable in a given circumstance will not prevent the agencies from applying an adverse inference under subsection (b).” *See SAA* at 870. Accordingly, we preliminarily find critical circumstances exist with respect to Aero and Navneet. In regard to Kejriwal, we examined Kejriwal's reported shipments, which show that this company only exported subject merchandise to the United States for the period of August 2004 - July 2005. Kejriwal reported that it made no shipments to the United States subsequent to the filing date of the petition. The data reported by Kejriwal does not show a surge and there is no data to compare the seasonal trends. *See* Kejriwal's Section A-C questionnaire response, dated April 3, 2006, exhibit SA-1, (revised). Therefore, we preliminarily find that critical circumstances do not exist for Kejriwal. B. All Others It is the Department's normal practice to conduct its critical circumstances analysis of companies in the “all others” group based on the experience of investigated companies. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey* , 62 FR 9737, 9741 (March 4, 1997), where the Department found that critical circumstances existed for the majority of the companies investigated and concluded that critical circumstances also existed for companies covered by the “all others” rate. However, the Department does not automatically extend an affirmative critical circumstances determination to companies covered by the “all others” rate. *See Stainless Steel from Japan* , 64 FR at 30585. Instead, the Department considers the traditional critical circumstances criteria with respect to the companies covered by the “all others” rate. First, in determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that an importer knew or should have known that the exporter was selling CLPP at less than fair value, we look to the “all others” rate. *See TTR from Japan* , 68 FR at 71077. The dumping margin for the “all others” category, 22.53 percent, is less than the 25 percent threshold necessary to impute knowledge of dumping consistent with 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act. Second, based on the ITC's preliminary material injury determination, we also find that importers knew or should have known that there would be material injury from the dumped merchandise consistent with 19 CFR 351.206. *See ITC Preliminary Report* . Finally, with respect to massive imports, we are unable to base our determination on our findings for Aero and Navneet because our determination for Aero and Navneet was based on AFA. Consistent with *TTR from Japan* , we have not inferred adverse facts, that massive imports exist for “all others” because, unlike Aero and Navneet, the “all others” companies have not failed to cooperate to the best of their ability in this investigation. Therefore, an adverse inference with respect to shipment levels by the “all others” companies is not appropriate. Generally, the Department's approach is to examine CBP data on overall imports from the country in question to see if the Department could ascertain whether an increase in shipments occurred within a relatively short period following the point at which importers had reason to believe that a proceeding was likely. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Japan* , 64 FR 24329 (May 6, 1999); *see also Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From Argentina, Japan and Thailand* , 65 FR 5520, 5527 (February 4, 2000). However, we are unable to rely on information supplied by CBP because in this investigation the HTS numbers listed in the scope of the investigation are basket categories that include non-subject merchandise. Lacking information on whether there was a massive import surge for the “all others” category, we are unable to determine whether there have been massive imports of CLPP from the producers included in the “all others” category. *See TTR from Japan* , 68 FR at 71077. Consequently, the criteria necessary for determining affirmative critical circumstances have not been met. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that critical circumstances do not exist for imports of CLPP from India for companies in the “all others” category. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify all information relied upon in making our final determination for Kejriwal. Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of CLPP from India that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Additionally, for Aero and Navneet, we are instructing CBP to suspend the liquidation of entries made on or after 90 days prior to the publication of this notice in accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act. We are also instructing CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average dumping margin, as indicated in the chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted Average Margin (percent) Aero Exports 110.43 Kejriwal Paper Limited 22.53 Navneet Publications (India) Ltd. 110.43 All Others 22.53 Disclosure We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). ITC Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of the Department's preliminary affirmative determination. If the Department's final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether imports of CLPP from India are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. Because we have postponed the deadline for our final determination to 105 days from the date of the publication of this preliminary determination, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days of our final determination. Public Comment Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the Department no later than seven days after the date of the issuance of the final verification report in this proceeding. Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days from the deadline date for the submission of case briefs. A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Further, we request that parties submitting briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the Department with a copy of the public version of such briefs on diskette. In accordance with section 774 of the Act, the Department will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing is made in this investigation, the hearing will tentatively be held two days after the rebuttal brief deadline date at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in a room to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone, the date, time, and location of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled date. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate in a hearing if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should contain:

(1)The party's name, address, and telephone number;

(2)the number of participants; and

(3)a list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on March 30, 2006, Aero, Kejriwal and Navneet requested that in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 30 days. At the same time, Aero, Kejriwal and Navneet requested that the Department extend by 30 days the application of the provisional measures prescribed under 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2). In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b), because

(1)our preliminary determination is affirmative,

(2)the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and

(3)no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are granting their request and are postponing the final determination until no later than 105 days after the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Suspension of liquidation will be extended accordingly. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: April 7, 2006. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-5690 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-841] Structural Steel Beams from the Republic of Korea; Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Sheba, Maryanne Burke or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-0145,

(202)482-5604, or

(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 31, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received timely requests from respondents Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd.

(DSM)and INI Steel Company

(INI)along with petitioners, Nucor Corp., Nucor-Yamato Steel Co., Steel Dynamics, Inc., and Chaparral Steel Inc. (collectively, petitioners) to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on structural steel beams from the Republic of Korea. On September 28, 2005, the Department published a notice of initiation of this administrative review, covering the period of August 1, 2004 to July 31, 2005. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). The preliminary results are currently due no later than May 3, 2006. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), requires the Department to complete the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary results to a maximum of 365 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested. The Department has determined that it is not practicable to complete this administrative review within the time limit mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act. We require additional time to develop the record and examine DSM's cost of production data and issues of affiliation. Regarding INI, further analysis is necessary with respect to certain movement expenses. Accordingly, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results of this administrative review to August 31, 2006, which is 365 days from the last day of the anniversary month. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days after publication of the preliminary results notice. This extension is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act. Dated: April 4, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-5696 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-427-810, C-580-818] Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from France and the Republic of Korea: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson or Robert Copyak, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4793 or

(202)482-2209, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Information On September 28, 2005, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of initiation of the administrative reviews of the countervailing duty orders on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from France and the Republic of Korea covering the period of review January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). The preliminary results are currently due no later than May 3, 2006. Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order or finding for which a review is requested. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act further states that if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period specified, the administering authority may extend the 245-day period to issue its preliminary results by up to 120 days. We determine that completion of the preliminary results of these reviews within the 245-day period is not practicable for the following reason. These reviews are extraordinarily complicated because there are 17 programs being examined in the review covering France and 16 programs being examined in the review covering the Republic of Korea. Given the number of programs, which need to be thoroughly analyzed by the Department, and in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of reviews by 120 days. Therefore, the preliminary results are now due no later than August 31, 2006. The final results continue to be due 120 days after publication of the preliminary results. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: April 11, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-5692 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program Vessel/Plant Operator's Comment Form AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at ( *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Jerald D. Berger, 206-526-4193 or *jerry.berger@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program (NPGOP) is managed by the Fisheries Monitoring and Analysis Division at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC). NPGOP observers serve aboard commercial fishing vessels in Alaskan waters and at processing plants in Alaska as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. NMFS AFSC requests information from vessel or plant operators who have had NPGOP observers on their vessels or at their plants. This information would be collected on a voluntary basis as a qualitative survey to provide NMFS with direct feedback on observer performance. This information, upon receipt, will ensure higher data quality, provide feedback on observer performance, and offer a direct line of communication from vessel/plant operators to the NPGOP management. II. Method of Collection Paper survey to be submitted to the NPGOP at the AFSC via U.S. mail or facsimile transmission of paper forms. The survey will also be available on the Internet. III. Data *OMB Number:* None. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions; and business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 300. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 15 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 75 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $30. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: April 11, 2006. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-5627 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Southwest Region Permit Family of Forms—Pacific AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Walter Ikehara,

(808)944-2275 or *walter.ikehara@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)Pacific Islands Region

(PIR)manages the U.S. fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone

(EEZ)in the western Pacific under five fishery management plans (FMPs), prepared by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The regulations implementing the FMPs are found at 50 CFR part 665. The permitting requirements at 50 CFR part 665 form the basis for this collection of information. PIR requests information from participants in the fisheries and interested persons. This information is needed for permit issuance, to identify participants in the fisheries, and to help measure impacts of management controls on the participants in the fisheries of the EEZ in the western Pacific. II. Method of Collection Paper submissions and telephone calls are required from participants. Methods of submittal include mailing and facsimile transmission of paper forms. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0490. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 187. *Estimated Time Per Response:* Experimental permit applications, 2 hours; all other permit applications, 30 minutes; and permit appeals, 2 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 85. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $450. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: April 11, 2006. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-5628 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Coastal Ocean Program Grants Proposal Application Package AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Laurie Golden, 301-713-3338 ext 151 or *laurie.golden@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Coastal Ocean Program

(COP)provides direct financial assistance through grants and cooperative agreements for research supporting the management of coastal ecosystems. In addition to standard government application requirements, applicants for financial assistance are required to submit a project summary form. Recipients are required to file annual progress reports and a project final report using COP formats. All of these requirements are needed for better evaluation of proposals and monitoring of awards. II. Method of Collection Paper and electronic applications are acceptable. Progress reports can be submitted in paper form or electronically. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0384. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions; business or other for-profit organizations; State, Local or Tribal Government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 300. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 30 minutes for a project summary; 5 hours for an annual report; and 10 hours for a final report. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 900. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* 0. IV. Request for Comments *Comments are invited on:*

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(GHL)for the guided sport halibut fishery (charter fishery) in the International Pacific Halibut Commission

(IPHC)regulatory Areas 2C and 3A. The GHL provides a benchmark harvest level for participants in the charter fishery. This notice is necessary to meet the management and regulatory requirements for the GHL and to inform the public about the 2006 GHL for the charter fishery. DATES: The GHLs are effective beginning 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 1, 2006, and will close at 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2006. This period is specified by the IPHC as the sport fishing season in all waters of Alaska. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Gasper, 907 586 7228, or e-mail at *jason.gasper@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS implemented a final rule to establish GHLs in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A for the harvest of Pacific halibut ( *Hippoglosses stenolepis* ) by the charter fishery on August 8, 2003 (68 FR 47256). The GHLs are intended to serve as a benchmark harvest level for participants in the charter fishery. This announcement is consistent with § 300.65(c)(2), which requires that GHLs for IPHC regulatory Areas 2C and 3A be specified by NMFS and announced by publication in the **Federal Register** no later than 30 days after receiving information from the IPHC which establishes the constant exploitation yield

(CEY)for halibut in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A. Based on the regulations at § 300.65(c)(1), the CEY established by the IPHC in 2006 in Area 2C results in a GHL of 1,432,000 pounds (649.5 mt), and results in a GHL of 3,650,000 pounds (1,655.6 mt) in Area 3A. This notice does not require any regulatory action by NMFS and is intended to serve as an notice of the GHLs in Areas 2C and 3A for 2006. If the GHL is exceeded in 2006, NMFS will notify the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) in writing within 30 days pursuant to regulations at § 300.65(c)(3). The Council is not required to take action, but may recommend additional management measures after receiving notification that a GHL has been exceeded. Classification This notice does not require any additional regulatory action by NMFS and does not impose any additional restrictions on harvests by the charter fishery. If the GHL is exceeded in any year, the Council would be notified, but no action would be required to be taken. This process of notification is intended to provide the Council with an indication of the level of Pacific halibut harvest by the charter fishery in a given year and could prompt future action. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 *et seq.* Dated: April 11, 2006. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-5683 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Intent To Grant Partially Exclusive Patent License: Bixenta Ventures LLC AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD. ACTION: Special notice. SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Bixenta Ventures LLC, a revocable, nonassignable, partially exclusive license to practice throughout the United States the Government-owned inventions described in U.S. Patent No. 6,873,961, Method And Apparatus For Identifying And Tracking Project Trends; U.S. Patent No. 6,801,655, Spatial Image Processor; U.S. Patent No. 6,785,623, Business To Business Electronic Test Monitoring Information System; U.S. Patent No. 6,768,815, Color Sensor; U.S. Patent No. 6,765,541, Capacitively Shunted Quadrifilar Helix Antenna; U.S. Patent No. 6,735,579, Static Memory Processor; U.S. Patent No. 6,718,816, Monolithic I.C. Implemented Calibration Circuit; U.S. Patent No. 6,718,316, Neural Network Noise Anomaly Recognition System And Method; U.S. Patent No. 6,714,481, System And Method For Active Sonar Signal Detection And Classification; U.S. Patent No. 6,703,917, Resettable Fuse/Circuit Interrupter With Visual Fault Indication; U.S. Patent No. 6,694,049, Multimode Invariant Processor; U.S. Patent No. 6,681,016, System For Transfer Of Secure Mission Data; U.S. Patent No. 6,618,713, Neural Directors; U.S. Patent No. 6,618,324, Track Quality Indicator With Hysteresis; U.S. Patent No. 6,597,634, System And Method For Stochastic Characterization Of Sparse, Four-Dimensional, Underwater-Sound Signals; U.S. Patent No. 6,594,382, Neural Sensors; U.S. Patent No. 6,590,833, Adaptive Cross Correlator; U.S. Patent No. 6,580,314, Demodulation System And Method For Recovering A Signal Of Interest From A Modulated Carrier Sampled At Two Times The Phase Generated Carrier Frequency; U.S. Patent No. 6,577,268, Outboard Radio Signal Test System And Method; U.S. Patent No. 6,571,598, Calibration Circuit For Use With A Differential Input Preamplifier In A Sensor System; U.S. Patent No. 6,566,895, Unbalanced Three Phase Delta Power Measurement Apparatus And Method; U.S. Patent No. 6,560,582, Dynamic Memory Processor; U.S. Patent No. 6,559,632, Method And Apparatus For Determining Linear And Angular Velocity Of A Moving Body; U.S. Patent No. 6,546,045, Method For Communication Using Adaptive Modem; U.S. Patent No. 6,525,990, Target Simulation System And Method; U.S. Patent No. 6,507,827, Adaptive And Intelligent Modem; U.S. Patent No. 6,466,516, System And Apparatus For The Detection Of Randomness In Three Dimensional Time Series Distributions Made Up Of Sparse Data Sets; U.S. Patent No. 6,430,522, Enhanced Model Identification In Signal Processing Using Arbitrary Exponential Functions; U.S. Patent No. 6,430,107, Computerized Auditory Scene Analysis Particularly Suited For Undersea Applications; U.S. Patent No. 6,421,620, Test Data Processing System; U.S. Patent No. 6,411,566, System And Method For Processing An Underwater Acoustic Signal By Identifying Nonlinearity In The Underwater Acoustic Signal; U.S. Patent No. 6,407,720, Capacitively Loaded Quadrifilar Helix Antenna; U.S. Patent No. 6,401,050, Non-Command, Visual Interaction System For Watchstations; U.S. Patent No. 6,400,647, Remote Detection System; U.S. Patent No. 6,397,234, System And Apparatus For The Detection Of Randomness In Time Series Distributions Made Up Of Sparse Data Sets; U.S. Patent No. 6,397,202, System And Method For Monitoring Risk In A System Development Program; U.S. Patent No. 6,392,959, Contact Data Correlation With Reassessment; U.S. Patent No. 6,389,229, Optical Fstop/Resolution Apparatus And Method For Specified Depth-Of-Field; U.S. Patent No. 6,344,834, Low Angle, High Angle Quadrifilar Helix Antenna; U.S. Patent No. 6,304,885, Digital Data Retrieving, Organizing And Display System; U.S. Patent No. 6,304,833, Hypothesis Selection For Evidential Reasoning Systems; U.S. Patent No. 6,105,015, Wavelet-Based Hybrid Neurosystem For Classifying A Signal Or An Image Represented By The Signal In A Data System; U.S. Patent No. 5,814,816, System For Monitoring Surface Stress And Other Conditions In Structures; U.S Patent No. 5,790,758, Neural Network Architecture For Gaussian Components Of A Mixture Density Function; U.S. Patent No. 5,781,460, System And Method For Chaotic Signal Identification; U.S. Patent No. 5,757,974, System And Method For Data Compression; U.S. Patent No. 5,729,171, Preamplifier With Adjustable Input Resistance; U.S. Patent No. 5,728,944, Photoelastic Stress Sensor; U.S. Patent No. 5,712,959, Neural Network Architecture For Non-Gaussian Components Of A Mixture Density Function; and U.S. Patent No. 5,696,700, System And Computer-Implemented Method For Fractal-Dimension Measurement For Target-Motion Analysis Noise Discrimination. DATES: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license has fifteen

(15)days from the date of this notice to file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any. ADDRESSES: Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport, 1176 Howell St., Bldg 990, Code 105, Newport, RI 02841. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Theresa A. Baus, Technology Transfer Manager, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport, 1176 Howell St., Bldg 990, Code 105, Newport, RI 02841; telephone 401-832-8728, or e-mail *bausta@npt.nuwc.navy.mil.* Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404. Dated: April 11, 2006. Eric McDonald, Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E6-5643 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD FOIA Fee Schedule Update AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board is publishing its annual update to the Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA)Fee Schedule pursuant to 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6) of the Board's regulations. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 1, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth M. Pusateri, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901,

(202)694-7060. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FOIA requires each Federal agency covered by the Act to specify a schedule of fees applicable to processing of requests for agency records. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(i). On March 15, 1991, the Board published for comment in the **Federal Register** its proposed FOIA Fee Schedule. 56 FR 11114. No comments were received in response to that notice and the Board issued a final Fee Schedule on May 6, 1991. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6) of the Board's regulations, the Board's General Manager will update the FOIA Fee Schedule once every 12 months. Previous Fee Schedule updates were published in the **Federal Register** and went into effect, most recently, on May 1, 2005, 27 FR 20739. Board Action Accordingly, the Board issues the following schedule of updated fees for services performed in response to FOIA requests: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Schedule of Fees for FOIA Services (Implementing 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6)) *Search or Review Charge:* $60.00 per hour. *Copy Charge (paper):* $.05 per page, if done in-house, or generally available commercial rate (approximately $.09 per page). *Electronic Media:* $5.00. *Copy Charge (audio cassette):* $3.00 per cassette. *Duplication of Video:* $25.00 for each individual videotape; $16.50 for each additional individual videotape. *Copy Charge for large documents (e.g., maps, diagrams):* Actual commercial rates. Dated: April 10, 2006. Kenneth M. Pusateri, General Manager. [FR Doc. E6-5603 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3670-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PH06-39-000] Alexander's of Brooklyn II, LLC; Notice of Petition for Exemption From the Requirements of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005 April 10, 2006. Take notice that on March 31, 2006, Alexander's of Brooklyn II, LLC filed a notification of exemption pursuant to section 18 CFR 366.3(a) and 366.4(b)(1), seeking exemption from the requirements of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible online at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 21, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5620 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP06-102-000] Trunkline LNG Company, LLC; Notice of Filing April 10, 2006. Take notice that on March 31, 2006, Trunkline LNG Company, LLC (Trunkline LNG), P.O. Box 4967, Houston, Texas 77210-4967, filed an application, pursuant to section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act

(NGA)and part 157 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, requesting authorization to construct and operate Ambient Air Vaporization

(AAV)facilities, and natural gas liquids

(NGL)processing equipment at Trunkline LNG's liquefied natural gas

(LNG)terminal near Lake Charles, Louisiana. Collectively, these facilities are known as the Infrastructure Enhancement Project (IEP). The application is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at

(866)208-3676, or for TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. The AAV facilities will allow Trunkline LNG to regasify LNG by using the surrounding air temperature. This method will reduce the amount of fuel that is used by the existing Submerged Combustion Vaporizer

(SCV)facilities. Currently, Trunkline LNG uses approximately 1.6% of sendout capacity as fuel for the existing SCV facilities. The proposed vaporization facilities will not increase the terminal's certificated sendout capacity of 2.1 Bcf/day. The NGL processing equipment will have the capability to extract ethane, and other heavier hydrocarbons from half of the terminal's daily sendout before the gas is sent to the pipeline and then delivered to downstream markets. The construction and operation of the proposed facilities will occur entirely within the existing Trunkline LNG's terminal site. Trunkline LNG estimates that the total capital cost of constructing the IEP facilities will be $273.8 million including AFUDC. Trunkline LNG proposes a recourse reservation rate of $1.2616 per Dt for service under proposed Rate Schedule FAV, using design units based on the sendout capacity associated with the IEP facilities. Trunkline LNG proposed to construct and place the IEP facilities in service by August 2008. Any questions regarding the application are to be directed to William W. Grygar, Vice President of Rates and Regulatory Affairs, 5444 Westheimer Road, Houston, Texas 77056-5306; phone number

(713)989-7000. Any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding. Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper, see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *Comment Date:* May 1, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5615 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP06-298-000] Public Service Commission of New York, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, and Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate, Complainants v. National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation, Respondent; Notice of Complaint April 10, 2006. Take notice that on April 7, 2006, the Public Service Commission of New York, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, and the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate (collectively, Joint State Agencies) filed a complaint against National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (NFG), pursuant to sections 5(a) and 13 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717(a) and 7171, and Rule 206 of Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, alleging that NFG's existing rates are unjust and unreasonable and asking the Commission to determine and set the just and reasonable rates NFG shall be authorized to charge prospectively. The Joint State Agencies certify that copies of the complaint were served on contacts for NFG, affected regulatory agencies and other parties that Joint State Agencies know may be affected. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 27, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5614 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 April 10, 2006. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings. *Docket Numbers:* ER01-1807-022; ER01-2020-019. *Applicants:* Carolina Power & Light Company; Florida Power Corporation. *Description:* Report of Carolina Power & Light Co. d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas submits a Refund of Energy Imbalance Revenues report. *Filed Date:* March 30, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060330-5022. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 20, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-478-010; ER03-951-008: ER03-416-009; ER04-94-006; ER03-296-008; ER05-534-006; ER05-365-006; ER01-3121-007; ER02-418-006; ER05-332-006; ER06-1-004; ER02-417-006; ER05-1146-006; ER06-200-005; ER05-481-006; ER03-1326-004; ER05-1262-003. *Applicants:* PPM Energy, Inc.; Moraine Wind LLC; Klondike Wind Power LLC; Mountain View Power Partners, LLC; Flying Cloud Power Partners, LLC; Eastern Desert Power LLC; Elk River Windfarm LLC; Klamath Energy LLC; Klamath Generation LLC; Klondike Wind Power II LLC; Leaning Juniper Wind Power LLC; Phoenix Wind Power LLC; Shiloh I Wind Project, LLC; Big Horn Wind Project LLC; Trimont Wind I LLC; Colorado Green Holdings LLC; Flat Rock Windpower LLC. *Description:* PPM Energy Inc, Moraine Wind LLC et al. notify FERC of a change in their status as a result of the proposed acquisition of an interest in an affiliate of PPM by FC Energy I Inc etc. *Filed Date:* March 29, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060331-0191. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 19, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-168-002. *Applicants:* NorthWestern Corporation. *Description:* NorthWestern Corp submits an amendment to its November 7, 2005 submittal, revisions to its OATT, FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume 2 for its South Dakota operations etc. *Filed Date:* March 30, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060404-0103. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 20, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-432-002. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits revised tariff language to its OATT, pursuant to the Commission February 28, 2006 order. *Filed Date:* March 30, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060404-0014. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 20, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-433-002. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc submits a supplemental informational filing to its unexecuted Large Generator Interconnection Agreement among Twins Creek Wind LLC et al. *Filed Date:* March 30, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060404-0012. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 20, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-586-001. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System; Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency. *Description:* Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency submits a response to the Commission March 15, 2006 directive for additional information. *Filed Date:* March 30, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060403-0198. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 20, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-745-001. *Applicants:* MASSPOWER. *Description:* MASSPOWER submits a supplement to its March 16, 2006 Application. *Filed Date:* March 30, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060404-0011. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 20, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-799-001. *Applicants:* Entergy Services Inc. *Description:* Entergy Services Inc, acting as agent for Entergy Operating Companies submits an amendment to its March 29, 2006 filling, unexecuted Standard Large Generation Interconnection Agreement with Arkansas Electric Coop Corp. *Filed Date:* March 31, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060404-0013. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 21, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-801-000. *Applicants:* Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC. *Description:* Allegheny Energy Supply Co, LLC submits a petition requesting authorization to make wholesale power sales to its affiliate, The Potomac Edison Co, to become effective June 1, 2006. *Filed Date:* March 29, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060406-0007. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 19, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-807-000. *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corp. *Description:* American Electric Power Service Corp submits cancellations of Point-to-Point & Network Integration Transmission Service Agreements made pursuant its OATT. *Filed Date:* March 31, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060404-0080. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 21, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-808-000. *Applicants:* Central Maine Power Company. *Description:* Central Maine Power Co submits proposed revisions to the formula rate local transmission service set forth in Schedule 21-CMP of the ISO-Tariff. *Filed Date:* March 31, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060403-0141. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 21, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-809-000. *Applicants:* Xcel Energy Operating Companies; Northern States Power Company. *Description:* Northern States Power Co submits Connection Agreements with Great River Energy for the Traverse Switching Station dated May 23, 2001 et al. *Filed Date:* March 30, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060403-0190. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 20, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-810-000. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc submits proposed revisions to Article Two & Appendices A and F of the “Agreement of Transmission Facilities Owners to Organize the Midwest ISO etc. *Filed Date:* March 31, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060403-0189. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 21, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-811-000. *Applicants:* Entergy Services Inc. *Description:* Entergy Services Inc on behalf of Entergy Arkansas, Inc submits an executed Service Agreement providing for cost-based, short-term power sales to the City of Prescott, Arkansas etc. *Filed Date:* March 31, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060403-0188. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 21, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-812-000. *Applicants:* Xcel Energy Services Inc. *Description:* Xcel Energy Services Inc agent for Northern States Power Co et al submits notices of termination for the Network Integration Transmission Service Agreements and Network Operating Agreements etc. *Filed Date:* March 31, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060403-0142. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 21, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-813-000. *Applicants:* New England Power Pool Participants Committee *Description:* New England Power Pool Participants Committee submits counterpart signature pages of the New England Power Pool Agreement dated as of September 1, 1971 etc. *Filed Date:* March 31, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060403-0143. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 21, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-814-000. *Applicants:* Consolidated Water Power Company. *Description:* Consolidated Water Power Co submits an executed Service Agreement for Wholesale Distribution Service w/Wisconsin Public Service Corp etc. *Filed Date:* March 31, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060403-0197. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 21, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-815-000. *Applicants:* NRG Marketing Services LLC. *Description:* NRG Marketing Services LLC submits a notice of cancellation of its market-based rate tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1. *Filed Date:* March 31, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060403-0144. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 21, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-816-000. *Applicants:* California Independent System Operator Corporation. *Description:* California Independent System Operator Corp submits Amendment 1 to its letter agreement with Bonneville Power Administration Transmission Business Line. *Filed Date:* March 30, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060403-0186. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 20, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-817-000. *Applicants:* California Independent System Operator Corporation. *Description:* California Independent System Operator Corp submits Amendment 2 to its Letter Agreement with Bonneville Power Administration Transmission Business Line etc. *Filed Date:* March 30, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060403-0145. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 20, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-818-000. *Applicants:* San Diego Gas & Electric Company. *Description:* San Diego Gas & Electric Co submits amendments to its Transmission Owner Tariff, etc. *Filed Date:* March 31, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060403-0162. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 21, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-819-000. *Applicants:* Consolidated Edison Energy of Massachusetts, Inc. *Description:* Consolidated Edison Energy Massachusetts Inc submits its Reliability Agreement with ISO New England Inc. *Filed Date:* March 30, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060405-0068. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 20, 2006. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov* . To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* . or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5610 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests April 10, 2006. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection. a. *Type of Application:* New Major License. b. *Project No.:* P-11910-002. c. *Date filed:* August 31, 2004. d. *Applicant:* Symbiotics, LLC. e. *Name of Project:* Applegate Dam Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* On the Applegate River, near the town of Medford, Jackson County, Oregon. The proposed project would be located at the existing Applegate dam and reservoir, which are owned and operated by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. The proposed project boundary would include approximately 8.3 acres of U.S. lands. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r). h. *Applicant Contact:* Brent L. Smith, Northwest Power Services, Inc. P.O. Box 535, Rigby, Idaho 83442,

(208)745-0834. i. *FERC Contact:* Tim Looney, 202-502-6096, *timothy.looney@ferc.gov* . j. *Cooperating agencies:* We are asking Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the environmental document. Agencies who would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing documents described in item k below. Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene. *See* , 94 FERC ¶ 61,076 (2001). k. *Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests and requests for cooperating agency status:* 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. Motions to intervene and protests and requests for cooperating agency status may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) under the “e-Filing” link. l. This application has been accepted for filing, but is not ready for environmental analysis at this time. m. The Applicant proposes to utilize the existing Applegate Dam, Applegate Reservoir, outlet works, and spillway, owned and operated by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. The Applicant proposes to construct a powerhouse with an installed capacity of 10 megawatts at the area downstream from the dam. The Applicant also proposes to construct a new 15-mile-long, 69-kilovolt overhead power transmission line to connect the powerhouse with a substation located at Ruch, Oregon. The average annual generation is estimated to be 44,300,000 kilowatt-hours. n. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. You may also register online at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp* to be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. o. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application, a competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing development application no later than 120 days after the specified deadline date for the particular application. Applications for preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice. A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application. When the application is ready for environmental analysis, the Commission will issue a public notice requesting comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, or prescriptions. All filings must

(1)bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION,” or “COMPETING APPLICATION;”

(2)set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds;

(3)furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and

(4)otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. p. Procedural schedule and final amendments: Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate. The schedule given in the September 7, 2004 tendering notice is revised as follows: Issue Acceptance Letter April 2006. Issue Scoping Document 1 April 2006. Request Additional Information (if necessary) June 2006. Issue Scoping Document 2 (if necessary) July 2006. Notice that application is ready for environmental analysis

(EA)July 2006. Notice of the availability of the EA Jan. 2007. Ready for Commission's decision on the application May 2007. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5617 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2230-034] City and Borough of Sitka, AK; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission, Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing, and a Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments April 10, 2006. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection. a. *Type of Application:* New Major License. b. *Project No.:* 2230-034. c. *Date Filed:* March 28, 2006. d. *Applicant:* City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska. e. *Name of Project:* Blue Lake Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* On the Sawmill Creek, 5 miles southeast of the City of Sitka, Alaska. The project occupies land of the United States administered by the Forest Service. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r). h. *Applicant Contact:* Charles Walls, Utility Director, City and Borough of Sitka, 105 Jarvis Street, Sitka, AK 99835,

(907)747-4000. i. *FERC Contact:* Thomas Dean,

(202)502-6041 or *thomas.dean@ferc.gov.* j. *Cooperating agencies:* We are asking Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the environmental document. Agencies who would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing such requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene. *See,* 94 FERC ¶ 61,076 (2001). k. *Deadline for requesting cooperating agency status:* May 30, 2006. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Requests for cooperating agency status may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) under the “eFiling” link. l. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time. m. The existing Blue Lake Project consists of one development and two units as follows: The Blue Lake development consists of:

(1)A 211-foot-high, 256-foot-long concrete arch dam equipped with a 140-foot-long spillway and a release valve at the base of the dam;

(2)a 1,225-acre reservoir with a normal water surface elevation of 342 feet msl;

(3)a 7,110-foot-long power conduit consisting of:

(a)An 11.5-foot-diameter, 1,500-foot-long penstock;

(b)an 84-inch-diameter, 460-foot-long penstock;

(c)a 10-inch-diameter, 4,650-foot-long lower penstock;

(d)an 84-inch-diameter, 500-foot-long penstock;

(e)a 20-inch-diameter water supply tap;

(f)an 84-inch-diameter butterfly valve; and

(g)a 24-inch conduit drain valve;

(4)a powerhouse containing two 3,000 kW generating units;

(5)a 150-foot-long tailrace;

(6)a 5-mile-long, 69-kV transmission line; and

(7)appurtenant facilities. The Fish Valve Unit consists of:

(1)A 36-inch-diameter wye penstock connected to the power conduit;

(2)a powerhouse containing one 670 kW generating unit;

(3)a 7,700-foot-long, 12.47-kV transmission line; and

(4)appurtenant facilities. The Pulp Mill Feeder Unit consists of:

(1)A 36-inch-diameter tee connected to the power conduit;

(2)a 36-inch-diameter, 24-foot-long penstock;

(3)a powerhouse containing one 870 kW generating unit;

(4)a 470-foot-long 4.16-kV transmission line; and

(5)other appurtenant facilities. n. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. You may also register online at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp* to be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. o. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required by § 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR 800.4. p. *Procedural schedule and final amendments:* The application will be processed according to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate. The Commission staff proposes to issue one environmental assessment rather than issue a draft and final EA. Comments, terms and conditions, recommendations, prescriptions, and reply comments, if any, will be addressed in an EA. Staff intends to give at least 30 days for entities to comment on the EA, and will take into consideration all comments received on the EA before final action is taken on the license application. Issue Acceptance or Deficiency Letter May 2006. Request Additional Information, if needed May 2006. Notice Soliciting Final Terms and Conditions Aug. 2006. Notice of the availability of the EA Jan. 2007. Ready for Commission's decision on the application March 2007. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice soliciting final terms and conditions. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5618 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests April 10, 2006. Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Application Type:* Application for Amendment of License to Use the Project Water and Lands. b. *Project No.:* 405-068. c. *Date Filed:* March 24, 2006. d. *Applicant:* Susquehanna Power Company and PECO Energy Power Company. e. *Name of Project:* Conowingo Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* The project is located on the Susquehanna River in Hartford and Cecil Counties in Maryland, and York and Lancaster Counties in Pennsylvania. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r. h. *Applicant Contact:* H. Alfred Ryan, Assistant General Counsel, Exelon Business Services Company, 2301 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101-8609, Tel:

(215)841-6855, Fax: (215)568-3389, E-Mail: *halfred.ryan@exeloncorp.com.* Brian J. McManus, Jones Day, 51 Louisiana Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20001-2113, Tel:

(202)879-5452, Fax:

(202)626-1700, E-Mail: *bjmcmanus@jonesday.com.* i. *FERC Contact:* Any questions on this notice should be addressed to Mr. Jake Tung at

(202)502-8757, or e-mail address: *hong.tung@ferc.gov.* j. *Deadline for filing comments and or motions:* May 8, 2006. k. *Description of Request:* The licensees filed for Commission approval of an agreement between licensees and Conectiv Mid Merit, LLC

(CMM)for use of the project's reservoir and lands for the withdrawal and discharge of water necessary to support CMM's combined cycle electric power generating plant, to be built and operated in Peach Bottom Township, York County, Pennsylvania. CMM plans to withdraw water from the Conowingo Reservoir for cooling and process water by constructing a water supply pipeline from the reservoir to the plant. The water intake line will extend approximately 1,000 feet into Conowingo Reservoir. CMM also plans to discharge blowdown from a cooling tower to the Conowingo Reservoir via a water discharge pipeline from the plant to the river. The water discharge line will extend approximately 1,200 feet into Conowingo Reservoir. CMM proposes a maximum daily withdrawal of 19.01 million gallons per day (mgd), with an expected return flow of 10.29 mgd, for a total maximum consumptive use of 8.72 mgd of water. l. *Locations of Applications:* A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426, or by calling

(202)502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp* to be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item

(h)above. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene:* Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. o. *Filing and Service of Responsive Documents:* Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. p. *Agency Comments:* Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives. q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the “e-Filing” link. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5619 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD06-6-000; Docket No. RM01-10-005; Docket No. RM05-30-000 1 ] Joint Meeting of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Interpretative Order Relating to the Standards of Conduct; Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability Organization; Notice of Joint Meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission With Revised Agenda April 10, 2006. As announced in the April 3, 2006 Notice of Joint Meeting, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(FERC)and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)will hold a joint meeting on April 24, 2006, in Room 2C, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The meeting is expected to begin at 2 p.m.

(EDT)and conclude at 4 p.m. All interested persons are invited to attend. 1 The Commission does not anticipate any decisions being made in either of these rulemaking dockets at this meeting; however, as both rulemakings may be discussed, the Commission is noticing both dockets to ensure no violation of the Government in the Sunshine Act requirements occurs. Purpose of Joint Meeting In accordance with the April 3 Notice, the purpose of the joint meeting is to continue the dialog between the two agencies in furtherance of the goals set forth in the Memorandum of Agreement, signed on September 1, 2004, especially in light of the concurrent matters involving offsite power, 2 and to explore the most effective role of each agency in addressing grid reliability issues and, thereby, to ensure an integrated approach in accomplishing their respective missions. 2 On February 1, 2006, the NRC issued Generic Letter 2006-002, Grid Reliability and the Impact on Plant Risk and the Operability of Offsite Power, OMB No. 3150-0011. On February 16, 2006, in Docket No. RM01-10-005, FERC issued *Interpretive Order Relating to the Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers,* 114 FERC ¶ 61,155 (2006). Format for Joint Meeting The format for the joint meeting will be discussions between the two sets of commissioners following presentations by their respective staffs, as set forth in the *revised* agenda below. There will not be industry presentations. Revised Agenda Opening Remarks by FERC Chairman Kelliher, NRC Chairman Diaz and Commissioners Brief presentations by NRC Staff on effects of grid reliability on nuclear power plants and projected additions of new nuclear reactors to the grid and by FERC Staff on grid reliability and the Electric Reliability Organization proceeding. Discussion Brief presentations/updates by NRC Staff on Generic Letter and by FERC Staff on Interpretive Order Proceeding. Discussion Brief presentations by NRC Staff on reactor regulation and oversight, including adopting and revising standards, and by FERC Staff on new responsibilities under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Discussion Closing Remarks by NRC Chairman Diaz, FERC Chairman Kelliher and Commissioners As noted in the April 3 Notice, free webcast of this event is available through *http://www.ferc.gov.* Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this event can do so by navigating to *http://www.ferc.gov's* Calendar of Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the webcasts and offers access to the meeting via phone bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit *http://www.CapitolConnection.org* or contact Danelle Perkowski or David Reininger at 703-993-3100. Transcripts of the meeting will be available immediately for a fee from Ace Reporting Company (202-347-3700 or 1-800-336-6646). They will be available for free on the Commission's eLibrary system and on the events calendar approximately one week after the meeting. FERC conferences and meetings are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an e-mail to *accessibility@ferc.gov* or call toll free

(866)208-3372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY), or send a fax to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations. All interested persons are invited. There is no pre-registration and there is no fee to attend this joint meeting. Questions about the meeting should be directed to Mary Kipp at *Mary.Kipp@ferc.gov* or by phone at 202-502-8228. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5621 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0316; FRL-8158-8] Human Studies Review Board; Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA or Agency) Office of the Science Advisor

(OSA)announces a public meeting of the Human Studies Review Board

(HSRB)to advise the Agency on EPA's scientific and ethical reviews of human subjects research. DATES: The public meeting will be held May 2-4, 2006 from 8:30 a.m. to approximately 5 p.m., eastern time (However, the third day may not be needed). *Location:* Holiday Inn Hotel & Suites, Alexandria-Historic District, 625 First Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. The telephone number for the Holiday Inn Hotel & Suites, Alexandria-Historic District is

(703)548-6300. *Meeting Access:* Seating at the meeting will be on a first-come basis. Individuals requiring special accommodations at this meeting, including wheelchair access and assistance for the hearing impaired, should contact the DFO at least 10 business days prior to the meeting using the information under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT so that appropriate arrangements can be made. *Procedures for Providing Public Input:* Interested members of the public may submit relevant written or oral comments for the HSRB to consider during the advisory process. Additional information concerning submission of relevant written or oral comments is provided in Unit I.E. of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wishes further information should contact Paul I. Lewis, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA, Office of the Science Advisor, (8105), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:

(202)564-8381; fax:

(202)564-2070; e-mail address: *lewis.paul@epa.gov* . ADDRESSES: Submit your written comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0316, by one of the following methods: *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. E-mail: *ORD.Docket@epa.gov* . Mail: ORD Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0316. Deliveries are only accepted from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0316. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Public Meeting A. Does This Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who conduct or assess human studies on substances regulated by EPA or to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of This Document and Other Related Information? In addition to using regulations.gov, you may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/* . A frequently updated electronic version of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)is available at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/.* *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the ORD Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the ORD Docket is

(202)566-1752. EPA's position paper(s), charge/questions to the HSRB, and the meeting agenda will be available by mid to late April 2006. In addition, the Agency may provide additional background documents as the materials become available. You may obtain electronic copies of these documents, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the regulations.gov Web site and the HSRB Internet Home Page at *http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/.* For questions on document availability or if you do not have access to the Internet, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare May Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 5. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation. E. How May I Participate in This Meeting? You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions in this section. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0316 in the subject line on the first page of your request. 1. *Oral comments.* Requests to present oral comments will be accepted up to April 26, 2006. To the extent that time permits, interested persons who have not pre-registered may be permitted by the Chair of the HSRB to present oral comments at the meeting. Each individual or group wishing to make brief oral comments to the HSRB is strongly advised to submit their request (preferably via e-mail) to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than noon, eastern time, April 26, 2006, in order to be included on the meeting agenda. The request should identify the name of the individual making the presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will represent, and any requirements for audiovisual equipment (e.g., overhead projector, 35 mm projector, chalkboard). Oral comments before the HSRB are limited to 5 minutes per individual or organization. Please note that this includes all individuals appearing either as part of, or on behalf of an organization. While it is our intent to hear a full range of oral comments on the science and ethics issues under discussion, it is not our intent to permit organizations to expand these time limitations by having numerous individuals sign up separately to speak on their behalf. If additional time is available, there may be flexibility in time for public comments. Each speaker should being 25 copies of his or her comments and presentation slides for distribution to the HSRB at the meeting. 2. *Written comments.* Although you may submit written comments at any time, for the HSRB to have the best opportunity to review and consider your comments as it deliberates on its report, you should submit your comments at least 5 business days prior to the beginning of the meeting. If you submit comments after the date, those comments will be provided to the Board members, but you should recognize that the Board members may not have adequate time to consider those comments prior to making a decision. Thus, if you plan to submit written comments, the Agency strongly encourages you to submit such comments no later than noon, eastern time, April 26, 2006. You should submit your comments using the instructions in Unit 1.C. of this notice. In addition, the Agency also requests that person(s) submitting comments directly to the docket also provide a copy of their comments to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . There is no limit on the length of written comments for consideration by the HSRB. F. Background The HSRB will meet to consider and review EPA's scientific and ethics analyses of six completed human toxicity studies concerning three different compounds, including: Hexavalent chromium, a constituent of a wood preservative; and the following pesticide active ingredients—carbofuran and methyl isothiocyanate (MITC). The studies being considered at this meeting will include both studies on which the Agency proposes to rely in actions under the pesticide laws and studies that the Agency has decided not to use in its risk assessments, either for scientific reasons or because they do not meet the standards in EPA's final human studies rule, 40 CFR part 26. The Agency will ask the HSRB to advise the Agency on a range of scientific and ethics issues and on how the studies should be assessed against the provisions in 40 CFR 26.1701-26.1704 of EPA's final human studies rule. In addition, the Board may be reviewing draft HSRB reports for subsequent Board approval. Dated: April 11, 2006. William H. Farland, Acting EPA Science Advisor. [FR Doc. 06-3635 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 17

Traces to 17 documents

CFR