Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-06-22 · Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board · Notices

Notices. Notice of meeting

42,614 words·~194 min read·/register/2006/06/22/06-5582

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

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD Courthouse Access Advisory Committee; Meeting AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) has established an advisory committee to advise the Board on issues related to the accessibility of courthouses covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968.
The Courthouse Access Advisory Committee (Committee) includes organizations with an interest in courthouse accessibility. This notice announces the date, times and location of the next Committee meeting, which will be open to the public. DATES: The meeting of the Committee is scheduled for July 20, 2006 (beginning at 9 a.m. and ending at 5 p.m.) and July 21, 2006 (beginning at 9 a.m. and ending at 3 p.m.). ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Edward W. Brooke Courthouse, 24 New Chardon Street, Boston, MA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Yanchulis, Office of Technical and Information Services, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street, NW., suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone number
(202)272-0026 (Voice);
(202)272-0082 (TTY). E-mail *yanchulis@access-board.gov* . This document is available in alternate formats (cassette tape, Braille, large print, or computer disk). This document is also available on the Board's Internet site ( *http://www.access-board.gov/caac/meeting.htm* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 2004, as part of the outreach efforts on courthouse accessibility, the Access Board established a Federal advisory committee to advise the Access Board on issues related to the accessibility of courthouses, particularly courtrooms, including best practices, design solutions, promotion of accessible features, educational opportunities, and the gathering of information on existing barriers, practices, recommendations, and guidelines. On October 12, 2004, the Access Board published a notice appointing 31 members to the Courthouse Access Advisory Committee. 69 FR 60608 (October 12, 2004). Members of the Committee include designers and architects, disability groups, members of the judiciary, court administrators, representatives of the codes community and standard-setting entities, government agencies, and others with an interest in the issues to be explored. The Committee held its initial meeting on November 4 and 5, 2004. Members discussed the current requirements for accessibility, committee goals and objectives, and the establishment of subcommittees. The Committee established three subcommittees: Education, Courtrooms and Courthouses (areas unique to courthouses other than courtrooms). The Committee has held quarterly meetings in the following cities: Phoenix (February 2005), Washington, DC (May 2005), Chicago (August 2005), San Francisco (November 2005), Washington, DC (February 2006), and Miami (May 2006). At each of these meetings, Committee members toured area courthouses and held full Committee and subcommittee sessions. At the next meeting in Boston, members will continue to address issues in meetings of the full Committee and of each of the subcommittees. Meeting minutes and other information about the Committee are available on the Access Board's website at *http://www.access-board.gov/caac/index.htm* . Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons can attend the meetings and communicate their views. Members of the public will have an opportunity to address the Committee on issues of interest to them and the Committee during public comment periods scheduled on each day of the meeting. Members of groups or individuals who are not members of the Committee are invited to participate on the subcommittees. The Access Board believes that participation of this kind can be very valuable for the advisory committee process. The meeting will be held at a site accessible to individuals with disabilities. Real-time captioning will be provided. Individuals who require sign language interpreters should contact David Yanchulis by June 30, 2006. Persons attending Committee meetings are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances for the comfort of other participants. Notices of future meetings will be published in the **Federal Register** . Lawrence W. Roffee, Executive Director, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. [FR Doc. E6-9903 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8150-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). *Agency:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* Northwest Region Federal Fisheries Permits. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0203. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 642. *Number of Respondents:* 339. *Average Hours per Response:* Exempted fishing permit (EFP), 10 hours; EFP summary report, 1 hour; EFP data report, 10 minutes; EFP trip notification, 2 minutes; limited entry permit transfer form or renewal form, 20 minutes; mid-season transfer of sablefish permit, 30 minutes; sablefish permit ownership interest form, 30 minutes; addition of spouse as co-owner of sablefish permit application, 20 minutes; at-sea processing vessel exemption application, 30 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* As part of its fishery management responsibilities, NOAA Fisheries collects certain information to determine whether a respondent complies with regulations that allow for the issuance, transfer or renewal of a Pacific Coast Groundfish limited entry permit or an exempted fishing permit. Also, NOAA Fisheries collects information to determine whether current individual permit owners/holders comply with other existing permit regulations for enforcement purposes. The respondents are principally groundfish fishermen or fishing companies/partnerships. Other respondents include state fisheries agencies who seek an exempted to fishing permit to conduct research. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations; not-for-profit institutions; individuals or households; State, local or tribal government. *Frequency:* Annually, monthly, weekly and on occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, fax number
(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov.* Dated: June 16, 2006. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-9837 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Office of Civil Rights; Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Request for Reasonable Accommodation AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before August 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Jennifer Croft, 202-482-8187, or *jcroft@doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Federal agencies must provide reasonable accommodation to qualified applicants with disabilities, unless to do so would cause undue hardship. Executive Order 13164 requires Federal agencies to provide written procedures for reasonable accommodation for applicants. In order to evaluate and ensure that the process and requests for reasonable accommodation are done in a fair, timely, and equitable manner, applicants are required to verify their request in writing by using a form (CD-575). The form is also used for internal data tracking regarding the number and types of reasonable accommodations requested and granted (or denied). This information is required by the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission to be compiled and analyzed on an annual basis. II. Method of Collection The information will be collected in paper or electronic format. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0690-0022. *Form Number:* CD 575. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 10. *Estimated Time per Response:* 30 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 5 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $0. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: June 16, 2006. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-9838 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-BP-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-900] Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 22, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anya Naschak or Carrie Blozy, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone:
(202)482-6375 or 482-5403, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Amendment to the Final Determination In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (“the Act”), on May 22, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published its final determination of sales at less than fair value (“LTFV”). *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006) (“ *Final Determination* ”). See *Final Determination* and corresponding Issues and Decision Memorandum, dated May 15, 2006. Between May 23, 2006, and May 26, 2006, the following parties filed timely allegations that the Department made various clerical errors in the *Final Determination* . On May 23, 2006, the Diamond Sawblade Manufacturers' Coalition (“Petitioner”) filed a timely request pursuant to section 351.224(c)(2) of the Department's regulations, requesting that the Department correct alleged ministerial errors in the *Final Determination* in the calculation of a margin for Bosun Tools Group Co., Ltd. (“Bosun”) and Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Product Company (“BGY”) (included with Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial Co., Ltd (“HXF”) as a single entity, Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd. (“AT&M”) ( *see Final Determination* )). Also on May 23, 2006, AT&M filed comments on the Department's draft customs instructions. On May 26, 2006, Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co. Ltd. (“Hebei Jikai”) filed a request that the Department correct certain clerical errors with respect to Hebei Jikai. On May 31, 2006, Petitioner filed comments rebutting Hebei Jikai's allegations. A ministerial error is defined as an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Department considers ministerial. *See* 19 CFR 351.224(f). After analyzing all interested party comments and rebuttals, we have determined, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), that we made ministerial errors in our calculations performed for the final determination with respect to Bosun and AT&M. However, the Department finds that the errors alleged by Hebei Jikai were not ministerial errors within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(f). For a detailed discussion of these ministerial errors, as well as the Department=s analysis, see Memorandum to James C. Doyle from Anya Naschak: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Diamond Sawblades from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of Ministerial Error Allegations, dated June 15, 2006 (“Ministerial Error I&D Memo”). Additionally, in the *Final Determination* , we determined that several companies qualified for a separate rate. The margin we calculated in the *Final Determination* for these companies, which is the weighted average of the mandatory respondents' rates, was 20.72 percent. Because the rates of the mandatory respondents have changed since the *Final Determination* , we have recalculated the rate for the separate rate applicants. The new rate is 21.43 percent. *See* Ministerial Error I&D Memo at Attachment IV. In addition, AT&M requested that the Department make certain changes to the Department's draft instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”). AT&M requested that the Department modify the language used in the Department's customs instructions to read “on exports where Cliff (Tianjin) International, Ltd. acted as the exporter and facilitator for the AT&M entity, imports are eligible to claim the antidumping duty rate” for AT&M. *See* AT&M's letter to the Department dated May 23, 2006. Though this suggestion does not constitute a “ministerial” error within the meaning of section 351.224(f) of the Department's regulations, the Department will make the change as requested by AT&M to ensure that the Department's intent is clear to CBP. Thus, the Department will include language in the customs module indicating that exports where Cliff (Tianjin) International, Ltd. acted as an exporter and facilitator to AT&M, the importer is eligible to claim AT&M's antidumping duty rate. 1 1 The Department will also include such language in its cash deposit instructions to CBP. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the final determination of sales at LTFV in the antidumping duty investigation of diamond sawblades from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The revised weighted-average dumping margins are included in the “Antidumping Duty Order” section, below. For the revisions to the calculations for all companies, *see* Ministerial Error I&D Memo. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the final determination of sales at LTFV in the antidumping duty investigation of diamond sawblades from the PRC. The revised dumping margins are as follows: Diamond Sawblades from the PRC - Weighted-average Dumping Margins Exporter Producer Weighted-Average Deposit Rate Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd. Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd. 2 2.82% Bosun Tools Group Co., Ltd. Bosun Tools Group Co., Ltd. 35.51% Danyang Huachang Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Danyang Huachang Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 21.43% Danyang NYCL Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Danyang NYCL Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 21.43% Danyang Youhe Tool Manufacturer Co., Ltd. Danyang Youhe Tool Manufacturer Co., Ltd. 21.43% Fujian Quanzhou Wanlong Stone Co., Ltd. Fujian Quanzhou Wanlong Stone Co., Ltd. 21.43% Guilin Tebon Superhard Material Co., Ltd. Guilin Tebon Superhard Material Co., Ltd. 21.43% Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co., Ltd. Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co., Ltd. 48.50% Huzhou Gu's Import & Export Co., Ltd. Danyang Aurui Hardware Products Co., Ltd. 21.43% Huzhou Gu's Import & Export Co., Ltd. Danyang Huachang Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 21.43% Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tool Manufacture Co., Ltd. Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tool Manufacture Co., Ltd. 21.43% Jiangyin Likn Industry Co., Ltd. Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tool Manufacture Co., Ltd. 21.43% Jiangyin Likn Industry Co., Ltd. Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co. 21.43% Qingdao Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. Qingdao Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. 21.43% Quanzhou Zhongzhi Diamond Tool Co., Ltd. Quanzhou Zhongzhi Diamond Tool Co., Ltd. 21.43% Rizhao Hein Saw Co., Ltd. Rizhao Hein Saw Co., Ltd. 21.43% Shanghai Deda Industry & Trading Co., Ltd. Hua Da Superabrasive Tools Technology Co., Ltd. 21.43% Shanghai Robtol Tool Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Shanghai Robtol Tool Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 21.43% Shijiazhuang Global New Century Tools Co., Ltd. Shijiazhuang Global New Century Tools Co., Ltd. 21.43% Sichuan Huili Tools Co. Chengdu Huifeng Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. 21.43% Sichuan Huili Tools Co. Sichuan Huili Tools Co. 21.43% Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical Industrial Co., Ltd. Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical Industrial Co., Ltd. 21.43% Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co. Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co. 21.43% Xiamen ZL Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. Xiamen ZL Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. 21.43% Zhejiang Tea Import & Export Co., Ltd. Danyang Dida Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 21.43% Zhejiang Tea Import & Export Co., Ltd. Danyang Tsunda Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. 21.43% Zhejiang Tea Import & Export Co., Ltd. Wuxi Lianhua Superhard Material Tools Co., Ltd. 21.43% Zhejiang Wanli Tools Group Co., Ltd. Zhejiang Wanli Super-hard Materials Co., Ltd. 21.43% Zhenjiang Inter-China Import & Export Co., Ltd. Danyang Weiwang Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 21.43% PRC-Wide Rate 164.09% Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from the PRC. We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as indicated in the chart above. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. 2 Including Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Company as an exporter when merchandise was also produced by Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Company, and Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial Co., Ltd. as an exporter when merchandise was also produced by Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial Co., Ltd. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 15, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-9874 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-588-835] Oil Country Tubular Goods from Japan: Notice of Intent to Rescind Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods
(OCTG)from Japan in response to a request by United States Steel Corporation, one of the petitioners in the original investigation (Petitioner). Petitioner requested administrative reviews of JFE Steel Corporation (JFE), Nippon Steel Corporation (Nippon), NKK Tubes
(NKK)and Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. (SMI). This review covers sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of August 1, 2004 through July 31, 2005. We preliminarily determine that JFE and NKK had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review (POR), and that Nippon and SMI had no reviewable sales of subject merchandise during the POR. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the review of these four companies should be rescinded in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. *See* the “Intent to Rescind the Administrative Review” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 22, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Hoadley or Jun Jack Zhao, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3148 or
(202)482-1396, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 11, 1995, the Department published the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Japan in the **Federal Register** (60 FR 41058). On August 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order (70 FR 44085). On August 31, 2005, the Department received a timely request for review from Petitioner, covering JFE, Nippon, NKK and SMI. 1 On September 28, 2005, we published a notice initiating an administrative review of the antidumping order on OCTG from Japan. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). 1 The Department found SMI and Sumitomo Corporation
(SC)to be affiliated in a previous review. *See Oil Country Tubular Goods From Japan; Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 64 FR 48589, 48591 (September 7, 1999). Neither SMI nor SC has placed information on the record of this review suggesting that the basis for this finding has changed. The Department issued the original questionnaire on October 27, 2005. On November 16, 2005, JFE submitted a no shipment sales certification and requested prompt rescission of the review with respect to JFE. On December 5, 2005, Nippon responded that it had no sales of subject merchandise to or in the United States during the period of review. On December 5, 2005, NKK submitted a no shipment certification and requested expeditious rescission of the review with respect to NKK. Also on December 5, 2005, SMI responded that it did not have any U.S. sales or shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. The Department issued several supplemental questionnaires, and received a response by Nippon on March 13, 2006, and responses by SMI on March 14, April 25, May 2, May 24, June 6 and June 9, 2006, providing further explanation and documentation concerning their claims of no shipments during the POR. On April 26, 2006, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this antidumping duty administrative review until June 19, 2006. *See Oil Country Tubular Goods from Japan: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 24640 (April 26, 2006). Period of Review This review covers the period August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order consists of oil country tubular goods, hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing, tubing, and drill pipe, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute
(API)or non-API specifications, whether finished or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG products). This scope does not cover casing, tubing, or drill pipe containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium. The products subject to this order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.21.30.00, 7304.21.60.30, 7304.21.60.45, 7304.21.60.60, 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20, 7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60, 7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30, 7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45, 7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90, 7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10, 7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Analysis Intent to Rescind the Administrative Review In response to our questionnaire, all four respondents submitted certified statements claiming no U.S. sales or shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. The petitioner did not comment on the claims. In order to corroborate the no-shipment statements, the Department requested information from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Such information showed no entries of subject merchandise produced by JFE and NKK during the POR. Nippon and SMI had entries but based on our analysis of the supporting documentation, we find that these two companies had no reviewable sales of subject merchandise. Since much of the information and documentation submitted by Nippon and SMI to demonstrate the circumstances of each of their entries is business proprietary, a complete analysis of the Department's determination that none of Nippon and SMI's entries constitute reviewable sales during the POR is set forth in the memorandum from Jun Jack Zhao to Barbara E. Tillman through Dana Mermelstein, *Analysis Memorandum regarding the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Japan (A-588-835)* , dated June 19, 2006. Therefore, in accordance with section 351.213(d)(3) of the Department's regulations, we intend to rescind the administrative review of all four respondents. Duty Assessment The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.212(b). If we determine in the final results that this review should be rescinded with respect to JFE, NKK, Nippon and SMI because these companies had no sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, we will direct CBP to liquidate all entries of subject merchandise manufactured by these four companies, and entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption during the POR, at the “all others” rate, 44.20 percent, as all such sales were made by intermediary companies ( *e.g.* , resellers) not covered in this review, a prior review, or the less than fair value
(LTFV)investigation. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit rates will be effective with respect to all shipments of OCTG from Japan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)For all four companies, JFE, NKK, Nippon and SMI, the cash deposit rate will remain unchanged and will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered by this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate shall be the all others rate established in the LTFV investigation, which is 44.20 percent. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Japan* , 60 FR 155 (August 11, 1995). These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Public Comment Pursuant to section 351.309 of the Department's regulations, interested parties may submit written comments in response to this notice of intent to rescind the administrative review. Unless the deadline is extended by the Department, case briefs are to be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, are to be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:
(1)A statement of the issues, and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with section 351.303(f) of the Department's regulations. Also, pursuant to section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Department specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Parties will be notified of the time and location. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief, no later than 120 days after publication of these preliminary results, unless extended. *See* 19 CFR section 351.213(h). Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: June 15, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-9880 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-122-838] Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On April 10, 2006, the Department of Commerce published a notice of initiation of changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on certain softwood lumber products from Canada to determine the correct deposit rate for Ivis Partners Ltd. (IVIS). We have preliminarily determined that IVIS is the successor-in-interest to Ivis Wood Products Ltd. (Ivis Wood) and should, therefore, receive Ivis Wood's cash deposit rate. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 22, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance Handley or David Layton, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0631 or
(202)482-0371, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 16, 2006, in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(b) (2004), IVIS, a Canadian producer of softwood lumber products and interested party in this proceeding, filed a request for a changed circumstances review. In response to this request, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on certain softwood lumber from Canada. *See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Softwood Products from Canada* , 71 FR 18072 (Arpil 10, 2006) ( *Initiation Notice* ). On April 4, 2006, the Department issued a questionnaire to IVIS requesting further details on its purchase of Ivis Woods. IVIS' response was received by the Department on April 13, 2006. On May 10, 2006, the Department issued an additional supplemental questionnaire to IVIS. IVIS' response was received on May 17, 2006. The petitioner, the Coalition of Fair Lumber Imports Executive Commission, did not file comments with respect to the request. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are softwood lumber, flooring and siding (softwood lumber products). Softwood lumber products include all products classified under subheadings 4407.1000, 4409.1010, 4409.1090, and 4409.1020, respectively, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), and any softwood lumber, flooring and siding described below. These softwood lumber products include:
(1)Coniferous wood, sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed, of a thickness exceeding six millimeters;
(2)Coniferous wood siding (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges or faces, whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed;
(3)Other coniferous wood (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges or faces (other than wood mouldings and wood dowel rods) whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed; and
(4)Coniferous wood flooring (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges or faces, whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive. As specifically stated in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying the *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* , 67 FR 15539 (April 2, 2002) (see comment 53, item D and comment 57, item B-7) available at www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, drilled and notched lumber and angle cut lumber are covered by the scope of this order. The following softwood lumber products are excluded from the scope of this order provided they meet the specified requirements detailed below:
(1)*Stringers* (pallet components used for runners): if they have at least two notches on the side, positioned at equal distance from the center, to properly accommodate forklift blades, properly classified under HTSUS 4421.90.98.40.
(2)*Box-spring frame kits* : if they contain the following wooden pieces - two side rails, two end (or top) rails and varying numbers of slats. The side rails and the end rails should be radius-cut at both ends. The kits should be individually packaged, they should contain the exact number of wooden components needed to make a particular box spring frame, with no further processing required. None of the components exceeds 1” in actual thickness or 83” in length.
(3)*Radius-cut box-spring-frame components* , not exceeding 1” in actual thickness or 83” in length, ready for assembly without further processing. The radius cuts must be present on both ends of the boards and must be substantial cuts so as to completely round one corner.
(4)*Fence pickets* requiring no further processing and properly classified under HTSUS 4421.90.70, 1” or less in actual thickness, up to 8” wide, 6' or less in length, and have finials or decorative cuttings that clearly identify them as fence pickets. In the case of dog-eared fence pickets, the corners of the boards should be cut off so as to remove pieces of wood in the shape of isosceles right angle triangles with sides measuring 3/4 inch or more.
(5)*U.S. origin lumber* shipped to Canada for minor processing and imported into the United States, is excluded from the scope of this order if the following conditions are met: 1) the processing occurring in Canada is limited to kiln-drying, planing to create smooth-to-size board, and sanding, and 2) if the importer establishes to the satisfaction of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)that the lumber is of U.S. origin.
(6)*Softwood lumber products contained in single family home packages or kits* , 1 regardless of tariff classification, are excluded from the scope of this order if the importer certifies to items 6 A, B, C, D, and requirement 6 E is met: 1 To ensure administrability, we clarified the language of exclusion number 6 to require an importer certification and to permit single or multiple entries on multiple days as well as instructing importers to retain and make available for inspection specific documentation in support of each entry. A. The imported home package or kit constitutes a full package of the number of wooden pieces specified in the plan, design or blueprint necessary to produce a home of at least 700 square feet produced to a specified plan, design or blueprint; B. The package or kit must contain all necessary internal and external doors and windows, nails, screws, glue, sub floor, sheathing, beams, posts, connectors, and if included in the purchase contract, decking, trim, drywall and roof shingles specified in the plan, design or blueprint; C. Prior to importation, the package or kit must be sold to a retailer of complete home packages or kits pursuant to a valid purchase contract referencing the particular home design plan or blueprint, and signed by a customer not affiliated with the importer; D. Softwood lumber products entered as part of a single family home package or kit, whether in a single entry or multiple entries on multiple days, will be used solely for the construction of the single family home specified by the home design matching the entry. E. For each entry, the following documentation must be retained by the importer and made available to CBP upon request: i. A copy of the appropriate home design, plan, or blueprint matching the entry; ii. A purchase contract from a retailer of home kits or packages signed by a customer not affiliated with the importer; iii. A listing of inventory of all parts of the package or kit being entered that conforms to the home design package being entered; iv. In the case of multiple shipments on the same contract, all items listed in E(iii) which are included in the present shipment shall be identified as well. Lumber products that CBP may classify as stringers, radius cut box-spring-frame components, and fence pickets, not conforming to the above requirements, as well as truss components, pallet components, and door and window frame parts, are covered under the scope of this order and may be classified under HTSUS subheadings 4418.90.45.90, 4421.90.70.40, and 4421.90.97.40. Finally, as clarified throughout the course of the investigation, the following products, previously identified as Group A, remain outside the scope of this order. They are: 1. Trusses and truss kits, properly classified under HTSUS 4418.90; 2. I-joist beams; 3. Assembled box spring frames; 4. Pallets and pallet kits, properly classified under HTSUS 4415.20; 5. Garage doors; 6. Edge-glued wood, properly classified under HTSUS 4421.90.98.40; 7. Properly classified complete door frames; 8. Properly classified complete window frames; 9. Properly classified furniture. In addition, this scope language was further clarified to specify that all softwood lumber products entered from Canada claiming non-subject status based on U.S. country of origin will be treated as non-subject U.S.-origin merchandise under the antidumping and countervailing duty orders, provided that these softwood lumber products meet the following condition: upon entry, the importer, exporter, Canadian processor and/or original U.S. producer establish to CBP's satisfaction that the softwood lumber entered and documented as U.S.-origin softwood lumber was first produced in the United States as a lumber product satisfying the physical parameters of the softwood lumber scope. 2 The presumption of non-subject status can, however, be rebutted by evidence demonstrating that the merchandise was substantially transformed in Canada. 2 *See* the scope clarification message (# 3034202), dated February 3, 2003, to CBP, regarding treatment of U.S. origin lumber on file in Room B-099 of the Central Records Unit
(CRU)of the Main Commerce Building. On March 3, 2006 the Department issued a scope ruling that any product entering under HTSUS 4409.10.05 which is continually shaped along its end and/or side edges which otherwise conforms to the written definition of the scope is within the scope of the order. 3 3 *See* memorandum from Constance Handley, Program Manager to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary regarding: Scope Request by the Petitioner Regarding Entries Made Under HTSUS 4409.10.05, dated March 3, 2006. Preliminary Results of the Review In an antidumping duty changed circumstances review involving a successor-in-interest determination, the Department typically examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in:
(1)Management;
(2)production facilities;
(3)supplier relationships; and
(4)customer base. *See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 57 FR 5128 (February 12, 1992) ( *Canada Brass* ). Although no single factor or combination of factors will necessarily be dispositive, the Department generally will consider the new company to be the successor to the predecessor company if the resulting operations are essentially the same as those of the predecessor company. Thus, if the record evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as the predecessor company, the Department may assign the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor. *See, e.g., Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 64 FR 9979-980 (March 1, 1999). In its review request of February 16, 2006, and in its April 13, 2006 4 questionnaire response, IVIS reported that on September 30, 2005, IVIS was incorporated in the Province of British Columbia. On September 30, 2005, IVIS purchased the Ivis Wood business, including equipment and inventory. As a result of the purchase, all lumber-related assets held by Ivis Wood were transferred to IVIS. The purchase and sale agreement between Ivis Wood and IVIS indicates that the business was sold as a going concern. The Board of Directors of Ivis Wood was made up of its owners. Therefore, after the sale, IVIS installed a completely new Board of Directors, and senior management positions were occupied by the new owners. IVIS reported that all of its facilities are those it purchased from Ivis Wood and that it does not own, in whole or in part, any other company involved in the production or sale of subject softwood lumber. IVIS continues to be supplied by the same suppliers as Ivis Wood, and continues to sell to Ivis Wood's customers. 4 The dates on IVIS' review request and questionnaire response were February 2, 2006, and April 6, 2006, however, they were not received by the Department until February 16 and April 13, respectively. Based on our review of IVIS' questionnaire responses and initial submission, we preliminarily determine that IVIS is the successor-in-interest to Ivis Wood. Although the board of directors and senior management changed significantly, information on the record indicates that Ivis Wood was purchased as a going concern and that IVIS continued to do business with the same suppliers and customers as Ivis Wood, using the same production assets. Therefore, based on the totality of the circumstances, we preliminarily determine that IVIS should be assigned Ivis Wood's cash deposit rate of 3.78 percent, established in the first administrative review. 5 5 *See Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* , 70 FR 3358 (January 24, 2005). If the above preliminary results are affirmed in the Department's final results, the cash deposit rate from this changed circumstances review will apply to all entries of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this changed circumstances review. *See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review* , 68 FR 25327 (May 12, 2003). This deposit rate shall remain in effect until publication of the next administrative review in which IVIS participates. Public Comment Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in such briefs, must be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument
(1)a statement of the issue,
(2)a brief summary of the argument, and
(3)a table of authorities. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we will issue the final results of this changed circumstances review no later than December 28, 2006. This notice is in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and section 351.221(c)(3)(i) of the Department's regulations. Dated: June 15, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-9879 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-890] Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value/Pursuant to Court Decision: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On April 5, 2006, the United States Court of International Trade (“Court”) sustained the final remand determination made by the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) pursuant to the Court's remand of the amended final determination of the investigation of wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Guangzhou Maria Yee Furnishings Ltd., et al. v. United States* , Ct. No. 05-00065, Slip Op. 06-44 (Ct. Int'l Trade April 5, 2006) (“ *Maria Yee Order* ”). This case arises out of the Department's *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 67313 (November 17, 2004) (“ *Final Determination* ”), as amended, 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005) (“ *Amended Final Determination* ”). Because the litigation in this matter is concluded, the Department is issuing an amended final determination in accordance with the CIT's decision. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 22, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Degnan, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-0414. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 17, 2004, the Department published its notice of final determination in the investigation of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. *See Final Determination* . On January 4, 2005, the Department published its notice of amended final determination in the investigation of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. *See Amended Final Determination* . In *Guangzhou Maria Yee Furnishings, Ltd., et al. v. United States* , Ct. No. 05-00065, Slip Op. 05-158 (CIT December 14, 2005), the Court remanded the Department's determination to reject, as untimely, certain information submitted by Guangzhou Maria Yee Furnishings Ltd. and Pyla HK Ltd.) (“Maria Yee”). The Court found that the Department's method of notice to parties of the requirement and deadline to submit a response to Section A of the Department's questionnaire was not reasonable, and remanded this case to the Department for further consideration consistent with the Court's opinion, and in light of the Court's decision in *Decca Hospitality Furnishings, LLC v. United States* , 391 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (2005). The remand redetermination explained that, in accordance with the Court's opinion, the Department must analyze the evidence presented by Maria Yee to determine whether it is eligible for a separate rate. Accordingly, on December 27, 2005, the Department reopened the record and requested that Maria Yee re-submit a copy of its initial July 2, 2004, submission, which it did on December 28, 2005. Additionally, the Department issued one supplemental questionnaire to Maria Yee to address a few deficiencies found in its December 28, 2005, submission. Maria Yee submitted timely and complete responses to these questionnaires. On February 10, 2006, the Department issued its draft results of redetermination pursuant to remand for comment by the interested parties. On February 14, 2006, Maria Yee submitted comments in response to the Department's draft results of redetermination. No other party filed comments. On March 1, 2006, the Department issued its final results of redetermination pursuant to remand to the Court. Based on our analysis of Maria Yee's evidence, we determined that Maria Yee qualifies for a separate rate in the investigation of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. *See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand* , March 1, 2006. On April 5, 2006, the Court ruled that the Department's remand determination is supported by substantial evidence, and affirmed the Department's remand results in their entirety. *See Maria Yee Order* . Granting a separate rate to Maria Yee changes it's antidumping duty rate from the PRC-wide rate of 198.08 percent to the Section A respondent rate of 6.65 percent. On April 27, 2006, consistent with the decision in *Timken Co. v. United States* , 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the Department notified the public that the CIT's decision was not “in harmony” with the Department's final determination. *See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony* , 71 FR 24840 (April 27, 2006). Amended Final Determination There is now a final and conclusive court decision in the court proceeding and we are thus amending the *Amended Final Determination* to reflect the results of our remand determination. The revised dumping margin is as follows: Company Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Maria Yee 6.65 U.S. Customs and Border Protection will require a cash deposit rate of 6.65 percent for subject merchandise exported by Maria Yee and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of this notice. This cash deposit requirement shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of an administrative review of this order. This notice is published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: June 16, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-9876 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 041806B] Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Surf Zone Testing/Training and Amphibious Vehicle Training and Weapons Testing AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of receipt of an application for an incidental take authorization; notice of proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments and information. SUMMARY: On November 29, 2005, NMFS received a request from Eglin Air Force Base (Eglin AFB), for authorization to harass marine mammals, incidental to conducting surf zone testing/training and amphibious vehicle training and weapons testing off the coast of Santa Rosa Island (SRI). As a result of this request, NMFS is proposing to issue a 1-year authorization to take marine mammals by Level B harassment incidental to this activity. NMFS will propose regulations at a later date that would govern these incidental takes under a Letter of Authorization
(LOA)issued to Eglin for a period of up to 5 years after the 1-year IHA expires. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on the Eglin AFB application and NMFS' proposal to issue an authorization to Eglin AFB to incidentally take, by harassment, two species of cetaceans for a period of 1 year. DATES: Comments and information must be postmarked no later than July 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226. The mailbox address for providing email comments on this action is *PR1.041806B@noaa.gov* . Comments sent via email, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. A copy of the application and a list of references used in this document may be obtained by writing to this address, by telephoning the contact listed here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) and is also available at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm* . A copy of the *Santa Rosa Island Mission Utilization Plan Programmatic Environmental Assessment* (SRI Mission PEA) (U.S. Air Force, 2005) is available by writing to the Department of the Air Force, AAC/EMSN, Natural Resources Branch, 501 DeLeon St., Suite 101, Eglin AFB, FL 32542-5133. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, NMFS, 301-713-2289, ext 137. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* )
(MMPA)direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. An authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as ”...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take marine mammals by harassment. With respect to “military readiness activities,” the MMPA defines “harassment” as follows:
(i)any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or
(ii)any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B harassment]. Summary of Request On November 21, 2005, Eglin AFB petitioned NMFS for an authorization under section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA for the taking, by harassment, of marine mammals incidental to programmatic mission activities on Eglin's SRI property, including the shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf or GOM) to a depth of 30 feet (9.1 meters). The distance from the island shoreline that corresponds to this depth varies from approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 km) at the western side of the Air Force property to 1.5 miles (2.4 km) at the eastern side, extending out into the inner continental shelf. Activities conducted within the sound are addressed in the *Estuarine and Riverine Areas Programmatic Environmental Assessment* (U.S. Air Force, 2003a). The proposed action is for the 46th Test Wing Commander to establish a mission utilization plan for SRI based on historical and anticipated future use. Current and future operations are categorized as either testing or training and include:
(1)Surf Zone Testing/Training;
(2)Landing Craft Air Cushion
(LCAC)Training and Weapons Testing;
(3)Amphibious Assaults; and
(4)Special Operations Training. Description of Activities Surf Zone Testing/Training Eglin AFB proposes to establish Surf Zone Test Areas (SZTAs) on SRI to support major surf zone test exercises. Specific and dedicated areas on SRI would be utilized to perform these exercises. Major surf-zone test exercises include neutral (inert) systems and live (containing explosive material) systems, which would be detonated in shallow water. Current and proposed future surf zone activities would involve detonations of mine clearing line charges and bombs for obstacle clearing. These activities include line-charge mine clearance testing, shallow water assault breaching (SABRE) mine clearing testing, and beach obstacle clearing and neutralization. In the line-charge mine clearance testing, the Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City (NSWCPC) conducted a line-charge test in the past as a precursor to other tests to evaluate the effectiveness of underwater mine countermeasure and clearing techniques. The Navy's SABRE explosive net clearing weapon is in development with testing ongoing at Eglin's Shallow Water Mine Pond Facility. Testing of the SABRE system would involve launching of a line charge subsystem propelled by rocket motors. This could require closure of some areas of the GOM and Choctawhatchee Bay waters to accommodate a 2.5-mile, 110-degree safety fan if these tests are conducted on the eastern portion of SRI. The beach obstacle clearing and neutralization involve simultaneous detonations of multiple bombs in the surf zone, which NSWCPC would evaluate to assess their effects on obstacles and mines as a potential beach-clearing tactic. Concentrating surf zone detonation activities within specified areas may reduce the environmental impacts associated with these activities as well as standardize the logistics, operational planning, and safety procedures. The designated test/training areas would accommodate both historical and expanded activities. Navy personnel would establish the areas within current usage guidelines similar to the numerous test areas as described in the *AAC Technical Facilities Manual (Volume II Land Test Areas)* (U.S. Air Force, 1996). Amphibious Vehicle Training and Weapon Testing Amphibious vehicles include the LCAC and the Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV). Both of these vehicles have the capability to transit through the land/water interface and are utilized in a variety of mission types. The LCAC is a high-speed fully amphibious landing craft capable of traveling over both land and water, providing transition of personnel and equipment over the land-water interface. The LCAC is also used in the neutralization of beach obstacles and hostile watercraft, with test/training activities typically involving live/inert testing of various firing mechanisms in concert with travel through the land-water interface and across beach environments. In 1998 and 2000, the Navy conducted LCAC training and weapon testing on SRI involving live fire and tank transport. The proposed expansion of LCAC training and testing is related to the need for expanded special operations and amphibious assault training and testing activities. Expanded LCAC activities would involve increased use of the LCAC for both inert training activities and live fire testing and training. The LCAC would utilize specific areas for crossing between the Gulf to Santa Rosa Sound, and for firing weapons systems. In addition, several organizations have a need to initiate or expand their current work in or around the SRI. The Marine Corps has a need to use the island to perform amphibious assault exercises. These activities would typically involve a coordinated mission utilizing large landing craft such as AAVs and LCACs, varying numbers of troops and personnel, and aircraft. Landing craft and personnel would be dropped into the ocean several miles or several thousand yards off shore and traverse to the island. Upon reaching the island, the assault force would breach the shoreline, set up a perimeter or staging area, and either proceed to an objective or remain on site. Special Operations Training Eglin proposes to increase Special Operations training within established maneuver areas and the additional establishment of LCAC live fire and crossover areas on the island. Increased special operations training would involve covert beach landings and assaults and other mission training activities. These exercises could involve full-scale beach assaults involving dozens of troops and landing craft, or small-scale exercises involving dropping off personnel in rubber boats within the proposed action area. Personnel would navigate in, conduct a covert landing on the beach, and capture a target on the island or proceed to transit the island and go to the mainland. Surf zone testing/training activities and amphibious vehicle testing/training activities would be intermittent yet ongoing, and therefore Eglin AFB has also made a request for a take authorization under section 10(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA for a time period of five years. These activities would occur within the proposed action area, which includes the Gulf-side shoreline of SRI seaward to a depth of 30 feet (91 m). The distance from the shoreline that corresponds to this depth varies from approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 km) at the western side of the Air Force property to 1.5 miles (2.4 km) at the eastern side, extending into the inner continental shelf. Training involving live fire exercises would be carried out a maximum twice per year (one during daytime and/or one at night). These missions would involve special operations personnel, an LCAC, or an AAV on the north shore of the island or in Santa Rosa Sound firing a at target located on SRI. The target would be a hardended structure of steel or wood. The angle of firing would be toward the ground and ricocheting would be minimal due to the sandy substrate. The NSWCPC would use low-range, high-fragmentation munitions at the maneuver areas to allow for more realistic training scenarios. The NSWCPC would direct live fire toward the Gulf. Description of Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity Marine mammal species potentially occurring within the proposed action area include the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin ( *Tursiops truncatus* ), the Atlantic spotted dolphin ( *Stenella frontalis* ), and the Florida manatee ( *Trichechus manatus latirostris* ). General information on Florida manatee can be found in the *Florida Manatee Recovery Plan* (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001). Atlantic bottlenose dolphins are distributed continuously throughout the continental shelf, coastal, and bay-sound waters of the northern GOM and along the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast. The identification of a biologically-meaningful “stock” of bottlenose dolphins in the GOM is complicated by the high degree of behavioral variability exhibited by this species (Wells, 2003). Currently, bottlenose dolphins in the U.S. GOM are managed as 38 different stocks: one northern GOM oceanic stock, one northern GOM continental shelf stock, three northern GOM costal stocks (western, northern, and eastern Gulf), and 33 bay, sound, and estuarine stocks (NMFS, 2005). The identification of these stocks is based on descriptions of relatively discrete dolphin communities in these waters. A community includes resident dolphins that regularly share large portions of their ranges, exhibit similar distinct genetic profiles, and interact with each other to a much greater extent than with dolphins in adjacent waters. Bottlenose dolphin communities do not constitute closed demographic populations, as individuals from adjacent communities are known to interbreed. Nevertheless, the geographic nature of these areas and long-term stability of residency patterns suggest that many of these communities exist as functioning units of their ecosystems, and under the MMPA must be maintained as such. Within the proposed action area, at least three Atlantic bottlenose dolphin stocks are expected to occur: the northern GOM northern coastal, the Pensacola Bay/East Bay stock, and the Choctawhatchee Bay stock (NMFS, 2005). There has been no population assessment for any of these stocks for more than eight years. The relatively high number of bottlenose dolphin deaths that occurred during mortality events (mostly from stranding) since 1990 raises a concern that some of the stocks are stressed. Each of these stocks is listed as a strategic stock under the MMPA. The Atlantic spotted dolphin is endemic to the Atlantic Ocean in temperate to tropical waters (Perrin *et al.* , 1994). In the GOM, this species occurs primarily from continental shelf waters 10-200 m (32.8 - 656.2 ft) deep to slope waters <500 m (1,640 ft) deep (Fulling *et al.* , 2003). Atlantic spotted dolphins were seen in all seasons during GulfCet aerial surveys of the northern GOM from 1992 to 1998 (Hansen et al., 1996; Mullin and Hoggard, 2003). It has been suggested that this species may move inshore seasonally during spring, but data supporting this hypothesis are limited (Fritts et al., 1983). The best available abundance estimate for the northern GOM stock of the Atlantic spotted dolphin is 30,947 (NMFS, 2005). More detailed information on the Atlantic bottlenose and spotted dolphins can be found in the NMFS Stock Assessment Reports at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm* . Potential Impacts to Marine Mammals Potential impacts to marine mammals may occur due to underwater noise and direct physical impacts (DPI). Noise is produced by underwater detonations in the surf zone and by the operation of amphibious vehicles. DPI could result from collisions with amphibious vehicles and from ordnance live fire. However, with implementation of the mitigation actions discussed later in this document, the potential for impacts to marine mammals are anticipated to be de minimus (U.S. Air Force, 2005). Explosive criteria and thresholds for assessing impacts of explosions on marine mammals were discussed by NMFS in detail in its issuance of an IHA for Eglin's Precision Strike Weapon testing activity (70 FR 48675, August 19, 2005) and are not repeated here. Please refer to that document for this background information. Estimation of Take and Impact Surf Zone Detonation Surf zone detonation noise impacts are considered within two categories: overpressure and acoustics. Underwater explosive detonations produce a wave of pressure in the water column. This pressure wave potentially has lethal and injurious impacts, depending on the proximity to the source detonation. Humans and animals receive the acoustic signature of noise as sound. Beyond the physical impacts, acoustics may cause annoyance and behavior modifications (Goertner, 1982). Estimating the impacts to marine mammals from underwater detonations were discussed by NMFS in detail in its notice of receipt of application for an IHA for Eglin's Air-to-Surface Gunnery mission in the Gulf (71 FR 3474, January 23, 2006) and is not repeated here. Please refer to that document for this background information. A maximum of one surf zone testing/training mission would be completed per year. The impact areas of the proposed action are derived from mathematical calculations and models that predict the distances to which threshold noise levels would travel. The equations for the models consider the amount of net explosive, the properties of detonations under water, and environmental factors such as depth of the explosion, overall water depth, water temperature, and bottom type. The end result of the analysis is an area known as the Zone of Influence (ZOI). A ZOI is based on an outward radial distance from the point of detonation, extending to the limit of a particular threshold level in a 360-degree area. Thus, there are separate ZOIs for mortality, injury (hearing-related injury and slight, non-fatal lung injury), and harassment (temporary threshold shift, or TTS, and sub-TTS). Given the radius, and assuming noise spreads outward in a spherical manner, the entire area ensonified (i.e., exposed to the specific noise level being analyzed) is estimated. The radius of each threshold is shown for each shallow water surf zone mine clearing system in Table 1. The radius is assumed to extend from the point of detonation in all directions, allowing calculation of the affected area. The number of takes is calculated by applying marine mammal density to the ZOI
(area)for each detonation type. Species density for most cetaceans is based on adjusted GulfCet II aerial survey data, which is shown in Table 2. GulfCet II data were conservatively adjusted upward to approximately two standard deviations to obtain 99 percent confidence, and a submergence correction factor was applied to account for the presence of submerged, uncounted animals. However, the actual number of marine mammal takes would be even smaller, since up to half of the ZOI would be over land and very shallow surf, which is not considered marine mammal habitat. Table 1.—Zones of Impact for Underwater Explosive from Four Mine Clearing Systems (Acoustic units are re 1 microPa 2 ) Threshold Criteria ZOI Radius
(m)SABRE 232 lb NEW MK-5 MCS 1,750 lb NEW DET 130 lb MK-82 ARRAY 1,372 lb 176 dB 1/3 Octave SEL* Level B Behavior 1,440 2,299 1,252 2,207 182 dB 1/3 Octave SEL Level B TTS Dual Criterion 961 1,658 796 1,544 205 dB SEL Level A PTS 200 478 155 436 23 psi Level B Dual Criteria 857 1,788 761 1,557 13 psi-msec Level A Injury 60 100 58 86 30.5 psi-msec Mortality 45 68 42 60 * SEL - Sound energy level Table 2.—Cetacean Densities for Gulf of Mexico Shelf Region Species Individuals/km 2 Dive profile - % at surface Adjusted density (Individuals/km 2 )* Bottlenose dolphin 0.148 30 0.810 Atlantic spotted dolphin 0.089 30 0.677 Bottlenose or Atlantic dolphin 0.007 30 0.053 Total 0.244 1.54 * Adjusted for undetected submerged animals to approximately two standard deviations. Table 3 lists the noise-related dolphin take estimates resulting from surf zone detonations associated with the Perferred Alternative of the PEA. The take numbers represent the combined total of Atlantic bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins, and do not consider any mitigation measures. Implementation of mitigation measures discussed below would significantly decrease the number of takes. Discussion of the amount of take reduction is provided below. Table 3.—Preferred Alternative Take Estimates from Noise Impacts to Dolphins (Acoustic units are re 1 microPa 2 ) Threshold Criteria SABRE MK-5 MCS DET MK-82 Array Total Takes * 176 dB 1/3 Octave SEL Sub-TTS 10 26 8 24 68 182 dB 1/3 Octave SEL Level B Harassment TTS (dual criterion) 5 13 3 12 33 23 psi Level B TTS (dual criterion) 4 15 3 12 34 205 dB Total SEL Level A PTS 0 1 0 1 2 13 psi-msec Level A Non-lethal Injury 0 0 0 0 0 30.5 psi-msec Mortality 0 0 0 0 0 * Estimated exposure with no mitigation measures in place Noise from LCAC Noise resulting from LCAC operations was considered under a transit mode of operation. The LCAC uses rotary air screw technology to power the craft over the water, therefore, noise from the engine is not emitted directly into the water. The Navy's acoustic in-water noise characterization studies show the noise emitted from the LCAC into the water is very similar to that of the MH-53 helicopter operating at low altitudes. Based on the Air Force's Excess Sound Attenuation Model for the LCAC's engines under ground runup condition, the data estimate that the maximum noise level (98 dBA) is at a point 45 degrees from the bow of the craft at a distance of 61 m (200 ft) in air. Maximum noise levels fall below 90 dBA at a point less than 122 meters (400 ft) from the craft in air (U.S. Air Force, 1999). Due to the large difference of acoustic impedance between air and water, much of the acoustic energy would be reflected at the surface. Therefore, the effects of noise from LCAC to marine mammals would be negligible. Collision with Vessels During the time that amphibious vehicles are operating in (or, in the case of LCACs, just above) the water, encounters with marine mammals are possible. A slight possibility exists that such encounters could result in a vessel physically striking an animal. However, this scenario is considered very unlikely. Dolphins are extremely mobile and have keen hearing and would likely leave the vicinity of any vehicle traffic. The largest vehicles that would be moving are LCACs, and their beam measurement can be used for conservative impact analyses. The operation which potentially uses the largest number of LCACs is Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit (ARG/MEU) training. Based on analysis in the *ARG/MEU Readiness Training Environmental Assessment* (U.S. Air Force, 2003b), LCAC activities (over 10 days) could potentially impact 22.25 square miles of the total water surface area. The estimated number of bottlenose dolphins in this area is 6.9, with an approximately equal number of Atlantic spotted dolphins. These species would easily avoid collision because the LCACs produce noise that would be detected some distance away, and therefore would be avoided as any other boat in the Gulf. In addition, AAVs move very slowly and would be easily avoided. The potential for amphibious craft colliding with marine mammals and causing injury or death is therefore considered remote. Live Fire Operations Live fire operations with munitions directed towards the Gulf have the potential to impact marine mammals (primarily bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins). Cetacean abundance estimates for the study area are derived from CulfCet II aerial surveys in the eastern Gulf waters (Davis *et al.* , 2000). To provide a more conservative impact analysis, density estimates have been adjusted to account for submerged individuals. The percent of time that an animal is submerged versus at the surface was obtained from Moore and Clarke (1998), and used to determine an adjusted density for each species. The result shows an estimated animal density of 1.54 animals/km 2 (Table 2). A maximum of two live fire operations would be conducted in a year, and are associated with expanded Special Operations training on SRI. Small caliber weapons between 5.56 mm and .50 caliber with low-range munitions would be allowed only within designated live fire areas. The average range of the munitions is approximately 1 km (0.54 nm). If a given live fire area was 1 km (0.54 nm) wide, then approximately 1.5 dolphins could be vulnerable to a munitions strike. However, even the largest live fire area on SRI is considerably less than 1 km (0.54 nm) wide. If live fire is conservatively estimated to originate from a section of beach 0.2 km (0.11 nm) wide, only 0.3 dolphins would be within the area of potential DPI. Finally, the mitigation measures discussed below would further reduces the likelihood of direct impacts to marine mammals due to live fire operations. In addition, given the infrequency of the surf zone detonation (maximum of once per year) and the amphibious vehicle and weapon testing (maximum of twice per year), NMFS believes there is no potential for long-term displacement or behavioral impacts of marine mammals within the proposed action area. Mitigation Eglin AFB would employ a number of mitigation measures in an effort to substantially decrease the number of animals potentially affected. Visual monitoring of the operational area can be a very effective means of detecting the presence of marine mammals. This is particularly true of the species most likely to be present (bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins) due to their tendency to occur in groups, their relatively short dive time, and their relatively high level of surface activity. In addition, the water clarity in the northeastern GOM is typically very high. It is often possible to view the entire water column in the water depth that defines the study area (30 feet or 9.1 m). For the surf zone testing/training, missions would only be conducted under daylight conditions of suitable visibility and sea state of number three or less. Prior to the mission, a trained observer aboard a helicopter would survey (visually monitor) the test area, which is a very effective method for detecting sea turtles and cetaceans. In addition, shipboard personnel would provide supplemental observations when available. The size of the area to be surveyed would depend on the specific test system, but it would correspond to the ZOI for Level B behavior harassment (176 dB 1/3 octave SEL) listed in Table 1. The survey would be conducted approximately 250 feet (76 m) above the sea surface to allow observers to scan a large distance. If a marine mammal is sighted within the ZOI, the mission would be suspended until the animal is clear of this area. In addition, to reduce the potential impacts to sea turtles and manatees, surf zone testing would be conducted between 1 November and 1 March whenever possible. Navy personnel (NSWCPC) would only conduct live fire testing with sea surface conditions of sea state 3 or less on the Beaufort scale, which is when there is about 33 - 50 percent of surface whitecaps with 0.6 - 0.9 m (2 - 3 ft) waves. During daytime missions, small boats would be used to survey for marine mammals in the proposed action area before and after the operations. If a marine mammal is sighted within the target or closely adjacent areas, the mission would be suspended until the area is clear. No mitigation for marine mammals would be feasible for nighttime mission, however, given the remoteness of impact, the potential that a marine mammal is injured or killed is unlikely. Monitoring and Reporting The Eglin AFB will train personnel to conduct aerial surveys for protected species. The aerial survey/monitoring team would consist of an observer and a pilot familiar with flying transect patterns. A helicopter provides a preferable viewing platform for detection of protected marine species. The aerial observer must be experienced in marine mammal surveying and be familiar with species that may occur in the area. The observer would be responsible for relaying the location (latitude and longitude), the species if known, and the number of animals sighted. The aerial team would also identify large schools of fish, jellyfish aggregations, and any large accumulation of Sargassum that could potentially drift into the ZOI. Standard line-transect aerial surveying methods would be used. Observed marine mammals and sea turtles would be identified to species or the lowest possible taxonomic level possible. The aerial and (potential) shipboard monitoring teams would have proper lines of communication to avoid communication deficiencies. Observers would have direct communication via radio with the lead scientist. The lead scientist reviews the range conditions and recommends a Go/No-Go decision to the Officer in Tactical Command, who makes the final Go/No-Go decision. Stepwise mitigation procedures for SRI surf zone missions are outlined below. All zones (mortality, injury, TTS) would be monitored. Pre-mission Monitoring The purposes of pre-mission monitoring are to
(1)evaluate the test site for environmental suitability of the mission (e.g., relatively low numbers of marine mammals and turtles, few or no patches of Sargassum, etc.) and
(2)verify that the ZOI is free of visually detectable marine mammals, sea turtles, large schools of fish, large flocks of birds, large Sargassum mats, and large concentrations of jellyfish (the latter two are possible indicators of turtle presence). On the morning of the test, the lead scientist would confirm that the test site can support the mission and that the weather is adequate to support observations.
(1)One Hour Prior to Mission Approximately one hour prior to the mission, or at daybreak, the appropriate vessel(s) would be on-site near the location of the earliest planned mission point. Personnel onboard the vessel would assess the suitability of the test site, based on visual observation of marine mammals and sea turtles. This information would be relayed to the Lead Scientist.
(2)Fifteen Minutes Prior to Mission Aerial monitoring would commence at the test site 15 minutes prior to the start of the mission. The entire ZOI would be surveyed by flying transects through the area. Shipboard personnel would also monitor the area as available. All marine mammal sightings would be reported to the Lead Scientist, who would enter all pertinent data into a sighting database.
(3)Go/No-Go Decision Process The Lead Scientist would record sightings and bearing for all protected species detected. This would depict animal sightings relative to the mission area. The Lead Scientist would have the authority to declare the range fouled and recommend a hold until monitoring indicates that the ZOI is and will remain clear of detectable animals. The mission would be postponed if any marine mammal or sea turtle is visually detected within the ZOI for Level B behavioral harassment. The delay would continue until the marine mammal or sea turtle is confirmed to be outside the ZOI for Level B behavioral harassment on its own. In the event of a postponement, pre-mission monitoring would continue as long as weather and daylight hours allow. Aerial monitoring is limited by fuel and the on-station time of the monitoring aircraft. Post-mission Monitoring Post-mission monitoring is designed to determine the effectiveness of pre-mission mitigation by reporting any sightings of dead or injured marine mammals or sea turtles. Post-detonation monitoring would commence immediately following each detonation and continue for 15 minutes. The helicopter would resume transects in the area of the detonation, concentrating on the area down current of the test site. The monitoring team would attempt to document any marine mammals or turtles that were found dead or injured after the detonation, and, if practicable, recover and examine any dead animals. The species, number, location, and behavior of any animals observed by the observation teams would be documented and reported to the Lead Scientist. Post-mission monitoring activities would also include coordination with marine animal stranding networks. The NMFS maintains stranding networks along coasts to collect and circulate information about marine mammal and sea turtle standings. In addition, NMFS proposes to require Eglin to monitor the target area for impacts to marine mammals and to report on its activities on an annual basis. Accordingly, NMFS' Biological Opinion on this action has recommended certain monitoring measures to protect marine life. NMFS proposes to require the same requirements under an IHA:
(1)Eglin will develop and implement a marine species observer-training program in coordination with NMFS. This program will primarily provide expertise to Eglin's testing and training community in the identification of protected marine species during surface and aerial mission activities in the GOM. Additionally, personnel involved in the surf zone and amphibious vehicle and weapon testing/training would participate in the proposed species observation training. Observers would receive training in protected species survey and identification techniques through a NMFS-approved training program.
(2)Eglin would track their use of the surf zone and amphibious vehicle and weapon testing/training for test firing missions and protected resources (marine mammal/sea turtle) observations, through the use of an observer training sheet.
(3)A summary annual report of marine mammal/sea turtle observations and surf zone and amphibious vehicle and weapon testing/training activities would be submitted to the NMFS Southeast Regional Office
(SERO)and the Office of Protected Resources by January 31 of each year.
(4)If any marine mammal or sea turtle is observed or detected to be deceased prior to testing, or injured or killed during live fire, a report must be made to the NMFS by the following business day.
(5)Any unauthorized takes of marine mammals (i.e., serious injury or mortality) must be immediately reported to the NMFS representative and to the respective stranding network representative. ESA Consultation under section 7 of the ESA on Eglin AFB activities was completed on December 17, 1998. On March 18, 2005, NMFS Southeast Regional Office received a letter from the U.S. Air Force (USAF), Eglin AFB, requesting initiation of formal consultation on all potential environmental impacts to ESA-listed species from all Eglin AFB mission activities on SRI and within the surf zone near SRI. These missions include the surf zone detonation and amphibious vehicle and weapon testing/training. A NMFS Biological Opinion issued on October 12, 2005, concluded that the surf zone and amphibious vehicle and weapon testing/training are unlikely to jeopardize the continued existence of species listed under the ESA that are within the jurisdiction of NMFS or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. The proposed IHA to Eglin is a federal action; accordingly, prior to issuance of an IHA, NMFS will determine whether additional consultation is necessary. NEPA In March, 2005, the USAF prepared the *Santa Rosa Island Mission Utilization Plan Programmatic Environmental Assessment* (SRI Mission PEA). NMFS is reviewing this PEA and will either adopt it or prepare its own NEPA document before making a determination on the issuance of an IHA and rulemaking. A copy of Eglin's PEA for this activity is available upon written request (see ADDRESSES ). Preliminary Conclusions NMFS has preliminarily determined that the surf zone and amphibious vehicle and weapon testing/training that are proposed by Eglin AFB off the coast of SRI, is unlikely to result in the mortality or serious injury of marine mammals (see Tables 2 and 3) and, would result in, at worst, a temporary modification in behavior by marine mammals. While behavioral modifications may be made by these species as a result of these surf zone detonation and amphibious vehicle training activities, any behavioral change is expected to have a negligible impact on the affected species. Also, given the infrequency of these testing/training missions (maximum of once per year for surf zone detonation and maximum of twice per year for amphibious assault training involving live fire), there is no potential for long-term displacement or long-lasting behavioral impacts of marine mammals within the proposed action area. In addition, the potential for temporary hearing impairment is very low and would be mitigated to the lowest level practicable through the incorporation of the mitigation measures mentioned in this document. Proposed Authorization NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to Eglin AFB for conducting surf zone and amphibious vehicle and weapon testing/training off the coast of SRI in the northern GOM provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed activity is unlikely to result in serious injury or mortality to marine mammals; would have no more than a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal stocks; and would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of stocks for subsistence uses. Information Solicited NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments and information concerning this proposed IHA and Eglin's application for incidental take regulations (see ADDRESSES ). NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments, information, and suggestions concerning both the request and the structure and content of future regulations to allow this taking. NMFS will consider this information in developing proposed regulations to authorize the taking. Dated: June 16, 2006. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-9882 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request—Requirements for Electrically Operated Toys and Children's Articles AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In the **Federal Register** of April 4, 2006 (71 FR 16766), the Consumer Product Safety Commission published a notice in accordance with provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) to announce the agency's intention to seek extension of approval of the collection of information required in the Requirements for Electrically Operated Toys or Other Electrically Operated Articles Intended for Use by Children (16 CFR Part 1505). No comments were received in response to that notice. By publication of this notice, the Commission announces that it has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)a request for extension of approval of that collection of information without change for three years from the date of approval by OMB. The regulations in Part 1505 establish performance and labeling requirements for electrically operated toys and children's articles to reduce unreasonable risks of injury to children from electric shock, electrical burns, and thermal burns associated with those products. Section 1505.4(a)(3) of the regulations requires manufacturers and importers of electrically operated toys and children's articles to maintain records for three years containing information about:
(1)Material and production specifications;
(2)the quality assurance program used;
(3)results of all tests and inspections conducted; and
(4)sales and distribution of electrically operated toys and children's articles. The records of testing and other information required by the regulations allow the Commission to determine if electrically operated toys and children's articles comply with the requirements of the regulations in Part 1505. If the Commission determines that products fail to comply with the regulations, this information also enables the Commission and the firm to:
(i)Identify specific lots or production lines of products which fail to comply with applicable requirements; and
(ii)notify distributors and retailers in the event those products are subject to recall. Additional Information About the Request for Extention of Approval of a Collection of Information *Agency address:* Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814. *Title of information collection:* Requirements for Electrically Operated Toys or Other Electrically Operated Articles Intended for Use by Children, 16 CFR Part 1505. *Type of request:* Extension of approval without change. *General description of respondents:* Manufacturers and importers of electrically operated toys and children's articles. *Estimated number of respondents:* 40. *Estimated average number of hours per respondent:* 200 per year. *Estimated number of hours for all respondents:* 8,000 per year. *Estimated cost of collection for all respondents:* $343,000. *Comments:* Comments on this request for extension of approval of information collection requirements should be submitted by July 24, 2006 to
(1)the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for CPSC, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; telephone:
(202)395-7340, and
(2)the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814 by e-mail at *cpsc-os@cpsc.gov* , or by mail or by facsimile at
(301)504-0127. Copies of this request for extension of the information collection requirements and supporting documentation are available from Linda Glatz, management and program analyst, Office of Planning and Evaluation, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone:
(301)504-7671. Dated: June 19, 2006. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc. E6-9884 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request—Safety Standard for Walk-Behind Power Lawn Mowers AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In the **Federal Register** of March 28, 2006 (71 FR 15388), the Consumer Product Safety Commission published a notice in accordance with provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) to announce the agency's intention to seek extension of approval of the collection of information required in the Safety Standard for Walk-Behind Power Lawn Mowers (16 CFR part 1205). No comments were received in response to this notice. By publication of this notice, the Commission announces that it has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)a request for extension of approval of that collection of information without change for a period of three years from the date of approval by OMB. The Safety Standard for Walk-Behind Power Lawn Mowers establishes performance and labeling requirements for mowers to reduce unreasonable risks of injury resulting from accidental contact with the moving blades of mowers. Certification regulations implementing the standard require manufacturers, importers and private labelers of mowers subject to the standard to test mowers for compliance with the standard, and to maintain records of that testing. The records of testing and other information required by the certification regulations allow the Commission to determine that walk-behind power mowers subject to the standard comply with its requirements. This information also enables the Commission to obtain corrective actions if mowers fail to comply with the standard in a manner that creates a substantial risk of injury to the public. Additional Information About the Request for Extension of Approval of a Collection of Information *Agency address:* Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814. *Title of information collection:* Safety Standard for Walk-Behind Power Lawn Mowers, 16 CFR Part 1205. *Type of request:* Extension of approval without change. *General description of respondents:* Manufacturers, importers, and private labelers of walk-behind power lawn mowers. *Estimated number of respondents:* 20. *Estimated average number of hours per respondent:* 390 per year. *Estimated number of hours for all respondents:* 7,800 per year. *Estimated cost of collection for all respondents:* $334,000. *Comments:* Comments on this request for extension of approval of information collection requirements should be submitted by July 24, 2006 to
(1)the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for CPSC, Office of Management and Budget, Washington DC 20503; telephone:
(202)395-7340, and
(2)the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, by e-mail at *cpsc-os@cpsc.gov* , or by mail or by facsimile at
(301)504-0127. Copies of this request for extension of the information collection requirements and supporting documentation are available from Linda Glatz, management and program analyst, Office of Planning and Evaluation, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone:
(301)504-7671. Dated: June 19, 2006. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc. E6-9885 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [IC06-500-001, FERC 500] Commission Information Collection Activities, Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension June 16, 2006. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and extension of this information collection requirement. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission received no comments in response to an earlier **Federal Register** notice of March 30, 2006 (71 FR 16132-16133) and has made this notation in its submission to OMB. DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by July 28, 2006. ADDRESSES: Address comments on the collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. Comments to OMB should be filed electronically, c/o *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* and include the OMB Control No. as a point of reference. The Desk Officer may be reached by telephone at 202-395-4650. A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, ED-34, Attention: Michael Miller, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments may be filed either in paper format or electronically. Those persons filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. For paper filings, and original and 14 copies of such comments should be submitted to the Secretary of the Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 and should refer to Docket No. IC06-500-001. Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in WordPerfect, MS Word, Portable Document Format, or ASCII format. To file the document, access the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* and click on “Make an E-Filing,” and then follow the instructions for each screen. First time users will have to establish a user name and password. The Commission will send an automatic acknowledgement to the sender's e-mail address upon receipt of comments. User assistance for electronic filings is available at 202-502-8258 or by e-mail to *efiling@ferc.gov* . Comments should not be submitted to this e-mail address. All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the Internet through FERC's homepage using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For user assistance, contact *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at
(866)208-3676 or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by telephone at
(202)502-8415, by fax at
(202)273-0873, and by e-mail at *michael.miller@ferc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Description The information collection submitted for OMB review contains the following: 1. *Collection of Information:* FERC Form 500 “Application for License/Relicense for Water Projects with More than 5MW Capacity”. 2. *Sponsor:* Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 3. *Control No.:* 1902-0058. The Commission is now requesting that OMB approve and extend the expiration date for an additional three years with no changes to the existing collection. The information filed with the Commission is mandatory. 4. *Necessity of the Collection of Information:* Submission of the information is necessary for the Commission to carry out its responsibilities in implementing the Statutory provisions consists of the filing requirements as defined 18 CFR 4.32, 4.38, 4.40-41, 4.50-51, 4.61, 4.71, 4.93, 4.107-108, 4.201-.202, 16.1, 16.10, 16.20, 292.203 and 292.208. The information collected under the requirements of FERC-500 is used by the Commission to determine the broad impact of a hydropower license application. In deciding whether to issue a license, the Commission gives equal consideration to full range of licensing purposes related to the potential value of a stream or river. Among these purposes are: hydroelectric development; energy conservation; fish and wildlife resources; including their spawning grounds and habitat; visual resources; cultural resources; recreational opportunities; other aspects of environmental quality; irrigation; flood control and water supply. Submission of the information is necessary to fulfill the requirements of the Federal Power Act in order for the Commission to make the required finding that the proposal is economically sound is best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving/developing a waterway or waterways. Under Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 791a *et seq.* ), the Commission has the authority to issue licenses for hydroelectric projects on the waters over which Congress has jurisdiction. The Electric Consumers Protection Act (Pub. L. 99-495, 100 Stat. 1243) provides the Commission with the responsibility of issuing licenses for nonfederal hydroelectric plants. ECPA also amended the language of the FPA concerning environmental issues to ensure environmental quality. In Order No. 2002 (68 FR 51070, August 25, 2003; FERC Statutes and Regulations ¶31,150 at p. 30,688) the Commission revised its regulations to create a new licensing process in which a potential license applicant's pre-filing consultation and the Commission's scoping process pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321) are conducted concurrently rather than sequentially. The Commission estimated that if an applicant chooses to use the new licensing process, this could result in a reduction of 30% from the traditional licensing process. The reporting burden related to Order No. 2002 would be on average 32,200 hours as opposed to 46,000 hours per respondent in the traditional licensing process or 39,000 hours for the alternative licensing process. It has been nearly three years since Order No. 2002 was issued and applicants have experienced the opportunity to gain the benefits from the revised licensing process. In particular, applicants have benefited from
(a)increased public participation in pre-filing consultation;
(b)increased assistance from Commission staff to the potential applicant and stakeholders during the development of a license application;
(c)development by the potential applicant of a Commission-approved study plan;
(d)elimination of the need for post-application study requests;
(e)issuance of public schedules and enforcement of deadlines;
(f)better coordination between the Commission's processes, including the NEPA document preparation, and those of Federal and state agencies and Indian tribes with authority to require conditions for Commission-issued licenses. It is for these reasons, that the Commission will use the estimates projected in the table below. The information collected is needed to evaluate license application pursuant to the comprehensive development standard of FPA sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1), to consider the comprehensive development analysis of certain factors with respect to the new license set forth in section 15, and to comply with NEPA, Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 *et seq.* ) Commission staff conducts a systematic review of the prepared application with supplemental documentation provided by the solicitation of comments from other agencies and the public. 5. *Respondent Description:* The respondent universe currently comprises 13 respondents (on average) subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. 6. *Estimated Burden:* 463,060 total hours, 13 respondents (average), 1 response per respondent, and 35,620 hours per response (average). 7. *Estimated Cost Burden to Respondents:* Estimated cost burden to respondents is $62,430,000. ($7,800,000 (traditional process) + $17,600,000 (alternative process) + $37,030,000 (integrated process). These costs were determined by the percentage of applicants that would be using each of these processes. Annualized costs per project $2,600,000 (traditional); $2,200,000 (alternative licensing) and $1,610,000 (integrated licensing). Statutory Authority: Statutory provisions of Submission of the information is necessary for the Commission to carry out its responsibilities in implementing the Statutory provisions consists of the filing requirements as defined 18 CFR 4.32, 4.38, 4.40-41, 4.50-51, 4.61, 4.71, 4.93, 4.107-108, 4.201-.202, 16.1, 16.10, 16.20, 292.203 and 292.208. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9891 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [IC06-505-001, FERC 505] Commission Information Collection Activities, Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension June 16, 2006. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and extension of this information collection requirement. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission received no comments in response to an earlier **Federal Register** notice of March 28, 2006 (71 FR 15399-15401) and has made this notation in its submission to OMB. DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by July 28, 2006. ADDRESSES: Address comments on the collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. Comments to OMB should be filed electronically, c/o *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* and include the OMB Control No. as a point of reference. The Desk Officer may be reached by telephone at 202-395-4650. A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, ED-34, Attention: Michael Miller, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments may be filed either in paper format or electronically. Those persons filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. For paper filings, and original and 14 copies of such comments should be submitted to the Secretary of the Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 and should refer to Docket No. IC06-505-001. Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in WordPerfect, MS Word, Portable Document Format, or ASCII format. To file the document, access the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* and click on “Make an E-Filing,” and then follow the instructions for each screen. First time users will have to establish a user name and password. The Commission will send an automatic acknowledgement to the sender's e-mail address upon receipt of comments. User assistance for electronic filings is available at 202-502-8258 or by e-mail to *efiling@ferc.gov.* Comments should not be submitted to this e-mail address. All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the Internet through FERC's homepage using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For user assistance, contact *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at
(866)208-3676; or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by telephone at
(202)502-8415, by fax at
(202)273-0873, and by e-mail at *michael.miller@ferc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Description The information collection submitted for OMB review contains the following: 1. *Collection of Information:* FERC Form 505 “Application for License for Water Projects with less than 5MW Capacity”. 2. *Sponsor:* Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 3. *Control No.:* 1902-0115. The Commission is now requesting that OMB approve and extend the expiration date for an additional three years with no changes to the existing collection. The information filed with the Commission is mandatory. 4. *Necessity of the Collection of Information:* Submission of the information is necessary for the Commission to carry out its responsibilities in implementing the statutory provisions of Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 791a *et seq.* & 3301-3432, as amended by the Electric Consumers Protections Act
(ECPA)(Pub. L. 99-495, 100 Stat. 1234 (1986). The FPA as amended by ECPA provides the Commission with the responsibility of issuing licenses for nonfederal hydroelectric power plants, plus requiring the Commission in its licensing activities to give equal consideration to preserving environmental quality. ECPA also amended sections 10(a) and 10(j) of the FPA to specify the conditions on which hydropower licenses are issued, to direct that the project be adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan that improves waterways for interstate/foreign commerce and for the protection, enhancement and mitigation of damages to fish and wildlife. Submission of the information is necessary to fulfill the requirements of Sections 9 and 10(a) of the Act in order for the Commission to make the required finding that the proposal is economically, technically, and environmentally sound, and is best adapted to the comprehensive plan of development of the water resources of the region. Under section 405(c) of the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, the Commission may in its discretion (by rule or order) grant an exemption in whole or in part from the requirements of Part I of the FPA to small hydroelectric power projects having a proposed installed capacity of 5,000 kilowatts or less. The information collected under designation FERC-505 is in the form of a written application for a license and is used by Commission staff to determine the broad impact of the license application. In Order No. 2002 (68 FR 51070, August 25, 2003; FERC Statutes and Regulations ¶ 31,150 at p. 30,688) the Commission revised its regulations to create a new licensing process in which a potential license applicant's pre-filing consultation and the Commission's scoping pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)are conducted concurrently rather than sequentially. The Commission estimated that if an applicant chooses to use the new licensing process, this could result in a reduction of 30% from the traditional licensing process. The reporting burden related to Order No. 2002 would on average be 7,000 hours per respondent as opposed to 10,000 hours per respondent in the traditional licensing process and 8,600 hours in the alternative licensing process. It has been nearly three years since Order No. 2002 was issued and applicants have experienced the opportunity to gain the benefits from the revised licensing process. In particular, applicants have benefited from
(a)increased public participation in pre-filing consultation;
(b)increased assistance from Commission staff to the potential applicant and stakeholders during the development of a license application;
(c)development by the potential applicant of a Commission-approved study plan;
(d)elimination of the need for post-application study requests;
(e)issuance of public schedules and enforcement of deadlines,
(f)better coordination between the Commission's processes, including the NEPA document preparation, and those of Federal and state agencies and Indian tribes with authority to require conditions for Commission-issued licenses. It is for these reasons, that the Commission will use the estimates projected in the table below. The information collected is needed to evaluate the license application pursuant to the comprehensive development standard of FPA sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1), to consider the comprehensive development analysis certain factors with respect to the new license as set forth in section 15, and to comply with NEPA, Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 *et seq.* ). Commission staff conducts a systematic review of the prepared application with supplemental documentation provided by the solicitation of comments from other agencies and the public. The Commission implements these filing requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)under 18 CFR 4.61; 4.71; 4.93; 4.107; 4.108; 4.201; 4.202, 292.203 and 292.208. 5. *Respondent Description:* The respondent universe currently comprises 5 respondents (on average) subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. 6. *Estimated Burden:* 34,795 total hours, 5 respondents (average), 1 response per respondent, and 6,959 hours per response (average). 7. *Estimated Cost Burden to Respondents:* Estimated cost burden to respondents is $8,675,000. ($1,500,000 (traditional process) + $2,975,000 (alternative process) + $4,200,000 (integrated process). These costs were determined by the percentage of applicants that would be using each of these processes. Annualized costs per project $500,000 (traditional); $425,000 (alternative licensing), and $350,000 (integrated licensing). Statutory Authority: Statutory provisions of Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 791a *et seq.* and 3301-3432, as amended by the Electric Consumers Protections Act
(ECPA)(Pub. L. 99-495, 100 Stat. 1234 (1986). The Commission implements these filing requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)under 18 CFR 4.61; 4.71; 4.93; 4.107; 4.108; 4.201; 4.202, 292.203 and 292.208. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9892 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP06-365-000; Docket Nos. CP06-366-000; CP06-376-000; CP06-377-000] Bradwood Landing LLC; NorthernStar Energy LLC; Notice of Application June 15, 2006. Take notice that on June 5, 2006, Bradwood Landing LLC (Bradwood Landing) 905 Commercial Street, Astoria, Oregon 97103, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), in Docket No. CP06-365-000, an application under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act and part 153 of the Commission's regulations for a certificate of public convenience and necessity seeking authorization to site, construct and operate a liquefied natural gas
(LNG)terminal located in Bradwood, Clatsop County, Oregon, for the purpose of importing LNG into the United States. Bradwood Landing also requests approval of the Terminal as the place of entry for imported LNG supplies. Also, take notice that on June 5, 2006, NorthernStar Energy LLC (NorthernStar), also located at 905 Commercial Street, Astoria, Oregon 97103, filed in Docket Nos. CP06-366-000, CP06-376-000, and CP06-377-000 an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and parts 157 and 284 of the Commission's regulations for:
(1)A certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing the construction, installation, ownership, and operation of the Bradwood Landing Pipeline and other facilities,
(2)a blanket certificate to construct, operate, and/or abandon certain eligible facilities, and services related thereto; and
(3)a blanket certificate to provide open-access firm transportation services. NorthernStar also requests authorization of the initial rates for transportation service and terms and conditions of service proposed in the *pro forma* tariff. The proposed Bradwood Landing Pipeline is an approximately 34-mile long pipeline which will transport natural gas from the Bradwood Landing LNG terminal to the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, an interstate natural gas pipeline in Cowlitz County, Washington. The application is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at
(866)208-3676, or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Gary R. Coppedge, Bradwood Landing LLC and NorthernStar Energy LLC, 905 Commercial Street, Astoria, Oregon 97103, phone
(503)325-3335 or fax
(503)325-9697. On March 18, 2005, the Commission staff granted Bradwood Landing's and NorthernStar's request to utilize the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF05-10-000 to staff activities involving the Bradwood Landing LNG Terminal. Now, as of the filing of this application on June 5, 2006, the NEPA Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be conducted in Docket Nos. CP06-365-000, CP06-366-000, CP06-376-000, and CP06-377-000 as noted in the caption of this Notice. There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date listed below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of this filing and all subsequent filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy of all filing to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding. However, other persons do not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to this project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest. Persons may also wish to comment further only on the environmental review of this project. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of environmental documents issued by the Commission, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Those persons, organizations, and agencies who submitted comments during the NEPA Pre-Filing Process in Docket No. PF05-10-000 are already on the Commission staff's environmental mailing list for the proceeding in the above dockets and may file additional comments on or before the below listed comment date. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, environmental commenters are also not parties to the proceeding and will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or non-environmental documents issued by the Commission. Further, they will not have the right to seek court review of any final order by Commission in this proceeding. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) under the “e-Filing” link. *Comment Date:* July 6, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9813 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP06-392-000] El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request for Waivers June 15, 2006. Take notice that on June 13, 2006, El Paso Natural Gas Company
(EPNG)filed to request the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to permit EPNG to waive and/or discount certain penalties and charges under its Tariff through July 12, 2006. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time June 23, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9802 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP04-360-006] Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.; Notice of Compliance Filing June 15, 2006. Take notice that on June 13, 2006, Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C. (Maritimes) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 259B, proposed to be effective on June 1, 2006. Maritimes states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all affected customers of Maritimes and interested state commissions, all parties on the Commission's Official Service List in this proceeding and all parties on the electronic service list established for the hearing in this proceeding. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9809 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. PH06-11-000; PH06-12-000; PH06-13-000; PH06-14-000; PH06-15-000; PH06-16-000; PH06-17-000; PH06-18-000; PH06-19-000; PH06-20-000; PH06-21-000; PH06-22-000; PH06-23-000; PH06-24-000; PH06-25-000; PH06-26-000; PH06-27-000; PH06-28-000; PH06-29-000; PH06-30-000; PH06-31-000; PH06-32-000; PH06-33-000; PH06-34-000; PH06-35-000; PH06-36-000; PH06-37-000; PH06-38-000; PH06-39-000] MGE Energy, Inc.; DTE Energy Company; Energy, Inc.; Alpena Power Resources, LTD; Alaska Energy and Resources Company; National Grid Holdings One Plc; RGC Resources, Inc.; RGC Resources, Inc.; Deutsche Bank AG, et. al.; DTE Energy Company; Consolidated Energy Holdings LLC; Macquarie Bank Limited; IPALCO Enterprises; Utility Pipeline Limited; Alliant Energy Generation, Inc.; Nstar; Maine & Maritimes Corporation; Wisconsin Energy Corporation; Wisconsin Electric Power Company; BayCorp Holdings, Ltd.; UniSource Energy Corporation, et. al.; Alexander & Baldwin, Inc., et. al.; LMB Capital, Inc.; Hawkeye Funding, Inc.; Juniper Capital GP, LLC; JMG Capital, Inc.; Wygen Capital, Inc.; LIC Capital, Inc.; Alexander's of Brooklyn II, LLC; Notice of Effectiveness of Holding Company and Transaction Exemptions and Waivers June 15, 2006. Take notice that in May 2006 the holding company and transaction exemptions and waivers requested in the above-captioned proceedings are deemed to have been granted by operation of law pursuant to 18 CFR 366.4. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9808 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP06-291-001] National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Compliance Filing June 15, 2006. Take notice that on May 26, 2006, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed in Appendix A to the filing, with an effective date of April 30, 2006. National Fuel states that the filing is being made in compliance with the Commission's Order Accepting and Suspending Tariff Sheets issued April 28, 2006 in the above-referenced proceeding. Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9810 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP06-383-000] Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Application June 15, 2006. Take notice that on June 12, 2006, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (“Transco”), Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, filed an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing Transco to relocate and replace approximately 740 feet of 30-inch pipeline on its Mobile Bay Lateral in Mobile County, Alabama. This application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at (866)208-3676, or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. Transco states that due to the Alabama Department of Transportation's planned relocation of U.S. Highway 98 in Mobile County, Alabama, Transco must relocate approximately 740 feet of pipeline. Transco estimates that the proposed replacement project will cost approximately $870,000. Any questions about this application should be directed to Stephen A. Hatridge, Senior Counsel, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251-1396, at
(713)215-2312 or *stephen.a.hatridge@williams.com* . There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date listed below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of this filing and all subsequent filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy of all filing to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding. However, other persons do not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to this project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest. Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project, or in support of or in opposition to this project, should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the applicant. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) under the “e-Filing” link. *Comment Date:* July 6, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9803 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP06-391-000] USGen New England, Inc.; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order June 15, 2006. Take notice that on June 14, 2006, USGen New England, Inc. (USGen), filed a petition for a declaratory order pursuant to Rule 207 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations (18 CFR 385.207) declaring that
(1)USGen is not contractually precluded from filing a Section 5 complaint against Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee) challenging the reasonableness of its rates and fuel charges; and
(2)Tennessee's tariff does not address the calculation of damages or mitigation of damages arising from a breach by a shipper, and state law consequently governs the determination of the mitigation of damages in the event of a breach. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible online at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 30, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9812 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP06-390-000] Vector Pipeline L.P.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff June 15, 2006. Take notice that on June 12, 2006, Vector Pipeline L.P. (Vector), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets with an effective date of July 12, 2006: Sixth Revised Sheet No. 3. Third Revised Sheet No. 163. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible online at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9811 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP06-385-000, CP89-1718-001] Western Gas Resources, Inc., Western Gas Processors, Ltd.; Notice of Petition and Application June 16, 2006. Take notice that on May 26, 2006, Western Gas Resources, Inc. (WGR), successor to Western Gas Processors, Ltd., 1099 18th Street, Suite 1200, Denver, Colorado 80234, filed a petition for clarification and, in the alternative, applied for a limited jurisdiction certificate. In Docket No. CP89-1718-001, pursuant to Rules 204 and 207(a)(5) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (section 385.204 and section 385.207, respectively) WGR petitions for clarification that WGR's Midkiff Line, located in Glascock, Midland, Reagan, and Upton Counties, Texas, retains its non-jurisdictional status. Alternatively in Docket No. CP06-385-000, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and section 157.7(a)(1) of the Commission's regulations, WGR requests issuance of a limited jurisdiction certificate authorizing WGR's continued operation of the Midkiff Line and waiving certain regulatory requirements, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection. This filing is accessible online at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “library” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is a “subscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Christine Odell, Western Gas Resources, Inc., 1099 18th Street, Suite 1200, Denver, Colorado 80234; or e-mail: *codell@westerngas.com,* phone:
(303)452-5603, or fax:
(303)252-6240. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “defiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *Comment Date:* July 7, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9895 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 June 14, 2006. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* EC06-99-000. *Applicants:* Tor Power, LLC; Tyr Energy, LLC; Lincoln Generating Facility, LLC; Green Country Energy, LLC. *Description:* Tyr Energy, LLC, Green Country Energy, LLC *et al.* submit an amendment to their application to provide a description of their reorganization. *Filed Date:* June 6, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060609-0045. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 23, 2006. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings. *Docket Numbers:* ER02-298-003; EL05-111-000. *Applicants:* Thompson River Co-Gen, LLC. *Description:* Thompson River Co-Gen, LLC submits its revised updated market power analysis to include the generation power market screens. *Filed Date:* May 30, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060606-0453. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 20, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-534-002. *Applicants:* Ingenco Wholesale Power, L.L.C. *Description:* Ingenco Wholesale Power, L.L.C. submits its triennial market power update analysis pursuant to Commission order issued March 24, 2003. *Filed Date:* April 27, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060427-5031. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 21, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-774-003. *Applicants:* Eagle Energy Partners I, L.P. *Description:* Eagle Energy Partners I, L.P. submits its updated power market analysis pursuant to the Commission's order issued June 11, 2003. *Filed Date:* June 12, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-0110. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-796-004. *Applicants:* Katahdin Paper Company LLC. *Description:* Katahdin Paper Co. LLC submits its triennial market power analysis in compliance with Commission's order. *Filed Date:* June 12, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-0109. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER04-805-005. *Applicants:* Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc. *Description:* Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc. submits its notice of non-material change in status in compliance with the requirements adopted by FERC in Order 652. *Filed Date:* May 30, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060602-0332. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 20, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-1502-003. *Applicants:* California Independent System Operator Corporation *Description:* California Independent System Operator Corp. submits its compliance filing pursuant to FERC's May 12, 2006 Order. *Filed Date:* June 12, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-0112. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-436-001. *Applicants:* Avista Corporation. *Description:* Avista Corporation submits Non-Conforming Agreements under its OATT, Volume 8 consisting of twelve Network Integration Transmission Service Agreements with Bonneville Power Administration. *Filed Date:* June 9, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-0080. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 30, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-723-002. *Applicants:* California Independent System Operator Corporation *Description:* California Independent System Operator Corp. submits its revised Interim Reliability Requirements Program pursuant to FERC's May 12, 2006 Order. *Filed Date:* June 12, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-0111. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-731-002. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. submits revisions to Module D of its OAT&EM Tariff. *Filed Date:* June 8, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060612-0215. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 29, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-959-001. *Applicants:* Vermont Electric Cooperative, Inc. *Description:* Vermont Electric Cooperative, Inc. submits a letter clarifying its May 24, 2006 letter and a list of the tariffs that should be withdrawn, pursuant to Commission's amendment to section 201(f) of the Federal Power Act. *Filed Date:* May 26, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060526-5008. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 21, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1118-000. *Applicants:* ECP Energy, LLC. *Description:* ECP Energy, LLC submits an application for order accepting initial tariff, waiving regulations and granting blanket approvals. *Filed Date:* June 8, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060612-0216. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 29, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1119-000. *Applicants:* San Diego Gas & Electric Company. *Description:* San Diego Gas & Electric Co. submits First Revised Sheet 130 et al. to Rate Schedule FERC 14, Reliability Must Run Service Agreement with California Independent System Operator Corp. *Filed Date:* June 8, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-0071. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 29, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1120-000. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. supplements its March 10, 2006 filing with signature pages, Original Sheet Number 39. *Filed Date:* June 8, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-0072. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 29, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1121-000. *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corporation; Ohio Power Company. *Description:* Ohio Power Co. submits its notice of cancellation of its Amended Interconnection Agreement and Operation Agreement, Second Revised Service Agreement 433, Electric Tariff Third Revised Volume 6, with Lawrence Energy Center, LLC. *Filed Date:* June 9, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-0073. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 30, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1122-000. *Applicants:* High Trail Wind Farm, LLC. *Description:* High Trail Wind Farm, LLC submits a petition for order accepting market-based rate schedule for filing and granting waivers and blanket approvals. *Filed Date:* June 9, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-0074. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 30, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1123-000. *Applicants:* American Electric Power System; Ohio Power Company. *Description:* Ohio Power Co. submits its notice of cancellation of its Amended Interconnection Agreement and Operation Agreement, Second Revised Service Agreement 516, Electric Tariff Third Revised Volume 6, with Lawrence Energy Center, LLC. *Filed Date:* June 9, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-0075. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 30, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1124-000. *Applicants:* Kentucky Utilities Company. *Description:* Kentucky Utilities Co. submits a request for an extension of its contract term for an Interconnection Agreement with Eastern Kentucky Power Cooperative. *Filed Date:* June 9, 2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-0090. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 30, 2006. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St.,NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9796 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 June 15, 2006. Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings: * Docket Numbers:* EG06-62-000. *Applicants:* Flat Rock Windpower II LLC. *Description:* Flat Rock Windpower II, LLC submits its notice of self-certification of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to 18 CFR Section 366.7. *Filed Date:* 6/12/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-0197. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2006. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: * Docket Numbers:* ER01-1305-012. *Applicants:* Westar Generating, Inc. *Description:* Westar Generating Inc submits its compliance filing in accordance with Article IV, Informational Filings of the Settlement Agreement. *Filed Date:* 6/12/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-0199. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER02-2330-042. *Applicants:* ISO New England Inc. *Description:* ISO New England Inc submits its fifteenth quarterly status report in compliance with FERC's 9/20/02 Order. *Filed Date:* 6/12/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-0200. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-563-059; EL04-102-015. *Applicants:* ISO New England Inc. *Description:* ISO New England Inc submits a revised eighth compliance report pursuant to the Commission's 6/2/04 Order. *Filed Date:* 6/12/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060615-0114. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-845-002. *Applicants:* Pinpoint Power, LLC. *Description:* PinPoint Power, LLC submits its Triennial Updated Market Analysis in compliance with Commission's 6/12/03 Order. *Filed Date:* 6/12/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-0196. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER04-230-025. *Applicants:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. *Description:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc submits its compliance filing of the accepted effective date to implement fifteen minute scheduling pursuant to the Commission's 10/25/05 letter order. *Filed Date:* 6/13/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-0203. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER04-691-075; EL04-104-067. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest ISO submits a supplement to its 3/27/06 compliance filing regarding the calculation and refund of Marginal Losses Surplus under the Midwest ISO's OAT&EM Tariffs. *Filed Date:* 6/8/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-0198. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 29, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-719-003. *Applicants:* Entergy Services Inc. *Description:* Entergy Services, Inc on behalf of Entergy Arkansas, Inc submits its compliance Refund Report pursuant to Commission's 10/21/05 Order. *Filed Date:* 6/12/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-0195. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-1452-003. *Applicants:* Duke Power Company, LLC. *Description:* Duke Power Co LLC submits replacement pages to its Affected System Operating Agreement reflecting Duke Electric Transmission's name change. *Filed Date:* 6/13/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060615-0122. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-451-004; ER06-641-001. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits revisions to several provisions of its Tariff related to the incorporation of the executed external market monitor services agreement pursuant to FERC's 4/14/06 Order. *Filed Date:* 6/13/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060615-0116. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-800-001. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; FirstEnergy Service Company. *Description* : Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc and FirstEnergy Service Co on behalf of American Transmission Systems Inc submits revisions to its Attachment O of its Third Revised Volume No. 1 Tariff. *Filed Date:* 6/13/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060615-0118. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-971-001. *Applicants:* Exelon Business Services Company. *Description:* Exelon Business Services Co submits a revised tariff sheet reflecting the effective date for the cancellation notice filed 5/8/06. *Filed Date:* 6/12/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060615-0113. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 20, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-972-001. *Applicants:* Thornwood Management Company, LLC. *Description* : Thornwood Management Co, LLC submits an amendment of its petition for acceptance of initial tariff waivers and blanket authority application. *Filed Date:* 6/13/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060615-0117. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1079-001. Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation; Indiana Michigan Power Company. *Description:* Indiana Michigan Power Co submits Original Sheet 19 to its FERC Rate Schedule 102. *Filed Date:* 6/13/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-0201. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1125-000. *Applicants:* Avista Corporation. *Description* : Avista Corp submits First Revised Sheets 6 et al. to its FERC Rate Schedule 323, Revised Non-Conforming Long-Term Service Agreement with NorthWestern Corp. *Filed Date:* 6/13/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-0202. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1128-000. *Applicants:* Mankato Energy Center, LLC. *Description* : Mankato Energy Center, LLC submits its FERC Rate Schedule No. 2, effective 7/14/06. *Filed Date:* 6/14/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060615-0115. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006. Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign utility company status filings: *Docket Numbers:* FC06-8-000. *Applicants:* Babcock & Brown Infrastructure Limited; BBI Energy Partnership Pty Limited; BBI Networks (Australia) Pty Limited; BBI IEG Australia Holdings Pty Limited. *Description:* Babcock & Brown Infrastructure Limited submits it's notification of self certification of foreign utility company status pursuant to PUHCA 2005. *Filed Date:* 6/13/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060613-5030. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* FC06-9-000. *Applicants:* SUEZ S.A. *Description:* SUEZ S.A. on behalf its direct and indirect subsidiaries submit its self-certification of Foreign Utility Company Status, pursuant to PUHCA 2005. *Filed Date:* 6/14/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-5009. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* FC06-10-000. *Applicants:* FortisOntario, Inc.; Newfoundland Power Inc.; Maritime Electric Company, Limited; FortisAlberta Inc.; FortisBC Inc.; Belize Electricity Limited; Caribbean Utilities Company, Ltd.; Princeton Light and Power Company, Limited. *Description:* FortisOntario submits a notice of self-certification foreign utility company pursuant to PUHCA 2005. *Filed Date:* 6/14/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-5025. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* FC06-11-000. *Applicants:* Prisma Energy Nicaragua Holdings Ltd. *Description:* Prisma Energy International Inc., on behalf of Prisma Energy Nicaragua Holdings Ltd., et al., submits its application for Self-Certification of Foreign Utility Company Status of PUHCA 2005. *Filed Date:* 6/15/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-5092. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 6, 2006. Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings: *Docket Numbers:* PH06-75-000. *Applicants:* TECO Energy, Inc. *Description:* TECO Energy, Inc. submits a Waiver of Notification of the sections 366.21, et al. of the PUHCA 2005. *Filed Date:* 6/13/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060613-5019. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* PH06-76-000. *Applicants:* FPL Group, Inc. *Description:* FPL Group, Inc. submits a petition for waiver of sections 366.21, 366.22, & 366.23 of PUHCA 2005. *Filed Date:* 6/14/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-5003. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* PH06-78-000. *Applicants:* Phelps Dodge Corporation. *Description:* Phelps Dodge Corporation submits an Exemption Notification or, in the alternative, Waiver Notification of pursuant to sections 366.3(b)(2)(ii) or 366.4(b)(1) of PUHCA 2005. *Filed Date:* 6/14/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-5033. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* PH06-79-000. *Applicants:* The Stanley Works. *Description:* The Stanley Works submits its Waiver Notification of reporting requirements of PUHCA of 2005. *Filed Date:* 6/14/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-5050. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* PH06-80-000. *Applicants:* Sierra Pacific Resources. *Description:* Sierra Pacific Resources submits its Waiver Notification of requirements of section 366.21, et al. of PUHCA of 2005. *Filed Date:* 6/15/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060614-5086. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 6, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* PH06-81-000. *Applicants:* UnionBanCal Corporation. *Description:* UnionBanCal Corp. submits its Exemption Notification of section 366(b)(2)(i) of PUHCA of 2005. *Filed Date:* 6/15/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060615-5011. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 6, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* PH06-82-000. *Applicants:* UnionBanCal Equities, Inc. *Description:* UnionBanCal Equities, Inc. submits an Exemption Notification of sections 366.1 and 366.4. *Filed Date:* 6/15/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060615-5012. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 6, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* PH06-83-000. *Applicants:* Bankers Commercial Corporation. *Description:* Bankers Commercial Corp. submits its Exemption Notification of section 366.(b)(2)(1) of PUHCA 2005. *Filed Date:* 6/15/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060615-5013. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 6, 2006. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9798 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. ER06-944-001, et al.] M-S-R Public Power Agency, et al.; Electric Rate and Corporate Filings June 16, 2006. The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification. 1. City of Anaheim, California [Docket No. ER06-944-001] Take notice that on May 18, 2006, City of Anaheim, California tendered for filing a Certificate of Concurrence regarding the filing by Public Service Company of New Mexico of the Amended and Restated San Juan Project Participation Agreement. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 26, 2006. 2. Los Alamos County, New Mexico [Docket No. ER06-944-001] Take notice that on May 23, 2006, Los Alamos County, New Mexico tendered for filing a Certificate of Concurrence regarding the filing by Public Service Company of New Mexico of the Amended and Restated San Juan Project Participation Agreement. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 26, 2006. 3. M-S-R Public Power Agency, et al. [Docket No. ER06-944-001] Take notice that on May 22, 2006, M-S-R Public power Agency, tendered for filing a Certificate of Concurrence regarding the filing by Public Service Company of New Mexico of the Amended and Restated San Juan Project Participation Agreement. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 26, 2006. 4. Southern California Public Power Authority [Docket No. ER06-944-001] Take notice that on June 1, 2006, Southern California Public Power Authority tendered for filing a Certificate of Concurrence regarding the filing by Public Service Company of New Mexico of the Amended and Restated San Juan Project Participation Agreement. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 26, 2006. Standard Paragraph Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9889 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2513-066] Green Mountain Power Corporation; Notice of Availability of Environment Assessment June 15, 2006. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application by the licensee to install a fifth turbine in the project powerhouse, rated at 850 kW, with a maximum hydraulic capacity of 210 cfs. The project is located on the Winooski River in the townships of Essex Junction and Williston, Vermont. An environmental assessment
(EA)has been prepared. In the EA, the Commission's staff concludes that approval of the licensee's application would not produce any significant adverse environmental impacts, consequently the proposal would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A copy of the EA is attached to a Commission order titled “Order Amending License and Revising Annual Charges,” issued June 15, 2006, and is available at the Commission's Public Reference Room. A copy of the EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “elibrary” link. Enter the docket numbers (P-2513) in the docket field to access the document. For assistance, call
(202)502-8222 or
(202)502-8659 (for TTY). Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9807 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP98-150-006, CP98-150-007, CP98-151-003, CP05-19-000, CP06-5-000, CP06-6-000, CP06-7-000, CP06-76-000, and CP02-31-002] Millennium Pipeline L.L.C., Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, Empire State Pipeline and Empire Pipeline, Inc., Algonquin Gas Transmission System, Iroquois Gas Transmission System; Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Northeast-07 Project June 15, 2006. The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) on the natural gas pipeline facilities proposed for the Northeast (NE)-07 Project in Genesee, Ontario, Yates, Schuyler, Steuben, Chemung, Tioga, Broome, Delaware, Orange, Rockland, Putnam, and Dutchess Counties, New York; Morris County, New Jersey; and Fairfield and New Haven Counties, Connecticut, proposed by Millennium Pipeline L.L.C. (Millennium), Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia), Empire State Pipeline and Empire Pipeline, Inc. (collectively referred to as Empire), Algonquin Gas Transmission System (Algonquin), and Iroquois Gas Transmission System (Iroquois) in the above-referenced dockets. The DSEIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The staff concludes that approval of the proposed project with appropriate mitigating measures as recommended, would have limited adverse environmental impact. The DSEIS also evaluates alternatives to the proposal, including system alternatives, alternative sites for compressor stations, and pipeline alternatives. The DSEIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the following natural gas pipeline facilities: Millennium Pipeline Project—Phase I • Construction of about 181.7 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline from Corning, New York, to Ramapo, New York, (from milepost [MP] 190.6 to MP 376.6), with four proposed route modifications within this area; • Acquisition from Columbia and continued use of about 7.1 miles of 24-inch-diameter Line A-5 pipeline from MP 340.5 to MP 347.7; • Construction of the new Corning Compressor Station and measuring and regulating (M&R) facilities at MP 190.6; • Installation of upgrades to the Ramapo M&R station in Ramapo, Rockland County, New York; and • Construction of the Wagoner M&R station in Deer Park, Orange County, New York, at MP 337.9. Columbia would abandon certain facilities related to the Millennium Pipeline Project—Phase I. Columbia proposes the following: • Abandonment in place of about 4.5 miles of 10-inch-, 82.2 miles of 12-inch-, 0.2 mile of 16-inch-, and 2.5 miles of 20-inch-diameter pipeline in Steuben, Chemung, Tioga, Broome, Orange, and Delaware Counties, New York, designated as Line A-5; • Abandonment by removal (Millennium would remove Columbia's pipeline when it installs its pipeline via same ditch replacement) of about 55.5 miles of 12-inch-, 16.6 miles of 10-inch-, and 8.8 miles of 8-inch-diameter pipeline in Delaware, Sullivan, Orange, and Rockland Counties, New York, designated as Line A-5, and of the Walton Deposit M&R station at MP 276.1 in Delaware County (Millennium would relocate this facility at the landowner's request and to move it closer to Line A-5); • Abandonment by conveyance to Millennium of: ○ About 3.1 miles of 10- and 12-inch-diameter pipeline in Steuben County, New York, designated as Line 10325; ○ About 0.4 mile of 10-inch-diameter pipeline in Broome County, New York, designated as Line 10356; ○ About 52.5 miles of 10-, 12-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline in Steuben, Chemung, Broome, and Orange Counties, New York, designated as Line A-5; ○ About 2.6 miles of 6-inch-diameter pipeline in Tioga County, New York, designated as Line AD-31; ○ About 0.1 mile of 12-inch-diameter pipeline in Broome County, New, York, designated as Line N; ○ About 6.7 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline in Rockland County, New York, designated as Line 10338; ○ The following M&R stations in New York: —Corning Natural Gas, MP 180.4, Steuben County; —Cooper Planes, MP 182.1, Steuben County; —M Account, MP 187.5, Steuben County; —Corning Glass, MP 188.4, Steuben County; —Spencer, MP 217.3, Tioga County; —Catatonk, MP 228.2, Tioga County; —Owego, MP 231.5, Tioga County; —Union Center, MP 240.2, Broome County; —Endicott, MP 241.7, Broome County; —Westover, MP 245.7, Broome County; —Willis Road, MP 248.1, Broome County; —Port Dickinson, MP 250.8, Broome County; —Kirkwood, MP 253.8, Broome County; —Hancock, MP 285.6, Delaware County; —Hartwood Club, MP 332.1, Sullivan County; —Middletown, MP 347.7, Orange County; —Huguenot, MP 3440.5, Orange County; —Warwick, MP 359.3, Orange County; —Greenwood Lake, MP 364.2, Orange County; —Central Hudson/Tuxedo, MP367.9, Orange County; —Sloatsburg, MP 373.3, Rockland County; —Ramapo, MP 376.4, Rockland County; and —Buena Vista, MP 383.3, Rockland County. Millennium would replace the facilities Columbia would abandon in place or by removal with its proposed project facilities, or it would continue to use those it would acquire by conveyance. Millennium proposes to construct Columbia's Line A-5 Replacement Project as part of the Phase I Project. Columbia Line A-5 Replacement Project • Replacement of 8.8 miles of 8- and 16-inch-diameter segments of Columbia's existing Line A-5 pipeline with larger 30-inch-diameter pipeline in Orange and Rockland Counties, New York; • Modification of three existing M&R stations (the Tuxedo, Sloatsburg, and Ramapo M&R stations) on this segment of Line A-5 to accommodate the larger diameter pipeline; and • Abandonment in place of about 1.0 mile of the existing Line A-5 pipeline. Empire Connector Project • Construction of about 78 miles of new 24-inch-diameter pipeline and associated facilities in Ontario, Yates, Schuyler, Chemung, and Steuben Counties, New York; and • Construction of a new compressor station in Genesee County, New York. Algonquin Ramapo Expansion Project • Replacement about 4.9 miles of existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline with 42-inch-diameter pipeline in Rockland County, New York; • Construction of miscellaneous pipeline modifications and meter station modifications at several locations in Rockland County, New York, and Fairfield County, Connecticut; • Modifications to three existing compressor stations in Rockland and Putnam Counties, New York, and Morris County, New Jersey; and • Construction of one new natural gas compressor station in New Haven County, Connecticut. Iroquois MarketAccess Project • Reduction of the proposed size of the compressor to be constructed in the Town of Brookfield, Connecticut, from 10,000 hp to 7,700 hp; • Installation of natural gas cooling and related facilities at the Brookfield Compressor Station; and • Installation of gas cooling and related facilities at Iroquois' existing compressor station in Town of Dover, Dutchess County, New York. FERC Comment Procedures Any person wishing to comment on the DSEIS may do so. To ensure consideration prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that we receive your comments before the date specified below. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded: • Send an original and two copies of your comments to: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. • Reference. ○ Docket Nos. CP98-150-006 *et al.* and CP98-151-003 *et al.* for the Millennium Pipeline Project—Phase I; ○ Docket No. CP05-19-000 for the Columbia Line A-5 Replacement Project; ○ Docket Nos. CP06-5-000, CP06-6-000, and CP06-7-000 for the Empire Connector Project; ○ Docket No. CP06-76-000 for the Algonquin Ramapo Expansion Project; and ○ Docket No. CP02-31-002 for the Iroquois MarketAccess Project. • Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 2, PJ11.2; and • Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before July 31, 2006. Please note that we are continuing to experience delays in mail deliveries from the U.S. Postal Service. As a result, we will include all comments that we receive within a reasonable time frame in our environmental analysis of the project. However, the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments or interventions to this proceeding. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the “e-Filing” link and the link to the User's Guide. Before you can file comments you will need to create a free account which can be created online. After these comments are reviewed, any significant new issues are investigated, and modifications are made to the DSEIS, a final SEIS will be published and distributed by the staff. The final SEIS will contain the staff's responses to timely comments received on the DSEIS. Comments will be considered by the Commission but will not serve to make the commenter a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Anyone may intervene in this proceeding based on this DSEIS. You must file your request to intervene as specified above. 1 You do not need intervener status to have your comments considered. 1 Interventions may also be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing comments electronically. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Review Comment Procedures The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE)will use the notice of availability
(NOA)issued by the Commission for the DSEIS as a Public Notice for the COE for the applications for permits under authority of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) for the NE-07 Project. The COE is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, state, and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes; and other interested parties, in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. If you wish to provide written comments on the proposed activity pertaining to the jurisdiction of the COE, as described in this DSEIS, please provide them to FERC in accordance with its procedures, *as well as to the COE within 30 days* of the date of this notice, to: Margaret Crawford, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—Buffalo District, Auburn Field Office, 7413 County House Road, Auburn, New York 13021 (or by e-mail to: *Margaret.A.Crawford@usace.army.mil* ). A lack of response will be interpreted by the COE as meaning that there is no objection to the proposed project. Any comments received by the COE will be considered by it to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit under its Section 10 and Section 404 authority for this proposal. To make this decision, comments will be used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects, and the other public interest factors. Comments also will be used in the preparation of the final SEIS pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. The COE will use comments filed with it to determine the need for the COE to hold a public hearing, and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity. Please note that questions pertaining to the work within the jurisdiction of the COE as described in the DSEIS may be directed to one of the following respective points of contact: • For the Empire Connector Project (DA Proc. No. LRB-2005-00146) and Millennium Pipeline Project—Phase 1 (DA Proc. No. LRB-2005-02043): Margaret Crawford, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—Buffalo District, Auburn Field Office, 7413 County House Road, Auburn, New York 13021,
(315)255-8090. • For the Millennium Pipeline Project—Phase 1 (DA Proc. No. NAN-2005-00138); Columbia Line A-5 Replacement Project, Algonquin Ramapo Expansion Project (DA Proc. No. NAN-2006-00056); or Iroquois Market Access Project, Dover Compressor Station (DA Proc. No. NAN-2006-00232): Heidi Firstencel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—New York District, Albany Field Office, 1 Bond Street, Troy, New York 12180,
(518)273-8593. • For the Algonquin Ramapo Expansion Project, Oxford Compressor Station and Brookfield, Connecticut facilities (DA Proc. No. NAE-2006-1516) and Iroquois Market Access, Brookfield Compressor Station (DA Proc. No. NAE-2006-850): Cori Rose, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—New England District, 696 Virginia Road, Concord, Massachusetts 017420-2751,
(978)318-8306. Any person may request, in writing, within the 30-day comment period, that the COE hold a public hearing to consider the application. Requests for public hearings shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. The COE's decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impact, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. Additional Information The DSEIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,
(202)502-8371. A limited number of copies are available from the Public Reference Room identified above. In addition, copies of the DSEIS have been mailed to Federal, state, and local agencies; public interest groups; individuals and affected landowners who requested a copy of the DSEIS; libraries; newspapers; and parties to this proceeding. Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the FERC Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance with eLibrary, the eLibrary helpline can be reached toll free at 1-866-208-3676, for TTY at
(202)502-8659, or at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to the documents. Go to the eSubscription link on the FERC Internet Web site. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9804 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2195-011] Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project; Portland General Electric Company, Clackamas County, OR; Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Clackamas River Hydroeletric Project and Intention To Hold a Public Meeting June 16, 2006. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) regulations contained in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)(18 CFR part 380 [FERC Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897]) the Office of Energy Projects staff (staff) reviewed the application for a New Major License for the Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project. Staff prepared a draft environmental impact statement
(DEIS)for the project which is located on the Clackamas River, Clackamas County, Oregon. The DEIS contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental effects of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with staff's recommended measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Copies of the DEIS have been sent to Federal, state, and local agencies; public interest groups; and individuals on the Commission's mailing list. A copy of the DEIS is available for review at the Commission's Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “e-Library” link. Enter the docket number (P-2195), to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at
(866)208-2376, or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. Comments should be filed with Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. All comments must be filed by August 7, 2006, and should reference Project No. 2195-011. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and instructions on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the eLibrary link. In addition to or in lieu of sending written comments, you are invited to attend a public meeting that will be held to receive comments on the draft EIS. The time and location of the meeting is as follows: *Date:* July 28, 2006. *Time:* 9:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. *Place:* 2-World Trade Center—Plaza Room-Ground Floor. *Address:* 121 S.W. Salmon Street, Portland, Oregon. At this meeting, resource agency personnel and other interested persons will have the opportunity to provide oral and written comments and recommendations regarding the draft EIS. The meeting will be recorded by a court reporter, and all statements (verbal and written) will become part of the Commission's public record for the project. *For further information, please contact:* John Blair at
(202)502-6092 or at *john.blair@ferc.gov.* Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9806 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2195-011] Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project, Portland General Electric Company, Clackamas County, OR; Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Clackamas River Hydroeletric Project and Intention To Hold a Public Meeting June 16, 2006. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) regulations contained in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)(18 CFR part 380 [FERC Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897]) the Office of Energy Projects staff (staff) reviewed the application for a New Major License for the Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project. Staff prepared a draft environmental impact statement
(DEIS)for the project which is located on the Clackamas River, Clackamas County, Oregon. The DEIS contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental effects of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with staff's recommended measures, would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Copies of the DEIS have been sent to Federal, State, and local agencies; public interest groups; and individuals on the Commission's mailing list. A copy of the DEIS is available for review at the Commission's Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “e-Library” link. Enter the docket number (P-2195), to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at
(866)208-2376, or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. Comments should be filed with Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. All comments must be filed by August 7, 2006, and should reference Project No. 2195-011. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and instructions on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the eLibrary link. In addition to or in lieu of sending written comments, you are invited to attend a public meeting that will be held to receive comments on the draft EIS. The time and location of the meeting is as follows: *Date:* July 28, 2006. *Time:* 9:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (PST). *Place:* 2-World Trade Center—Plaza Room-Ground Floor. *Address:* 121 S.W. Salmon Street, Portland, Oregon. At this meeting, resource agency personnel and other interested persons will have the opportunity to provide oral and written comments and recommendations regarding the draft EIS. The meeting will be recorded by a court reporter, and all statements (verbal and written) will become part of the Commission's public record for the project. *For further information, please contact:* John Blair at
(202)502-6092 or at *john.blair@ferc.gov.* Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9894 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests June 16, 2006. Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Application Type:* Amendment of License. b. *Project No.:* 190-097. c. *Date Filed:* March 27, 2006. d. *Applicant:* Moon Lake Electric Association, Inc. e. *Name of Project:* Uintah Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* The project is located on the Uintah River, Big Spring, and Pole Creek, within Ashley National Forest, in Duchesne County, Utah, and occupies lands of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation of the Ute Indian Tribe. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r. h. *Applicant Contact:* Mr. Kenneth A. Winder, Manager—Engineering, Moon Lake Electric Association, Inc., 188 West 2nd North, Roosevelt, Utah 84066, telephone:
(435)722-5400. i. *FERC Contact:* Any questions on this notice should be addressed to Mrs. Anumzziatta Purchiaroni at
(202)502-6191, or e-mail address: *anumzziatta.purchiaroni@ferc.gov.* j. *Deadline for filing comments and or motions:* July 17, 2006. k. *Description of Request:* In the filing, Moon Lake Electric Association, Inc., (Moon Lake) explains that Moon Lake and the Ute Indian Tribe have now entered into an agreement to adjust the annual charges assessed for the use and occupancy of tribal lands, pursuant to Article 201.c of the license. Therefore, Moon Lake is requesting an amendment of the license to revise the annual charges as set forth in the agreement. l. *Locations of the Application:* A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling
(202)502-8371. Information about this filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp* to be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , for TTY, call
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h)above. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene:* Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. o. *Filing and Service of Responsive Documents:* Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. p. *Agency Comments:* Federal, State, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives. q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the “e-Filing” link. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9893 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IS06-259-000] Platte Pipe Line Company; Notice of Technical Conference June 15, 2006. Take notice that the Commission will convene a technical conference on Friday, July 14, 2006, at 9 a.m. (EDT), in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The technical conference will address all aspects of Platte's Supplement No. 7 to its FERC Tariff No. 1456 proposing to establish a new prorationing policy for crude oil volumes moving east of Guernsey, Wyoming, as discussed in the Commission's Order issued on May 19, 2006. 1 Platte's current prorationing methodology allocates capacity monthly on the basis of shippers' nominations as a percentage of available capacity. The provisions of Supplement No. 7 would allocate capacity among Historic Shippers and New Shippers, which are defined as those moving injection volumes in four or less months of the six months used in the historical calculation. Platte proposes to base the revised calculation on a past six-month period and also proposes to allocate New Shippers 10 percent of available capacity, with no individual New Shipper allocated more than three percent of available capacity. 1 *Platte Pipe Line Company* , 115 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2006). FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an e-mail to *accessibility@ferc.gov* or call toll free
(866)208-3372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY), or send a fax to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations. All interested persons are permitted to attend. For further information please contact Jenifer Lucas at
(202)502-8362 or e-mail *jenifer.lucas@ferc.gov* . Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9805 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM06-11-000] Financial Accounting, Reporting and Records Retention Requirements Under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005; Notice of New Date for Technical Conference June 16, 2006. On April 21, 2006, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) announced a staff technical conference in the above-referenced proceeding to be held at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 in the Commission Meeting Room on June 21, 2006, from 9 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. EDT. This conference was rescheduled for July 11, 2006. It is now being rescheduled for July 18, 2006, in the interest of having the largest possible participation. All interested persons are invited to attend. There is *no* registration fee or requirement to register in order to attend. The purpose of the conference remains the same. It is to identify the issues associated with the proposed Uniform System of Accounts for Centralized Service Companies, the proposed records retention requirements for holding companies and service companies, and the revised Form No. 60. The technical conference will develop information for use by Commission staff in preparing a final rule in this proceeding. Interested persons wishing to participate as a speaker in the technical conference are asked to notify Commission staff electronically at *https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/usoa-06-21-speaker-form.asp* by June 20, 2006. Prospective attendees and participants are urged to watch for further notices; a detailed agenda will be issued in advance of the conference. FERC conferences and meetings are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an e-mail to *accessibility@ferc.gov* or call toll free
(866)208-3372 (voice) or
(202)502-8659 (TTY), or send a fax to
(202)208-2106 with the required accommodations. Questions about the conference should be directed to: Julia A. Lake, Office of the General Counsel—Energy Markets and Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
(202)502-8370. *Julia.lake@ferc.gov.* Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9890 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PL04-3-000] Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Nora Mead Brownell, and Suedeen G. Kelly; Natural Gas Interchangeability; Policy Statement on Provisions Governing Natural Gas Quality and Interchangeability in Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Company Tariffs Issued June 15, 2006. I. Introduction 1. In this proceeding, the Commission has been exploring natural gas quality and interchangeability issues and the impact of those issues on the natural gas companies subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, as well as on natural gas producers, shippers and end-users. Based upon the information developed during this proceeding, which will be discussed below, the Commission today announces its policy on natural gas quality and interchangeability issues. 2. The Commission's intention in issuing this statement of generic policy is to provide direction for addressing gas quality and interchangeability concerns, as well as to provide guidance to individual companies that have concerns about these issues. The Commission's policy embodies five principles:
(1)Only natural gas quality and interchangeability specifications contained in a Commission-approved gas tariff can be enforced;
(2)pipeline tariff provisions on gas quality and interchangeability need to be flexible to allow pipelines to balance safety and reliability concerns with the importance of maximizing supply, as well as recognizing the evolving nature of the science underlying gas quality and interchangeability specifications;
(3)pipelines and their customers should develop gas quality and interchangeability specifications based on technical requirements;
(4)in negotiating technically based solutions, pipelines and their customers are strongly encouraged to use the Natural Gas Council Plus (NGC+) interim guidelines filed with the Commission on February 28, 2005 1 (discussed below) as a common reference point for resolving gas quality and interchangeability issues; and,
(5)to the extent pipelines and their customers cannot resolve disputes over gas quality and interchangeability, those disputes can be brought before the Commission to be resolved on a case-by-case basis, on a record of fact and technical review. 1 *Report on Liquid Hydrocarbon Drop Out in Natural Gas Infrastructure* (HDP Report) and *Report on Natural Gas Interchangeability and Non-Combustion End Use* (Interchangeability Report). II. Background 3. The Commission has seen interest in natural gas quality and interchangeability issues escalate for several years, and these issues have come before the Commission in complaints, proposed tariff provisions and certificate proceedings. Historically, gas quality is one of many terms and conditions of service stated in individual pipelines' FERC-jurisdictional tariffs. The Commission has no generic policy in this area, and individual pipelines have different standards, practices, and enforcement mechanisms. 4. Principally methane, natural gas is commonly found in nature mixed with other hydrocarbons and varying amounts of contaminants. 2 The exact composition of natural gas is chiefly dependent upon the geological source from which it is extracted. At typical interstate pipeline operating pressures and temperatures, “pipeline quality” natural gas remains in a gaseous state and pipelines, distribution facilities, and end-user equipment are all designed to handle and burn this gas. The term “pipeline quality” natural gas is defined in each individual pipeline's tariff, and these definitions vary widely from pipeline to pipeline. 2 The hydrocarbon gases that can be found in natural gas are (and the number of carbon atoms in each): Methane (C <sup>1</sup> ), ethane (C <sup>2</sup> ), propane (C <sup>3</sup> ), butanes (C <sup>4</sup> ), pentanes (C <sup>5</sup> ), hexanes (C <sup>6</sup> ), heptanes (C <sup>7</sup> ), octanes (C <sup>8</sup> ) and nonanes plus (C <sup>9</sup> +). Non-hydrocarbons in natural gas can include nitrogen (N <sup>2</sup> ), carbon dioxide (CO <sup>2</sup> ), helium (He), hydrogen sulfide (H <sup>2</sup> S), water vapor (H <sup>2</sup> O), oxygen (O <sup>2</sup> ), other sulfur compounds and trace gases. 5. Depending on the relative prices of these hydrocarbon fractions, producers may have an economic incentive to process gas and deliver mostly pure methane as “pipeline quality” gas to interstate pipelines. However, when economics favor sales of natural gas over other hydrocarbons, producers may choose not to process. 3 As it is transported and distributed, unprocessed natural gas may experience changes in temperature and pressure which cause the heavy hydrocarbons to assume a liquid form. When this happens, pipelines and other downstream equipment may experience inefficient operations and unsafe conditions. This problem is known as hydrocarbon liquid dropout, and the potential for this problem to occur can be measured in terms of cricondentherm hydrocarbon dew point (CHDP). Gas quality, as discussed in this policy statement, is concerned with the impact of non-methane hydrocarbons on the safe and efficient operation of pipelines, distribution facilities, and end-user equipment. 4 3 When delivered, natural gas is measured in terms of its thermal value, usually measured in British thermal units (Btus), and billed on that basis. When deciding whether to process natural gas, producers look to the relative thermal values of the different hydrocarbons that might be extracted in processing to determine which product will generate the most revenue. 4 Other materials commonly found in natural gas, include contaminants, such as water, sand, sulfur compounds, oxygen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, helium and other materials. While this policy statement does not address these materials, the Commission understands that jurisdictional pipeline tariffs already include specifications to control these elements within acceptable limits. 6. Gas pipelines have taken different approaches to dealing with hydrocarbon liquid dropout, as reflected in a number of pipelines' tariffs. The HDP Report cites three examples. 5 First, about one-third of interstate pipeline tariffs specify a maximum heating value, but this has proven to be an inadequate predictor of hydrocarbon liquid drop out. 6 Second, some pipelines have addressed the potential for hydrocarbon liquid dropout by specifying concentration limits for heavy hydrocarbons (using C <sup>5</sup> + gallons per standard cubic feet 7 or C <sup>5</sup> + GPM) to establish the concentration limits above which the heavy hydrocarbon level might be detrimental to pipeline operational integrity. This measure may in some instances indicate the potential for liquid hydrocarbon drop out, but it is not as reliable in isolation as it is in conjunction with hydrocarbon dew point. Third, a number of pipelines have elected to establish CHDP limits to control liquid dropout. 5 HDP Report, at sections 3.1.2-3.1.3, at 16. 6 The Report notes that maximum heating value alone is not a good predictor of whether hydrocarbon liquid drop out will occur because different gases with the same gross heating value may have different propensities for hydrocarbon liquid drop out. The paper notes the examples of a gas with a relatively low heating value but a high hexane concentration that may have a high probability of hydrocarbon liquid drop out in contrast to a gas with a high heating value due to a high ethane content with a very low probability of hydrocarbon liquid drop out. 7 Gallons per Million cubic feet is abbreviated GPM. *See* , *e.g.* , HDP Report at sections 1.2.7 and 3.1. 7. Natural gas interchangeability is also a significant consideration in the discussion of tariff specification of “pipeline quality” gas. As used by the gas industry historically, “interchangeability” means the extent to which a substitute gas can safely and efficiently replace gas normally used by an end-use customer in a combustion application. 8 Much of the available science and research on interchangeability that exists today originated in the 1930s and 1940s when the interstate transportation of natural gas began to supplant manufactured gas. 9 Technological innovation since that time has created more efficient, more environmentally benign equipment, such as gas-fired turbines. Other technological innovations, such as liquefied natural gas
(LNG)storage facilities, have inherent design limitations based on the quality of natural gas available at the time the facilities were originally designed. How well they will operate if future gas supply characteristics differ from those available today is unknown. 8 *See* , *e.g.* , *Cove Point LNG Limited Partnership* , 97 FERC ¶ 61,043, at 61,197 (2001), *order on reh'g* , 97 FERC ¶ 61,276 (2001). 9 Interchangeability Report, at section 3.1.1. 8. Several indices have been developed over time to characterize the interchangeability of different natural gases. One widely accepted measure of interchangeability is the Wobbe Index, which is based on energy input and specific gravity. Other indices incorporate fundamental combustion phenomena in their calculations. Examples include the AGA Bulletin 36 Indices and the Weaver Indices. These indices were created using different measurable characteristics of natural gas and combustion experiments to measure and predict interchangeability. However, each index has limits to the predictive value of its application. The importance of measuring interchangeability, regardless of the index used, is that it provides a predictive correlation between the specific measurable physical characteristics of natural gas and burner tip performance. 9. During the 2000/01 winter heating season, rising natural gas prices led producers to stop processing natural gas. As a result, pipelines began to receive a richer quality gas containing a higher proportion of liquid and liquefiable hydrocarbons, and a higher energy density, as measured in Btus per cubic foot of natural gas. A number of pipelines reacted by invoking tariff provisions that authorize pipelines to issue operational flow orders (OFOs), which required the gas to be processed before being delivered to the pipelines. Producers objected, arguing that pipelines were attempting to impose more stringent quality standards on some producers, but not on others. 10. Interchangeability issues have also been raised in proceedings to authorize the siting and operation of LNG import terminals. In September, 2001, the Commission issued an order reauthorizing the receipt of LNG imports at Dominion's Cove Point LNG facility. 10 Among the issues raised was the interchangeability of this LNG with the historic quality of gas delivered to Washington Gas Light (WGL). Ultimately, the Commission approved a settlement between Dominion, WGL and others that specified a maximum Btu heating content. 11 10 *Cove Point LNG Limited Partnership, supra* n. 8. 11 *Cove Point LNG Limited Partnership,* 102 FERC ¶ 61,227 (2003). In the context of Dominion's proposal to expand the capacity at Cove Point, WGL now claims that the low heavy hydrocarbon content of LNG delivered by Cove Point led to drying and cracking seals in distribution facilities, which eventually led to gas leaks. *See Dominion Cove Point LNG, L.P.,* Docket No. CP05-130-000. III. Procedural History 11. In September 2003, the National Petroleum Council
(NPC)completed a report on the natural gas industry, which contained a number of findings and policy recommendations and highlighted the increased importance of LNG in meeting expected demand growth over the ensuing decade. 12 The Commission explored the findings and recommendations of the NPC report in an October 14, 2003 technical conference. The Summary Report recommended that the natural gas interchangeability standards be updated: “FERC and DOE should champion the new standards effort to allow a broader range of LNG imports. This should be conducted with participation from LDCs [local distribution companies], LNG purchasers, process gas users, and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs).” 13 12 The National Petroleum Council
(NPC)is an oil and natural gas advisory committee to the Secretary of Energy. 13 National Petroleum Council, *Balancing Natural Gas Policy: Fueling the Demands of a Growing Economy, Volume I, Summary of Findings and Recommendations,* September 2003, at 64. 12. By the time the NPC report was issued, the Commission already had pending before it a number of proceedings that raised natural gas quality or interchangeability issues. Since that time, other proceedings involving natural gas quality or interchangeability have been initiated. Procedurally, the gas quality and interchangeability issues have arisen in the context of complaint proceedings, 14 certificate proceedings, 15 and proposed tariff changes. 16 Although each case involves unique circumstances, collectively, these cases reveal a growing tension between the desire of natural gas pipelines and distributors to ensure the quality of gas entering their facilities, and the desire of producers and shippers to have their product transported without onerous or unduly discriminatory processing requirements. Another recurring theme is the desire of end-use customers to receive gas that will not harm their gas-fueled equipment nor cause inefficient operations. 14 *See, e.g., The Toca Producers* v. *Southern Natural Gas Co.,* Docket No. RP03-484-001; *Amoco Production Company,* Docket No. RP01-208-000; Southern Natural Gas Co., Docket No. RP04-42-000 (collectively, the Toca Proceedings); *Indicated Shippers* v. *Trunkline Gas Company, LLC,* Docket No. RP04-64-000; *Indicated Shippers* v. *ANR Pipeline Company,* Docket No. RP04-65-000; *ANR Pipeline Company,* Docket No. RP04-216-000 and RP04-435-000 (the ANR Proceedings); *Indicated Shippers* v. *Columbia Gulf Transmission Company,* Docket No. RP04-98-000, *Indicated Shippers* v. *Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company,* Docket No. RP04-99-000; and, *AES Ocean Express LLC* v. *Florida Gas Transmission Company,* Docket No. RP04-249-000/-001. 15 *See, e.g., Dominion Cove Point LNG, L.P.,* Docket No. CP05-130-000; *Pearl Crossing Pipeline LP,* Docket No. CP04-376-000. 16 *See, e.g., Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America,* Docket Nos. RP01-503-002, -003, 102 FERC ¶61,234
(2003)and 103 FERC ¶ 61,322 (2003). A December 20, 2005 Initial Decision in this proceeding is pending before the Commission. 13. The Commission held a public conference to discuss gas quality and interchangeability issues on February 18, 2004. Many industry participants, representing industry sectors from wellhead to burner tip, provided the Commission with information on the range of complex operational concerns and issues that the market was facing. 14. Subsequent to the February 2004 technical conference the natural gas industry, under the auspices of the Natural Gas Council, initiated a collaborative effort to seek consensus on industry-wide standards for gas quality and interchangeability. This collaborative effort made tremendous progress in identifying the underlying science, identifying measurement techniques, and characterizing the different perspectives on the problems different sectors face with changing or uncertain natural gas quality and interchangeability. 15. On February 28, 2005, the Natural Gas Council filed with the Commission two technical papers entitled: *Natural Gas Interchangeability and Non-Combustion End Use and Liquid Hydrocarbon Drop Out in Natural Gas Infrastructure* (collectively, NGC+ Reports). These papers represent the culmination of nearly a year of work by a large group of natural gas industry stakeholders—the NGC+ Group 17 —which worked to reach a consensus understanding of these problems and recommendations about how they might be managed. Both Reports suggest interim recommendations and urge additional research. 17 The Natural Gas Council is an organization made up of the representatives of the trade associations of the different sectors of the natural gas industry, such as the producers, pipelines, and local distribution companies. The NGC+ group included many industry volunteers from the member companies of the various trade associations as well as other industry participants interested in these issues. 16. The Interchangeability Report defines interchangeability as: The ability to substitute one gaseous fuel for another in a combustion application without materially changing operational safety, efficiency, performance or materially increasing air pollutant emissions. 18 18 Interchangeability Report, (February 28, 2005; refiled on March 3, 2005, and resubmitted with appendices June 30, 2005), at 2. *http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=10644164.* The paper goes on to provide background information on the history of the industry's experience with gas quality issues, and the changes it has experienced, and then reviews various measures that have been employed to measure interchangeability. After a review of the impacts of variable fuel quality on gas-fired appliances, the paper provides an overview of past industry efforts to measure, predict and monitor the interchangeability of natural gases, and examines several options for managing interchangeability. 17. Recognizing that more research is needed, the NGC+ Interchangeability Work Group makes interim recommendations, to be implemented pending further study and deliberation. These interim guidelines provide for:
(1)Use of the local average historical Wobbe Index average with an allowable range of variation of plus or minus four percent;
(2)subject to a maximum Wobbe Index level of 1,400;
(3)a maximum heating value limit of 1,110 Btu/scf;
(4)a limit on butanes and heavier hydrocarbons (butanes+ or C4+) of 1.5 mole percent; and
(5)an upper limit on the amount of total inert gases (principally nitrogen and carbon dioxide) of up to four mole percent. The Interchangeability Report also recommends an exception from these interim guidelines for service territories that could demonstrate experience with supplies exceeding these Wobbe Index levels, Heating Value and/or Composition Limits. Companies in these service territories could continue to use non-conforming supplies as long as use of these supplies does not unduly jeopardize the safety of or create utilization problems for end use equipment. 19 19 Interchangeability Report at 26. 18. NGC+ Group recommends that these guidelines be employed until research can be completed filling in major data gaps for modern end-use appliances and the industry forges a consensus on improved interchangeability requirements. The NGC+ Reports originally forecast that it would take 2 to 3 years to complete this additional work. The interim guidelines are for gases delivered to points in the gas transportation system most closely associated with end users: Gases delivered to local distribution companies (LDCs). The guidelines do not necessarily apply directly to points upstream in the transportation system where blending, gas processing, and other factors may be utilized to allow gases outside the ranges of the guidelines to satisfy the guidelines at LDC city gates. The NGC+ Group is continuing to investigate development of guidelines for points upstream. 19. The second paper, *Liquid Hydrocarbon Drop Out in Natural Gas Infrastructure,* addresses the issue of controlling hydrocarbon drop out in natural gas pipeline and distribution facilities, and other gas industry infrastructure downstream of producing areas. The NGC+ interim recommendation on this issue is to adopt interim standards that translate historic experience into terms of CHDP or C6+ GPM methodologies, 20 taking best available historical data into account. The NGC+ also recommends that additional research be conducted to better understand gas composition, and to develop improved analytic equipment suitable for daily operational use. 20 The phrase “C6+ GPM” stands for hexanes and heavier hydrocarbons, as measured in gallons per million cubic feet of natural gas. Measuring and controlling for the amount of these heavier hydrocarbons in the natural gas stream is an alternative to the CHDP method. 20. In addition to Commission action on gas quality and interchangeability, The North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) has considered requests that it adopt Business Practice Standards to address natural gas quality and interchangeability. On September 20, 2004, the Wholesale Gas Quadrant Executive Committee of NAESB adopted standards for electronic posting of certain gas quality parameters on pipeline websites. One month later, these standards were ratified by the NAESB membership. On May 9, 2005, the Commission issued an order amending its regulations governing standards for conducting business practices with interstate natural gas pipelines to incorporate by reference the NAESB standards related to gas quality, which are part of Version 1.7 of the NAESB consensus standards. 21 21 *Order No. 587-S, Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines,* 18 CFR part 284 (2005); FERC Statutes and Regulations ¶ 31,179. 21. On May 16, 2005, the Natural Gas Supply Association
(NGSA)filed a petition for rulemaking seeking a Commission notice of proposed rulemaking
(NOPR)to establish natural gas quality and interchangeability standards. By order issued contemporaneously with this Policy Statement in Docket No. RM06-17-000, the Commission is denying this petition. Instead of proceeding to address gas quality and interchangeability issues through a rulemaking proceeding, the Commission instead establishes herein the regulatory policy it will apply in individual proceedings before the Commission. IV. Summary of Comments 22. The Commission solicited written comments on the NGC+ Reports and subsequently convened a technical conference on May 17, 2005 to allow for further public comment on and discussion of the issues raised by the Reports. In addition, the Commission solicited comments on the Natural Gas Supply Association's
(NGSA)May 16, 2005 petition for rulemaking. Appendix A to this Policy Statement lists commenters on the Reports and comments received after the May 17 technical conference addressing issues in the Reports and the NGSA Petition. 23. Appendix B to this Policy Statement is a summary of the comments received on the NGC+ Reports and the NGSA Petition. Briefly, commenters articulate conflicting views on whether mandatory nationwide standards are warranted, and if so, which standards should be adopted. While there is a great deal of consensus on how to articulate the problem in technical terms, opinion is divided among a number of preferred solutions. The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), for example, believes that there is no national problem with gas quality and interchangeability that warrants a rulemaking. While urging the Commission to address gas quality and interchangeability issues as they arise, INGAA favors a policy statement if the Commission decides to address the issues generically. There was no unanimity within the producer segment. The Independent Petroleum Association of America
(IPAA)supports a rulemaking and the NGSA proposal, while the Appalachian Producers and the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States oppose mandatory national standards for gas quality. The American Gas Association (AGA), the American Public Power Association of America (APGA), and a number of LDCs ask that the Commission require pipeline tariffs to contain merchantability standards. The Process Gas Consumers endorse a rulemaking and the NGSA petition. The Edison Electric Institute and Siemens Westinghouse raise concerns about the impact of interchangeability standards on DLE turbines. Gas appliance manufacturers point out the importance of basing gas quality standards on local historical gas characteristics. V. Discussion A. The Problem in a Nutshell 24. Most, if not all, interstate natural gas companies have provisions in their tariffs governing gas quality. But as the NGC+ Reports note, “at no time has there ever been a common set of specifications for [hydrocarbon] components such as there has been for CO <sup>2</sup> , H <sup>2</sup> S, and water.” 22 Each pipeline established its own terminology, standards, controls, and conditions for waiver. Until relatively recently, this approach appears to have worked reasonably well. However, gas quality and interchangeability controversies have become more frequent. 23 The Commission's policy guidance recognizes the importance of encouraging rather than impeding the development of natural gas infrastructure and the movement of gas to the grid and to ultimate consumers. Thus, the Commission believes that the policy adopted here achieves a balanced approach by providing certainty, ensuring the safety and reliability of the nation's gas grid, and recognizing concerns about natural gas quality and interchangeability, while providing pipelines and their customers the flexibility necessary to maximize the introduction of new supply into the grid. 22 HDP Report at section 3.1.1. 23 *Supra* note 13. 25. The Commission believes that there are compelling reasons to provide policy guidance on these issues. Three factors suggest that there is a need to act now. First, processing economics can create hydrocarbon dew point problems whenever the economics shift to favor decisions not to process natural gas. Second, establishing a sound policy on gas quality and interchangeability issues now would lower a potential barrier to expected increases in LNG imports. 24 Third, acting now will provide a firm regulatory policy basis for additional research and development on gas quality and interchangeability issues. 24 The Energy Information Administration projects that by the year 2030, 4.4 trillion cubic feet equivalent
(Tcf)of LNG will be imported to meet approximately 27 Tcf in annual demand for natural gas—an eight-fold increase over the roughly 0.5 Tcf of LNG imported in 2003. Energy Information Administration, *Annual Energy Outlook 2006,* at 86 (February 2006). *http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2006).pdf.* 26. The natural gas industry, through the efforts of the NGC, has produced the NGC+ Reports that represent consensus on these topics. They offer interim approaches that can be put in place now, to the extent well-functioning gas quality and interchangeability provisions are not already in place in individual pipelines' tariffs. These interim recommendations provide a common language for discussion of these issues, and a reasonable framework to establish market-specific standards. 27. However, these same consensus Reports highlight the need for additional research and development before any more permanent consensus may be forged. 25 The Commission believes that a generic policy on gas quality and interchangeability would help guide the industry in the right direction. But given the areas of additional research that is required, it would be premature to take more prescriptive actions such as prescribing gas quality and interchangeability standards or prescribing specific levels of the constituent elements of, or the heating values for, the natural gas transported in pipelines. 25 We are encouraged by the efforts of the Department of Energy in pursuing research and development in this area. Along with the efforts of the industry, and continued voluntary collaboration, we look forward to the improvements that will become possible with a better understanding provided by these research efforts. 28. In the face of these challenges, the accomplishment of the NGC+ group in achieving consensus to submit two technical papers addressing hydrocarbon dew point and interchangeability is worthy of praise. The Commission commends those members of the natural gas industry who participated in these efforts. The Commission's policy statement is based in large part on the foundation of this group's work, and the comments filed in this generic proceeding. B. Statement of General Policy Regarding Interstate Pipeline Tariff Provisions Governing Gas Quality and Interchangeability 29. The Commission's policy on gas quality and interchangeability embodies five principles. First, only natural gas quality and interchangeability specifications contained in a Commission-approved gas tariff can be enforced. The Commission's authority to address questions about tariff provisions on gas quality and interchangeability arises under sections 4, 5 and 7 of the NGA. By law, the Commission is responsible for ensuring that rates, charges, rules and regulations of service are just, reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and that initial rates, terms and conditions of service are required by the public convenience and necessity. 26 Unless these specifications are stated in the tariff, the Commission will not be able to address gas quality and interchangeability concerns. Where gas quality and interchangeability issues are of concern to the transporting pipeline, tariff standards are essential terms and conditions of service. 26 15 U.S.C. 717c, 717d and 717f (2000). 30. Second, pipeline tariff provisions on gas quality and interchangeability need to be flexible. Pipelines operate in dynamic environments that frequently require quick responses to rapidly changing situations. For example, a pipeline may be asked to transport gas that does not meet a particular gas quality or interchangeability specification in the pipeline's tariff. Nevertheless, if the pipeline has the ability to transport such out-of-spec gas without jeopardizing system operations, its tariff should be flexible enough to allow it to do so. The Commission believes that flexible tariff provisions on natural gas quality and interchangeability will allow pipelines to balance safety and reliability concerns with the importance of maximizing supply, while recognizing the evolving nature of the science underlying gas quality and interchangeability specifications. 31. Third, pipelines and their customers should develop gas quality and interchangeability specifications. The Commission expects that specifications for natural gas quality and interchangeability will be based upon sound technical, engineering and scientific considerations. In addition, the Commission encourages pipelines and their customers to resolve gas quality and interchangeability issues on their own, either prior to or outside of formal Commission proceedings. This will facilitate mutually beneficial outcomes for all parties and should not have a detrimental impact on either current or prospective shippers. 27 27 In this regard, the Commission notes the “Joint Statement of the American Gas Association and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America,” filed on June 2, 2006, which outlines their agreement on developing gas quality and interchangeability specifications on a pipeline-by-pipeline basis, where needed, within the next year. On June 8, APGA filed a response to the AGA-INGAA joint statement. 32. Fourth, in negotiating technically based solutions, pipelines and their customers are strongly encouraged to use the NGC+ interim guidelines as a common scientific reference point for resolving gas quality and interchangeability issues. The interim guidelines suggest a process for applying scientific principles to individual markets but do not address the specifics of individual pipeline circumstances or tariff provisions. Furthermore, the interim guidelines recognize that additional research and development are needed to arrive at more clearly defined limits to interchangeability specifications and to address the need for better and more timely operational information on natural gas quality and pipeline operations. The Commission's policy will keep step with improved knowledge on gas quality and interchangeability. 33. Finally, to the extent pipelines and their customers cannot resolve disputes over gas quality and interchangeability, those disputes can be brought before the Commission to be resolved on a case-by-case basis, on a record of fact and technical review. In resolving any such disputes, the Commission will give significant weight to the NGC+ interim guidelines. In addressing disputes, the Commission will develop a factual record, with sound technical underpinnings, which will provide the Commission with a good foundation for resolving disputes. The Commission recognizes that regional variation and differing local needs cannot be accommodated with an inflexible generic policy on gas quality and interchangeability. Rigid gas quality and interchangeability requirements could unnecessarily restrict the introduction of new sources of supply, which is inconsistent with the Commission's policy of encouraging new supplies and the construction of infrastructure to bring new supplies to market. 28 The following discussion will elaborate on how we envision this general policy being applied in individual cases. 28 *See e.g., Northern Natural Gas Company,* 108 FERC ¶ 61,083, at P. 24
(2004)(“* * * the Commission must ensure that proposals that are intended to address system integrity do not unnecessarily discourage new sources of supply or impose unreasonable costs on shippers and consumers.”), and *Hackberry LNG Terminal,* 101 FERC ¶ 61,294 (2002). 1. Gas Quality 34. The Reports' interim recommendations identify two valid methods that might be used to control hydrocarbon liquid dropout—the CHDP method, and the C6+ GPM method. 29 As a matter of policy, the Commission believes that jurisdictional tariffs should contain provisions that govern the quality of gas received for transportation when necessary to manage hydrocarbon liquid dropout within acceptable levels. Pipelines with existing tariff provisions that adequately control hydrocarbon dropout may continue to rely on their existing tariff. 30 Pipelines that wish to add provisions to their tariffs, or modify existing provisions, to control hydrocarbon dropout are strongly encouraged to use one of the two methods found by the NGC+ to be valid. If a pipeline wishes to propose a different method, the pipeline must provide an explanation of how the proposed method differs from the CHDP method described in the HDP Report. In addition, the pipeline will be required to include in any filing to revise its gas quality standards a comparison, in equivalent terms, of its proposed gas quality specifications and those of each interconnecting pipeline. 29 For a technical description of either of these methods, *see* HDP Report, especially sections 4 through 6. 30 To the extent a complaint is filed alleging that an existing pipeline tariff is not just and reasonable, the Commission will evaluate the complaint on its specific merits. 35. In application, either of the two methods suggested by the NGC+ task group offers a process for arriving at appropriate gas quality specifications for natural gas accepted for transportation by a pipeline. However, the specifications themselves must be derived to fit the specific circumstances of each pipeline. 31 The appropriate gas quality specifications for different pipelines may vary depending upon a number of factors, including pipeline configuration, geographic location of the pipeline, access to and location of processing facilities, flowing gas temperatures and pressures, average ambient and ground temperatures and source of gas supply. 32 This is a fact-intensive exercise, and is not one that lends itself to generic specifications. The Commission will examine the appropriate circumstances in each individual case. That being said, the Commission will give appropriate weight to the gas quality and interchangeability requirements of interconnecting pipelines as well as the requirements of markets directly served. The Commission wishes to ensure that natural gas wholesale trade across markets is not unduly impeded by the tariff requirements of individual pipelines. In addition, the tariff should state the natural gas quality specifications for gas that the pipeline will deliver to its customers. 31 *See* HDP Report, Appendix A *Parameters to be Considered in Establishing CHDP or C6+ GPM Based Limits,* and Appendix B *Process for Establishing a Cricondentherm Hydrocarbon Dew Point
(CHDP)Limit.* 32 *See, e.g.* , El Paso at 6 (“A policy statement would allow the Commission to tailor its approach to reflect the complexities that each pipeline faces in addressing HDP issues, including, for example, reticulated pipeline systems that have bidirectional flows and as such may not be able to easily engage in pairing, blending, or aggregation.”), and Questar at 3-4. 2. Interchangeability 36. In its report, the NGC+ Interchangeability Work Group recommend interim guidelines based on a range of plus and minus four percent of the Wobbe number based on either local historical average gas or an established “adjustment or target” gas for the service territory at issue. This basic guideline was subject to additional parameters limiting: The maximum Wobbe number to 1,400; the maximum heating value to 1,110 Btu/scf; maximum butanes+ to 1.5 mole percent; and maximum total inert gases to four mole percent. These interim guidelines also included a specific exception for service territories with demonstrated experience with gas supplies exceeding any of the “additional parameters.” 37. The Interchangeability Report contains a methodology for arriving at an appropriate interchangeability specification, based in part on historical experience. Pipelines with existing tariff provisions which adequately characterize interchangeability limits may continue to rely on their existing tariff. 33 Pipelines that wish to add provisions to their tariffs, or modify existing provisions, to characterize interchangeability specifications are encouraged to use the interim guidelines proposed by the NGC+ Interchangeability Task Group. To the extent a pipeline wishes to propose a different method, it must explain how the proposed method differs from the interim guidelines. In addition, the pipeline will be required to include in any filing to revise its interchangeability standards a comparison, in equivalent terms, of its proposed interchangeability specifications and those of each interconnecting pipeline. 33 To the extent a complaint is filed alleging that an existing pipeline tariff is not just and reasonable, the Commission will evaluate the complaint on its specific merits. 38. As is the case with gas quality specifications, selection of interchangeability limits is a fact-based exercise. In application, either of the two methods suggested by the NGC+ task group offers a process for arriving at appropriate limits for the interchangeability characteristics of natural gas that may be accepted for transportation by a pipeline. However, the limits themselves must be derived to fit within the specific circumstances of each pipeline. 34 The appropriate interchangeability specifications for different pipelines may vary depending on a number of factors, including: The historic characteristics of natural gas delivered by the pipeline to the markets it serves; local market practices for the use of target or adjustment gases used to install and adjust equipment in that market; historic variability in the characteristics of gas delivered to the market; whether there are customer loads with special gas quality requirements, such as a large process gas user; the type and gas quality tolerances of the end-use equipment (including “legacy” equipment); and, the tariff requirements of downstream pipelines. 35 This fact-intensive exercise does not lend itself to generic specifications. The Commission will examine the appropriate circumstances in each individual case. That being said, the Commission will give appropriate weight to the gas quality and interchangeability requirements of interconnected pipelines as well as the requirements of markets directly served. The Commission wishes to ensure that natural gas wholesale trade across markets is not unduly impeded by the tariff requirements of individual pipelines. In addition, the tariff should state the natural gas quality specifications for gas that the pipeline will deliver to its customers. 34 *See* Interchangeability Report at 24-26. 35 *See, e.g.* , The Florida Utilities April 1, 2005 comments. 3. Blending 39. Given the complexity of operating an interstate pipeline, there is substantial discretion given a pipeline to decide when and how much to allow exceptions to gas quality and interchangeability specifications to accommodate production that may not have convenient access to gas processing. In addition, some pipelines will waive gas quality limitations when operating circumstances allow, enforcing strict compliance with the tariff only when necessary. For example, a pipeline may be able to accept rich gas containing more of the heavier hydrocarbons than its tariff would otherwise permit by blending that gas with leaner gas that contains very little of the heavier hydrocarbons. However, there may be more such lean gas available for blending on some parts of the pipeline's system than on other parts. Furthermore, a pipeline's ability to blend supplies of varying quality will depend on the supplies' proximity to market. 40. Pragmatically, this discretion allows the pipeline to maximize the gas supply available to its customers while maintaining its ability to manage gas quality and interchangeability within acceptable limits. The Commission has found in at least one case that such actions are “not necessarily undue discrimination under the NGA [Natural Gas Act].” 36 Operational constraints in particular parts of a pipeline's system may justify treating shippers on those parts of the system differently than shippers on other parts of the system. 37 36 Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, 102 FERC ¶ 61,234 at P. 27, and *see* discussion at PP. 25-33 (2003). 37 *Consolidated Edison Company of New York* v. *FERC,* 165 F.3d 992, 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1999). 41. The Commission continues to believe that it is appropriate to allow pipelines to exercise their discretion to waive strict gas quality limits when operating conditions allow, and to enforce such limits when operating conditions require stricter measures, as long as it is done in a not unduly discriminatory manner. 38 The Commission wishes to encourage pipelines to allow blending, pairing, 39 and other strategies, to the extent these can be implemented on a non-discriminatory basis and in a manner that is consistent with safe and reliable operations. This is consistent with the Commission's policy of minimizing any unnecessary restrictions on the supplies available to the national gas market. Pipelines may consider “safe harbor” provisions and informational posting requirements as means of minimizing the potential for undue discrimination. 40 38 The Commission's regulations require that pipelines strictly enforce the provisions of their tariffs if those provisions do not permit the use of discretion. In instances where the tariff provides the pipeline with discretion, it must keep a written log detailing the circumstances and manner in which it has exercised discretion under its tariff, and this information must be posted on the pipeline's website within 24 hours of when the pipeline exercised its discretion. *See* 18 CFR 385.5(c)(1) and 385.5(c)(4). 39 The *HDP Report* does not use the term “pairing,” but instead refers to the practice of “contractual blending.” It is a paper transaction allowing a producer of gas that does not meet a pipeline's gas quality requirements to contract to blend this gas with the gas of another producer whose gas is in compliance with the pipeline's gas quality specifications. These two producers' volumes may enter the gas stream at different points and thus may not blend directly in the pipeline. Section 3.2.5 describes contractual blending. *See also* comments of El Paso Corporation's Pipeline Group at 2 and 10; NGSA Petition at 4 n.2; and, Selected Processors at 2. 40 *See National Gas Pipeline Company of America,* 102 FERC ¶ 61,234 at PP. 43, 48 (2003). 4. Merchantability 42. AGA urges the Commission to require pipelines to include a merchantability provision in their tariffs. 41 AGA defines the term “merchantable” as gas that is: 41 *See, e.g.,* AGA comments at 25-29. consistently commercially free from objectionable matter including odors, bacteria, dust, gums, water, hydrocarbon liquids, other liquid or gaseous constituents that may preclude supply from being interchangeable with historically acceptable supplies delivered into a market area and will not cause injury or interference with operation of existing end use equipment, pipelines and the gas transmission and distribution infrastructure. 42 42 *Id.* at 27-8. 43. The Commission will not require such provisions. We do not believe that mandating additional merchantability requirements would provide any additional value at this time. 43 In addition, we are concerned that adoption of a general merchantability requirement could come into conflict with the specifications of gas quality and interchangeability that would be quantified under the interim processes recommended in the NGC+ Reports. Pipeline tariff provisions that contain detailed technical specifications for gas quality and interchangeability may be sufficient without the addition of a general merchantability provision; technical specifications and general descriptions, to the extent they are present, must work together if they are to function as intended. Neither of the NGC+ Reports included in their consensus recommendations the adoption of a merchantability clause. Some pipelines have merchantability provisions in their current tariffs and some do not. As a policy matter, the Commission will neither mandate nor prohibit such provisions. 43 The Commission notes that AGA also suggested an alternative approach in its comments, stating that “delivered gas will be ‘merchantable’ gas and will meet certain specifications, such as those set out for interchangeability, CHDP and other constituent limits.” AGA comments at 28. The Commission sees no value to adding the label “merchantable” to gas that otherwise meets the gas quality and interchangeability specifications set forth in the tariff. C. Applicability to Section 311 Transporters 44. The Commission intends to apply this policy to statements of operating conditions filed by entities which provide interstate transportation services pursuant to section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA). As a general principle, the Commission expects that each section 311 transporter will include specific provisions in its statement of operating conditions governing gas quality and interchangeability. 44 44 Section 284.224, subpart G, of the Commission's regulations authorizes LDCs and Hinshaw pipelines to perform the same types of transactions that intrastate pipelines are authorized to perform under section 311 of the NGPA and subpart C and D of Part 284 of the Commission's regulations. The Commission intends that the requirements imposed by this policy statement on section 311 intrastate pipelines would also apply to Hinshaw pipelines. D. New Companies Authorized Under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act 45. The Commission intends to apply this policy in its review of *pro forma* tariffs filed as part of section 7(c) certificate applications. Applicants should ensure that their Exhibit P *pro forma* tariff includes general terms and conditions addressing gas quality and interchangeability. Recognizing that new entrants do not have historic markets upon which to base their analysis of gas quality and interchangeability specifications, the Commission expects section 7 applicants to include relevant information about the gas quality and interchangeability specifications of interconnecting pipelines, and of the competing pipelines serving customers to be served directly by the new entrant, as well as the relevant information about the gas supplies to be received by the new entrant for transportation or storage. Applicants must show how they derived their gas quality and interchangeability specifications stated in their *pro forma* tariffs. E. New Companies Authorized Under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act 46. The Commission intends to apply this policy in its review of proposals to construct and operate new facilities for the importation of natural gas. Applicants should include information in their application which demonstrates the compatibility of their imports with the gas quality and interchangeability requirements of all interconnecting pipelines. To the extent service is provided pursuant to Parts 157 or 284 of the Commission's regulations, the applicant should make specific reference to tariff or contract provisions governing gas quality and interchangeability and demonstrate their compliance with this policy statement. 47. Some commenters ask the Commission to impose specific obligations on LNG project developers regarding merchantability, identification of adverse impacts, compensation for negative impacts, and mitigation. 45 However, the Commission believes that these are issues that should be addressed, if and when problems are identified, in specific cases. 45 *See, e.g.* , AGA, APGA, Constellation at 3, and KeySpan's April 1 comments at 10-13. By the Commission. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. Appendix A Commenters American Gas Association
(AGA)American Public Gas Association
(APGA)Appalachian Producers: Kentucky Oil & Gas Association, Ohio Oil and Gas Association, and the Independent Oil & Gas Association of Pennsylvania Aux Sable Liquid Products, L.P. (Aux Sable) BHP Billiton LNG International (BHP Billiton) Calpine Corporation (Calpine) Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc. Constellation Energy Group, Inc. Devon Energy Corporation Dow Chemical Company Duke Energy Gas Transmission Edison Electric Institute
(EEI)Electric Power Supply Association
(EPSA)El Paso Corporation's Pipeline Group EMS Pipeline Services Fertilizer Institute Florida Power & Light Florida Utilities: Tampa Electric Company; Peoples Gas System, a Division of Tampa Electric Company; the Associated Gas Distributors of Florida (AGDF); and the Florida Municipal Natural Gas Association (FMNGA). The AGDF consists of Florida Public Utilities Company; Central Florida Gas Company; Indiantown Gas Company; Sebring Gas Systems, Inc.; St. Joe Natural Gas Company, Inc.; and Florida City Gas. The FMNGA consists of the City of Chattahoochee; City of Clearwater Gas System; Crescent City Natural Gas; City of DeFuniak Springs; Geneva County Gas District; Lake Apopka Natural Gas District; City of Leesburg; City of Live Oak; City of Madison; Okaloosa Gas District; Palatka Gas Authority; City of Perry; Southeast Alabama Gas District; and City of Sunrise. Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association
(GAMA)Gas Processors Association General Electric Company
(GE)Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South) Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States (IPAMS) Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) Independent Petroleum Association of America
(IPAA)KeySpan Corporation Michigan Consolidated Gas Company National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation and National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation Natural Gas Supply Association
(NGSA)NiSource, Inc. Pacific Gas and Electric Company Process Gas Consumers Group
(PGC)Producer Coalition: Devon Energy Corporation, Dominion Exploration & Production, Inc., Forest Oil Corporation, The Houston Exploration Company, Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Corporation, Newfield Exploration Company, Spinnaker Exploration Company, and TOTAL E&P U.S.A., Inc. Progress Energy Questar Pipelines Selected Processors: Enterprise Products Operating L.P., Williams Midstream, Dynegy Midstream Services, Limited Partnership and Duke Energy Field Services, LLC Sempra Global Shell NA LNG LLC and Shell US Gas & Power, LLC Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, SCANA Energy Marketing, Inc. and Public Service Company of North Carolina, Inc. (SCANA) South Carolina Pipeline Company and SCG Pipeline, Inc. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Southeastern End Users Group: Florida Cities—City of Tallahassee, Florida Gas Utility, Gainesville Regional Utilities, JEA, Lakeland Electric, and Orlando Utilities Commission, Florida City Gas, Florida Municipal Natural Gas Association—Cities of Chattahoochee, DeFuniak Springs, Leesburg, Madison, Perry and Sunrise, City of Clearwater Gas System, Crescent City Natural Gas, Geneva County Gas District, Lake Apopka Natural Gas District, Okaloosa Gas District, Palatka Gas Authority, Southeast Alabama Gas District, Florida Power & Light Company, Florida Public Utilities Company, Progress Energy, Peoples Gas System, a Division of Tampa Electric Company, Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc., Southern Cities—Georgia Cities of Cartersville, Cordele, Cuthbert, Dublin, Hawkinsville, LaGrange and Tallapoosa and the Florida City of Tallahassee, Tampa Electric Company Southern California Gas Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company Suez Energy North America TransCanada Pipelines Limited Utah Department of Public Utilities
(UDPU)Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company Wisconsin Distributor Group: Wisconsin Power & Light Company, City Gas Company, Madison Gas & Electric Company, Wisconsin Gas LLC, and Wisconsin Electric Power Company—Collectively, We Energy, and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Appendix B Summary of Comments A. Natural Gas Producers 1. NGSA urges the Commission to move quickly to initiate a rulemaking to adopt its proposals. NGSA also would establish a presumption of interchangeability (with historical gas supplies) for all gas that meets the interchangeability specifications in the NGSA rulemaking proposal. In addition, NGSA does not support efforts by local distribution companies
(LDCs)to require pipelines to include merchantability clauses 46 in their tariffs. 46 Several LDC commenters, including the American Gas Association (AGA), urge the Commission to require pipelines to include merchantability provisions in their tariffs. The issue of merchantability is discussed in the context of LDC comments beginning at P 37. 2. Among independent producers, the Independent Petroleum Association of America
(IPAA)supports the NGSA proposal for a NOPR, including the CHDP safe harbor and the interchangeability levels. In addition, IPAA advocates a *de minimis* exemption for production from small wells, where such exceptions will not affect pipeline operations. Devon Energy, a small producer and processor, supports the NGSA petition and supports the *de minimis* exemption for small volumes, so long as the quality of delivered gas remains within the tariff limits. 47 47 Devon at 4. 3. The Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States (IPAMS), an association of small producers in the Rocky Mountains, opposes any rigid national standard for gas quality, citing the different needs of customers in Salt Lake City and Denver, where its members' gas is delivered. IPAMS also supports a small producer *de minimis* exemption. However, it does not address the NGSA proposal directly. The Appalachian Producers oppose the NGSA proposal and assert that the presumption of interchangeability, for example, “could easily be transformed into a requirement that natural gas *must* meet those standards * * * changing the *presumptive* specifications into prescriptive ones.” 48 48 Appalachian Producers comments at 2. 4. Finally, the Producer Coalition 49 supports adoption of natural gas quality and interchangeability standards through a formal rulemaking proceeding rather than through a policy statement. The Producer Coalition asserts that much of the controversy in setting gas quality standards “would be eliminated if the Commission, by rule or policy statement, would
(i)establish a uniform method for determining CHDP limits for interstate pipelines; and
(ii)determine who pays—producers or downstream customers—for conditioning or handling gas to accommodate the downstream temperature and pressure cuts between the interstate pipeline grid and the gas burner tip.” 50 49 The Producer Coalition is an *ad hoc* group of natural gas producers consisting of Devon, Dominion E&P, Forest Oil, Houston Exploration, Kerr-McGee, Newfield Exploration, Spinnaker Exploration and TOTAL E&P. 50 Producer Coalition at 6. B. LNG Operators 5. Four LNG facility operator/developer companies filed comments on the NGSA proposal. Both Shell and Sempra urge the Commission to move quickly to adopt standards in order to maintain momentum from the NGC+ efforts. Shell favors a Commission policy statement, while Sempra supports action via a NOPR, along the lines advocated by NGSA. Both support the interchangeability interim guidelines in the Report instead of the NGSA proposal, because NGSA does not adopt the ± 4% range in the Report or the 1,110 Btu limit. In addition, Sempra opposes a mandate for pipeline blending, aggregation and other operational techniques for dealing with non-standard gas. Both favor requiring pipelines to adopt gas quality and interchangeability standards in their tariffs. Suez Energy North America
(Suez)supports a rulemaking based on the proposals in the Reports, and it asserts that the Commission should “craft rules that will encourage some degree of standardization while also leaving distinct pipeline service territory issues for determination on each pipeline system.” 51 51 Suez at 5. 6. The issue of federal—state cooperation in standard-setting is the focus of comments by BHP Billiton LNG International (BHP Billiton), an Australian energy company that plans to build a floating storage and regasification unit for LNG imports offshore California to bring gas into California. BHP Billiton opposes a proposal pending before the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC)52 in the CPUC's ongoing proceeding examining gas quality issues. In that proceeding, a California utility has proposed that LNG suppliers be subject not only to the quality specifications in utility tariffs but also to the quality specifications of any other Federal, state or local agency having “subject matter” jurisdiction over natural gas quality. BHP states that gas quality and interchangeability “should not be subject to the whim or caprice of governmental agencies that do not have direct regulatory authority over utilities.” 53 52 CPUC Docket No. 04-01-025. 53 BHP Billiton at 4. C. Gas Processors 7. The Selected Processors 54 support a NOPR that considers three issues: Uniform CHDP standards across interconnecting pipelines; CHDP specifications in pipeline tariffs; and fair and non-discriminatory application of the CHDP standards for all gas supplies. The Selected Processors would exempt interstate pipelines that do not directly serve an end-use market from the CHDP standards. It believes that the NGSA proposal is “vague,” and may not resolve the need for uniform CHDP standards across interconnecting pipelines, long-term certainty through clear CHDP standards in pipeline tariffs and the fair and non-discriminatory application of gas quality standards for all gas supplies. 55 The Selected Processors advocate a formal rulemaking proceeding and mandatory measures for pipeline blending or pairing of non-compliant gas. They are concerned that discretionary blending and pairing by pipelines pose the potential for discrimination. 54 The Selected Processors consist of Enterprise, Williams Midstream, Dynegy Midstream and Duke Energy Field Services. 55 Selected Processors at 1. 8. Aux Sable Liquid Products (Aux Sable), which operates a gas processing plant at the terminus of the Alliance Pipeline near Chicago, Illinois, supports the adoption of gas quality and interchangeability standards through a rulemaking proceeding, but it disagrees with the detailed regulatory text contained in the NGSA proposal. Nevertheless, Aux Sable supports the Report recommendations, including a CHDP safe harbor, 56 and the establishment of the Wobbe Index as the basic means of determining interchangeability. 56 While Aux Sable states that it supports the “minimum safe harbor” CDHP method of controlling liquid drop out, the Report itself does not include a “safe harbor” recommendation. 9. In an October 27, 2005 letter to the Chairman, the Gas Processors Association
(GPA)encourages swift resolution of the issues involved in setting gas quality specifications to ease uncertainty in the industry with respect to the outcome of these proceedings. Citing the loss of infrastructure that occurred in the Gulf following last year's hurricanes, GPA states that regulatory uncertainty adversely affects decisions on new investment to rebuild damaged infrastructure. “The gas processing industry desperately needs to know that fair, consistent application of gas quality specifications will be applied for the long-term.” 57 57 Letter from Mark F. Sutton, Executive Director of GPA to Chairman Kelliher and officials at the Energy Information Administration and the Minerals Management Service, at 2 (October 27, 2005). D. Interstate Pipelines 10. The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) opposes NGSA's NOPR proposal, stating that gas quality and interchangeability issues are not a nationwide problem. Rather, problems with gas quality and interchangeability can be addressed on a pipeline-specific basis as problems arise. 58 However, if the Commission is going to address these issues in a generic proceeding, INGAA believes it should do so through a policy statement. It supports a presumptive 15 degree CHDP safe harbor but wants pipelines to have the flexibility to accept gas at receipt points at different CHDP levels (higher or lower than the NGSA proposal). INGAA would apply the CHDP standards at pipeline receipt points rather than at delivery points. The 1,400 Wobbe Index level standard proposed by NGSA is missing critical technical parameters (heating value, use of historical average gas supply, and the plus or minus 4% Wobbe Index range). INGAA would evaluate the need for a *de minimis* exemption for small producers on a pipeline-by-pipeline basis. Finally, INGAA opposes a requirement for merchantability provisions, saying that these could be used to “trump” pipeline gas quality and interchangeability tariff provisions. 58 In this regard, the Commission notes the “Joint Statement of the American Gas Association and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America,” filed on June 2, 2006, which outlines their agreement on developing gas quality and interchangeability specifications on a pipeline-by-pipeline basis, where needed, within the next year. On June 8, APGA filed a response to the AGA-INGAA joint statement. Subsequent comments on the joint statement were filed by NGSA (on June 12) urging the Commission to establish a policy for developing natural gas quality and interchangeability standards, and by Washington Gas Light (June 13), who urged the Commission to recognize the infrastructure impacts of changes in supply compositions in addressing interchangeability issues. 11. Several pipeline companies filed individual comments on the Reports and the NGSA proposal. Pipeline commenters oppose merchantability requirements, and, to the extent any procedural tool is favored, the pipeline commenters oppose a generic rulemaking along the lines proposed by NGSA. Instead, most support the development of a policy statement governing gas quality and interchangeability issues. Duke Energy Gas Transmission takes another view, arguing that these issues should be handled on a complaint-driven basis and not through generic national standards. On providing an exemption for small producers advocated by some producers, ANR, Southern Natural and El Paso all assert that they have such exceptions in their gas quality tariff provisions. 12. Other pipelines point to specific constraints or supply issues on their systems that would make a generic approach particularly difficult. For example, Gulf South Pipeline states that, due to its reticulated nature, gas cannot be pathed on its system, nor can gas molecules be traced. This would make it very difficult for Gulf South to apply a single CHDP minimum standard to its entire system. 59 59 Gulf South at 11-12. 13. Questar and Williston Basin both cite their ability to transport high HDP gas or coal bed methane as being essential to meeting the requirements of downstream markets. In Questar's case, some of the gas it treats is delivered to its affiliated LDC. Questar has made significant investment in liquid handling facilities and processing plants in order to provide transportation service for gas coming from growing supply sources in the Green River, Uinta and Piceance basins. Although the question of who should pay for these facilities is the subject of an ongoing dispute with the Utah Division of Public Utilities, Questar asserts that its ability to transport high HDP gas on its system would be adversely affected by the CHDP safe harbor proposed in the NGSA petition. 60 Similarly, Williston Basin states that the gas it has transported on its system historically exceeds the levels in both the Reports and the NGSA petition. In addition, Williston Basin states that applying an inflexible gas quality standard at delivery points would impose a tremendous hardship on the pipeline, which has 53 receipt points but over 3,100 delivery points. 61 60 Questar at 3-4. 61 Williston Basin at 4. E. LDCs 14. AGA and the American Public Gas Association (APGA), the major LDC trade associations, oppose the NGSA petition. AGA's original position on the NGSA petition supported a NOPR mandating pipeline tariff provisions on gas quality and interchangeability. AGA pointed to many flaws in the NGSA proposal, most of which stem from the differences between the NGSA proposal and the Reports' proposed interim guidelines. AGA believes that the Commission should allow pipelines to require gas to be processed, and it believes the CHDP should be set at the receipt points on the pipeline system instead of at delivery points as proposed by NGSA. 15. AGA proposed an alternative to the NGSA rulemaking proposal, outlining its own rulemaking procedure: pipelines would amend their tariffs to adopt a CHDP level or safe harbor CHDP developed through a pipeline-by-pipeline consensus process initiated by the Commission's NOPR and modeled on the collaborative process that led to the development of the Report. AGA would rely on the Interchangeability Report's interim guidelines implemented in a Commission-mandated consensus process in setting interchangeability standards. 62 Since filing its comments on the NGSA petition, AGA has collaborated with INGAA to develop an agreement on how industry stakeholders could negotiate natural gas quality and interchangeability specifications on a pipeline-by-pipeline basis, where needed, within the next year. This proposal, styled as a “joint statement,” was filed on June 2, 2006. 63 62 AGA at 32-36. 63 Supra at n.57. On June 8, AGPA filed a response to the AGA-INGAA joint statement essentially agreeing with the process but opining that the parties should be able to complete their negotiations within six months. 16. Both AGA and APGA support requiring pipelines to include a merchantability provision in their tariffs to protect pipeline customers from the effects of gas that is not in compliance with tariff standards gas. This will provide pipelines flexibility to accept gas that is not in compliance with the tariff but through blending or other means is “merchantable” when delivered to LDCs and other end-use customers. KeySpan also strongly endorses a requirement that pipeline tariffs include a merchantability provision. 17. A significant number of LDCs filed comments on the Reports, the May 17 technical conference and the NGSA proposal, which most LDC commenters explicitly oppose. Their comments are largely encompassed in the comments of AGA and APGA, and most LDC commenters explicitly endorsed the trade association comments. Constellation, for example, endorsed the comments of AGA and EEI. Standards based on historical gas quality and mandatory merchantability requirements in pipeline tariffs are supported by most LDCs. Most favor a rulemaking procedure, although NiSource favors a policy statement for gas quality and interchangeability standards. 18. National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation, which has a pipeline affiliate that receives substantial quantities of Appalachian production, expresses concern about the proposal for exempting *de minimis* production from gas quality standards. National Fuel points out that the location along the pipeline and availability of blending are also important considerations when determining whether *de minimis* production volumes should be exempt from gas quality standards. “Processing requirements should be imposed on *de minimis* producers as necessary, on a pipeline-by-pipeline, market-by-market basis to maintain the historical content of gas introduced into commerce and minimize liquid dropout.” 64 64 National Fuel at 3. 19. SCANA opposes the NGSA petition and proposes another process for developing gas quality and interchangeability standards. Additional research would focus on developing a nationwide baseline gas quality specification, and the industry should have a 10 to 15 year transition period to accommodate a new nationwide baseline gas standard. Additional focus should also be given on providing guidance to equipment manufacturers for complying with the new nationwide baseline gas standard. SCANA asserts that pipeline tariffs should be required to contain merchantability provisions, which would supersede any CHDP level in the tariff. CHDP levels would be set on a pipeline-by-pipeline basis. 20. The Wisconsin Distributors Group 65 states that the NGSA's proposed 15 degree CHDP safe harbor minimum might not work in the service territories of their members. The NGSA proposal is based on average ambient ground temperatures, and in Wisconsin, a 15 degree safe harbor might not be low enough to prevent liquid drop out. In its comments on the Reports, the Wisconsin Distributors Group points out that much of Wisconsin is served by Canadian gas, which has a CHDP of minus 30 degrees. However, recognizing the interconnectedness of the interstate pipeline grid, more gas now is coming into Wisconsin from sources other than Canada. The onus should be on each pipeline, and its tariff should prescribe the CHDP and other gas quality criteria. Each pipeline should ensure uniformity across its system, and each tariff should include a merchantability provision. 65 The Wisconsin Distributors Group
(WDG)is an *ad hoc* group of LDCs serving natural gas customers in Wisconsin. For purposes of this proceeding, the Wisconsin Distributors Group comprises the following: Alliant Energy—Wisconsin Power & Light Company, City Gas Company, Madison Gas & Electric Company, Wisconsin Gas LLC and Wisconsin Electric Power Company (collectively doing business as We Energies) and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation. 21. The importance of interchangeability issues in the context of LNG project development was raised by several LDC commenters. AGA asserts that the Commission should require that LNG terminal developers be responsible for ensuring that their product meets standards for interchangeability and that this responsibility should be incorporated as part of the NGA section 3 or section 7 certificate processes for the review of individual applications. APGA states that the Commission should require pipelines that utilize LNG in their supply mix to develop tariff provisions for monitoring and compensating for the costs incurred by communities that are near the injection of vaporized LNG into the pipeline system. However, a couple of individual LDCs raised issues on LNG and interchangeability that were not mentioned by the trade groups. For example, Constellation states that it should not have to bear the cost of any modifications to its LNG peak shaving facility that are necessary to accommodate elevated ethane content from LNG imported into Dominion's Cove Point LNG facility. 66 66 Constellation at 3. 22. KeySpan proposes that the Commission require a new Gas Supply Resource Report be included in each NGA section 3 and section 7 application, 67 a proposal endorsed by SCANA and SCANA's pipeline affiliates. This resource report would identify all gas composition changes associated with the introduction of new gas supplies from the proposed facilities and all adverse impacts on end-users associated with the change in gas quality. In addition, the report would consider whether specific mitigation measures would be required to address potential adverse impacts from the new gas stream on such facilities as LNG peak shaving facilities and dry-low-emissions
(DLE)natural gas turbines. 67 KeySpan April 1 comments at 10-13. F. Industrial Gas Users 23. Among industrial gas users, Process Gas Consumers (PGC), Dow Chemical and the Fertilizer Institute filed comments. PGC and Dow Chemical approached the NGSA petition from completely different perspectives. PGC endorses virtually every aspect of the proposal. It would condition its support of the 15 degree CHDP on the Commission not “grandfathering” existing pipeline CHDP standards without additional opportunity for comment, and it would subject “grandfathered” pipelines to the same complaint process NGSA proposes for all other pipeline tariff standards. It also advocates a 15 to 18 month “reopener” to evaluate how the standards have worked. PGC avers that its members “are prepared to shoulder the burden” of system modifications to accommodate a 1,400 Wobbe Index level “to increase gas supplies.” 68 68 PGC at 7. 24. By contrast, Dow Chemical urges the Commission to be cautious in moving forward on the NGSA proposal. It points to the severe economic consequences for petrochemical plants when producers bypass processing their gas in order to “preserve their entrained liquefiables for sale to downstream gas markets,” thereby depriving petrochemical plants of critical feedstocks, such as ethane and propane. 69 The Fertilizer Institute takes no position on the NGSA proposal but states that the determination as to where on the pipeline system gas quality standards are imposed, whether at pipeline delivery points, as advocated by NGSA or at pipeline receipt points, as advocated by INGAA, will have significant consequences for members of the Fertilizer Institute. Many members of the Fertilizer Institute are directly connected to interstate pipelines upstream of LDC city gates. If gas quality standards are imposed on gas at the LDC city gate, these customers would not be protected. 69 Dow at 3. G. Electric Utilities, Generators and Power Marketers 25. The Edison Electric Institute
(EEI)and the Electric Power Supply Association
(EPSA)filed extensive comments in support of a NOPR process. However, both express fundamental disagreement with NGSA's petition and proposals for CHDP and interchangeability standards. Both disagree with the 15 degree CHDP minimum and the 1,400 Wobbe Index level for reasons expressed by other commenters. EPSA observes that NGSA's proposed complaint process is tilted against those filing complaints and states that the Commission already has in place regulations for filing complaints under section 5 of the NGA. 26. EEI supports the establishment of natural gas quality and interchangeability standards through a Commission rulemaking, but it asserts that the NGSA CHDP and Wobbe levels are “not workable.” 70 Although EEI agrees with NGSA that a NOPR is the preferable procedural framework for setting standards, it believes that natural gas composition requirements must be based on historical deliveries, and that gas composition requirements must be set regionally or on a pipeline-by-pipeline basis and not nationally, as proposed by NGSA. EEI's comments also included a lengthy study by Combustion Science & Engineering, “Effect of Fuel Composition on Gas Turbine Operability and Emissions.” Among its conclusions is that turbine operators have reported numerous operational difficulties attributed to changes in gas composition. Because there is an inherent trade-off between NO <sup>X</sup> and combustion dynamics for the latest generation of gas turbines, when changes in gas composition lead to increases in NO <sup>X</sup> emissions, turbine operators will have to make operational changes to remain in compliance with air permits. 70 EEI at 3. 27. The Southeastern End Users Group, an ad hoc group of LDCs and users of gas turbines in Florida and Georgia, 71 opposes the NGSA petition and endorses AGA's proposed process for developing gas quality and interchangeability standards. Of particular concern is the impact of gas quality and interchangeability parameters on operators of DLE natural gas turbines. The Southeastern End Users Group is concerned about whether DLEs can accept wide variations in gas quality and yet remain in compliance with emissions requirements without having to add expensive automatic tuning and heating controls. The Southeastern End Users Group also expresses concern about “legacy” gas equipment and asserts that any gas quality and interchangeability standards ultimately adopted must ensure that “legacy” equipment will not be adversely affected. They request that any generic policy adopted by the Commission not replace case-specific decisions, such as the ongoing AES proceeding (Docket No. RP04-249-000 *et al.* ) 72 71 The members of the Southeastern End Users Group are listed in Appendix A. 72 Southeastern End Users Group at 8. 28. Calpine and Florida Power & Light oppose the NGSA petition. Progress Energy opposes implementation of the interim guidelines in the Reports and expresses concern that the fuel constituent values in the interim guidelines on interchangeability could have an adverse effect on DLE turbines. Progress Energy also believes that EPA should be brought into the process of developing gas quality and interchangeability standards. H. Gas Equipment Manufacturers 29. The Gas Appliance Association of America
(GAMA)and Siemens Westinghouse represent consumer appliance manufacturers and turbine manufacturers, respectively. Neither supports the specific Wobbe levels advocated by NGSA, supporting instead the interim measure recommended in the report. GAMA points out that the report cited a 1992 GRI study that showed an average Wobbe Index of 1,345, and it urges the Commission to adopt the Report's interchangeability guidelines and its ± 4% Wobbe Index range, instead of NGSA's. GAMA also points out that the lack of a heating value standard in the NGSA proposal as another critical flaw. Other than to oppose NGSA's petition, GAMA takes no position on what procedural vehicle the Commission should employ. 30. Siemens Westinghouse requests that several of the interchangeability criteria set forth in the Report interim guidelines be modified:
(1)Siemens Westinghouse would set a limit of 2.5 percent for propanes and one percent for butanes+ (compared with the interim guideline of 1.5 percent for butanes+);
(2)it requests that an additional limit be set on the rate of change in the Wobbe Index of gas delivered to no more than two percent per minute;
(3)Siemens Westinghouse suggests that tariff provisions take into account changes in gas quality that affect air quality; and,
(4)it asks the Commission to consider a mechanism to provide for cost recovery related to equipment failure caused by gas quality or interchangeability issues. Finally, Siemens Westinghouse states that the levels in NGSA's proposal may be “too narrow” for certain end users, such as fuel cell applications or natural gas vehicles. 73 73 Siemens Westinghouse at 3. 31. GE states that the heavy-duty turbines it manufactures have a gas fuel specification that defines the allowable ranges for fuel physical properties, constituents, and contaminants, but this specification “was not written with the intent of addressing continuous fuel variability within the allowable ranges.” 74 GE states that fuel variations of more than 5 percent from the Wobbe Index level established for the particular gas turbine may result in the need to re-tune the combustion system. Because significant or frequent variability may require constant monitoring with manual intervention ( *i.e.* , re-tuning), GE is working on turbine upgrade packages that allow turbines to operate with automatic combustion tuning for acoustic dynamics and emissions. This effort has been spurred in part by GE's support for LNG and the desire to develop retro-fit equipment that will allow continuous operation by gas turbines over a range of Wobbe Index levels “consistent with GE expected ranges for [natural gas] and LNG for the North American Market.” 75 74 GE comments (May 12, 2005) at 1. 75 *Id.* at 2. I. Governmental Entities 32. The Utah Department of Public Utilities
(UDPU)and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) filed comments on the Reports. UDPU's focus is on the quality of gas being transported by Questar Pipeline, the measures and facilities employed by Questar to render the high HDP gas suitable for downstream customers (including its affiliated LDC), and who should pay these costs. It complains that Questar's tariff requirements are set so broadly as to accommodate transporting as much gas as possible. UDPU's solution is for pipeline tariffs to specify quality standards for gas that is delivered onto the system and to require the pipeline to ensure “a constant quality” that meets the needs of the end users. UDPU would require the pipeline to control the quality of gas entering its system. 33. SCAQMD characterizes the Report on interchangeability as “a good start” to understanding the issues, and it agrees that there are significant data gaps that must be investigated. In this vein, SCAQMD recommends expedited research in these areas: a. Emission studies of the impacts of high Btu gas on combustion equipment, particularly larger combustion and power generation sources. b. Effects of inert gas addition on large and small equipment. c. Regional air quality impact analysis of LNG imports. d. Cost analysis of different mitigation measures. SCAQMD states that the natural gas quality standards that apply in its area are inadequate. They allow a heating value of up to 1,150 Btu/scf and indirectly a Wobbe Index of approximately 1,433. In addition, SCAQMD is concerned about the air quality impacts of high Btu LNG. 76 76 SCAQMD at 3-4. J. Pipeline/LNG Industry Service Providers 34. EMS Pipeline Services provides a broad array of pipeline operations and maintenance services, including field measurement, pipeline integrity testing, asset management, communications, and web-based data management. EMS is the only provider of pipeline services that filed comments, which generally support the Reports' approaches on both gas quality and interchangeability. EMS asserts that the Commission should encourage the industry to develop better and more comprehensive ways of measuring gas quality and interchangeability. [FR Doc. 06-5582 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 28
Traces to 28 documents
CFR
12 references not yet in our index
  • 391 F. Supp. 2d 1298
  • 893 F.2d 337
  • 50 CFR 216.103
  • 16 CFR 1505
  • 16 CFR 1205
  • Pub. L. 99-495
  • 100 Stat. 1234
  • 18 CFR 380
  • 16 USC 791a-825r
  • 18 CFR 284
  • 165 F.3d 992
  • 18 CFR 385.5(c)(1)
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of meeting
Fed. Reg.Presidential Documents
C.F.R.§ 351.224
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.212
C.F.R.§ 351.216
C.F.R.§ 351.310
C.F.R.§ 351.309
U.S.C.§ 1361
U.S.C.§ 3507
F. Supp.391 F. Supp. 2d 1298
F. App'x893 F.2d 337
F. App'x165 F.3d 992
Cites 40 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.