Rules and Regulations. Notice of rate order

17,936 words·~82 min read·/register/2006/05/17/06-4630

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

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Western Area Power Administration Loveland Area Projects—Western Area Colorado Missouri Balancing Authority-Rate Order No. WAPA-118 AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE. ACTION: Notice of rate order. SUMMARY: The Deputy Secretary of Energy confirmed and approved Rate Order No. WAPA-118 and Rate Schedule L-AS3, placing the rate for Regulation and Frequency Response Service (Regulation Service) for the Loveland Area Projects (LAP)—Western Area Colorado Missouri Balancing Authority (Balancing Authority) of the Western Area Power Administration (Western) into effect on an interim basis.

This provisional rate will be in effect until the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) confirms, approves, and places it into effect on a final basis or until it is replaced by another rate. The provisional rate will provide sufficient revenue to pay all annual costs, including interest expense, and repay power investment, within the allowable periods. DATES: Rate Schedule L-AS3 will be placed into effect on an interim basis on the first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after June 1, 2006, and will be in effect until the Commission confirms, approves, and places the rate schedule in effect on a final basis through May 31, 2011, or until the rate schedule is superseded.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Edward F. Hulls, Operations Manager, Rocky Mountain Customer Service Region, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 3700, Loveland, CO 80539-3003,

(970)461-7566, e-mail *hulls@wapa.gov* , or Mr. Daniel Payton, Rates Manager, Rocky Mountain Customer Service Region, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 3700, Loveland, CO 80539-3003,

(970)461-7442, e-mail *dpayton@wapa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Deputy Secretary of Energy approved existing Rate Schedule L-AS3 for Regulation Service, as part of Rate Order No. WAPA-106 (69 FR 1723) on December 30, 2003, placing those formula rates into effect on an interim basis effective March 1, 2004. The Commission confirmed and approved the rate schedules on January 31, 2005, under FERC Docket No. EF04-5182-000 (110 FERC 62,084) for service through February 28, 2009. This provisional rate is to supersede the current Rate Schedule L-AS3 only. Under the existing Rate Schedule L-AS3, the cost for Regulation Service is only applied against entities' auxiliary loads. The revised rate remains unchanged for the most part; however, provisions have been made for the application of the load-based rate to all intermittent resources within the Balancing Authority. Intermittent generators serving load outside the Balancing Authority will also pay a pass-through cost for Regulating Reserves. Additionally, Western has further defined the measurement for self-provision of Regulation Service. Although self-provision was permitted under the previously approved rate schedule, the terms and conditions have now been specifically defined. Since June 2003 Western representatives have attended and participated in various technical conferences and workshops with parties interested in the development of this revised rate for Regulation Service, including the Utility Wind Interest Group, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the National Wind Coordinating Committee, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Public Service Company of New Mexico, the Rocky Mountain Electrical League, and the Commission. By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00, effective December 6, 2001, the Secretary of Energy delegated:

(1)The authority to develop power and transmission rates to Western's Administrator,

(2)the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy, and

(DOE)Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152). This Act transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Energy the power marketing functions of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation under the Reclamation Act of 1902 (ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388), as amended and supplemented by subsequent laws, particularly section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)), and other Acts that specifically apply to the project involved. By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00, effective December 6, 2001, the Secretary of Energy delegated:

(1)The authority to develop power and transmission rates to Western's Administrator,

(2)the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy, and

(3)the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand or to disapprove such rates to the Commission. Existing DOE procedures for public participation in power rate adjustments (10 CFR part 903) were published on September 18, 1985. Acronyms and Definitions As used in this Rate Order, the following acronyms and definitions apply: *ACE:* Area Control Error. The instantaneous difference between a Balancing Authority's net actual and scheduled interchange, taking into account the effects of Frequency Bias and correction for meter error and automatic time-error correction. *AGC:* Automatic Generator Control. Equipment that automatically adjusts generation in a Balancing Authority from a central location, to maintain the Balancing Authority's interchange schedule plus Frequency Bias. AGC may also accommodate automatic inadvertent payback and time-error correction. *Auxiliary Load:* An entity's metered load, less its Federal allocation. *Balancing Authority:* The responsible entity that integrates resource plans ahead of time, maintains load-interchange-generation balance within a Balancing Authority area, and supports interconnection frequency in real time. *Capacity:* The electric capability of a generator, transformer, transmission circuit or other equipment. It is expressed in kW. *Capacity Rate:* The rate which sets forth the charges for capacity. It is expressed in dollars per kilowatt-month. *Commission:* Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. *CPS2:* NERC's Control Performance Standard 2 which requires that the average ACE for at least 90 percent of clock 10-minute periods (6 non-overlapping periods per hour) during a calendar month must be within a specific limit, referred to as L <sup>10</sup> or “L sub 10”. *CRSP:* Colorado River Storage Project. *FERC:* The Commission (to be used when referencing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Orders). *FERC Order No. 888:* FERC's order promoting open access transmission. *Frequency Bias:* A value, usually expressed in megawatts per 0.1 Hertz (MW/0.1 Hz) associated with a Balancing Authority that approximates the Balancing Authority's response to interconnection frequency error. *Fry-Ark:* Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. *Intermittent Resource:* For purposes of this rate order, an electric generator that is not dispatchable and cannot store its fuel source and therefore, cannot respond to changes in system demand or respond to transmission security constraints. *kW* : Kilowatt; a unit of power equal to 1,000 watts. *LAP:* Loveland Area Projects. *MW:* Megawatt; a unit of power equal to 1,000 kilowatts. *NERC:* North American Electric Reliability Council. *P-SMBP:* Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program. *Provisional Rate:* A rate which has been confirmed, approved and placed into effect on an interim basis by the Deputy Secretary. *Reclamation Law:* A series of Federal laws. Viewed as a whole, these laws create the originating framework under which Western markets power. *Regulating Reserve:* An amount of reserve responsive to automatic generation control, which is sufficient to provide normal regulating margin. *Regulating Reserve Charge:* Component of the provisional rate that would charge for the consumption of Regulating Reserves. *Regulation Service:* Regulation and Frequency Response Service—An ancillary service necessary to provide for the continuous balancing of resources, generation, and interchange, with load to maintain scheduled interconnection frequency at 60 cycles per second (60 H <sup>z</sup> ). Regulation Service is accomplished by committing on-line generation through the use of automatic generating control equipment to follow moment-by-moment changes in load. *SBA:* Sub-Balancing Authority—An entity serving load inside the Balancing Authority, with sufficient metering and AGC to accommodate minute-to-minute changes between its metered load and generation. *Tariff:* Western's Open Access Transmission Tariff. *WACM:* Western Area Colorado Missouri Balancing Authority, formerly known as the Western Area Colorado Missouri Control Area. *WALC:* Western Area Lower Colorado Balancing Authority. *WECC:* Western Electricity Coordinating Council. *Western:* United States Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration. Effective Date The provisional rate will take effect on the first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after June 1, 2006, and will remain in effect until May 31, 2011, pending approval by the Commission on a final basis. Public Notice and Comment Western followed the Procedures for Public Participation in Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments and Extensions, 10 CFR part 903, in developing these rates. Western involved interested parties in the rate process in the following manner: 1. Western proposed a rate adjustment for Regulation Service under Rate Order No. WAPA-106, dated June 13, 2003, and subsequently withdrew it on January 12, 2004, to allow more time for public input on intermittent resources and the self-provision of Regulation Service. 2. On March 18, 2004, Western hosted a Technical Information Meeting on Regulation Service in Denver, Colorado. At this meeting, Western presented its findings regarding the withdrawal of the proposed rate. Interested parties gave detailed presentations from their respective viewpoints about Regulation Service. 3. Between May 2004 and May 2005, Western representatives met with officials from Platte River Power Authority, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the Center for Resource Solutions to solicit input on and discuss the impacts of the proposed Regulation Service rate. 4. On September 27, 2004, Western held a second Technical Information Meeting on Regulation Service in Denver, Colorado, to discuss the results of the technical work completed since the March 18, 2004, Technical Information Meeting. 5. On June 20, 2005, Western published a Notice of Proposed Rate for Regulation Service in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 35424). Publication of this notice began the formal public process. 6. On July 27, 2005, Western held public information and public comment forums for the proposed Regulation Service rate adjustment in Denver, Colorado. 7. The Consultation and Comment Period for the public process closed on September 19, 2005. 8. Western received two comment letters during the Consultation and Comment Period which were considered in preparing this rate order. One comment letter received on September 27, 2005, while not specifically addressed in this rate order, reiterated the comments of the other two commenters, and therefore, was addressed. Comments Written comments were received from the following: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado (submitted jointly) Colorado Springs Utilities, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Representatives of the following organizations made oral comments: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee Colorado Springs Utilities, Colorado Springs, Colorado Platte River Power Authority, Fort Collins, Colorado. Project Description A. Federal Projects Providing Regulation Service LAP is comprised of two power projects that provide Regulation Service for the WACM Balancing Authority, the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Western Division (P-SMBP-WD) and the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project (Fry-Ark). The two projects were operationally and financially integrated for marketing purposes in 1989. WACM also receives supplemental Regulation Service through a dynamic signal from CRSP generating resources located within the WALC Balancing Authority. Within WACM, LAP provides service to customers in a three-state area (Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska) over a transmission system of approximately 3,356 miles (5,401 circuit kilometers), and CRSP provides service to customers over a transmission system of approximately 1,422 miles (2,288 circuit kilometers). Loveland Area Projects Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Western Division The initial stages of the Missouri River Basin Project, under construction since 1944, were authorized by section 9 of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 877, Public Law 534, 78th Congress, 2nd session). It was later renamed the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program (P-SMBP) to honor its two principal authors. The P-SMBP encompasses a comprehensive program, with the following authorized functions: flood control, navigation improvement, irrigation, municipal and industrial water development, and hydroelectric production for the entire Missouri River Basin. Multipurpose projects have been developed on the Missouri River and its tributaries in Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. The Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT), Kendrick, Riverton, and Shoshone Projects were administratively combined with P-SMBP in 1954, followed by the North Platte Project in 1959. These projects are known as the “Integrated Projects” of the P-SMBP. The Riverton Project was reauthorized as a unit of the P-SMBP in 1970. The P-SMBP-WD and the Integrated Projects consist of 19 powerplants: 6 in the C-BT, 6 in the P-SMBP-WD, 2 in the Kendrick Project, 4 in the Shoshone Project, and 1 in the North Platte Project. Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Fry-Ark is a transmountain diversion project in central and southeastern Colorado authorized by the Act of August 16, 1962 (Pub. L. 87-590, 76 Stat. 399, as amended by Title XI of the Act of October 27, 1974, Pub. L. 93-493, 88 Stat. 1487). The Fryingpan and Roaring Fork rivers are part of the Colorado River Basin, on the West Slope of the Rocky Mountains. Fry-Ark diverts water from the Fryingpan River and other tributaries of the Roaring Fork River to the Arkansas River on the East Slope of the Rocky Mountains. The water diverted from the West Slope, together with regulated Arkansas River water, provides supplemental irrigation, municipal and industrial water supplies, and hydroelectric power production. Flood control, fish and wildlife enhancement, and recreation are other important purposes of Fry-Ark. Fry-Ark features five dams and reservoirs, one located on the West Slope of the Rocky Mountains, and four located on the East Slope of the Rocky Mountains. Fry-Ark's electrical features consist of the Mount Elbert 206-MW Pumped-Storage Power Plant, the Mount Elbert Switchyard, and the Mount Elbert-Malta 230-kV Transmission Line. Colorado River Storage Project CRSP was authorized by the Act of April 11, 1956. It consists of four major storage units: Glen Canyon on the Colorado River in Arizona near the Utah border, Flaming Gorge on the Green River in Utah near the Wyoming border, Navajo on the San Juan River in northwestern New Mexico near the Colorado border, and the Wayne N. Aspinall unit (formerly known as Curecanti) on the Gunnison River in west-central Colorado. Six Federal powerplants with 16 units are associated with the project. The operating capacity of CRSP's 16 generating units was approximately 1,727,000 kW in fiscal year

(FY)2005. CRSP operates its transmission system within two balancing authorities, WACM and WALC. B. Balancing Authority Characteristics WACM is operated by Western and has Federal hydroelectric resources from the P-SMBP—WD and Fry-Ark Project. Large non-Federal thermal generators also operate within WACM, but are not under the direct control of Western; *e.g.* , Laramie River Station operated by Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., and Craig Power Plant operated by Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. The thermal generation within WACM represents the larger portion of the Balancing Authority's resource portfolio. However, thermal resources are much slower to respond to Regulation Service requirements, are generally operated near or at maximum generating capacity, and are typically not part of the AGC configuration. Generally, the thermal generation within WACM, as configured, is not considered capable of providing significant Regulation Service. In FY 2005, the peak load within WACM was measured at about 3,300 MW with approximately 5,300 MW of generation installed. Federal generation capacity is 830 MW or about 15 percent of the total available resource. Balancing Authority Regulating Constraints The only units within WACM capable of providing Regulation Service are those with the ability to adjust their output on a moment-to-moment basis. These units are located at Yellowtail, Seminoe, Kortes, Fremont Canyon, Alcova, Estes, Flatiron, and Mount Elbert powerplants. The amount of Regulating Reserve available from LAP powerplants is limited by how many units are available and the prescheduled loading of the units at a given time. Factors influencing unit regulating availability include water schedules, individual generator rough zone constraints, and various environmental constraints. These limitations exist at most LAP powerplants including Yellowtail and Mount Elbert, the two primary powerplants providing Regulation Service. The relatively small size of some forebays and afterbays also limits the amount of Regulating Reserve available to the system. Additionally, water delivery has priority over generation needs, further restricting the amount of water that can be moved through the generators to provide Regulation Service. C. Regulation Service Rate Discussion In April 1998 Western implemented a load-based rate for Regulation Service. This rate has been applied to auxiliary loads within the Balancing Authority since that time. The existing formula rate for Regulation Service is based on an analysis that shows WACM requires 75 MW of Regulating Reserve. As LAP has limited hydroelectric generation available for Regulation Service, it must rely on purchases from others to supplement its own resources. This is important as the Balancing Authority could be the default provider of Regulation Service for 653.5 MW of intermittent resources currently in its interconnection queue. Recognizing its resource limitations, in this rate adjustment Western has included rates designed to properly allocate costs to all users of Regulation Service, including intermittent resources. The rate for Regulation Service is derived by dividing the revenue requirement by the load plus the installed intermittent generation, if any, within the WACM Balancing Authority requiring Regulation Service. The revenue requirement for Regulation Service consists of:

(1)The annualized cost of LAP powerplants providing Regulation Service within the WACM Balancing Authority,

(2)the revenue requirement for CRSP powerplants providing supplemental Regulation Service to the WACM Balancing Authority, and

(3)the cost of purchases to support Regulation Service. The load taking Regulation Service within WACM is derived by measurement of the load coincident with the LAP transmission system peak on a rolling 12-month average, plus the nameplate capacity of the intermittent resources located within the Balancing Authority. The provisional Regulation Service rate was developed based on the analysis of data relevant to the WACM Balancing Authority, and an extensive record was compiled during the process. Each Balancing Authority has unique operating characteristics and constraints when providing ancillary services. This rate is specifically designed for WACM's unique operating characteristics. Basis for Rate Development The existing rate for Regulation Service in Rate Schedule L-AS3 expires on February 28, 2009. The provisional rate will provide sufficient revenue to pay all annual costs, including interest expense and repayment of power investment, and will ensure that revenues are collected from the appropriate entities. The provisional rate will take effect on June 1, 2006, and will remain in effect through May 31, 2011. D. Rate Adjustment Background/Rates History Background Western published a Notice of Proposed Rate for Regulation Service in the **Federal Register** on June 13, 2003 (68 FR 35398). One component of that proposed rate specifically addressed Regulation Service needs for intermittent resources. However, that component was withdrawn from the Final Notice of Rate Order published in the **Federal Register** on January 12, 2004 (69 FR 1723), to allow further study and input from interested parties. This provisional rate for Regulation Service is the culmination of that continued study and input from various interested parties. Existing, Proposed, and Provisional Rates Western received comments during the Consultation and Comment Period that ended September 19, 2005. Based on comments received and further analysis, Western has revised its June 20, 2005, proposed rate to reflect the final provisional rate outlined in this rate order. Description of Existing Rate Western's existing rate for Regulation Service is a load-based rate which is applied to entities' auxiliary loads within WACM. The existing rate provides for entities to be credited when providing WACM with Regulation Service, and waives charges if the load/resource is dynamically metered out of WACM. Western's existing rate contains no provision for application of pass-through costs. Following is a description of the changes made from the proposed rate to the provisional rate: Load-Based Assessment Changes The June 2005 proposed rate maintained the existing rate's load-based rate for application to auxiliary loads, but limited the application of that load-based rate for intermittent resources equal to or less than 10 percent of an entity's auxiliary load. The proposed rate also provided for an assessment to any load or resource deemed to be non-conforming. The provisional rate eliminates the 10-percent limit, and applies the load-based rate to both the auxiliary loads and the total installed intermittent resources within the Balancing Authority. Changes in the Pass-Through Assessment The June 2005 proposed rate included provisions for periodic evaluations of all generators' performance within the Balancing Authority, and for those identified as non-conforming, provided for a pass-through cost. In the proposed rate, pass-through costs would also be applied to entities' intermittent resources exceeding 10 percent of their auxiliary load. The provisional rate eliminates the generator performance evaluation, as well as the 10-percent measurement and the non-conforming load/resource analysis. In the provisional rate, only intermittent resources that are exported are charged a pass-through cost for Regulating Reserves. Changes in Self-Provision or Cost Waiver Assessment The June 2005 proposed rate maintained the cost waiver if a load or resource was dynamically metered out of the Balancing Authority. If an entity claimed to be self-providing Regulation Service, the proposed rate gave the option of fully or partially self-providing (no different than the existing rate). The measurement of partial self-provision would be accomplished by measuring the first derivative of the average 1-minute change in the entity's ACE. An entity claiming to fully self-provide Regulation Service would have a choice of responding to WACM's dynamic ACE proportional to the entity's load, allowing WACM direct access to pulse the entity's regulating units, or some other mutually agreed-to process. The provisional rate no longer provides the option for an entity to respond to a proportional share of WACM's ACE. The provisional rate retains the option for an entity to allow WACM to directly pulse the entity's regulating units. It has also been adjusted slightly to measure partial self-provision by offering the customer the option of measuring either the entity's first derivative of the average 1-minute change in its ACE, or its averaged 1-minute ACE. Summary of the Provisional Rate Effective June 1, 2006 The provisional rate maintains the load-based assessment for auxiliary loads and the allowance for self-provision of the service, but allows the following choices for measuring that self-provision:

(1)The first derivative of the averaged 1-minute change in the entity's ACE, or

(2)the entity's average 1-minute ACE. The provisional rate eliminates the 10-percent limitation for intermittent resources to receive the load-based rate and instead applies the load-based rate to the total installed capacity of the intermittent resource. The provisional rate also eliminates the conforming versus non-conforming load/resource analysis. However, any intermittent resource exporting from WACM via a schedule would still be charged a pass-through cost based on the average hourly mismatch between forecast and actual generation. Existing and Provisional Rates A comparison of the existing, proposed, and provisional rates is as follows: Existing Rate Schedule L-AS3 Effective March 1, 2004 Load-Based Rate Proposed Rate Schedule L-AS3 Proposed June 20, 2005 Load-Based Rate Provisional Rate Schedule L-AS3 Effective June 1, 2006 Load-Based Rate Applied to: Applied to: Applied to:

(1)Entity's auxiliary loads

(1)Entity's auxiliary loads;

(1)Entity's auxiliary loads; and

(2)Entities' intermittent resources ≤ 10% of their auxiliary load within WACM, after 180 MW limit for intermittent resource installation reached; and

(2)Entities' total installed inermittent resources' capacity within WACM, with no installation limit.

(3)Non-conforming type load (charged an adjusted load-based rate)

(3)Eliminated. Pass-Through Cost: Market-Based Pass-Through Cost: Market-Based Pass-Through Cost: Market-Based N/A Applied to: Applies to:

(1)all generators without designated load in WACM; and

(1)See No. (2), in Cost Waiver section below.

(2)entities with installed intermittent generation 10% of their auxiliary load within WACM, after 180 MW limit for intermittent resource installation reached, will be charged as follows:

(2)No limit on installed intermittent generation, which will be charged as outlined in a. and b., below:

(a)Regulation Charge for minute-to-minute fluctuations

(a)Regulation Charge (load-based) will be charged to total installed intermittent resources (see Load-Based Rate, No. (2).

(b)Regulating Reserve Charge for hourly mismatch of capacity

(b)intermittent resources exporting from WACM via schedule will be charged for a Regulating Reserve Charge based on the hourly mismatch of forecast versus actual generation. Cost Waiver: Cost Waiver: Cost Waiver: Cost for service partially or fully waived if: Cost for service partially or fully waived if: Cost for service partially or fully waived if:

(1)generator or load dynamically metered out of WACM; or

(2)an entity provides its own service (partially or fully) and claim is accepted by WACM

(2)entities with manual AGC that are partially self-providing (charged load-based rate), will be measured by the first derivative of the averaged 1-minute change in the entity's error signal; or

(2)entities partially self-providing (charged the load-based rate) will be measured by either:

(a)first derivative of the averaged 1-minute change in the entity's ACE; or

(b)the entity's average 1-minute ACE; or

(3)entities with automatic AGC, that want to fully provide service (no charge) must:

(3)entitites wishing to fully provide service must:

(a)be willing/able to respond to WACM's dynamic signal, proportional to entity's load;

(a)no longer applicable;

(b)allow WACM direct access to pulse entity's regulating units;

(c)mutually agree to any other proven methodology or process; or

(d)if entity does not comply with (a), (b), or (c), it will be subject to measurement outlined in manual AGC description in No. (2), in this section.

(d)if entity doe not comply with b. or c., it will be subject to measurement outlined in this section, Nos. (2)(a) or (2)(b). Customer Accommodation As referenced in Western's existing rate schedule for Regulation Service, entities requiring service “* * * must either purchase this service from WACM or make alternative comparable arrangements to satisfy their Regulation obligations.” (69 FR 1734) Western expects that entities requiring Regulation Service will take service from the WACM Balancing Authority. However, for entities unwilling to take Regulation Service from the WACM Balancing Authority, self-provide it, or acquire it from a third party, Western has an established record of assisting and will continue to assist entities in the dynamic metering of their loads or resources out of the Balancing Authority. Until such time as meter reconfiguration is accomplished, an entity will be responsible for Regulation Service charges assessed by the WACM Balancing Authority under the rate then in effect. Certification of Rates Western's Administrator certified that the provisional rate for Regulation Service is the lowest possible rate consistent with sound business principles. The provisional rate was developed following administrative policies and applicable laws. Comments The comments and responses regarding the Regulation Service rate, paraphrased for brevity when not affecting the meaning of the statement(s), are discussed below. Direct quotes from comment letters are used for clarification where necessary. The issues discussed have been organized into three sections:

(1)Rate Design,

(2)Implementation, and

(3)Miscellaneous. 1. Rate Design A. *Comment:* Several comments expressed concern about the difference between Western's interpretation and their own regarding the true nature of Regulation Service. The commenters stated that Western's methodology for Regulation Service increases the cost of the service as expensive regulating units also support load-following and ramping. *Response:* The Commission requires balancing authorities to offer transmission customers Regulation and Frequency Response Service. However, there is no standard definition for load-following in any Commission document, NERC's glossary of terms, or WECC's reliability criteria. Within WACM, there is no distinction between Regulation Service and load-following during the hour on a real-time basis. WACM's Regulation Service, ramping, and load-following are performed simultaneously by the same units. As typical loads require all three services, it serves no purpose to operationally separate the functions. Out of the 16 customers taking Regulation Service from Western, the 7 balancing authorities adjacent to Western, or the 34 balancing authorities within the Western Interconnection, none have made requests or submitted comments to Western regarding the separation of these services. B. *Comment:* A comment suggested Western develop a mechanism to tap into the ramping capability of non-Federal thermal generation within WACM, so that the cost of Regulation Service and load-following could be reduced for all customers. *Response:* This comment is out of the scope of this rate action. However, the ramping capability identified in the comment is not owned by Western. Such resources are fully committed or used for the respective owners' deliveries to load. Any use of available ramping capability would have to be purchased from the thermal generation's owner and replaced to accommodate previous operational commitments. C. *Comment:* A comment states that the proposed rate methodology adds unneeded complexity to the rate. *Response:* Western believes that the methodology adopted in the provisional rate reflects a more accurate assignment of costs and is a reasonable modification of the existing approved rate for Regulation Service. The methodology is no more complex than necessary to assign costs fairly and provide adequate customer choice. D. *Comment:* The rate adjustment fails to assess the actual physical Regulation Service burden placed on the system by each separate customer and improperly recovers costs from each customer in proportion only to the Regulation Service burden placed on the system by each customer group. *Response:* This methodology is unchanged from the previous Commission-approved rate and is consistent with regional and Western Interconnection practices. A separate rate or system burden is not identified for each customer, and proportional, cost-based assessments will continue to be made for each customer's load share of the system's Regulation Service requirements. E. *Comment:* A commenter believes that the Regulation Service rate should be based on the Regulation Service allocation method described in the January 2000 report, “Customer-Specific Metrics for the Regulation and Load Following Ancillary Services,” authored by Brendan Kirby and Eric Hirst of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. *Response:* Based upon Western's research, the methodology outlined in the January 2000 report referenced by the comment has not been adopted and put into practice by any entity or Balancing Authority in the electric utility industry. Western's load-based rate is approved by the Commission and has been in effect for approximately 8 years. Western believes that minor adjustments to the approved rate, based on operating experience and Balancing Authority needs, are a reasonable modification. The provisional rate methodology, specifically tailored for WACM's unique mix of resources, results in the lowest cost consistent with sound business principles and therefore, is most appropriate for determining Regulation Service. A complete change in methodology is unnecessary. F. *Comment:* Western received several comments related to the analysis of wind resources, their operating characteristics, and impacts on Balancing Authority performance. Specifically, comments addressed Western's simulation studies to determine wind impacts on the Balancing Authority, the true amount of wind capacity that could be absorbed by WACM, and the cost of service for intermittent resources. *Response:* In its simulation studies on Balancing Authority performance, Western projected or scaled the output of existing WACM wind resources to study the impacts of additional wind resources. While linear scaling of a large magnitude in the range of 10 to 20 times might render questionable results, Western has demonstrated that linear scaling of 2 to 3 times is accurate for the purpose of this analysis. As a benchmark of reasonability, Western worked with a neighboring Balancing Authority with similar characteristics and a 204-MW wind farm. Analyses revealed that this wind farm had significant intra-hour fluctuations, often up to the installed capacity of the units. During these times, the neighboring Balancing Authority saw a significant degradation in its operating performance. Despite the fluctuations in output from wind or other intermittent resources, Western has determined by reviewing additional information and public comments that at present, there is no need to establish a limit for the amount of wind that may be installed for use by loads residing within the Balancing Authority. For resources exported out of the Balancing Authority, Western will charge the load-based rate against the nameplate of the resource plus a Regulating Reserve Charge, measured by the average hourly mismatch of the forecast versus the actual generation, and using pass-through pricing. G. *Comment:* Western has effectively double-charged customers for energy associated with Regulation Service, by charging them once in their Energy Imbalance Service rate schedule and by charging them again within the Regulation Service rate as a Regulating Reserve Charge. *Response:* In the interest of clarification, Western notes that its Energy Imbalance Service credits customers who over-deliver their resources and charges customers who under-deliver their resources. Western will not double-collect by charging for both Energy Imbalance Service and Regulating Reserve charges. The proposed Regulating Reserve Charge is a separate and distinct charge and can be viewed in the same light as a “unit commitment” charge; *i.e.* , what Western needs to keep on-line when an intermittent resource's actual output differs from its scheduled output. Western notes that the Regulating Reserve Charge would only apply to entities exporting their intermittent generation out of WACM. H. *Comment:* A comment states that Western's metric does not work above the 10-percent penetration rate (as defined by Western). For wind capacity in excess of this limit, there is no indication of what metric will be used to calculate the impact of wind on the system regulation requirements. *Response:* Western has eliminated the limit for intermittent generation of 180 MW or 10 percent of the Balancing Authority's auxiliary load, primarily due to the dynamic circumstances surrounding the impacts of additional intermittent resource installation. It is highly likely that WACM would experience degradation in its CPS2 should a single 200-MW intermittent resource be added to the Balancing Authority's resource mix. Historically, however, WACM has seen a very gradual addition of wind generators and has been able to adapt its system to operate around the volatility of these generators. Therefore, Western has eliminated the limit in the provisional rate. 2. Rate Implementation A. *Comment:* Western has incorrectly identified non-conforming loads and did not adequately define how they would be measured. *Response:* Western's proposed metric for identifying conforming versus non-conforming load was accurate, and properly distinguished between these two types of loads. However, the WACM Balancing Authority does not presently have any non-conforming load within its boundaries, and is not anticipating such load in the foreseeable future. This led to a decision to eliminate the non-conforming load assessment from the provisional rate. B. *Comment:* An SBA with AGC must respond to an error signal from WACM “proportional to the SBA's load within the Balancing Authority,” which would be inequitable, as allocation of regulating burden cannot be assessed on load. Regulating Service charges are more properly based on the volatility of the load, not on average demand. *Response:* The option of responding to a proportional share of WACM's dynamic signal was one of several options available to customers. However, this option was eliminated from the provisional rate. Other remaining alternatives include paying the same load-based Regulation Service rate as others or being treated as an SBA without AGC, both of which would resolve the comment's concern that it only respond to the “volatility” of its own load (see Response to Comment 2.C. below). Regarding the comment that a proportional response of a customer's AGC to an error signal from the Balancing Authority is inequitable, Western believes that this arrangement is equitable and necessary to prevent WACM from being the first to respond to a dynamic signal when an SBA cannot. It ensures that the SBA absorbs, on a proportional basis, responsibility for Regulation Service within the Balancing Authority. C. *Comment:* Under the self-provision assessment methodology, the limits of 0.5 percent and 1.5 percent to determine whether there are full, partial or no charges for a period are completely arbitrary. *Response:* The bandwidths of 0.5 percent and 1.5 percent are not arbitrary and follow calculations used by NERC for computing allowable excursions for each Balancing Authority. This calculation is based on the proportional share of generation response within a Balancing Authority's boundaries, contrasted to total generation response in the Interconnection. D. *Comment:* A commenter maintains that it is providing its own Regulation Service, and, therefore, is not subject to WACM's ancillary service rate for Regulation Service. *Response:* Western's position is that all entities operating within the Balancing Authority that are not NERC-recognized balancing authorities must take Regulation Service from the host Balancing Authority, unless they can demonstrate that they are actually providing their own service or are not using the resources of the host Balancing Authority. An entity's claim of full self-provision of Regulation Service must be demonstrated through joint study between the entity and the Balancing Authority, and approved by WACM. Until such time as full self-provision is demonstrated and approved, the entity will be charged for Regulation Service based on the entity's choice of:

(1)The first derivative of the averaged 1-minute change in the entity's ACE;

(2)the entity's average 1-minute ACE, as outlined in Rate Schedule L-AS3, Section 3.1; or

(3)the load-based rate applied against the entity's load. E. *Comment:* The rate methodology does not credit the SBA for providing frequency response service which could motivate the SBA to set its Frequency Bias to zero, resulting in governor response being withdrawn by the AGC system during a system disturbance. *Response:* For those entities operating generation in a tie-line bias mode, Western will offset the calculated Regulation Service requirement by mutual agreement with the SBA. Western will not provide credit for the governor response, as it is an involuntary action by the generating units across the Western Interconnection to arrest frequency from further degradation in the aftermath of a large contingency. 3. Miscellaneous A. *Comment:* Several comments applauded Western for its efforts to develop a rate for Regulation Service that recognizes the costs associated with providing the service and attempts to allocate those costs to the transmission customers responsible for incurring those costs. *Response:* Western notes the comments. B. *Comment:* A comment recommends WACM abandon the present proposal and develop a Regulation Service rate that uses technically defensible metrics to measure consumption of the service. *Response:* Western acknowledges the recommendation, but believes that its methodology is technically defensible, and it would not be reasonable to abandon efforts to manage and accurately account for the cost of providing Regulation Service. Western provided appropriate time and opportunity for consultation and comment on the proposed action in accordance with the Procedures for Public Participation in Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments and Extensions, set out in 10 CFR part 903. C. *Comment:* A comment renewed an offer to help Western develop an appropriate Regulation Service tariff and help analyze the impact of wind generation. *Response:* Western appreciates the offers of assistance it received during the course of this rate process, however, Western cannot give favored status to any group or groups in the design and implementation of proposed actions. Western did accept information and input from all concerned parties, both formally and informally, worked closely with technical staff from other agencies, and hosted panel discussions regarding the proposed rate at many wind-related conferences and meetings. Western also believes that it is in the best position to design its Regulation Service rate, based on the unique characteristics of WACM, the regional Federal hydroelectric powerplants, and Western's mission. Availability of Information Information about this rate adjustment, including comments, letters, memorandums and other supporting materials Western used to develop the provisional rates, is available for public review in the Rocky Mountain Customer Service Region, Western Area Power Administration, 5555 East Crossroads Boulevard, Loveland, Colorado. Regulatory Procedure Requirements Regulatory Flexibility Analysis The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* ) requires Federal agencies to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis if a final rule is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and there is a legal requirement to issue a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Western has determined that this action does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis since it is a rulemaking of particular applicability involving rates or services applicable to public property. Environmental Compliance In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, *et seq.* ); Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); and DOE NEPA Regulations (10 CFR part 1021), Western has determined that this action is categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Determination Under Executive Order 12866 Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act Western has determined that this rule is exempt from congressional notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 801 because the action is a rulemaking of particular applicability relating to rates or services and involves matters of procedure. Submission to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission The provisional rates herein confirmed, approved, and placed into effect, together with supporting documents, will be submitted to the Commission for confirmation and final approval. Order In view of the foregoing and under the authority delegated to me, I confirm and approve on an interim basis, effective June 1, 2006, Rate Schedule L-AS3 for the Loveland Area Projects and the Western Area Colorado Missouri Balancing Authority of the Western Area Power Administration. The rate schedule shall remain in effect on an interim basis, pending the Commission's confirmation and approval of it or a substitute rate on a final basis through May 31, 2011. Dated: May 9, 2006. Clay Sell, Deputy Secretary. Rate Schedule L-AS3, Schedule 3 to Tariff, June 1, 2006 Rocky Mountain Region; Regulation And Frequency Response Service Effective The first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after June 1, 2006, through May 31, 2011. Applicable Regulation and Frequency Response Service (Regulation Service) is necessary to provide for the continuous balancing of resources, generation and interchange with load, and for maintaining scheduled interconnection frequency at sixty cycles per second (60 Hz). Regulation Service is accomplished by committing online generation whose output is raised or lowered, predominantly through the use of automatic generating control equipment, as necessary to follow the moment-by-moment changes in load. The obligation to maintain this balance between resources and load lies with the Western Area Colorado Missouri

(WACM)Balancing Authority operator. The Customers (Loveland Area Projects

(LAP)Transmission Customers and customers on others' transmission systems within WACM) must purchase this service from WACM or make alternative comparable arrangements to satisfy their Regulation Service obligations. The charges for Regulation Service are outlined below. LAP charges for Regulation Service may be modified upon written notice to Customers. Any change to the Regulation Service charges will be listed in a revision to this rate schedule issued under applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies and made part of the applicable service agreement. Western will charge Customers under the rate then in effect. Types There will be three different applications of this rate, none of which are exclusive of the other, and all three may be applied to the same entity where appropriate. The three applications are: 1. *Load-based Assessment:* The Rate is reflected in the Formula Rate section and will be applied to entities who serve load within the WACM Balancing Authority. This load-based rate will be assessed on an entity's auxiliary load (total metered load less Federal entitlements) and will also be applied to the installed nameplate capacity of all intermittent generators within WACM. 2. *Exporting Intermittent Resource Assessment:* This application will apply to entities that export the output from intermittent resource(s). The entity will continue to pay the load-based charge on the nameplate capacity, as described in No. 1 above, but will also pay an additional Regulating Reserve charge for mismatched capacity; i.e., the hourly average mismatch of the resource's forecast versus actual generation, using the regional market rate for capacity/reserves as pricing. 3 *Self-Provision Assessment:* Western will allow entities with automatic or manual generation control to self-provide for all or a portion of their loads. Typically, entities with generation control are known as Sub-Balancing Authorities

(SBA)and should meet all of the following criteria: a. Have a well-defined boundary, with WACM-approved revenue-quality metering, accurate as defined by NERC, to include MW flow data availability at 6-second or smaller intervals. b. Have AGC capability. c. Demonstrate Regulation Service capability. d. Execute a contract with the WACM Balancing Authority to: i. Provide all requested data to the WACM Balancing Authority. ii. Meet SBA Error Criteria as described under section 3.1 below. 3.1. Self-provision will be measured by use of the entity's 1-minute average ACE or the entity's 1-minute first derivative of ACE (at the customer's choice), to determine the amount of self-provision. The assessment will be calculated every hour and the value of ACE or its derivative will be used to calculate the Regulation Service charges as follows: a. If the entity's 1-minute average ACE or entity's 1-minute first derivative of ACE is ≤ than 0.5 percent of the entity's hourly average load, no Regulation Service charges will be assessed by WACM. b. If the entity's 1-minute average ACE or the entity's 1-minute first derivative of ACE is ≥ 1.5 percent of the entity's hourly average load, WACM will assess Regulation Service charges to the entity's entire load, using the load-based rate. c. If the entity's 1-minute average ACE or the entity's 1-minute first derivative of ACE is > 0.5 percent of the entity's hourly average load, but < 1.5 percent of the entity's hourly average load, WACM will assess Regulation Service charges based on linear interpolation of zero charge and full charge. Customer Accommodation For entities unwilling to take Regulation Service, self-provide it as described above, or acquire the service from a third party, Western will assist the entity in dynamically metering its loads/resources to another Balancing Authority. Until such time as that meter configuration is accomplished, the entity will be responsible for charges assessed by WACM under the rate in effect. Formula Rate Load-Based Rate, applicable to No. 1 and No. 3 as described above and outlined in the “Types” section of this rate schedule: EN17MY06.000 Pass-Through Costs (Market), will be applicable only to No. 2 as described above and outlined in the “Types” section of this rate schedule. Rates Load-Based Rate The rate to be in effect June 1, 2006, through September 30, 2006, for Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as described above and outlined in the “Types” section of this rate schedule is: Monthly: $0.219/kW-month Weekly: $0.051/kW-week Daily: $0.007/kW-day Hourly: $0.000292/kWh This rate is based on the above formula and on fiscal year 2004 financial and load data, and will be adjusted annually as new data become available. Pass-Through Rate The rate to be in effect June 1, 2006, through September 30, 2006, for No. 2 as described above and outlined in the “Types” section of this rate schedule will be the regional market-based cost for capacity/reserves. [FR Doc. E6-7494 Filed 5-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0001; FRL-8068-7] National Pollution Prevention and Toxics Advisory Committee (NPPTAC); Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S. App.2 (Public Law 92-463), EPA gives notice of a 2-day meeting of the National Pollution Prevention and Toxics Advisory Committee (NPPTAC). The purpose of the meeting is to provide advice and recommendations to EPA regarding the overall policy and operations of the programs of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). DATES: The meeting will be held on June 14, 2006 from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and June 15, 2006 from 10:45 a.m. to 1 p.m. Registration to attend the meeting identified by docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0001, must be received on or before June 9, 2006. Registration will also be accepted at the meeting. Request to provide oral and/or written comments at the meeting, identified as (NPPTAC) June 2006 meeting, must be received in writing on or before May 30, 2006. Request to participate in the meeting, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0001, must be received on or before May 30, 2006. For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact John Alter at

(202)564-9891 or *npptac.oppt@epa.gov* . To request accommodation of a disability, please contact John Alter, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request. Meetings of the Committee Work Groups will take place as follows. The Globally Harmonized System

(GHS)of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals Interim Work Group will meet on June 13, 2006 from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m., to discuss activities related to EPA's Program. The Government Accountability Office

(GAO)Reports Interim Work Group will also meet on June 13, 2006 from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. The Pollution Prevention

(P2)Work Group will meet on June 13, 2006 from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., to discuss activities related to EPA's Pollution Prevention Programs. The Information Integration and Data Use Work Group will also meet on June 13, 2006 from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Crowne Plaza National Airport Hotel, located at 1480 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Requests to participate in the meeting may be submitted to the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(202)554-1404; e-mail address: *TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.* For technical information contact: John Alter, (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(202)564-9891; e-mail address: npptac.oppt@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of particular interest to those persons who have an interest in or may be required to manage pollution prevention and toxic chemical programs, individual groups concerned with environmental justice, children's health, or animal welfare, as they relate to OPPT's programs under the Toxic Substances Control Act

(TSCA)and the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be interested in the activities of the NPPTAC. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. *Docket.* EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0001. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the OPPT Docket, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102,1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 OPPT Docket is

(202)566-0280. 2. *Electronic access.* You may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.* C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0001, include NPPTAC June 2006 meeting in the subject line on the first page of your comment. 1. *By mail.* OPPT Document Control Office, Environmental Protection Agency, (7407M), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. 2. *Electronically.* At *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 3. *Hand delivery/courier.* OPPT Document Control Office in EPA East Bldg., Rm. M6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington DC. II. Background The proposed agenda for the NPPTAC meeting includes: Pollution Prevention, Risk Assessment; Risk Management; Risk Communication; Information Integration and Data Use; The Government Accountability Office

(GAO)Reports; The Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS); Tribal Lifeways; and NPPTAC Future Planning. The meeting is open to the public. III. How Can I Request to Participate in this Meeting? You may submit a request to participate in this meeting to the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Do not submit any information in your request that is considered Confidential Business Information. Requests to participate in the meeting, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0001, must be received on or before June 9, 2006. For information on access, or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact John Alter at

(202)564-9891 or email *npptac.oppt@epa.gov.* To request accommodation of a disability, please contact John Alter, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request. List of Subjects Environmental protection, NPPTAC, pollution prevention, toxics, toxic chemicals, and chemical health and safety. Dated: May 3, 2006. Wendy C. Hamnett, Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics [FR Doc. E6-7412 Filed 5-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0163; FRL-8064-8] Aldicarb Risk Assessment; Notice of Availability and Risk Reduction Options AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's Health Effects risk assessment, and related documents for the carbamate pesticide aldicarb, and opens a public comment period on these documents. EPA's Environmental Risk assessment has previously been released for public comment. The public is encouraged to suggest risk management ideas or proposals to address the risks identified. EPA is developing a Reregistration Eligibility Decision

(RED)for aldicarb through a modified, public participation process that the Agency uses to involve the public in developing pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment decisions. Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides meet current health and safety standards. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0163[ *insert number* ], by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building); 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The docket telephone number is

(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0163[ *insert number* ]. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation for this docket facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherrie Kinard, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)305-0563; fax number:

(703)308-8005; e-mail address: *sherrie.kinard@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI.* Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments.* When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? EPA is releasing for public comment its human health risk assessment and related documents for aldicarb, a carbamate pesticide, and soliciting public comment on risk management ideas or proposals. Aldicarb is registered for use as a systemic insecticide, acaricide and nematicide on agricultural crops including citrus, cotton, dry beans, peanuts, pecans, potatoes, sorghum, soybeans, sugar beets, sugarcane, sweet potatoes, and seed alfalfa (CA). In addition, aldicarb may be applied to field grown ornamentals

(CA)and tobacco, and on coffee grown in Puerto Rico. The types of plant pests controlled by aldicarb include leaf phylloxera, bud moth, citrus nematode, aphids, mites (citrus red, citrus rust, Texas citrus), white flies, thrips, fleahoppers, leafminers, leafhoppers, overwintering boll weevil (adults feeding on foliage), lygus, nematodes, cotton leaf perforator, seedcorn maggot, Mexican bean beetle, flea beetles, Colorado potato beetle, greenbug, chinch bug, three cornered alfalfa hopper (suppression), and sugar beet root maggot. The largest uses of aldicarb are peanuts, sweet potatoes, cotton, potatoes, and citrus. Aldicarb is a restricted use pesticide (RUP), and may be applied only in occupational settings by certified applicators. There are no products containing the active ingredient aldicarb which are intended for sale to homeowners or for occupational use in non-occupational settings (e.g., turf or golf course). EPA developed the risk assessment and risk characterization for aldicarb through a modified version of its public process for making pesticide reregistration eligibility and tolerance reassessment decisions. Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that pesticides meet current standards under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). Aldicarb is formulated and marketed solely as a granular pesticide. Aldicarb in a vinyl binder coating is adhered to either a corn cob grit or gypsum substrate; these two substrates produce less dust than typical clay substrates used for granular pesticides. Only the gypsum granular is available in closed loading systems. The formulations consist of 5, 10 and 15% granular, which are applied early in the growing season, either pre-plant, at-planting, or early post-emergent, using ground application equipment. Labels specify use of positive displacement application equipment and immediate soil incorporation. For most crops, only one aldicarb application per season is allowed, but 2 or 3 split applications are permitted on sugar beets. The pre-harvest intervals

(PHIs)are generally long due to the early application timing, ranging from 80 to 150 days when specified. EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice, for interested parties to provide comments and input on the Agency's risk assessments for aldicarb. Such comments and input could address, for example, the availability of additional data to further refine the risk assessments, such as, additional toxicological data, worker exposure data, and usage information, or could address the Agency's risk assessment methodologies and assumptions as applied to this specific pesticide. Through this notice, EPA also is providing an opportunity for interested parties to provide risk management proposals for aldicarb. Risks of concern associated with the use of aldicarb are: acute dietary risk estimates for the general U.S. population and all population subgroups at the 99.9 th percentile of exposure; acute aggregate food and water risk estimates for adults and children; and worker risk estimates for most mixers, loaders and applicators. In addition, EPA is providing interested parties an opportunity to submit risk management proposals for ecological risks of concern including those to birds, mammals, fresh water and marine fish and invertebrates. In targeting these risks of concern, the Agency solicits information on effective and practical risk reduction measures. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical, unusually high exposure to aldicarb, compared to the general population. EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public Participation Process, published in the **Federal Register** on May 14, 2004 (69 FR 26819) (FRL-7357-9), explains that in conducting these programs, the Agency is tailoring its public participation process to be commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of the issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide. For aldicarb, a modified, 4-Phase process with one comment period and ample opportunity for public consultation seems appropriate in view of its refined risk assessment. However, if as a result of comments received during this comment period EPA finds that additional issues warranting further discussion are raised, the Agency may lengthen the process and include a second comment period, as needed, the decisions presented in the RED may be supplemented by further risk mitigation measures when EPA considers its cumulative assessment of the carbamate pesticides. All comments should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES, and must be received by EPA on or before the closing date. Comments will become part of the Agency docket for aldicarb. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA, as amended, directs that, after submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, “the Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient are eligible for reregistration,” before calling in product-specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering products or taking other “appropriate regulatory action.” Section 408(q) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(q), requires EPA to review tolerances and exemptions for pesticide residues in effect as of August 2, 1996, to determine whether the tolerance or exemption meets the requirements of section 408(b)(2) or (c)(2) of FFDCA. This review is to be completed by August 3, 2006. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: May 11, 2006. Debra Edwards, Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E6-7496 Filed 5-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [Report No. AUC-06-67-B (Auction No. 67); Docket No. 06-38; DA 06-871] Closed Action of 400 MHz Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service Licenses (Auction No. 67) is Cancelled AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This document announces the cancellation of the 400 MHz Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service License Auction No. 67. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Davenport at

(202)418-0660 or Linda Sanderson at

(717)338-2868. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the *Auction No. 67 Cancellation Public Notice* released on April 20, 2006. The complete text of the *Auction No. 67 Cancellation Public Notice* and related Commission documents is available for public inspection and copying from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday or from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Friday at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The *Auction No. 67 Cancellation Public Notice* and related Commission documents may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-5300, facsimile 202-488-5563, or you may contact BCPI at its Web site: *http://www.BCPIWEB.com* . When ordering documents from BCPI please provide the appropriate FCC document number, for example, DA 06-871. The *Auction No. 67 Cancellation Public Notice* and related documents are also available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site: *http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/67/* . 1. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) announces the cancellation of the auction of nine site-based licenses in the 400 MHz general aviation Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service which had been scheduled to begin on August 23, 2006. 2. On March 3, 2006, the Bureau released *Auction No. 67 Comment Public Notice* , 71 FR 12698, March 13, 2006, announcing the schedule for Auction No. 67 and seeking comment on reserve process or minimum opening bids amount and the procedures to be used in the auction. Participation in Auction No. 67 was to be limited to certain identified parties that had previously filed mutually exclusive applications for the nine 400 MHz Air-Ground licenses. That public notice advised each applicant of the requirement to provide supplemental information by 6 p.m. ET on April 5, 2006, and warned that failure to do so by the deadline would result in dismissal of its application and ineligibility to participate in the auction. 3. The Bureau received no supplemental information regarding any of the nine applicants for Auction No. 67. Accordingly, each of the previously filed FCC Form 601 applications will be dismissed, thus eliminating the need to conduct Auction No. 67. Federal Communications Commission. Gary D. Michaels, Deputy Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division, WTB. [FR Doc. E6-7432 Filed 5-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [WTB Docket No. 02-353; FCC 06-50] Federal Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration—Coordination Procedures in the 1710-1755 MHz Band AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission and National Telecommunications and Information Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: By this joint public notice, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration

(NTIA)provide information to assist coordination in the 1710-1755 MHz band, to facilitate the transition of this band from Federal government use to non-Federal use. Specifically, we provide guidance to assist the Commission's Advanced Wireless Service

(AWS)licensees in this band to begin implementing service during the transition of Federal operations from the band while providing interference protection to incumbent Federal government operations until they have been relocated to other frequency bands or technologies. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554 and National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue, Room 4713, Washington, DC 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Corea or Blaise Scinto, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at 202-418-0600; Ronald Repasi of the Office of Engineering and Technology,

(202)418-2472 or Edward Drocella, Office of Spectrum Management, National Telecommunications and Information Administration,

(202)482-2608. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. In 2002, NTIA released a Viability Assessment report which concluded that the 1710-1755 MHz band could be reallocated from Federal government use to non-Federal use to accommodate AWS. 1 As a result, the Commission conducted a proceeding in which it allocated spectrum for AWS in the 1710-1755 MHz, 2110-2150 MHz and 2150-2155 MHz bands. 2 The Commission subsequently adopted service rules for AWS in these bands, including application, licensing, operating and technical rules. 3 The 1710-1755 MHz band is currently used for Federal government operations for fixed and transportable microwave and aviation-related safety communications, and by the Department of Defense

(DOD)for fixed microwave, tactical radio relay, and aeronautical mobile stations. 1 *See* NTIA Report, “An Assessment of the Viability of Accommodating Advanced Mobile Wireless

(3G)Systems in the 1710-1770 MHz and 2110-2170 MHz Bands” (July 22, 2002) (available at *http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/threeg/va7222002/3Gva072202web.htm* ). 2 Amendment of part 2 of the Commission's rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, including Third Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, *Second Report and Order* , 17 FCC Rcd 23193 (2002). 3 *See Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands* , Report and Order, WT Docket No. 02-353, 18 FCC Rcd 25162 (2003); *modified by* Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-353, *Order on Reconsideration* , 20 FCC Rcd 14058

(2005)(codified at 47 CFR Part 27, subpart L) ( *AWS Service Rules R&O* ). 2. On December 23, 2004, the President signed into law Pub. L. No. 108-494, the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act (CSEA). 4 The CSEA provides a funding mechanism to relocate incumbent Federal government operations in certain bands, including the 1710-1755 MHz band. 5 The CSEA requires NTIA to provide to the Commission relocation cost and timeline estimates “by the geographic location of the Federal entities’ facilities or systems and the frequency bands used by such facilities or systems * * * [t]o the extent practicable and consistent with national security considerations * * *.” 6 On December 27, 2005, NTIA provided the Commission with the following information 7 for each Federal station in the 1710-1755 MHz band: 4 Pub. L. No. 108-494, 118 Stat. 3896, 3992 (2004). 5 Title II of Pub. L. No. 108-494, 118 Stat. 3986, 3991

(2004)(codified at 47 U.S.C. 928). 6 118 Stat. at 3992-93 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 923(g)(4)(A), (C)). 7 The most current version of this information can be found at the NTIA Web site at *http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/reports/specrelo/index.htm* . • Serial Number; • Longitude/Latitude of Transmitter and Receiver sites; • Frequency Center Channel; • Bureau Code (Agency Identifier); • Service Type ( *e.g.* , fixed microwave, aeronautical); • Relocation Timeline; • Cost Estimate; • Agency Point of Contact. 3. The CSEA permits the Commission to grant commercial licenses in these bands prior to relocation of Federal government operations and the termination of a Federal entity's authorization. 8 However, the CSEA requires the Commission to condition such licenses by requiring that commercial licensees “cannot cause harmful interference to such Federal entity until such entity's authorization has been terminated by [NTIA].” 9 Harmful radiofrequency interference could cause systems or networks to experience catastrophic outages affecting critical missions, such as the operation of electric grids. Moreover, catastrophic outages can result in loss of life, property, and power at the local, state, interstate and international levels. In order to effectuate the CSEA's prohibition against harmful interference against Federal incumbent operations, the Commission will condition AWS licenses on licensees coordinating frequency usage with known co-channel and adjacent channel incumbent Federal users operating in the 1710-1755 MHz band. The condition will apply prior to licensees initiating operations from base or fixed stations where such operations may impact incumbent Federal users. 8 118 Stat. 3994 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(15)(c)). 9 *Id.; see also* 47 CFR 27.1134 (Protection of Federal Government Operations). 4. Operational sharing of spectrum by Federal government and non-Federal stations is subject to the interference regulations prescribed by the Commission. 10 The *AWS Service Rules R&O* prescribed in-band protection for Federal government DOD stations at 16 protected sites based on use of coordination zones around those sites. 11 The Commission prescribed in-band protection for other Federal government stations pending their relocation, based on the same technical standard (TIA Telecommunications Systems Bulletin 10-F) that has been used for clearance of microwave service from the Broadband Personal Communications Service

(PCS)and other bands. 12 10 47 U.S.C. 923(b)(2)(C). 11 47 CFR 27.1134(a). 12 47 CFR 27.1134(b). Protection of non-DoD operations in the 1710-1755 MHz and 1755-1761 MHz bands. Until such time as non-DoD systems operating in the 1710-1755 MHz and 1755-1761 MHz bands are relocated to other spectrum, AWS licensees shall protect such systems by satisfying the appropriate provisions of TIA Telecommunications Systems Bulletin 10-F, “Interference Criteria for Microwave Systems,” May, 1994 (TIA 10-F). 5. Operational sharing of spectrum by Federal government and non-Federal stations is also subject to coordination procedures that the Commission and NTIA jointly establish and implement to ensure against harmful interference. 13 In this regard, the Commission, in consultation with NTIA, will require all AWS licensees to coordinate AWS use of the 1710-1755 MHz band during the transition so that licensees can deploy their systems in a timely and efficient manner without causing harmful interference to existing Federal operations during the transition. Coordination will assist new licensees in determining when new systems can be deployed without causing harmful interference to Federal incumbents. At the same time, coordination will provide Federal incumbents with some assurance that critical operations will not be interrupted due to harmful interference. 13 47 U.S.C. 923(b)(2)(C). 6. The Commission's part 24 and part 101 rules contain coordination rules applicable to shared use of the PCS band which may provide guidance regarding similar procedures that could be used in the AWS band. These rules require licensees to coordinate their frequency usage with the co-channel or adjacent channel incumbent fixed microwave licensees before initiating operations. 14 In engineering a system or modification thereto, the applicant must, by appropriate studies and analyses, select sites, transmitters, antennas and frequencies that will avoid interference in excess of permissible levels to other users. All applicants and licensees must cooperate fully and make reasonable efforts to resolve technical problems and conflicts that may inhibit the most effective and efficient use of the radio spectrum; however, the party being coordinated with is not obligated to suggest changes or re-engineer a proposal in cases involving conflicts. 14 *See, e.g.* , 47 CFR 24.237 and 101.103. 7. To help AWS licensees satisfy the coordination condition that we intend to place on their licenses, the Commission provides the following pre-operational procedures. Adherence to these procedures would constitute a reasonable effort on the part of AWS licensees to comply with the license condition that they coordinate frequency usage with incumbent Federal users. • The AWS licensee, or a third-party coordinator on its behalf, contacts the appropriate Federal agency to get information necessary to perform an interference analysis. 15 The AWS licensee enters into Non-Disclosure Agreements, as appropriate, with the subject Federal agency. 15 This includes federal agencies that are authorized to operate transportable microwave equipment throughout the country on frequencies with which the AWS licensee might potentially interfere, as well as federal agencies with classified operations. Classified information will be handled in accordance with Executive Order 13292. • If a Federal agency does not provide the necessary information within 30 days of a request, AWS licensees may contact NTIA for assistance. • Using TIA Bulletin 10F, or an alternative method agreed to by the parties in cases in which TIA 10F does not apply, AWS licensees make the interference analysis necessary for determining whether new AWS operations would potentially interfere with nearby incumbent operations. • The AWS licensee or a third-party coordinator sends the interference analysis to the appropriate designated agency contact for review. • The Federal agency will have 60 days from acknowledgement of receipt of the interference analysis, to review the interference analysis. At the end of 60 days, if the Federal agency does not raise an objection, the AWS licensee may commence operations. • If an agency notifies a licensee that it is experiencing interference, the AWS licensee turns off the offending station immediately and makes any necessary changes to eliminate interference. 8. In addition, to facilitate coordination, NTIA will require Federal agencies to adhere to the following procedures: • Agencies cooperate with licensees when contacted by providing, within 30 days of a request, site specific technical information necessary to complete the interference analysis. • If an agency disapproves of an interference analysis submitted by an AWS licensee, the agency will provide the licensee with a detailed rationale for its disapproval. • Should harmful interference occur, agencies will work in good faith to identify the source of the harmful interference and work with AWS licensees to eliminate or mitigate the interference. 9. To further facilitate the coordination process, NTIA has published a list of agency contacts on its Web site at *http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/reports/specrelo/pdf/1710-1755MHz_points_of_contact.pdf* to enable licensees and Federal agencies operating in their license area to coordinate more closely. NTIA has also published information on the Federal government operations in the 1710-1755 MHz band at *http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/reports/specrelo/index.htm* and will periodically update this information as well as provide the relocation status of the stations used for Federal government operations throughout the transition. 10. The Commission and NTIA anticipate that following the above-outlined procedures will enable most AWS stations to be successfully coordinated and to start operations without causing interference to Federal operations during the transitional period. However, during the coordination process, AWS licensees unable to reach agreement on the mitigation of interference may seek redress from the Commission. For Federal agencies, in the event that the potential for harmful interference cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the matter may be referred to the NTIA, for assistance. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Kathy D. Smith, Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications and Information Administration. [FR Doc. E6-7433 Filed 5-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the **Federal Register** . Copies of agreements are available through the Commission's Office of Agreements (202-523-5793 or *tradeanalysis@fmc.gov* ). *Agreement No.:* 011957. *Title:* FOML/Zim Space Charter Agreement. *Parties:* Fesco Ocean Management Limited

(FOML)and Zim Integrated Shipping Services, Ltd. (Zim). *Filing Party:* Neil M. Mayer, Esq.; Hoppel, Mayer and Coleman; 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW.; 10th Floor; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The Agreement provides that Zim will charter slots to FOML in the trade to/from ports in the United States to Busan, South Korea on an “as-needed, as-available” basis. *Agreement No.:* 011958. *Title:* BBC Chartering and Logistic-Beluga Cooperative Working Agreement. *Parties:* BBC Chartering and Logistic GmbH & Co. KG, and Beluga Chartering GmbH. *Filing Party:* Matthew J. Thomas, Esq.; Troutman Sanders LLP; 401 9th Street, NW.; Suite 1000; Washington, DC 20004. *Synopsis:* The agreement provides that the parties may coordinate their general commercial agency operations in the United States, including appointment of common agents to act with respect to such matters as general agency services, sales, marketing, booking and documentation, billing and collection, vessel chartering, coordination of sailings, routings and port calls, pricing, and terminal and port matters with respect to voyages to and from the U.S. and non-U.S. ports. The agreement does not establish any form of joint venture. Dated: May 12, 2006. By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission. Bryant L. VanBrakle, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-7501 Filed 5-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder-Ocean Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR part 515). Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573. Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder-Transportation Intermediary Applicant: Werner Enterprises, Inc., 14507 Frontier Road, Omaha, NE 68138. Officers: John H. Ohle, Director of Opera., (Qualifying Individual), Greg Werner, President. Ocean Freight Forwarder-Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicants: Elocate Logistic Consultants, Inc., dba LTV Relocation Services, 9262 North West 101 Street, Miami, FL 33178. Officer: Manuel Jesus Rojas, President, (Qualifying Individual). Scan-Shipping Inc., 20 Pulaski Street, Bayonne, NJ 07002. Officers: Henrik Kjaereng, General Manager, (Qualifying Individual), Steen Dyrholm, Vice President. Dated: May 12, 2006. Bryant L. VanBrakle, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-7502 Filed 5-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The FTC is seeking public comments on its proposal to extend through May 31, 2009 the current PRA clearance for information collection requirements contained in its Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 CFR 435 (“TSR” or “Rule”). On February 2, 2006, the OMB granted the FTC's request for a short-term extension of this clearance to May 31, 2006. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to “Telemarketing Sales Rule: FTC File No. P994414” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope and should be mailed or delivered, with two complete copies, to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Room H-135 (Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580. Because paper mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay, please consider submitting your comments in electronic form, (in ASCII format, WordPerfect, or Microsoft Word) as part of or as an attachment to e-mail messages directed to the following e-mail box: *paperworkcomment@ftc.gov.* However, if the comment contains any material for which confidential treatment is requested, it must be filed in paper form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “Confidential.” 1 1 Commission Rule 4.2(d), 16 CFR 4.2(d). The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted or denied by the Commission's General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. *See* Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). Comments should also be submitted to: Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission. Comments should be submitted via facsimile to

(202)395-6974 because U.S. Postal Mail is subject to lengthy delays due to heightened security precautions. The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments will be considered by the Commission and will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at *http://www.ftc.gov.* As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC website. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy at *http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements should be sent to Gary Ivens, Attorney, Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580,

(202)326-2330. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 20, 2006, the FTC sought comment on the information collection requirements associated with the TSR, 16 CFR 435 (OMB Control Number: 3084-0097). See 71 FR 3302. No comments were received. Pursuant to the OMB regulations that implement the PRA (5 CFR 1320), the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to extend the existing paperwork clearance for the Rule. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or before June 16, 2006. The TSR implements the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, 15 U.S.C. 6101-6108 (“Telemarketing Act”), as amended by the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (“USA PATRIOT Act”), Public Law 107056 (Oct. 25, 2001). The Telemarketing Act seeks to prevent deceptive or abusive telemarketing practices in telemarketing, which, pursuant to the USA PATRIOT Act, includes calls made to solicit charitable contributions. It mandates certain disclosures by telemarketers, and directs the Commission to consider including recordkeeping requirements in promulgating a telemarketing rule to address such practices. The TSR, implementing the Telemarketing Act, mandates certain disclosures regarding telephone sales and requires telemarketers to retain certain records regarding advertising, sales, and employees. The disclosures provide consumers with information necessary to make informed purchasing decisions. The records are available for inspection by the Commission and other law enforcement personnel to determine compliance with the Rule. Records may also yield information helpful to measuring and redressing consumer injury stemming from Rule violations. On January 29, 2003, the Commission issued final amendments to the TSR, which, *inter alia,* established the National Do Not Call Registry (“National Registry”), permitting consumers to register, via either a toll-free telephone number or the Internet, their preference not to receive certain telemarketing calls. 2 Accordingly, under the TSR, most telemarketers are required to refrain from calling consumers who have placed their numbers on the National Registry. 3 Telemarketers must periodically access the National Registry to remove from their telemarketing lists the telephone numbers of those consumers who have registered. 4 Other than the minimal burden associated with supplying basic identifying information to the operator of the National Registry, which is discussed below, the amendments to the Rule associated with the National Registry do not impact PRA burden. 2 68 FR 4580 (Jan. 29, 2003). 3 16 CFR 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B). 4 16 CFR 310.4(b)(3)(iv). The TSR requires telemarketers to access the National Registry at least once every 31 days, effective January 1, 2005. *See* 69 FR 16368 (Mar. 29, 2004). The Commission has recently proposed to revise the fees charged to entities who must pay for access to the National Registry. *See* 71 FR 25512 (May 1, 2006). The Supporting Statement for Information Collection Provisions of the TSR (“2003 Supporting Statement”), submitted to OMB following the 2003 amendment of the TSR, includes substantial analysis in support of the burden estimates included in that document. 5 The figures used in this Notice are based on those from the 2003 Supporting Statement, updated when necessary and when newer figures are available. 5 The 2003 Supporting Statement is available at *http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/rulemaking/tsr/tsrrulemaking/tsrss2003.pdf.* Burden Statement *Estimated annual hours burden:* 2,500,000 hours. The estimated recordkeeping burden is 28,000 hours for all industry members affected by the Rule. The estimated burden related to the disclosures that the Rule requires is 2,472,000 hours (rounded to nearest thousand) for all affected industry members. Thus, the total PRA burden is 2,500,000 hours. *Recordkeeping:* Following the publication of the amended TSR in 2003, the Commission staff estimated that there were 7,400 telemarketing firms that were potentially subject to the Rule. This estimate was based on the limited input the Commission received in response to the Original User Fee NPRM, 67 FR 37,362 (May 29, 2002), regarding the number of firms that would likely access the National Registry as well as further staff analysis of the information received. Since that time, the Commission has begun operation of the National Registry, and, in the year March 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006, slightly less than 66,200 entities accessed the National Registry. 6 Of these, approximately 1,300 were “exempt” entities obtaining access to data for more than one state. 7 By definition, none of the exempt entities are subject to the TSR. Additionally, 49,574 were non-exempt entities obtaining data for only a single state. Staff assumes that these entities are operating solely intrastate, and thus are exempt from the TSR. 8 Thus, staff estimates that 15,000 entities, rounded to the nearest thousand, (66,200 − 1,300 − 49,574 = 15,326) are currently subject to the TSR. 6 The March 2005 through February 2006 time frame differs from that used in the January 20, 2006 Notice (which used data from calendar year 2004) and the burden estimates herein have been adjusted accordingly. 7 An exempt entity is one that, although not subject to the TSR and the Federal Communication Commission's Telephone Consumer Protection Act regulations, chooses to voluntarily scrub its calling lists against the data in the National Registry. 8 These entities would nonetheless likely be subject to the Federal Communication Commission's Telephone Consumer Protection Act regulations, including the requirement that entities engaged in intrastate telephone solicitations access the National Registry. The staff continues to estimate that these 15,000 telemarketing entities subject to the Rule each require approximately 1 hour per year to file and store records required by the TSR for an annual total of 15,000 burden hours (rounded to the nearest thousand (15,000 × 1 = 15,000)). 9 The Commission staff also estimates that 75 new entrants per year would need to spend 100 hours each developing a recordkeeping system that complies with the Rule for an annual total of 7,500 burden hours. These figures, based on prior estimates, are consistent with staff's current knowledge of the industry. Thus, the total estimated annual recordkeeping burden for new and existing telemarketing entities is 23,000 hours (rounded to the nearest thousand). 9 The January 20, 2006 Notice erroneously indicated a burden of 2.3 hours per entity. In the 2003 Supporting Statement, the Commission staff estimated that 2,500 telefunder firms—professional telefunders soliciting on behalf of charities—would also be subject to the Rule, which was amended to include calls to solicit charitable contributions pursuant to the USA PATRIOT Act. 10 Staff estimated that the recordkeeping burden per entity per year would be no more than one hour for a cumulative total of approximately 2,500 hours. Staff also estimated that 25 new telefunding entrants per year would require 100 hours each to set up recordkeeping systems that would comply with the TSR. Thus, the cumulative recordkeeping burden for telefunder firms was 5,000 hours. No new data suggests that these estimates are inaccurate; therefore, the Commission staff retains these estimates. 10 Telefunders are not subject to the National Registry provisions of the TSR. The cumulative annual recordkeeping burden for all entities subject to the TSR—both telefunder and telemarketing firms alike—is 28,000 hours. *Disclosures:* Staff believes that a substantial majority of telemarketers make in the ordinary course of business the disclosures the Rule requires because to do so constitutes good business practice. To the extent this is so, the time and financial resources needed to comply with disclosure requirements do not constitute “burden.” 16 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). Moreover, many state laws require the same or similar disclosures the Rule mandates. Thus, the disclosure hours burden attributable solely to the Rule is far less than the total number of hours associated with the disclosures overall. As when the FTC last sought OMB clearance for this Rule, staff estimates that most of the disclosures the Rule requires would be made in at least 75 percent of telemarketing calls even absent the Rule. Accordingly, staff determined that the hours burden estimate for most of the Rule's disclosure requirements is 25 percent of the total hours associated with disclosures of the type the TSR requires. Staff estimates the total disclosure burden attributable to the Rule to be 2,472,000 hours (rounded to the nearest thousand). Based on industry data, staff estimates that the 15,000 telemarketing entities subject to the Rule make 6.2 billion calls per year, or 413,000 calls per year per company (rounded to the nearest thousand). 11 The TSR provides that if an industry member chooses to solicit inbound calls from consumers by advertising media other than direct mail or by using direct mail solicitations that make certain required disclosures (providing for an inbound telephone call as a possible response), that member is exempted from complying with the Rule's oral disclosures. Based on previous estimates, staff estimates that of the 15,000 telemarketing entities, 12,656 (27:32) firms conduct inbound telemarketing, and that of these, approximately 4,200 (one-third) will choose to adopt marketing methods that exempt them from complying with the Rule's verbal disclosure requirements. 12 11 Staff's estimates are likely to be conservative in light of consumer research that has been conducted after implementation of the National Registry. For example, one survey conducted by Harris Interactive® in January 2004 determined that 92% of consumers who signed up for the National Registry received fewer telemarketing calls and 25% reported that they had received no telemarketing calls. Similarly, another survey conducted by Customer Care Alliance found that 60% of consumers who placed their home telephone number on the National Registry experienced an 80% reduction in the volume of telemarketing calls. Nonetheless, as noted above, the figures used in this Notice are based on those from the 2003 Supporting Statement, updated when necessary and when newer figures are available. Accordingly, due to the lack of precise, verifiable information concerning the current volume of telemarketing calls, staff continues to rely upon the data released by the Direct Marketing Association (“DMA”) in 2001. *See* The DMA, *Statistical Fact Book 2001* (23rd ed. 2001). 12 While staff does not have information directly stating the number of inbound telemarketers, it notes that, according to the DMA 27% of all direct marketing in Year 2000 was by inbound telemarketing and 32% was by outbound telemarketing. *See Statistical Fact Book 2001* at p. 25. No new data suggests that these estimates have changed. Accordingly, using a 27:32 ratio, staff estimates that the number of inbound telemarketers is approximately 12,656 (15,000 × 27/32). The staff retains its estimate that, in a telemarketing call involving the sale of goods or services, it takes 7 seconds for telemarketers to disclose the required outbound call information orally plus 3 additional seconds to disclose the information required in the case of an upsell. 13 Staff also retains its estimate that at least 60 percent of sale calls result in “hang-ups” before the telemarketer can make all the required disclosures and that “hang-up” calls consume only 2 seconds. Accordingly, staff estimates that the total time associated with these disclosure requirements is approximately 1.14 million hours per year [((1.2 billion non-hangup calls [2.9 billion outbound calls × 40%] × 7 seconds) + (1.7 billion hangup calls [2.9 billion × 60%] × 2 seconds) + (570 million calls × 40% [estimated upsell conversion] × 3 seconds) + (3.3 billion inbound calls × 40% [estimated upsell conversion] × 3 seconds)) × 25% burden] or 76 hours per firm [1.14 million hours /15,000 firms]. 13 An “upsell” is the soliciting of the purchase of goods or services after an initial transaction occurs during a single telephone call. The solicitation may be made by or on behalf of a seller different from the seller in the initial transaction, regardless of whether the initial transaction and the subsequent solicitation are made by the same telemarketer (“external upsell”). Or, it may be made by or on behalf of the same seller as in the initial transaction, regardless of whether the initial transaction and subsequent solicitation are made by the same telemarketer (“internal upsell”). The TSR also requires further disclosures in telemarketing sales calls before the customer pays for goods or services. These disclosures include the total costs of the offered goods or services; all material restrictions; and all material terms and conditions of the seller's refund, cancellation, exchange, or repurchase policies (if a representation about such a policy is a part of the sales offer). Additional specific disclosures are required if the call involves a prize promotion, the sale of credit card loss protection products or an offer with a negative option feature. Staff estimates that the general sales disclosures require 499,167 hours annually. This figure includes the burden for written disclosures [(4,200 firms [estimated using direct mail] × 10 hours per year × 25% burden) = 10,500 hours, as well as the figure for oral disclosures [(570 million calls × 8 seconds × 25% burden) + (570 million outbound calls × 40% (upsell conversion) × 20% sales conversion × 25% burden × 8 seconds) + (3.3 billion inbound calls × 40% upsell conversion × 20% sales conversion × 25% burden × 8 seconds)]. Staff also estimates that the specific sales disclosures require 53,348 hours annually [(570 million calls × 5% [estimated involving prize promotion] × 3 seconds × 25% burden) + (570 million calls × .1% [estimated involving credit card loss protection (“CCLP”)] × 4 seconds) + (570 million calls × 40% upsell conversions × 20% sales conversions × .1% [estimated involving CCLP] × 4 seconds) + (3.3 billion inbound calls × 40% upsell conversion × 20% sales conversion × .1% [estimated involving CCLP] × 4 seconds) + (570 million calls × 10% [estimated involving negative options] × 4 seconds × 25% burden) + (570 million calls × 40% upsell conversion × 20% sales conversions × 10% [estimated involving negative options] × 4 seconds × 25% burden) + (3.3 billion inbound calls × 40% upsell conversions × 20% sales conversions × 10% [estimated involving negative options] × 4 seconds × 25% burden)] + (3.3 billion inbound calls × .3% [estimated business opportunity] × 8 seconds). The total annual burden for all of the sales disclosures is 553,000 hours (rounded to the nearest thousand) or 37 hours annually per firm. As noted above, staff retains its prior estimate that 2,500 telefunder firms are subject to the Rule. The only disclosures that the TSR requires in solicitations for charitable contributions are the disclosures in § 310.4(e)—that the call is to solicit a charitable contribution and the identity of the charitable organization on whose behalf the call is being made. The total burden for disclosures made in solicitations for charitable contributions is 778,000 hours (rounded to the nearest thousand) [(1.6 billion calls with no early hang up × 4 seconds × 25% burden) + (2.4 billion calls with early hang-up × 2 seconds × 25% burden]. Finally, any entity that accesses the National Registry, regardless of whether it is paying for access, must submit minimal identifying information to the operator of the National Registry. This basic information includes, the name address and telephone number of the entity, a contact person for the organization, and information about the matter of payment. The entity also needs to submit a list of the area codes of data for which it requests information. In addition, the entity has to certify that it is accessing the National Registry solely to comply with the provisions of the TSR. If the entity is accessing the National Registry on behalf of other seller or telemarketer clients, it has to submit basic identifying information about those clients, a list of the area codes of data for which it requests information on their behalf, and a certification that the clients are accessing the National Registry solely to comply with the TSR. Commission staff continues to estimate, as it did in the Original User Fee NPRM, that it should take no longer than two minutes for each entity to submit this basic information, and that each entity would have to submit the information annually. 14 Based on the number of entities accessing the National Registry that are subject to the TSR, this requirement will result in 500 burden hours (15,000 entities × 2 minutes per entity). In addition, Commission staff continues to estimate that possibly one-half of those entities may need, during the course of their annual period, to submit their basic identifying information more than once in order to obtain additional area codes of data. This would result in an additional 250 burden hours (7,500 entities × 2 minutes per entity). Thus, Commission staff estimates that accessing the National Registry will impose a total burden of approximately 750 hours per year. 14 *See* 67 FR 37366 (May 29, 2002). As stated in the Original User Fee NPRM, this estimate is likely to be conservative for PRA purposes. The OMB regulation defining “information” generally excludes disclosures that require persons to provide facts necessary simply to identify themselves, *e.g.* , the respondent, the respondent's address, and a description of the information the respondent seeks in detail sufficient to facilitate the request. *See* 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(1). Thus, the cumulative annual disclosure burden for all entities subject to the TSR—both telefunder and telemarketing firms alike—is 2,472,000 hours (rounded to the nearest thousand). *Estimated annual labor cost burden:* $37,448,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand). 15 15 The January 20, 2006 Notice erroneously indicated $20,315,000. *Recordkeeping:* The estimated labor cost for recordkeeping for all entities, both telefunders and telemarketing firms, is $375,000. Assuming a cumulative burden of 7,500 hours/year to set up compliant recordkeeping systems for new telemarketing entities, and applying to that a skilled labor rate of $20/hour, labor costs would approximate $150,000 yearly for all new telemarketing entities. As indicated above, staff estimates that existing telemarketing entities require 15,000 hours, cumulatively, to maintain compliance with the TSR's recordkeeping provisions. Applying a clerical wage rate of $10/hour, recordkeeping maintenance for existing telemarketing entities would amount to an annual cost of approximately $150,000. Based on the estimated cumulative burden of 2,500 hours/year to set up compliant recordkeeping systems for new telefunder entities, and applying to that a skilled labor rate of $20/hour, cumulative labor costs would be approximately $50,000. In addition, the annual estimated labor cost for maintaining records relating to solicitations for existing telefunder entities would be $25,000 (2,500 burden hours × $10/hour). *Disclosures:* The estimated annual labor cost for disclosures for all entities, both telefunders and telemarketing firms is $37,073,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand). This estimate was derived in part by applying a wage rate of $15 per hour to:

(1)1,140,000 hours attributed to disclosing outbound call information and disclosing the information required in the case of an upsell;

(2)553,000 hours attributed to all sales disclosures; and

(3)778,000 hours for the disclosure made in solicitations for charitable contributions. The remaining portion of the labor cost estimate is associated with supplying basic identifying information to the National Registry operator. Applying a clerical wage of $10 per hour, the cumulative annual labor cost for entities that provide the requisite information and are subject to the TSR is approximately $7,500 (750 hours × $10). 16 16 Staff continues to assume that clerical employees will submit the minimal identifying information. See 68 FR 16238, 16246 (April 3, 2003). *Estimated annual non-labor cost burden:* $12,575,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand). 17 17 The January 20, 2006 Notice erroneously indicated $5,613,000. *Total capital and start-up costs:* Staff estimates that the capital and start-up costs associated with the TSR's information collection requirements are *de minimis* . The Rule's recordkeeping requirements mandate that companies maintain records but not in any particular form. While those requirements necessitate that affected entities have a means of storage, industry members should have that already regardless of the Rule. Even if an entity finds it necessary to purchase a storage device, the cost is likely to be minimal, especially when annualized over the item's useful life. The Rule's disclosure requirements require no capital expenditures. *Other non-labor costs:* Affected entities need some storage media such as file folders, computer diskettes, or paper in order to comply with the Rule's recordkeeping requirements. Although staff believes that most affected entities would maintain the required records in the ordinary course of business, staff estimates that the approximately 15,000 telemarketers subject to the Rule spend an annual amount of $50 each on office supplies as a result of the Rule's recordkeeping requirements, for a total recordkeeping cost burden of $750,000. Oral disclosure estimates, discussed above, applied to a retained estimated commercial calling rate of 6 cents per minute ($3.60 per hour), totals $8,899,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand) (2,472,000 hours × $3.60 per hour) in phone-related costs. Accordingly, the non-labor costs for telemarketing entities associated with the Rule's information collection provisions is $9,649,000 ($8,899,000 in phone related costs + $750,000 for office supplies). Non-labor costs incurred by telefunders for telefunder organizations are estimated to be $2,926,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand) (778,000 estimated hours @ $3.60 per hour + $125,000 in office supply-related costs (2500 telefunders @ $50 each)). Thus, the total non-labor costs for all entities subject to the TSR is $12,575,000. 18 18 Staff believes that remaining non-labor costs would largely be incurred by affected entities, regardless, in the ordinary course of business and/or marginally be above such costs. Finally, staff believes that the estimated 4,200 inbound telemarketing entities choosing to comply with the Rule through written disclosures incur no additional capital or operating expenses as a result of the Rule's requirements because they are likely to provide written information to prospective customers in the ordinary course of business. Adding the required disclosures to that written information likely requires no supplemental non-labor expenditures. William Blumenthal, General Counsel. [FR Doc. 06-4630 Filed 5-16-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 16

Traces to 16 documents

U.S. Code