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 · 2006-09-07 · Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA · Notices

Notices. Notice

33,741 words·~153 min read·/register/2006/09/07/06-7528

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

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration [06-01-S] Designation for the Pocatello (ID), Lewiston (ID), Evansville (IN), and Utah Areas AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) announces designation of the following organizations to provide official services under the United States Grain Standards Act, as amended (Act):
Idaho Grain Inspection Service, Inc. (Idaho); Lewiston Grain Inspection Service, Inc. (Lewiston); Ohio Valley Grain Inspection, Inc. (Ohio Valley); and Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (Utah). EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2006. ADDRESSES: USDA, GIPSA, Karen Guagliardo, Review Branch Chief, Compliance Division, STOP 3604, Room 1647-S, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3604. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Guagliardo at 202-720-7312, e-mail *Karen.W.Guagliardo@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental Regulation do not apply to this action. In the March 1, 2006 **Federal Register** (71 FR 10471), GIPSA asked persons interested in providing official services in the geographic areas assigned to the official agencies named above to submit an application for designation. Applications were due by March 31, 2006.
Idaho, Lewiston, Ohio Valley, and Utah were the sole applicants for designation to provide official services in the entire area currently assigned to them, therefore, GIPSA did not ask for additional comments on them. GIPSA evaluated all available information regarding the designation criteria in Section 7(f)(l)(A) of the Act and, according to Section 7(f)(l)(B), determined that Idaho, Lewiston, Ohio Valley, and Utah are able to provide official services in the geographic areas specified in the March 1, 2006, **Federal Register** , for which they applied.
These designation actions to provide official services are effective October 1, 2006 and terminate September 30, 2009, for Idaho, Lewiston, Ohio Valley, and Utah. Interested persons may obtain official services by calling the telephone numbers listed below. Official agency Headquarters location and telephone Designation term Idaho Pocatello, ID; 208-233-8303 10/01/06-09/30/09 Lewiston Lewiston, ID; 208-746-0451 10/01/06-09/30/09 Ohio Valley Evansville, IN; 812-423-9010 Additional Location:
Hopkinsville, KY 10/01/06-09/30/09 Utah Salt Lake City, UT; 801-392-2292 10/01/06-09/30/09 Authority: Pub. L. 94-582, 90 Stat. 2867, as amended (7 U.S.C. 71 *et seq.* ). David R. Shipman, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. [FR Doc. E6-14816 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Opportunity for Designation in the Champaign (IL), Detroit (MI), Eastern Iowa (IA), Enid (OK), Keokuk (IA), Marshall (MI), Memphis
(TN)and Omaha (NE), and Request for Comments on the Official Agencies Serving These Areas AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA. [06-03-A]. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The designations of the official agencies listed below will end in March 2007. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) is asking persons interested in providing official services in the areas served by these agencies to submit an application for designation. GIPSA is also asking for comments on the quality of services provided by these currently designated agencies: Champaign-Danville Grain Inspection Departments, Inc. (Champaign); Detroit Grain Inspection Service, Inc. (Detroit); Eastern Iowa Grain Inspection and Weighing Service, Inc. (Eastern Iowa); Enid Grain Inspection Company, Inc. (Enid); Keokuk Grain Inspection Service (Keokuk); Michigan Grain Inspection Services, Inc. (Michigan); Midsouth Grain Inspection Service (Midsouth); and Omaha Grain Inspection Service, Inc. (Omaha). DATES: Applications and comments must be postmarked or electronically dated on or before October 10, 2006. ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit applications and comments on this notice. You may submit applications and comments by any of the following methods: • *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver to Karen Guagliardo, Review Branch Chief, Compliance Division, GIPSA, USDA, Room 1647-S, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. • *Fax:* Send by facsimile transmission to
(202)690-2755, attention: Karen Guagliardo. • *E-mail:* Send via electronic mail to *Karen.W.Guagliardo@usda.gov.* • *Mail:* Send hardcopy to Karen Guagliardo, Review Branch Chief, Compliance Division, GIPSA, USDA, STOP 3604, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3604. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental Regulation do not apply to this Action. Section 7(f)(1) of the United States Grain Standards Act, as amended (Act), authorizes GIPSA's Administrator to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services. Section 7(g)(1) of the Act provides that designations of official agencies shall end not later than triennially and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in Section 7(f) of the Act. 1. Current designations being announced for renewal. Official agency Main office Designation start Designation end Champaign Champaign, IL 4/01/2004 3/31/2007 Detroit Emmett, MI 4/01/2004 3/31/2007 Eastern Iowa Davenport, IA 4/01/2004 3/31/2007 Enid Enid, OK 4/01/2004 3/31/2007 Keokuk Keokuk, IA 4/01/2004 3/31/2007 Michigan Marshall, MI 4/01/2004 3/31/2007 Midsouth Memphis, TN 4/01/2006 3/31/2007 Omaha Omaha, NE 4/01/2006 3/31/2007 a. Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the States of Illinois and Indiana, is assigned to Champaign. *In Illinois and Indiana:* Bounded on the North by the northern Livingston County line from State Route 47; the eastern Livingston County line to the northern Ford County line; the northern Ford and Iroquois County lines east to Interstate 57; Interstate 57 north to the northern Will County line; Bounded on the North by the northern Will County line from Interstate 57 east to the Illinois-Indiana State line; the Illinois-Indiana State line north to the northern Lake County line; the northern Lake, Porter, Laporte, St. Joseph, and Elkhart County lines; Bounded on the East by the eastern and southern Elkhart County lines; the eastern Marshall County line; Bounded on the South by the southern Marshall and Starke County lines; the eastern Jasper County line south-southwest to U.S. Route 24; U.S. Route 24 west to Indiana State Route 55; Indiana State Route 55 south to the Newton County line; the southern Newton County line west to U.S. Route 41; Bounded on the East by U.S. Route 41 south to the northern Parke County line; the northern Parke and Putnam County lines; the eastern Putnam, Owen and Greene County lines; Bounded on the South by the southern Greene County line; the southern Sullivan County line west to U.S. Route 41(150); U.S. Route 41(150) south to U.S. Route 50; U.S. Route 50 west across the Indiana-Illinois State line to Illinois State Route 33; Illinois State Route 33 north and west to the Western Crawford County line; and Bounded on the West by the western Crawford and Clark County lines; the Southern Coles County line; the western Coles and Douglas County lines; the western Champaign County line north to Interstate 72; Interstate 72 southwest to the Piatt County line; the western Piatt County line; the southern McLean County line west to a point 10 miles west of the western Champaign County line, from this point through Arrowsmith to Pontiac along a straight line running north and south which intersects with State Route 116; State Route 116 east to State Route 47; State Route 47 north to the northern Livingston County line. Berrien, Cass, and St. Joseph Counties, Michigan. The following grain elevators, all in Illinois, located outside of the above contiguous geographic area, are part of this geographic area assignment: Moultrie Grain Association, Cadwell, Moultrie County; Tabor Grain Company (3 elevators), Farmer City, Dewitt County; and Topflight Grain Company, Monticello, Piatt County (located inside Decatur Grain Inspection, Inc.'s, area). Champaign's assigned geographic area does not include the following grain elevators inside Champaign's area which have been and will continue to be serviced by the following official agency: Titus Grain Inspection, Inc.: Kentland Elevator and Supply, Boswell, Benton County, Indiana; ADM, Dunn, Benton County, Indiana; and ADM, Raub, Benton County, Indiana. Champaign's assigned geographic area does not include the export port locations inside Champaign's area which are serviced by GIPSA. b. Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the State of Michigan, is assigned to Detroit. Bounded on the North by the northern Clinton County line; the eastern Clinton County line south to State Route 21; State Route 21 east to State Route 52; State Route 52 north to the Shiawassee County line; the northern Shiawassee County line east to the Genesee County line; the western Genesee County line; the northern Genesee County line east to State Route 15; State Route 15 north to Barnes Road; Barnes Road east to Sheridan Road; Sheridan Road north to State Route 46; State Route 46 east to State Route 53; State Route 53 north to the Michigan State line; Bounded on the East by the Michigan State line south to State Route 50; Bounded on the South by State Route 50 west to U.S. Route 127; and Bounded on the West by U.S. Route 127 north to U.S. Route 27; U.S. Route 27 north to the northern Clinton County line. The following grain elevator, located outside of the above contiguous geographic area, is part of this geographic area assignment: Caldonia Farmers Elevator, St. Johns, Clinton County (located inside Michigan Grain Inspection Services, Inc.'s, area). c. Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the States of Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin, is assigned to Eastern Iowa. *In the States of Illinois and Iowa:* *The southern area:* Bounded on the North, in Iowa, by Interstate 80 from the western Iowa County line east to State Route 38; State Route 38 north to State Route 130; State Route 130 east to Scott County; the western and northern Scott County lines east to the Mississippi River; Bounded on the East, from the Mississippi River, in Illinois, by the eastern Rock Island County line; the northern Henry and Bureau County lines east to State Route 88; State Route 88 south; the southern Bureau County line; the eastern and southern Henry County lines; the eastern Knox County line; Bounded on the South by the southern Knox County line; the eastern and southern Warren County lines; the southern Henderson County line west to the Mississippi River; in Iowa, by the southern Des Moines, Henry, Jefferson, and Wapello County lines; and Bounded on the West by the western and northern Wapello County lines; the western and northern Keokuk County lines; the western Iowa County line north to Interstate 80. *The northern area:* Bounded on the North, in Iowa, by the northern Delaware and Dubuque County lines; in Illinois, by the northern Jo Daviess, Stephenson, Winnebago, Boone, McHenry, and Lake County lines; Bounded on the East by the eastern Illinois State line south to the northern Will County line; the northern Will County line west to Interstate 55; Interstate 55 southwest to the southern Dupage County line; Bounded on the South by the southern Dupage, Kendall, Dekalb, and Lee County lines; and Bounded on the West by the western Lee and Ogle County lines; by the southern Stephenson and Jo Daviess County lines; in Iowa, by the southern Dubuque and Delaware County lines; and the western Delaware County line. In the State of Wisconsin, the entire State of Wisconsin, for domestic services. Eastern Iowa's assigned geographic area does not include the export port locations inside Eastern Iowa's area in the State of Illinois, which are serviced by GIPSA, and in the State of Wisconsin, which are serviced by Wisconsin. d. Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the State of Oklahoma, is assigned to Enid. Adair, Alfalfa, Atoka, Beckham, Blaine, Bryan, Caddo, Canadian, Carter, Cherokee, Choctaw, Cleveland, Coal, Comanche, Cotton, Craig, Creek, Custer, Delaware, Dewey, Ellis, Garfield, Garvin, Grady, Grant, Greer, Harmon, Harper, Haskell, Hughes, Jackson, Jefferson, Johnston, Kay, Kingfisher, Kiowa, Latimer, Le Flore, Lincoln, Logan, Love, McClain, McCurtain, McIntosh, Major, Marshall, Mayes, Murray, Muskogee, Noble, Nowata, Okfuskee, Oklahoma, Okmulgee, Osage, Ottawa, Pawnee, Payne, Pittsburg, Pontotoc, Pottawatomie, Pushmataha, Roger Mills, Rogers, Seminole, Sequoyah, Stephens, Tillman, Tulsa, Wagoner, Washington, Washita, Woods, and Woodward Counties. e. Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the States of Illinois and Iowa, is assigned to Keokuk. Adams, Brown, Fulton, Hancock, Mason, McDonough, and Pike (northwest of a line bounded by U.S. Route 54 northeast to State Route 107; State Route 107 northeast to State Route 104; State Route 104 east to the eastern Pike County line) Counties, Illinois. Davis, Lee, and Van Buren Counties, Iowa. f. Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the States of Michigan and Ohio, is assigned to Michigan. Bounded on the North by the northern Michigan State line; Bounded on the East by the eastern Michigan State line south and east to State Route 53; State Route 53 south to State Route 46; State Route 46 west to Sheridan Road; Sheridan Road south to Barnes Road; Barnes Road west to State Route 15; State Route 15 south to the Genesee County line; the northern Genesee County line west to the Shiawassee County line; the northern Shiawassee County line west to State Route 52; State Route 52 south to State Route 21; State Route 21 west to Clinton County; the eastern and northern Clinton County lines west to U.S. Route 27; U.S. Route 27 south to U.S. Route 127; U.S. Route 127 south to the Michigan-Ohio State line. In Ohio, the northern State line east to the eastern Fulton County line; the eastern Fulton, Henry, and Putnam County lines; the eastern Allen County line south to the northern Hardin County line; the northern Hardin County line east to U.S. Route 68; U.S. Route 68 south to State Route 47; Bounded on the South by State Route 47 west-southwest to Interstate 75 (excluding all of Sidney, Ohio); Interstate 75 south to the Shelby County line; the southern and western Shelby County lines; the southern Mercer County line; and Bounded on the West by the Ohio-Indiana State line from the southern Mercer County line to the northern Williams County line; in Michigan, by the southern Michigan State line west to the Branch County line; the western Branch County line north to the Kalamazoo County line; the southern Kalamazoo and Van Buren County lines west to the Michigan State line; the western Michigan State line north to the northern Michigan State line. Michigan's assigned geographic area does not include the following grain elevators inside Michigan's area which has been and will continue to be serviced by the following official agencies: Detroit Grain Inspection Service, Inc.: Caldonia Farmers Elevator, St. Johns, Clinton County, Michigan and Northeast Indiana Grain Inspection, Inc.: E.M.P. Coop, Payne, Paulding County, Ohio. g. Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the States of Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas, is assigned to Midsouth. The entire State of Arkansas. The entire State of Mississippi, except those export port locations within the State. Carroll, Chester, Crockett, Dyer, Fayette, Gibson, Hardeman, Haywood, Henderson, Lauderdale, Madison, McNairy, Shelby, and Tipton Counties, Tennessee. Bowie and Cass Counties, Texas. The following grain elevators, located outside of the above contiguous geographic area, are part of this geographic area assignment: Cargill, Inc., Tiptonville, Lake County, Tennessee (located inside Cairo Grain Inspection Agency, Inc.'s, area). h. Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the States of Iowa and Nebraska, is assigned to Omaha. Bounded on the North by Nebraska State Route 91 from the western Washington County line east to U.S. Route 30; U.S. Route 30 east to the Missouri River; the Missouri River north to Iowa State Route 175; Iowa State Route 175 east to Iowa State Route 37; Iowa State Route 37 southeast to the eastern Monona County line; Bounded on the East by the eastern Monona County line; the southern Monona County line west to Iowa State Route 183; Iowa State Route 183 south to the Pottawattamie County line; the northern and eastern Pottawattamie County lines; the southern Pottawattamie County line west to M47; M47 south to Iowa State Route 48; Iowa State Route 48 south to the Montgomery County line; Bounded on the South by the southern Montgomery County line; the southern Mills County line west to Interstate 29; Interstate 29 north to U.S. Route 34; U.S. Route 34 west to the Missouri River; the Missouri River north to the Sarpy County line (in Nebraska); the southern Sarpy County line; the southern Saunders County line west to U.S. Route 77; and Bounded on the West by U.S. Route 77 north to the Platte River; the Platte River southeast to the Douglas County line; the northern Douglas County line east; the western Washington County line northwest to Nebraska State Route 91. The following grain elevators, located outside of the above contiguous geographic area, are part of this geographic area assignment: Hancock Elevator, Elliot, Montgomery County, Iowa; Hancock Elevator (2 elevators), Griswold, Cass County, Iowa (located inside Central Iowa Grain Inspection Service, Inc.'s, area); United Farmers Coop, Rising City, Butler County, Nebraska; United Farmers Coop, Shelby, Polk County, Nebraska (located inside Fremont Grain Inspection Department, Inc.'s, area); and Goode Seed & Grain, McPaul, Fremont County, Iowa; Haveman Grain, Murray, Cass County, Nebraska (located inside Lincoln Inspection Service, Inc.'s, area). Omaha's assigned geographic area does not include the following grain elevators inside Omaha's area which have been and will continue to be serviced by the following official agency: Fremont Grain Inspection Department, Inc.: Farmers Cooperative, and Krumel Grain and Storage, both in Wahoo, Saunders County, Nebraska. 2. *Opportunity for designation.* Interested persons, including Champaign, Detroit, Eastern Iowa, Enid, Keokuk, Michigan, Midsouth, and Omaha are hereby given the opportunity to apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of Section 7(f) of the Act and section 800.196(d) of the regulations issued thereunder. Designation in the specified geographic areas is for the period beginning April 1, 2007, and ending March 31, 2010. Persons wishing to apply for designation should contact the Compliance Division at the address listed above for forms and information, or obtain applications at the GIPSA Web site, *www.gipsa.usda.gov.* 3. *Request for Comments.* GIPSA also is publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to present comments on the quality of services for the Champaign, Detroit, Eastern Iowa, Enid, Keokuk, Michigan, Midsouth, and Omaha official agencies. Substantive comments citing reasons and pertinent data for support or objection to the designation of the applicants will be considered in the designation process. All comments must be submitted to the Compliance Division at the above address. Applications, comments, and other available information will be considered in determining which applicant will be designated. Authority: Pub. L. 94-582, 90 Stat. 2867, as amended (7 U.S.C. 71 *et seq.* ). David R. Shipman, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. [FR Doc. E6-14817 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance AGENCY: Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice and opportunity for public comment. Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2341 *et seq.* ), the Economic Development Administration
(EDA)has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. EDA has initiated separate investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each firm contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm. List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance for the Period July 27, 2006 Through August 30, 2006 Firm Address Date petition accepted Product GasTech Engineering, Inc 1007 E. Admiral Boulevard, Tulsa, OK 74145 7/27/06 Oil and gas production equipment. Norgren, Inc 5400 South Delaware Street, Littleton, CO 80120 8/4/06 Motion and fluid control equipment. Mega Manufacturing, Inc 401 S. Washington Street, Hutchinson, KS 67501 8/4/06 Metal shearing and fabrication machinery. COBE Cardiovascular, Inc 14401 W 65th Way, Arvada, CO 80004 8/4/06 Electrosurgical products used in open heart surgery. El Encanto, Inc. dba Bueno Foods
(JV)2001 4th Street SW., Albuquerque, NM 87102 8/7/06 Vegetable products, spices, tortillas. Valley Oak Cabinets, Inc 7050 97th Plaza Circle, Omaha, NE 68122 8/14/06 Wood kitchen cabinets and wood doors. Bra-Vor Tool and Die Company, Inc 11189 Murray Road, Meadville, PA 8/23/06 Stamped metal parts. Alumina Ceramic Components, Inc 4532 Route 982, Latrobe, PA 15650 8/23/06 Industrial ceramic components. Capps Shoe Company, Inc 3715 Mayflower Drive, Lynchburg, VA 24501 8/23/06 Men's and women's shoes. Metal Edge International, Inc 337 West Walnut Street, North Wales, PA 19454 8/23/06 Specialty packaging products. National Graphics, Inc 2711 Miami Street, St. Louis, MO 63118 8/29/06 Coated inkjet media. Discovery Plastics, LLC 3607 28th Avenue, NE., Miami, OK 74354 8/29/06 Automotive plastic injection molding parts. George Gordon Associates, Inc 12 Continental Boulevard, Merrimack, NH 03054 8/29/06 Packing and wrapping machinery. Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Office of Chief Counsel, Room 7005, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten
(10)calendar days following publication of this notice. Please follow the procedures set forth in Section 315.9 of EDA's interim final rule (70 FR 47002) for procedures for requesting a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official program number and title of the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance. Dated: August 30, 2006. Barry Bird, Chief Counsel. [FR Doc. E6-14815 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-24-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-863] Honey from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2006. SUMMARY: On June 21, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) received a request to conduct a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the People=s Republic of China (“PRC”) from Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Bloom”). We have determined that this request meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for the initiation of a new shipper review. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Blozy or Anya Naschak, 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)482-5403 or
(202)482-6375, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department received a timely request from Shanghai Bloom in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) and 19 CFR 351.214(c), for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC, which has a December annual anniversary month, and a June semi-annual anniversary month. Shanghai Bloom identified itself as the exporter of honey produced by Linxiang Jindeya Bee-Keeping Co., Ltd. (“Jindeya”). As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii)(A), Shanghai Bloom certified that it did not export honey to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”), and that it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer which exported honey to the United States during the POI. Jindeya also certified that it did not export honey to the United States during the POI, and that it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer which exported honey to the United States during the POI. Furthermore, the two companies have also certified that their activities are not controlled by the government of the PRC, satisfying the requirements of 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Shanghai Bloom submitted documentation establishing the date on which the subject merchandise was first entered for consumption in the United States, the volume of that first shipment and any subsequent shipments, and the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. The Department conducted Customs database queries and analyzed Customs entry packages to confirm that the shipment of Shanghai Bloom had officially entered the United States via assignment of an entry date in the Customs database by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”). In addition, the Department confirmed the existence of Shanghai Bloom and its U.S. customer. We note that although Shanghai Bloom submitted documentation regarding the volume of its shipment, and the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States, CBP entry documents and our Customs database query show that Shanghai Bloom's shipment entered the United States shortly after the anniversary month. Under 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii), when the sale of the subject merchandise occurs within the period of review (“POR”), but the entry occurs after the normal POR, the POR may be extended unless it would be likely to prevent the completion of the review within the time limits set by the Department's regulations. The preamble to the Department's regulations states that both the entry and the sale should occur during the POR, and that under “appropriate” circumstances the Department has the flexibility to extend the POR. *Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27319-27320 (May 19, 1997). In this instance, Shanghai Bloom's shipment entered in the month following the end of the POR. The Department does not find that this delay prevents the completion of the review within the time limits set by the Department's regulations. On June 22, 2006, we requested from CBP the entry package for Shanghai Bloom, and we received the entry documentation from CBP. However, we found certain discrepancies between the documentation provided by Shanghai Bloom in its request for a new shipper review and the entry package we received from CBP. 1 On July 20, 2006, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302(b), the Department extended the time limit to initiate this new shipper review until August 31, 2006, in order to provide Shanghai Bloom an opportunity to explain or resolve the inconsistencies in the entry documentation. 2 On August 7, 2006, we received documentation from Shanghai Bloom, including invoice and shipment documentation, to demonstrate that Jindeya was the producer of the subject merchandise, and a revised Producer Certificate, which contains a Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) registration number and lists Jindeya as the producer. Shanghai Bloom explained that listing Shanghai Bloom on the Producer Certificate was an inadvertent error. 1 *See* Memorandum to the File from Anya Naschak, Senior Case Analyst, through Carrie Blozy, Program Manager, Re: Honey from the People's Republic of China: Entry Packages from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), dated July 20, 2006 (“CBP Memo”). 2 *See* Letter to Shanghai Bloom from Carrie Blozy: Extension of Initiation Date of New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), dated July 20, 2006 (“Initiation Extension Letter”). On August 9, 2006, the Department issued a letter to Shanghai Bloom, noting that section 801(m) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 381(m)), amended by section 307 of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, requires prior notification and the use of an FDA registration number, which should be assigned to “the owner, operator, or agent in charge of a domestic or foreign facility that manufactures/processes, packs, or holds food for human or animal consumption in the U.S., or an individual authorized by one of them, must register that facility with FDA” ( *see* http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/dms/fsbtac12.html), and requesting that Shanghai Bloom submit a copy of the completed online FDA Registration that generated the FDA Registration number appearing on Shanghai Bloom's Producer Certifications. 3 On August 11, 2006, Shanghai Bloom submitted the FDA Registration information, which listed Shanghai Bloom as the foreign facility, and contained the same FDA Registration number appearing on the Producer Certification. 3 “ *See* Letter to Shanghai Bloom from Carrie Blozy: Request for Clarification on Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd.'s Request for Initiation of a New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), dated August 9, 2006. On August 17, 2006, the Department requested that Shanghai Bloom explain the discrepancy between the Producer Certification that lists Jindeya as the producer, and the FDA Registration number that was issued to Shanghai Bloom. 4 On August 21, 2006, Shanghai Bloom submitted a revised Producer Certification, which listed Jindeya's recently acquired FDA Registration number, and explained that, due to a misunderstanding of the requirements of the form, Shanghai Bloom inadvertently put its own name and FDA Registration number on the Producer Certificate, but that Jindeya was the actual producer of the merchandise exported to the United States during the POR. 4 See Letter to Shanghai Bloom from Carrie Blozy: Request for Clarification on Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd.'s Request for Initiation of a New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), dated August 17, 2006. Based on the information submitted by Shanghai Bloom on August 7, 2006, August 11, 2006, and August 21, 2006, we find that Shanghai Bloom has sufficiently demonstrated for purposes of initiation that Jindeya was the producer of the honey it exported to the United States. In the course of this new shipper review, we will further examine this issue. Initiation of Review In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), and based on information on the record, we are initiating a new shipper review for Shanghai Bloom. *See* Memorandum to the File through James C. Doyle, New Shipper Initiation Checklist, dated August 25, 2006. The Department will conduct this new shipper review according to the deadlines set forth in section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B), the POR for a new shipper review, initiated in the month immediately following the semi-annual anniversary month, will be the six-month period immediately preceding the semi-annual anniversary month. As discussed above, under 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii), when the sale of the subject merchandise occurs within the POR, but the entry occurs after the normal POR, the POR may be extended. Therefore, the POR for the new shipper review of Shanghai Bloom is December 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. Pursuant to the Department's regulations, in cases involving non-market economies, the Department requires that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate provide evidence of *de jure* and *de facto* absence of government control over the company's export activities. Accordingly, we will issue a questionnaire to Shanghai Bloom, including a separate rates section. The review will proceed if the responses provide sufficient indication that Shanghai Bloom is not subject to either *de jure* or *de facto* government control with respect to its exports of honey. However, if Shanghai Bloom does not demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate, then the company will be deemed not separate from other companies that exported during the POI and the new shipper review will be rescinded as to Shanghai Bloom. On August 17, 2006, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 4) was signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4 temporarily suspends the authority of the Department to instruct CBP to collect a bond or other security in lieu of a cash deposit in new shipper reviews. Therefore, the posting of a bond under Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act in lieu of a cash deposit is not available in this case. Importers of subject merchandise exported by Shanghai Bloom and manufactured by Jindeya must continue to post a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties on each entry of subject merchandise at the current PRC-wide rate of 212.39 percent. Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act and sections 351.214(d) and 351.221(c)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. Dated: August 30, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-14846 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-841] Structural Steel Beams from Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from the Committee for Fair Beam Imports, Nucor Corp., Nucor-Yamato Steel Co., Steel Dynamics, Inc. and TXI-Chaparral Steel Co., (collectively, petitioners), INI Steel Company (INI), and Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. (DSM), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on structural steel beams from the Republic of Korea (Korea). This review covers INI and DSM, manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise. The period of review
(POR)is August 1, 2004 through July 31, 2005. We preliminarily determine that INI has sold subject merchandise at less than normal value
(NV)during the POR. We also preliminarily determine that DSM has not sold subject merchandise at less than NV. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit arguments in this segment of the proceeding 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. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maryanne Burke or Steve Bezirganian, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-5604 or
(202)482-1131 respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 1, 2005 the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on structural steel beams from Korea. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 44085 (August 1, 2005). On August 31, 2005 petitioners requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of DSM, a Korean producer of subject merchandise. Also, on August 31, 2005, DSM and INI requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of their sales of subject merchandise during the POR. On September 28, 2005 the Department published a notice of initiation of a review of structural steel beams from Korea covering the period August 1, 2004 through July 31, 2005. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). On October 3, 2005 the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaires to INI and to DSM. Because we disregarded sales of certain products made by INI at prices below the cost of production
(COP)in what was, at that time, the most recently completed review of structural steel beams from Korea ( *see Structural Steel Beams from Korea; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 6837 (February 9, 2005)), we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect INI made sales of the foreign like product at prices below the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, from the outset of this review we required INI to respond to section D of the questionnaire. On November 4, 2005, the Department granted approval of INI's October 12, 2005 request to shift its cost reporting period for section D. The Department had not disregarded sales of structural steel beams made by DSM at prices below the COP in the most recently completed review of DSM; therefore, DSM was not initially required to respond to section D of the questionnaire. However, on December 19, 2005 petitioners alleged that DSM sold the foreign like product at prices below its COP. On January 9, 2006, the Department initiated a cost investigation of DSM based upon the determination that petitioners' allegation established reasonable grounds to believe or suspect sales below cost, and instructed DSM to respond to section D of the questionnaire. From November 2005 through June 2006, INI and DSM submitted timely responses to the initial questionnaire and to the Department's subsequent supplemental questionnaires. Because it was not practicable to complete this review within the normal time frame, on April 17, 2006, we published in the **Federal Register** our notice of the extension of time limits for this review. *Structural Steel Beams from the Republic of Korea; Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 19714 (April 17, 2006). This extension established the deadline for these preliminary results as August 31, 2006. Period of Review The POR is from August 1, 2004 to July 31, 2005. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are doubly-symmetric shapes, whether hot- or cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, formed or finished, having at least one dimension of at least 80 mm (3.2 inches or more), whether of carbon or alloy (other than stainless) steel, and whether or not drilled, punched, notched, painted, coated or clad. These products include, but are not limited to, wide-flange beams (“W” shapes), bearing piles (“HP” shapes), standard beams (“S” or “I” shapes) and “M” shapes. All products that meet the physical and metallurgical descriptions provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise excluded. The following products are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this order: structural steel beams greater than 400 pounds per linear foot or with a web or section height (also known as depth) over 40 inches. The merchandise subject to this review is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7216.32.00000, 7216.33.0030, 7216.33.0060, 7216.33.0090, 7216.50.0000, 7216.61.0000, 7216.69.0000, 7216.99.0010, 7216.99.0090, 7228.70.3010, 7228.70.3041 and 7228.70.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered all structural steel beams produced by DSM and INI covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section of this notice, *supra* , which were sold in the home market during the reporting period for home market sales, to be the foreign like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to structural steel beams products sold in the United States. In making product comparisons, we matched products based on the physical characteristics identified in our questionnaire and reported by DSM and INI as follows (listed in order of preference): hot-formed or cold-formed, shape/size (section depth), strength/grade and whether or not coated. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the questionnaire, or to constructed value (CV), as appropriate. Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of structural steel beams from Korea to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the export price
(EP)or the constructed export price
(CEP)to NV, as described in the “Export Price,” “Constructed Export Price,” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we compared the EPs and CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted-average NVs of the foreign like product where there were sales at prices above the COP, as discussed in the “Cost of Production” section below. Export Price and Constructed Export Price Section 772(a) of the Tariff Act defines EP as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States as adjusted under subsection (c).” Section 772(b) of the Tariff Act defines CEP as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter as adjusted under subsections
(c)and (d).” For the purposes of this administrative review, INI has classified all of its U.S. sales as EP sales. DSM has classified all of its U.S. sales as CEP sales. INI For INI we calculated the price of U.S. sales made prior to importation to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the reported gross unit price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight from plant to warehouse, foreign inland freight from plant/warehouse to port of exportation, foreign warehousing, international freight, U.S. duties, and U.S. brokerage expenses. We made an addition to U.S. price for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. *See* Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Structural Steel Beams from Korea: Preliminary Results for INI Steel Company (INI Preliminary Analysis Memorandum) from Steve Bezirganian to the File, dated August 31, 2006. DSM For DSM we calculated CEP based on the prices from DSM's U.S. affiliate, Dongkuk International, Inc.
(DKA)to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of export, foreign brokerage and handling international freight, marine insurance, other U.S. transportation expenses ( *i.e.* , U.S. brokerage and handling charges), and U.S. customs duty. Additionally, we made deductions for expenses that bear a direct relationship to the sale in the United States ( *i.e.* , credit, and other direct selling expenses) pursuant to section 772(d)(1)(B). We added an amount for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. For CEP sales we also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772 (d)(3) of the Tariff Act. We deducted the profit allocated to expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and 772(d)(2) of the Tariff Act in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Tariff Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Tariff Act, we computed profit based on total revenue realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity, based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and home markets. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade
(LOT)as the CEP transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For EP sales, the LOT is also the level of the starting price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. For CEP sales, the LOT is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and that difference affects price comparability (as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction), we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the differences in the levels between NV and CEP sales affect price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act (the CEP offset provision). *See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes From Canada* , 67 FR 8781 (February 26, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 8; *see also Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 17406, 17410 (April 6, 2005), unchanged in *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil* , 70 FR 58683 (October 7, 2005). In identifying LOTs for CEP, we considered only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. *See Micron Tech., Inc. v. United States* , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Generally, if the reported LOTs are the same in the home and U.S. markets, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports LOTs that are different among categories of sales, the functions and activities should be dissimilar. *See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico; Final Results of Administrative Review* , 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 6. In implementing these principles in this administrative review, we obtained information from INI and DSM about the marketing stages involved in its reported U.S. and home market sales, including descriptions of the selling activities performed for each channel of distribution. INI INI indicated its home market sales were made through two channels (sales to unaffiliated distributors, and sales to affiliated and unaffiliated end-users) and its U.S. sales were through one channel (to unaffiliated U.S. customers). INI did not claim any distinct LOTs, and its descriptions of selling functions indicated very little variation across channels and markets. Based upon the information on record, we have determined that there is only one LOT in both markets for INI. *See* INI Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. DSM DSM claimed one LOT in the home market. DSM reported it sold through one channel of distribution whereby merchandise was sold directly from its factories to unaffiliated customers (distributors and end-users). *See* DSM's November 7, 2005 section A response at 15. DSM also claimed only one LOT in the U.S. market, reporting it sold through one channel of distribution in the United States. DSM's sales were made directly from its production facilities in Korea to its U.S. affiliate, DKA, which resold the merchandise to the unaffiliated U.S. customer (classified as an end-user). *See* DSM's November 7, 2005 section A response at 15. DSM maintains the constructed LOT from DSM to DKA is much less advanced than the actual LOT of home market sales, claiming DSM performs a limited range of selling activities on sales to the United States. *See* DSM's November 7, 2005 section A response at 19 and DSM's January 20, 2006 supplemental questionnaire response at Appendix SA-16. However, from our analysis of the information on record, we have determined that most selling functions were performed at an equal level of intensity in both the home and U.S. markets. *See* Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Structural Steel Beams from Korea: Preliminary Results for Dongkuk Steel Mill Company, Ltd. (DSM Preliminary Analysis Memorandum) from Maryanne Burke to the File, dated August 31, 2006. Therefore, we found no basis for accepting a distinct, less advanced LOT for U.S. sales than for home market sales and conclude no LOT adjustment or CEP offset is warranted. Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Market To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( *i.e.* , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared the respondents' volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. Because both respondents' aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of their aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined the home market was viable for both INI and DSM. *See* INI's June 30, 2006 supplemental questionnaire response at Exhibit A-48 and DSM's December 2, 2005 section B response at Exhibit SA-1. B. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test The Department may calculate NV based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is comparable to the prices at which sales are made to parties not affiliated with the respondent, ( *i.e.* , sales at arm's-length). *See* 19 CFR 351.403(c). Sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's-length prices are excluded from our analysis because we consider them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. *See* 19 CFR 351.102(b). INI reported it had made home market sales to affiliated end-users. To test whether INI's sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared on a model-specific basis the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all direct selling expenses, discounts and rebates, movement charges, and packing. Where applicable, we also made adjustments to gross unit price for reported billing adjustments. Where prices to the affiliated party were, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of identical or comparable merchandise to the unaffiliated parties, we determined the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. In accordance with the Department's practice, we disregarded sales to affiliated parties that we determined were not made at arm's length. *See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186, 69194 (November 15, 2002). We found that an INI affiliated home market customer failed the arm's-length test and, in accordance with the Department's practice, we excluded sales to this affiliate from our analysis. DSM reported no sales to affiliated parties in the home market. C. Cost of Production Analysis In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP for each model based on the sum of material and fabrication costs for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling expenses, general and administrative (G&A) expenses, interest expenses and packing costs. The Department relied on the COP data reported by INI and DSM; however, we made adjustments to INI's G&A and financial expense ratio (INTEX). *See* the Department's Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - INI Steel Company from Frederick W. Mines to Neal M. Halper (INI Cost Calculation Memorandum), dated August 31, 2006. For DSM, we made an adjustment to its reported INTEX ratio. *See* the Department's Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Dongkuk Steel Mill Company, Ltd. from Trinette Boyd to Neal M. Halper (DSM Cost Calculation Memorandum), dated August 31, 2006. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and
(B)of the Tariff Act, whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act, where less than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales of a given model were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's home market sales of a given model were at prices less than COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because:
(1)they were made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities,” in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C)of the Tariff Act, and
(2)based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act. To determine whether INI made sales at prices below COP, we compared the product-specific COP figures to home market prices net of reported billing adjustments, discounts and rebates, and applicable movement expenses of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Tariff Act. Our cost test for INI revealed that for home market sales of certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales volume (by weight) of those models were at prices below COP. Therefore, we retained all such sales observations in our analysis and used them in the calculation of NV. Our cost test also indicated that for other models of subject merchandise produced by INI, 20 percent or more of the home market sales volume (by weight) were sold at prices below COP within an extended period of time and were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, for INI we excluded these below-cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales in the calculation of NV. To determine whether DSM made sales at prices below COP, we compared the product-specific COP figures to home market prices net of discounts and rebates and applicable movement charges of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Tariff Act. We found DSM did not have any models for which 20 percent or more of sales volume (by weight) were below cost during the POR. Therefore, we did not disregard any of DSM's home market sales and included all such sales in our calculation of NV. D. Constructed Value In accordance with section 773(e) of the Tariff Act, for both INI and DSM, we calculated CV based on the sum of the respondent's material and fabrication costs, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the COP component of CV as described above in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. For selling expenses, we used the weighted-average home market direct and indirect selling expenses. For these preliminary results the Department did not use CV in its margin calculation analysis for either INI or DSM. E. Price-to-Price Comparisons We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers and prices to affiliated customers we determined to be at arm's length for home market sale observations that passed the cost test, and made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act. For INI we made adjustments to gross unit price, where applicable, for billing adjustments, discounts and rebates and made deductions, where applicable, for foreign inland freight ( *i.e.* , inland freight from plant to distribution warehouse), warehousing expenses and inland freight from plant/distribution warehouse to customer, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B)of the Tariff Act, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing expenses. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of INI merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (COS), where applicable, for commissions, home market credit expenses, warranty expenses, and U.S. imputed credit expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For DSM, we based NV on the home market prices to unaffiliated purchasers. We accounted for billing adjustments, interest revenue and discounts and rebates, where appropriate. We made deductions for foreign inland freight, insurance, and handling. We also removed home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B)of the Tariff Act. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in COS, where applicable, for imputed credit expenses and warranty expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Tariff Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-average dumping margins for the period August 1, 2004 through July 31, 2005 to be as follows: Manufacturer / Exporter Margin INI Steel Company 1.91% Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. 0.00% The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty days of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date per 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments in these proceedings 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. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments provided the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such argument on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues in any such case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Upon completion of this review the Department will determine, and CBP will assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1) we have calculated importer-specific (or, where the importer was unknown, customer-specific) *ad valorem* assessment rates for merchandise exported by INI and DSM which is subject to this review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by INI and DSM for which they did not know their merchandise would be exported by another company to the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the All-Others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. Revocation of the Order - Cash Deposits Not Required On March 15, 2006, the United States International Trade Commission
(ITC)determined that the revocation of the antidumping duty orders on structural steel beams from Korea would not likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Consequently, the Department has revoked this order, effective August 18, 2005. *See Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: Structural Steel Beams from Japan and South Korea* , 71 FR 15375 (March 28, 2006). Therefore, there will be no need to issue new cash deposit instructions for this administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Dated: August 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-14848 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-427-810] Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from France AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (“CORE”) from France for the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. We preliminarily find that the net subsidy rate for the company under review is *de minimis* . *See* the “Preliminary Results of Review” section of this notice, *infra* . Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. ( *See* the “Public Comment” section, *infra* ). EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4793. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 17, 1993, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the CVD order on CORE from France. *See Countervailing Duty Order and Amendment to Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Steel Products from France* , 58 FR 43759 (August 17, 1993). On August 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this CVD order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 44085 (August 1, 2005). On August 31, 2005, we received a timely request for review from Duferco Coating S.A. and Sorral S.A. (collectively, “Duferco Sorral”), a French producer and exporter of subject merchandise, and from the United States Steel Corporation (“the petitioner”). On September 28, 2005, the Department initiated an administrative review of the CVD order on CORE from France, covering the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. * See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part * , 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). On October 4, 2005, the Department issued a questionnaire to Duferco Sorral, the Government of France (“the GOF”), and the European Commission (“the EC”); we received their respective questionnaire responses on December 7, 2005, and December 13, 2005. On April 27, June 14, June 21, July 13, July 17, and August 4, 2006, we issued supplemental questionnaires to Duferco Sorral, the GOF, and the EC. We received supplemental questionnaire responses from Duferco Sorral on May 25, July 7, July 26, and August 9, 2006; from the GOF on May 25, July 7, July 26, and August 18, 2006; and from the EC on May 22, June 27, and July 20, 2006. On April 17, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an extension of the deadline for the preliminary results. *See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from France and the Republic of Korea: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 19714 (April 17, 2006). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review was specifically requested. The only company subject to this review is Duferco Sorral. This review covers 18 programs. Scope of the Order This order covers cold-rolled (“cold-reduced”) carbon steel flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in this order are corrosion-resistant flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling”) for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this order are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from this order are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from this order are certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%%-60%%-20%% ratio. These HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive. Period of Review The period for which we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. Background and Methodology Information I. Background A. *Company History* Duferco Sorral 1 is wholly owned by Duferco Belgium S.A. (“Duferco Belgium”), a Belgian holding company which is part of the Duferco Group, a Swiss conglomerate. Duferco Sorral is affiliated with Duferco S.A., a Swiss corporation that buys and sells steel products of the Duferco Group, including Duferco Sorral. For sales of CORE to the United States during the POR, Duferco Sorral sold the subject merchandise to Duferco S.A., which then resold the products to Duferco Steel, Inc., an affiliated U.S. sales company. 1 Duferco is located in the Picardie region, which is the northern part of France. Sorral is located in the Alsace region, which is on the eastern border of France. There are 26 regions in France. Duferco Belgium purchased Duferco (formerly known as Beautor S.A. (“Beautor”)) 2 and Sorral from Arcelor S.A. in 2003. Arcelor was created through the merger of the French company Usinor S.A. (“Usinor”) 3 with the Luxembourg company Arbed S.A. and the Spanish company Aceralia Corporacion Siderurgica S.A. The merger became effective in February 2002, upon approval of the EC. As a condition for the merger, the EC required the divestiture of certain holdings, including Usinor's cold-rolling and electro-galvanizing facilities in Beautor, France ( *i.e.* , Beautor) and the hot-dipped galvanized and organic coating facilities in Strasbourg, France ( *i.e.* , Sorral). 4 The purpose of the divestiture was to ensure that Usinor/Arcelor no longer controlled the facilities and could not hinder competition in the steel industry. According to the EC's instructions, the purchaser of Beautor and Sorral was to be a viable existing or potential competitor, independent of the parties, and having the incentive to maintain and develop the divested businesses as active competitive forces in competition with the seller. 5 Arcelor proposed Duferco Belgium as a suitable purchaser for Beautor and Sorral. In February 2003, the EC approved the private-to-private sale between Arcelor and Duferco Belgium. 2 Beautor S.A. was transformed into Duferco Coating S.A. on March 31, 2004, by the shareholders. This transformation was retroactive to October 1, 2003, the opening day of the company's fiscal year. 3 Usinor, a formerly government-owned entity, was the only company reviewed in the underlying investigation. *See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Certain Steel Products from France* , 58 FR 37304 (July 9, 1993). Usinor was later privatized between 1995 and 1997. *See* Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Section 129 Determination: Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from France; Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of Countervailing Duty Order, dated October 24, 2003. 4 *See* “Non-Confidential Version of the Commitments to the European Commission: Case No. COMP/ECSC 1351 - Aceralia/Arbed/Usinor,” at 1-2, contained within the June 27, 2006, Memorandum to the File concerning the Placement of Public Documents on the Record of the Review. This public document is available on the public record in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), located in the main Commerce Building in room B-099. 5 *Id* . at 4-5. B. *Change-in-Ownership* As explained in the “Company History” section above, Duferco Belgium purchased Beautor and Sorral, previously Usinor facilities, from Arcelor. The Department has previously determined that Usinor received countervailable subsidies. *See* Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Section 129 Determination: Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from France; Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of Countervailing Duty Order, dated October 24, 2003. In this review, Duferco Sorral reported that Beautor received subsidies over a 15-year Average Useful Life (“AUL”). For purposes of these preliminarily results, we find that the benefits from any allocable, non-recurring, pre-sale subsidies to Beautor and Sorral from the GOF and the EC are fully extinguished prior to the POR. Therefore, as this change in ownership could have no impact on any countervailable subsidy benefits in the POR, we are not making any findings in this review as to the nature or terms of this sale. II. Subsidies Valuation Information A. *Allocation Period* Under 19 CFR 351.524(b), non-recurring subsidies are allocated over a period corresponding to the AUL of the renewable physical assets used to produce the subject merchandise. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2), there is a rebuttable presumption that the AUL will be taken from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service's 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System (“IRS Tables”), as updated by the Department of Treasury. For the subject merchandise, the IRS Tables prescribe an AUL of 15 years. No interested party has claimed that the AUL of 15 years is unreasonable. Further, for non-recurring subsidies, we have applied the “0.5 percent expense test” described in 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2). Under this test, we compare the amount of subsidies approved under a given program in a particular year to sales (total sales or total export sales, as appropriate) for the same year. If the amount of subsidies is less than 0.5 percent of the relevant sales, then the benefits are allocated to the year of receipt rather than allocated over the AUL period. Analysis of Programs I. Program Preliminarily Determined Not To Confer Countervailable Benefits During the POR A. *European Regional Development Fund* The European Regional Development Fund (“ERDF”) was created pursuant to the authority in Article 130 of the Treaty of Rome to reduce regional disparities in socio-economic performance within the European Community. The ERDF program provides grants to companies located within regions that meet the criteria of Objective 1 (underdeveloped regions), Objective 2 (declining industrial regions), or Objective 5(b) (declining agricultural regions). Duferco Sorral reported that Beautor was approved for an ERDF grant under Objective 2 in 1998 and 1999. 6 6 See Duferco Sorral's December 7, 2005, questionnaire response at 12. See also the GOF's December 7, 2005, questionnaire response at “European Development Regional Fund” section. In the *Pasta from Italy Investigation* , the Department determined that ERDF grants constitute a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Pasta from Italy* , 61 FR 30288, 30294 (June 14, 1996) (“ *Pasta from Italy Investigation* ”); *see also Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Seventh Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 70657 (December 7, 2004) (“ * Pasta from Italy 7 th Review * ”), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at “European Regional Development Fund Grants” within “Programs Determined to Confer Subsidies During the POR” section. Specifically, the Department determined that the ERDF grants are a direct transfer of funds from the government bestowing a benefit in the amount of the grant within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. The ERDF grants were also found to be regionally specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. In the *Pasta from Italy Investigation* , we determined that the ERDF grants are non-recurring benefits. In this review, no new information was provided on this program that would warrant reconsideration of our determination that these grants confer a countervailable subsidy or cause us to depart from treating the grants as non-recurring. Therefore, consistent with the *Pasta from Italy Investigation* and * Pasty from Italy 7 th Review * , we are treating Beautor's ERDF grants as non-recurring. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), we have applied the “0.5 percent expense test.” 7 The calculations demonstrate that the total amount approved for each grant is less than 0.5 percent of Beautor's relevant sales ( *i.e.* , total sales) for the respective year in which each grant was approved. Because the amount of subsidies is less than 0.5 percent of the relevant sales, we have expensed the benefit from each ERDF grant in the year of receipt rather than allocate the benefits over the AUL period. *See* the August 31, 2006, Memorandum to the File concerning the Preliminary Calculations for the 2004 Administrative Review of Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from France. 8 Therefore, no benefit from the ERDF grants was conferred to Duferco Sorral during the POR. 7 For more information, see “Allocation Period,” supra. 8 A public version of the document is available on the public record in the CRU. II. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Countervailable A. Worker Training Contracts 9 9 In prior cases, the Department found Worker Training Contracts not to be countervailable. *See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France* , 64 FR 30774, 30782 (June 8, 1999) (“ *Sheet and Strip from France* ”) at “Work/Training Contracts.” *See also Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France* , 64 FR 73277, 73282 (“ *CTL France* ”) at “Investment/Operating Subsidies.” If a program is determined to be non-countervailable in a previous proceeding, the Department will not normally reconsider such a determination in future proceedings absent evidence potentially contradicting that determination. We preliminarily find that there is no information on the record of the instant case, including this segment of the proceeding, that warrants a change to our earlier finding that this program is not specific and, therefore, not countervailable. B. Seine-Normandy Water Agency Assistance The Seine-Normandy Water Agency (“SNWA”), a public institution with financial autonomy, 10 is administered jointly by the Ministries of the Environment and Finance. 11 The mission of SNWA, one of six water agencies in France, is to reduce and prevent pollution of the Seine River. To that end, SNWA provides financial assistance in the form of grants and loans to companies located along the Seine for projects dedicated to protecting, increasing, and improving the water resources, attaining quality requirements, and protecting against flooding (collectively referred hereto as “pollution prevention program”). 12 Pursuant to Article 14 and Article 14-1 of the Water Law of 1964, all polluting companies having plants located in the basin of the Seine River, regardless of their sector of activity, have the legal obligation to enter into the SNWA consortium and fund its activities through the payment of levies. 13 Article 14-1 establishes that the levies are proportional to the quantity of polluting waste the company is likely to produce during the production cycle. Companies which are in arrears are ineligible to receive assistance for pollution reduction projects. Duferco Sorral reported that Beautor received grants and long-term loans from SNWA over a 15-year AUL, and that Duferco Sorral itself received a grant in 2004. 10 *See* Article L-213-5 of the Environment Code at Annex 1 contained in the GOF's May 25, 2006, questionnaire response. 11 *See* Chapter 19 entitled “Seine-Normandy Basin, France” of UNESCO's study “The 1 st World Water Development Report: Water for People, Water for Life,” at footnote 17 on page 438, which is contained within the June 27, 2006, Memorandum to the File concerning “Placement of Public Documents on the Record of the Review.” 12 *See* the GOF's July 7, 2006, questionnaire response at Annex 2. 13 *See* the GOF's May 25, 2006, questionnaire response at Annex 1 for Article 14 and 14-1. We analyzed whether the benefits provided by SNWA's pollution prevention program are specific “in law or fact” within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act. We preliminarily determine that, under section 771(5A)(D)(ii) of the Act, the program is not *de jure* specific according to the criteria for determining which companies are eligible for benefits. These criteria are set forth in the Water Act of 1964 and companion legislation. We next examined whether the pollution prevention assistance distributed by SNWA is *de facto* specific. Pursuant to section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act, a subsidy is *de facto* specific if one or more of the following factors exists:
(1)the number of enterprises, industries, or groups which use a subsidy is limited;
(2)there is predominant use of a subsidy by an enterprise, industry, or group;
(3)an enterprise, industry, or group receives a disproportionately large amount of the subsidy; or
(4)the manner in which the authority providing a subsidy has exercised discretion indicates that an enterprise, industry, or group is favored over others. For the Picardie region, 14 where Beautor/Duferco is located, the GOF reported the number of companies which received assistance from SNWA for the years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. With the exception of 2003, in which 47 companies received assistance, 60 companies or more were recipients of assistance provided by SNWA in each of the other years. 15 The GOF also reported that no applicant was rejected. The amount of assistance provided to the steel industry ranged from a high of 8.5 percent in 2001 to a low of 0.4 percent in 2003. 16 During the POR, steel companies received assistance of € 69,000 for surface treatment, which was approximately 2.0 percent of the assistance provided by SNWA to companies in the Picardie region. 17 For 2004, the industrial groups located in the eight regions that compose SNWA's territory received pollution assistance totaling € 48.6 million, of which € 25.8 million was loans and € 22.8 million was grants. 18 Economic activity along the Seine River is diverse, consisting of the agro-food, automobile, chemical, metallurgy, oil refining, and paper industries in addition to farming and wine-production. 19 14 Picardie is one of the 26 regions of France and one of the eight regions in SNWA's territory. 15 *See* the GOF's July 26, 2006, questionnaire response at “Assistance provided by the Seine-Normandy Water Agency” section. 16 *See* the GOF's July 26, 2006, questionnaire response for 2001 at Annex 1, and July 7, 2006, questionnaire response for 2004 at Annex 1. 17 *See* the GOF's May 25, 2006, questionnaire response “Assistance provided by the Seine-Normandy Water Agency” section and Annex 2. 18 *See* August 10, 2006, Memorandum to the File concerning “Placement of Public Documents on the Record of the Review - Seine-Normandy Water Agency's Annual Report.” 19 *See* Chapter 19 entitled “Seine-Normandy Basin, France” of UNESCO's study “The 1 st World Water Development Report: Water for People, Water for Life,” at page 432, which is contained within the June 27, 2006, Memorandum to the File concerning ”Placement of Public Documents on the Record of the Review.” On this basis of these facts, we preliminarily find that the pollution prevention program is not limited based on the number of users nor is Duferco Sorral or the steel industry a predominant or disproportionate recipient of the total funding. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that this program is not specific and, therefore, we do not reach the issue of whether there is a financial contribution or benefit. Therefore, this program does not confer countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. 20 20 Even if we were preliminarily to determine that the program was specific for years prior to 2001, the grants which Beautor received would have been expensed in the year of receipt with no benefits allocable to the POR and the benefit provided by the long-term loans is less than 0.005 percent of Duferco Sorral's total sales for the POR. III. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Used We preliminarily determine that Duferco Sorral did not apply for or receive benefits under these programs during the POR: A. Investment Subsidies B. Long-Term Loans from Fonds de Developpement Economique et Social and Caisse Francaise de Developpement Industriel C. Assistance from Delegation a l'Amenagement du Territoire et a l'Action Regionale D. Financing from the Caisse des Depots et Consignations E. Preferential Loans from Local Economic (Regional) Development Agencies F. Regional Development Incentives G. European Coal and Steel Community Article 54 Loans H. European Social Fund I. ECSC Article 56 Conversion Loans, Interest Rebates, and Restructuring Grants J. Export Financing K. Grants from the River Dock Agency L. Loans from the Ministry of Research & Industry M. New Community Investment Loans N. Tax Subsidies under Article 39 O. Youthstart. Preliminary Results of Review In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we have calculated a subsidy rate for Duferco Sorral for calendar year 2004. We preliminarily determine that the net countervailable subsidy rate is 0.00 percent *ad valorem* . If the final results of this review remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review, to liquidate without regard to countervailing duties all shipments of subject merchandise produced by Duferco Sorral entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. The Department will also instruct CBP not to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties on all shipments of the subject merchandise produced by Duferco Sorral, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. We will also instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this order are those established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding. *See Certain Steel Products from France: Notice of Final Court Decision and Amended Final Determination of Countervailing Duty Investigation* , 64 FR 67561 (December 2, 1999). These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested. Public Comment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, case briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs, unless otherwise specified by the Department. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:
(1)a statement of the issues, and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide to the Department copies of the public version on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, 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 Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs, that is, 37 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. See 19 CFR 351.305(b)(3). The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of arguments made in any case or rebuttal briefs. This administrative review is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-14847 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-489-806] Certain Pasta from Turkey: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On June 9, 2006, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary results of the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Turkey for the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. *See Certain Pasta From Turkey: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 33439 (June 9, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). We preliminarily found that Gidasa Sabanci Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (“Gidasa”) did not receive countervailable subsidies during the period of review. We did not receive any comments on our preliminary results, and we have made no revisions. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Twyman or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3534 and
(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 24, 1996, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Turkey. *See Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Pasta from Turkey* , 61 FR 38546 (July 24, 1996). On June 9, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary results of the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Turkey for the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. *See Preliminary Results* . In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review of the order covers Gidasa, a producer and exporter of subject merchandise. In the *Preliminary Results* , we invited interested parties to submit briefs or request a hearing. The Department did not conduct a hearing in this review because none was requested, and no briefs were received. Scope of Order Covered by the order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds (2.27 kilograms) or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastases, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by this order is typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons or polyethylene or polypropylene bags, of varying dimensions. Excluded from the order are refrigerated, frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white. The merchandise under review is currently classifiable under subheading 1902.19.20 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Scope Ruling To date, the Department has issued the following scope ruling: On October 26, 1998, the Department self-initiated a scope inquiry to determine whether a package weighing over five pounds as a result of allowable industry tolerances may be within the scope of the countervailing duty order. On May 24, 1999, we issued a final scope ruling finding that, effective October 26, 1998, pasta in packages weighing or labeled up to (and including) five pounds four ounces is within the scope of the countervailing duty order. *See* Memorandum from John Brinkmann to Richard Moreland, dated May 24, 1999, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in Room B-099 of the main Commerce building. Period of Review The period of review (“POR”) for which we are measuring subsidies is from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. Final Results of Review As noted above, the Department received no comments concerning the preliminary results; consistent with the preliminary results, we find that Gidasa did not receive countervailable subsidies during the POR. As there have been no changes or comments from the preliminary results we are not attaching a Decision Memorandum to this **Federal Register** notice. For further details of the programs included in this proceeding, see the *Preliminary Results* . Company *Ad valorem* rate Gidasa Sabanci Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. 0.00 percent Assessment Rates/Cash Deposits Because Gidasa did not receive countervailable subsidies during the POR, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to liquidate all of Gidasa's entries without regard to countervailing duties. Also, since Gidasa has a zero countervailable subsidy rate, the Department will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of entries, but to collect no cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties for Gidasa on all shipments of the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. For all non-reviewed companies, the Department has instructed CBP to assess countervailing duties at the cash deposit rates in effect at the time of entry, for entries between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2004. The cash deposit rates for all companies not covered by this review are not changed by the results of this review. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-14844 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 083106E] Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will convene a public meeting of the Habitat Protection Advisory Panel (AP). DATES: The meeting will convene at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 and conclude no later than 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held at the Hilton Houston Hobby Airport, 8181 Airport Blvd., Houston, TX 77061; telephone:
(713)645-3000. *Council address* : Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Rester, Habitat Support Specialist, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission; telephone:
(228)875-5912. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Texas group is part of a three unit Habitat Protection Advisory Panel
(AP)of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. The principal role of the advisory panels is to assist the Council in attempting to maintain optimum conditions within the habitat and ecosystems supporting the marine resources of the Gulf of Mexico. Advisory panels serve as a first alert system to call to the Council's attention proposed projects being developed and other activities which may adversely impact the Gulf marine fisheries and their supporting ecosystems. The panels may also provide advice to the Council on its policies and procedures for addressing environmental affairs. At this meeting, the AP will tentatively discuss deepening of the Matagorda Ship Channel, the Bahia Grande restoration project, the Texas Artificial Reef Program, the Beacon Port Liquified Natural Gas
(LNG)project, dredging associated with the Calhoun LNG facility in LaVaca Bay, review of the Council's Ecosystem Management Plan, and an update on the Sabine-Neches waterway deepening project. Although other issues not on the agenda may come before the panel for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal panel action during this meeting. Panel action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda listed as available by this notice. A copy of the agenda can be obtained by calling
(813)348-1630. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Tina Trezza at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 working days prior to the meeting. Dated: September 1, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-14786 Filed 8-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Corporation for National and Community Service (hereinafter the “Corporation”), has submitted a public information collection request
(ICR)entitled the Longitudinal Evaluation of AmeriCorps to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Ms. Lillian Dote at
(202)606-6984. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call
(202)565-2799 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Katherine Astrich, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in this **Federal Register** :
(1)*By fax to:*
(202)395-6974, Attention: Ms. Katherine Astrich, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; and
(2)* Electronically by e-mail to: Katherine_T._Astrich@omb.eop.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submissions of responses. Comments A 60-day public comment Notice was published in the **Federal Register** on February 3, 2006. This comment period ended April 4, 2006. No public comments were received from this notice. *Description:* AmeriCorps is a national service program that provides grants to nonprofit organizations and government entities to support members and volunteers serving in national and local community service programs. The Corporation is seeking approval for the Longitudinal Study of AmeriCorps, an evaluation of the impacts of AmeriCorps service on program participants. *Type of Review:* New Information Collection. *Agency:* Corporation for National and Community Service. *Title:* Longitudinal Study of AmeriCorps. *OMB Number:* None. *Agency Number:* None. *Affected Public:* Participants in Longitudinal Study of AmeriCorps. *Total Respondents:* 4,153. *Frequency:* Periodically. *Average Time Per Response:* 45 minutes. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 3,115 hours. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* None. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance):* None. Dated: August 30, 2006. Robert Grimm, Director, Office of Research and Policy Development. [FR Doc. E6-14763 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-$$-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force U.S. Air Force Air University Board of Visitors Meeting AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, Air University Headquarters. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Air University Board of Visitors will hold an open meeting on 12-15 November 2006 and 15-18 April 2007. The first business session of each meeting will begin in the Air University Commander's Conference Room at Headquarters Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, (5 seats available). The purpose of the meeting is to give the board an opportunity to review Air University educational programs and to present to the Commander, a report of their findings and recommendations concerning these programs. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Dr. Dorothy Reed, Chief of Academic Affairs, Air University Headquarters, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-6335, telephone
(334)953-5159. Bao-Anh Trinh, Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E6-14810 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-05-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force AFIT Subcommittee of the Air University Board of Visitors Meeting AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, Air University Headquarters, DoD. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Air Force Institute of Technology Subcommittee of the Air University Board of Visitors will hold an open meeting on 12-14 March 2007, with the first business session beginning at 0830 in the Superintendent's Conference Room, Building 642, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio (5 seats available). The purpose of the meeting is to give the board an opportunity to review Air Force Institute of Technology's educational programs and to present to the Commandant a report of their findings and recommendations concerning these programs. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Ms. Beverly Houtz, Academic Affairs Office, Air Force Institute of Technology,
(937)255-6565 ext 4424. Bao-Anh Trinh, Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E6-14811 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-05-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. ACTION: Correction notice. SUMMARY: On August 28, 2006, the Department of Education published a notice in the **Federal Register** (page 50901, column 2) for the information collection, “Child Care Survey of Postsecondary Institutions.” This notice hereby amends the Burden Hours for the collection from 688 to 1,376. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of the Chief Information Officer, hereby issues a correction notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Dated: August 31, 2006. Dianne Novick, Acting Leader, Information Policy and Standards Team, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of the Management. [FR Doc. E6-14801 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Federal Family Education Loan Program AGENCY: Federal Student Aid, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of interest rates for the Federal Family Education Loan Program for the period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007. SUMMARY: The Chief Operating Officer for Federal Student Aid announces the interest rates for the period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007 for loans made under the Federal Family Education Loan
(FFEL)Program. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Watson, U.S. Department of Education, room 114I2, UCP, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-5400. Telephone:
(202)377-4008. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: General Under title IV, part B of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), 20 U.S.C. Section 1071, *et seq.* , most loans made to student and parent borrowers under the FFEL Program have variable interest rates. The formulas for determining the interest on variable-rate, FFEL Program loans are established in section 427A of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1077a). The interest rates on variable-rate loans are determined annually and apply to the following 12-month period beginning July 1 and ending June 30. As described below, interest rate caps apply to most FFEL Program loans. FFEL interest rate formulas use the bond equivalent rate of 91-day Treasury bills auctioned at the final auction held before June 1 of each year plus a statutorily established add-on to determine the variable interest rate for— • FFEL fixed-rate Stafford loans first disbursed before October 1, 1992 that have been converted to variable-rate loans; • All FFEL Subsidized and Unsubsidized Stafford Loans first disbursed on or after October 1, 1992; • FFEL PLUS loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 1998; and • FFEL Consolidation Loans for which the Consolidation Loan application was received by the lender on or after November 13, 1997 and before October 1, 1998. The bond equivalent rate of the 91-day Treasury bills auctioned on May 30, 2006, which is used to calculate the interest rates for the one-year period beginning on July 1, 2006, is 4.843 percent, which is rounded to 4.84 percent. For FFEL PLUS loans first disbursed before July 1, 1998, interest rates are calculated based on the weekly average of a 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the last calendar week ending on or before June 26. The weekly average of the 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield for the last calendar week ending on or before June 26, 2006 is 5.24 percent. Interest Rates for “Converted” Variable-Rate FFEL Stafford Loans 1. Under section 427A(i)(7) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1077a (i)(7)), loans that were originally made with a fixed interest rate of eight percent with an increase to ten percent four years after commencement of the repayment period were converted to a variable interest rate that may not exceed ten percent: The interest rate for these loans for the period from July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, is 8.09 percent (4.84 percent plus 3.25 percent). 2. Loans with fixed interest rates of seven percent, eight percent, nine percent, or eight percent with an increase to ten percent four years after commencement of the repayment period, that were subject to the provisions of section 427A(i)(3) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1077a(i)(3)) and were converted to variable-rate loans—the interest rate may not exceed seven percent, eight percent, nine percent, or ten percent, respectively. For loans with fixed interest rates of seven percent that were converted to variable-rate loans, the interest rate for the period from July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, is the maximum interest rate of 7.00 percent (4.84 percent plus 3.1 percent). For loans with fixed interest rates of eight percent, nine percent, or eight percent with an increase to ten percent that were converted to variable-rate loans, the interest rate for the period from July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, is 7.94 percent (4.84 percent plus 3.1 percent). Interest Rates for Variable-Rate FFEL Stafford Loans 1. FFEL Stafford loans made to “new” borrowers for which the first disbursement was made
(a)on or after October 1, 1992, but before July 1, 1994, or
(b)on or after July 1, 1994, for a period of enrollment ending before July 1, 1994 (i.e. a late disbursement)—the interest rate may not exceed nine percent: The interest rate for the period from July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, is 7.94 percent (4.84 percent plus 3.1 percent). 2. FFEL Stafford loans made to all borrowers, regardless of prior borrowing, for periods of enrollment that include or begin on or after July 1, 1994, for which the first disbursement was made on or after July 1, 1994, but before July 1, 1995—the interest rate may not exceed 8.25 percent: The interest rate for the period from July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, is 7.94 percent (4.84 percent plus 3.1 percent). 3. FFEL Stafford loans made to all borrowers, regardless of prior borrowing, on or after July 1, 1995, but before July 1, 1998—the interest rate may not exceed 8.25 percent:
(a)During the in-school, grace, or deferment period: The interest rate for the period from July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, is 7.34 percent (4.84 percent plus 2.5 percent); and
(b)During all other periods: The interest rate for the period from July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, is 7.94 percent (4.84 percent plus 3.1 percent). 4. FFEL Stafford loans, first disbursed on or after July 1, 1998, but before July 1, 2006—the interest rate may not exceed 8.25 percent:
(a)During the in-school, grace, and deferment periods: The interest rate for the period from July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, is 6.54 percent (4.84 percent plus 1.7 percent); and
(b)During all other periods: The interest rate for the period from July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, is 7.14 percent (4.84 percent plus 2.3 percent). Interest Rates for Fixed-Rate FFEL Stafford Loans 1. FFEL Stafford loans for which the first disbursement was made on or after July 1, 2006—the interest rate is fixed at 6.80 percent. Interest Rates for FFEL PLUS and FFEL Supplemental Loans for Students
(SLS)Loans 1. Variable-rate FFEL PLUS and FFEL SLS loans first disbursed before October 1, 1992—the interest rate may not exceed 12 percent: The interest rate for the period from July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, is 8.49 percent (5.24 percent plus 3.25 percent). 2. FFEL SLS loans first disbursed on or after October 1, 1992, for a period of enrollment beginning before July 1, 1994—the interest rate may not exceed 11 percent: The interest rate for the period from July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, is 8.34 percent (5.24 percent plus 3.10 percent). 3. FFEL PLUS loans first disbursed on or after October 1, 1992, but before July 1, 1994—the interest rate may not exceed ten percent: The interest rate for the period from July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, is 8.34 percent (5.24 percent plus 3.10 percent). 4. FFEL PLUS loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 1994, but prior to July 1, 1998—the interest rate may not exceed nine percent: The interest rate for the period from July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, is 8.34 percent (5.24 percent plus 3.10 percent). 5. FFEL PLUS loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 1998, and before July 1, 2006—the interest rate may not exceed nine percent: The interest rate for the period from July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, is 7.94 percent (4.84 percent plus 3.1 percent). 6. FFEL PLUS loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2006—the interest rate is fixed at 8.50 percent. Interest Rates for FFEL Consolidation Loans 1. FFEL Consolidation loans for which the consolidation loan was made by the lender before July 1, 1994—the interest rate is the weighted average of the interest rates on the loans consolidated, rounded to the nearest whole percent, but may not be less than nine percent. 2. FFEL Consolidation loans for which the consolidation loan was made by the lender on or after July 1, 1994, and before November 13, 1997—the interest rate is the weighted average of the interest rates on the loans consolidated, rounded to the nearest whole percent. 3. FFEL Consolidation loans for which the consolidation loan application was received by the lender on or after November 13, 1997, and before October 1, 1998—the interest rate may not exceed 8.25 percent: The interest rate for the period from July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, is 7.94 percent (4.84 percent plus 3.1 percent). 4. FFEL Consolidation loans for which the consolidation loan application was received by the lender on or after October 1, 1998, and before July 1, 2006—the interest rate may not exceed 8.25 percent: The interest rate is the weighted average of the interest rates on the loans consolidated, rounded to the nearest higher 1/8 of one percent. 5. If a portion of a Consolidation loan is attributable to a loan made under subpart I of part A of title VII of the Public Health Service Act, the maximum interest rate for that portion of a Consolidation loan is determined annually, for each 12-month period beginning on July 1 and ending on June 30. The interest rate equals the average of the bond equivalent rates of the 91-day Treasury bills auctioned for the quarter ending prior to July 1, plus three percent. For the quarter ending before July 1, 2006, the average 91-day Treasury bill rate was 4.828 percent (rounded to 4.83 percent). The maximum interest rate for the period from July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, is 7.83 percent (4.83 percent plus 3.0 percent). *Electronic Access to This Document:* You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *www.ed.gov/news/federegister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1087 *et seq.* Dated: August 31, 2006. Theresa S. Shaw, Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid. [FR Doc. E6-14799 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program AGENCY: Federal Student Aid, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of interest rates for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program for the period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007. SUMMARY: The Chief Operating Officer for Federal Student Aid announces the interest rates for the period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007 for loans made under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Watson, U.S. Department of Education, room 114I2, UCP, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-5400. Telephone:
(202)377-4008. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 455(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), 20 U.S.C. 1087e(b), provides formulas for determining the interest rates charged to borrowers for loans made under the Direct Loan Program including, Federal Direct Stafford Loans (Direct Subsidized Loans), Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford Loans (Direct Unsubsidized Loans), Federal Direct PLUS Loans (Direct PLUS Loans), and Federal Direct Consolidation Loans (Direct Consolidation Loans). The Direct Loan Program includes loans with variable interest rates and loans with fixed interest rates. Most loans made under the Direct Loan Program have variable interest rates that change each year. The variable interest rate formula that applies to a particular loan depends on the date of the first disbursement of the loan. The variable rates are determined annually and are effective for each 12-month period beginning July 1 of one year and ending June 30 of the following year.Pursuant to section 455(b) of the HEA, 20 U.S.C. 1087e(b), the interest rate for Direct Subsidized Loans and Direct Unsubsidized Loans that are first disbursed on or after July 1, 2006, have a fixed interest rate of 6.80 percent. In addition, Direct PLUS Loans that are first disbursed on or after July 1, 2006, have a fixed interest rate of 7.90 percent. In the case of some Direct Consolidation Loans, the interest rate is determined by the date on which the Direct Consolidation Loan application was received. Direct Consolidation Loans for which the application was received on or after February 1, 1999 have a fixed interest rate based on the weighted average of the loans that are consolidated, rounded up to the nearest higher 1/8 of one percent. Pursuant to section 455(b) of the HEA, 20 U.S.C. 1087e(b), the Direct Loan interest rate formulas use the bond equivalent rates of the 91-day Treasury bills at the final auction held before June 1 of each year plus a statutory add-on percentage to determine the variable interest rate for all Direct Subsidized Loans and Direct Unsubsidized Loans; Direct Consolidation Loans for which the application was received on or after July 1, 1998 and before February 1, 1999; and Direct PLUS Loans disbursed on or after July 1, 1998. The bond equivalent rate of the 91-day Treasury bills auctioned on May 30, 2006, which is used to calculate the interest rates on these loans, is 4.843 percent, which is rounded to 4.84 percent. In addition, pursuant to section 455(b) of the HEA, 20 U.S.C. 1087e(b), as amended by Public Law 106-554, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, the interest rate for Direct PLUS Loans that were disbursed on or after July 1, 1994 and on or before July 1, 1998, is calculated based on the weekly average of a 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the last calendar week ending on or before June 26 plus a statutory add-on percentage. The last calendar week ending on or before June 26, 2006 began on June 18, 2006 and ended on June 24, 2006. On June 26, 2006, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System published the 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield average as 5.24 percent. Below is specific information on the calculation of the interest rates for the Direct Loan Program. This information is listed in order by the date a loan was first disbursed or by the date that the Consolidation Application was received. In addition, a summary of the interest rates that are effective for the period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007, is included on charts at the end of this notice. These charts are organized by loan type. In each chart, the interest rates are arranged by the date a loan was first disbursed or by the date that the consolidation application was received. *For Direct Loan Program Loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 1994, and before July 1, 1995:* The interest rate for Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct Subsidized and Unsubsidized Consolidation Loans is the bond equivalent rate of the 91-day Treasury bills auctioned at the final auction held before June 1 plus 3.1 percent. These interest rates may not exceed 8.25 percent during any period. From July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007, the interest rate for Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct Subsidized and Unsubsidized Consolidation Loans that were first disbursed on or after July 1, 1994, and before July 1, 1995, is 7.94 percent during all periods. The interest rate for Direct PLUS Loans and Direct PLUS Consolidation Loans is the weekly average of a 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the last calendar week ending on or before June 26 plus 3.1 percent. These interest rates may not exceed 9.0 percent during any period. From July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007, the interest rate for Direct PLUS Loans and Direct PLUS Consolidation Loans that were first disbursed on or after July 1, 1994 and before July 1, 1995, is 8.34 percent for all periods. *For Direct Loan Program Loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 1995, and before July 1, 1998:* The interest rate for Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct Subsidized and Unsubsidized Consolidation Loans is the bond equivalent rate of the 91-day Treasury bills auctioned at the final auction held before June 1 plus 3.1 percent. However, during in-school, grace, and deferment periods, the interest rate formula is the bond equivalent rate of the 91-day Treasury bills auctioned at the final auction held before June 1 plus 2.5 percent. These interest rates may not exceed 8.25 percent during any period. From July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007, the interest rate for Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct Subsidized and Unsubsidized Consolidation Loans that were first disbursed on or after July 1, 1995, and before July 1, 1998, is 7.34 percent during in-school, grace, and deferment periods and 7.94 percent during all other periods. The interest rate for Direct PLUS Loans and Direct PLUS Consolidation Loans is the weekly average of a 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the last calendar week ending on or before June 26 plus 3.1 percent. These interest rates may not exceed 9.0 percent during any period. From July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007, the interest rate for Direct PLUS Loans and Direct PLUS Consolidation Loans that were first disbursed on or after July 1, 1995 and before July 1, 1998, is 8.34 percent during all periods. *For Direct Loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 1998, and before October 1, 1998:* The interest rate for Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct Subsidized and Unsubsidized Consolidation Loans is the bond equivalent rate of the 91-day Treasury bills auctioned at the final auction held before June 1 plus 2.3 percent. However, during in-school, grace, and deferment periods, the interest rate formula is the bond equivalent rate of the 91-day Treasury bills auctioned at the final auction held before June 1 plus 1.7 percent. These interest rates may not exceed 8.25 percent during any period. From July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007, the interest rate for Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct Subsidized and Unsubsidized Consolidation Loans that were first disbursed on or after July 1, 1998 and before October 1, 1998, is 6.54 percent during in-school, grace, and deferment periods and 7.14 percent during all other periods. The interest rate for Direct PLUS Loans and Direct PLUS Consolidation Loans is the bond equivalent rate of the 91-day Treasury bills auctioned at the final auction held before June 1 plus 3.1 percent. These interest rates may not exceed 9.0 percent during any period. From July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007, the interest rate for Direct PLUS Loans and Direct PLUS Consolidation Loans that were disbursed on or after July 1, 1998, and before October 1, 1998, is 7.94 percent during all periods. *For Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, Direct PLUS Loans first disbursed on or after October 1, 1998, and before July 1, 2006:* The interest rate for Direct Subsidized Loans and Direct Unsubsidized Loans is the bond equivalent rate of the 91-day Treasury bills auctioned at the final auction held before June 1 plus 2.3 percent. However, during in-school, grace, and deferment periods, the interest rate formula is the bond equivalent rate of the 91-day Treasury bills plus 1.7 percent. These interest rates may not exceed 8.25 percent during any period. From July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007, the interest rate for Direct Subsidized Loans and Direct Unsubsidized Loans that were disbursed after July 1, 1998, and before July 1, 2006, is 6.54 percent during in-school, grace, and deferment periods and 7.14 percent during all other periods. The interest rate for Direct PLUS Loans is the bond equivalent rate of the 91-day Treasury bills auctioned at the final auction held before June 1 plus 3.1 percent. These interest rates may not exceed 9.0 percent during any period. From July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007, the interest rate for Direct PLUS Loans that were disbursed after July 1, 1998, and before July 1, 2006, is 7.94 percent during all periods. *For Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct PLUS Loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2006:* The interest rate for Direct Subsidized Loans and Direct Unsubsidized Loans that were first disbursed on or after July 1, 2006 is a fixed interest rate of 6.80 percent during all periods. The interest rate for Direct PLUS Loans that were first disbursed on or after July 1, 2006 is a fixed interest rate of 7.90 percent during all periods. *For Direct Consolidation Loans first disbursed on or after October 1, 1998 and for which the application was received before October 1, 1998:* The interest rate for Direct Subsidized and Unsubsidized Consolidation Loans is the bond equivalent rate of the 91-day Treasury bills auctioned at the final auction held before June 1 plus 2.3 percent. However, during in-school, grace, and deferment periods, the interest rate formula is the bond equivalent rate of the 91-day Treasury bills auctioned at the final auction held before June 1 plus 1.7 percent. These interest rates may not exceed 8.25 percent during any period. From July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007, the interest rate for Direct Subsidized and Unsubsidized Consolidation Loans that were first disbursed on or after July 1, 1998 and before October 1, 1998, is 6.54 percent during in-school, grace, and deferment periods and 7.14 percent during all other periods. The interest rate for Direct PLUS Consolidation Loans is the bond equivalent rate of the 91-day Treasury bills auctioned at the final auction held before June 1 plus 3.1 percent. These interest rates may not exceed 9.0 percent during any period. From July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007, the interest rate for Direct PLUS Loans and Direct PLUS Consolidation Loans that were disbursed on or after July 1, 1998, and before October 1, 1998, is 7.94 percent during all periods. *For Direct Consolidation Loans for which the application was received on or after October 1, 1998, and before February 1, 1999:* The interest rate for Direct Consolidation Loans for which the application was received on or after October 1, 1998 and before February 1, 1999 is the bond equivalent rate of the 91-day Treasury bills auctioned at the final auction held before June 1 plus 2.3 percent. These interest rates may not exceed 8.25 percent during any period. From July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007, the interest rate for Direct Consolidation Loans for which the application was received on or after October 1, 1998 and before February 1, 1999, is 7.14 percent during all periods. *For Direct Consolidation Loans for which the application was received on or after February 1, 1999:* The interest rate for Direct Consolidation Loans for which the application was received on or after February 1, 1999, and before July 1, 2006, is the lesser of 8.25 percent, or the weighted average of the loans consolidated, rounded to the nearest higher 1/8 of one percent. *Electronic Access to This Document:* You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *www.ed.gov/news/federegister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1087 *et seq.* Dated: August 31, 2006. Theresa S. Shaw, Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid. BILLING CODE 4000-01-P EN07SE06.016 EN07SE06.017 EN07SE06.018 EN07SE06.019 EN07SE06.020 [FR Doc. E6-14800 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-C DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [Docket No. EA-98-J] Application To Export Electric Energy; Western Systems Power Pool AGENCY: Office Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE. ACTION: Notice of Application. SUMMARY: The Western Systems Power Pool
(WSPP)has applied, on behalf of certain of its members, to renew their authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act. DATES: Comments, protests or requests to intervene must be submitted on or before September 22, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments, protests, or requests to intervene should be addressed as follows: Office Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (Mail Code OE-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350 (FAX 202-586-5860). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Russell (Program Office) 202-586-9624 or Michael Skinker (Program Attorney) 202-586-2793. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA)(16 U.S.C. 824a(e)). On September 5, 1996, in docket EA-98-C, the Office of Fossil Energy
(FE)of the Department of Energy
(DOE)authorized 42 members of the WSPP to export electric energy to Canada. In several subsequent proceedings in the EA-98 docket, the list members authorized to export was modified to add, delete, or reflect corporate name changes. The most recent order in the docket, EA-98-I, was issued on August 6, 2002, and authorized 26 WSPP member companies individually to transmit electric energy to Canada. The international transmission facilities utilized for these exports are owned by the Bonneville Power Administration, also a WSPP member. The facilities consist of two 500-kV transmission lines and one 230-kV transmission line that interconnect with facilities of BC Hydro, and one 230-kV line that interconnects with West Kootenay Power, Limited. The construction and operation of these international transmission facilities was previously authorized by Presidential Permits PP-10, PP-46, and PP-36, respectively. The current WSPP authorization to export electric energy to Canada will expire on September 5, 2006. On August 1, 2006, WSPP submitted an application on behalf of 13 member companies to renew the export authority contained in Order EA-98-I. The following WSPP member companies are the only WSPP members that now seek authorization to export electric energy to Canada: Avista Corporation; Candela Energy Corporation; Edison Mission Marketing and Trading, Inc.; Idaho Power Company; Kansas City Power & Light; Northern States Power Company; Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative; PacifiCorp; Powerex Corporation; Portland General Electric Company; Public Service of Colorado; Puget Sound Energy; and TransCanada Energy Ltd. WSPP has also requested DOE expedite the processing of its application in order to avoid a lapse in the export authority of its members. Accordingly, DOE has shortened the public comment period to 15 days. *Procedural Matters:* Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding or to be heard by filing comments or protests to this application should file a petition to intervene, comment or protest at the address provided above in accordance with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with DOE on or before the date listed above. Comments on the WSPP application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with Docket EA-98-J. Additional copies are to be filed directly with Michael E. Small, General Counsel to the WSPP and Matthew K. Segers, Associate, Wright & Talisman, P.C., 1200 G Street, NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20005-3802. A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system. Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, by emailing Odessa Hopkins at *odessa.hopkins@hq.doe.gov.* Issued in Washington, DC, on August 30, 2006. Anthony J. Como, Director, Permitting and Siting, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. [FR Doc. E6-14798 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [Docket No. EA-309] Amended Application To Export Electric Energy; Evergreen Wind Power, LLC AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE. ACTION: Notice of Amended Application. SUMMARY: Evergreen Wind Power, LLC (Evergreen) has submitted supplementary information and a clarification to its application filed with the Department of Energy
(DOE)for authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act. Evergreen has clarified its application to request that DOE grant its export authorization without the annual energy limit presently associated with the international transmission lines owned by Maine Public Service Company
(MPS)that Evergreen proposes to use for the export. Evergreen also has submitted technical information demonstrating that the power transfer limit associated with these transmission lines is actually higher than that previously authorized by DOE and requests its authorization be granted at the higher limit. DOE hereby gives notice that, based on the submitted information, it plans to remove the annual energy limit on the MPS lines and allow the higher transfer rates for all exports over those lines. DATES: Comments, protests, or requests to intervene must be submitted on or before September 22, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments, protests, or requests to intervene should be addressed as follows: Office Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (Mail Code OE-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350 (FAX 202-586-5860). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Russell (Program Office) 202-586-9506 or Michael Skinker (Program Attorney) 202-586-2793. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA)(16 U.S.C. 824a(e)). On March 20, 2006, the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
(OE)of DOE received an application from Evergreen to transmit electric energy from the U.S. to Canada. Notice of the application appeared in the **Federal Register** on April 18, 2006 (71 FR 19880) requesting any comments, protests, or petitions to intervene. None were received. Evergreen supplemented its application in filings received by DOE on July 31, 2006, regarding the higher power transfer limit, and on August 21, 2006, regarding the removal of the annual energy limit. Evergreen is proposing to construct a 49.5-megawatt
(MW)wind generation facility, the Mars Hill Project, in Aroostook, Maine, and will sell the electrical output of the facility within the U.S. and/or to customers in Canada. The electric energy to be exported to Canada would be transmitted over the international transmission facilities owned by MPS and authorized by Presidential Permits PP-12 and PP-29. Exports over the PP-12 and PP-29 facilities are presently limited to a total of 40,000 MWh per year with a power transfer limit of 40.8 MW. Evergreen has submitted technical information which demonstrates that the power transfer limit for the combination of the PP-12 and PP-29 facilities is now 97.8 MW, not the 40.8 MW previously authorized. Evergreen also asserts that if it were subject to the existing 40,000-MWh annual energy limit it would severely hinder its ability to maximize the output of the Mars Hill Project. DOE proposes to issue an export authorization to Evergreen at the 98.7-MW power transfer limit and without the annual energy limits. DOE notes that it has previously authorized numerous entities to export over the PP-12 and PP-29 facilities and that each of those authorizations contained the 40,000-MWh energy limit and the 40.8-MW power transfer limit. DOE further proposes that all entities previously authorized by DOE to export over the PP-12 and PP-29 facilities would be permitted to export at the higher power transfer limit with no annual energy limit. Evergreen has also requested DOE expedite the processing of its application in order that Evergreen may complete certain scheduled financing transactions. Accordingly, DOE has shortened the public comment period to 15 days. *Procedural Matters:* Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding or to be heard by filing comments or protests to this application should file a petition to intervene, comment or protest at the address provided above in accordance with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with DOE on or before the date listed above. Comments on the Evergreen application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with Docket EA-309. Additional copies are to be filed directly with Peter Gish, General Counsel, Evergreen Wind Power, LLC, 100 Wells Avenue, Suite 201, Newton, MA 02459, *and* David L. Schwartz, Natasha Gianvecchio, Sue Wang, Latham & Watkins LLP, 555 Eleventh Street, NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004. A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system. Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above or by emailing Odessa Hopkins at *Odessa.hopkins@hq.doe.gov.* Issued in Washington, DC, on August 31, 2006. Anthony J. Como, Director, Permitting and Siting, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. [FR Doc. E6-14803 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [OE Docket No. EA-284-A] Application to Export Electric Energy; Sempra Energy Solutions AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE. ACTION: Notice of Application. SUMMARY: Sempra Energy Solution
(SES)has applied to renew its authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act. DATES: Comments, protests, or requests to intervene must be submitted on or before September 22, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments, protests, or requests to intervene should be addressed as follows: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350 (FAX 202-586-5860). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Russell (Program Office) 202-586-9624 or Michael Skinker (Program Attorney) 202-586-2793. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA)(16 U.S.C. 824a(e)). On September 4, 2003, the Department of Energy
(DOE)issued Order No. EA-284 authorizing SES to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico for a three-year term. That authorization will expire on September 4, 2006. On August 12, 2006, SES filed an application with DOE for renewal of the export authority contained in Order No. EA-284. SES proposes to export electric energy to Mexico and to arrange for the delivery of those exports over the international transmission facilities presently owned San Diego Gas & Electric Company. SES has also requested DOE expedite the processing of its application in order that SES may continue to meet contractual agreements with counterparts in Mexico. Accordingly, DOE has shortened the public comment period to 15 days. *Procedural Matters:* Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings or to be heard by filing comments or protests to this application should file a petition to intervene, comment or protest at the address provided above in accordance with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with the DOE on or before the dates listed above. Comments on the SES application to export electric energy to Mexico should be clearly marked with Docket EA-284-A. Additional copies are to be filed directly with Theodore E. Roberts, Attorney for Sempra Energy Solutions, 101 Ash Street, HQ13D, San Diego, CO 92101. A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system. Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above or you may send an e-mail to Odessa Hopkins at *odessa.hopkins@hq.doe.gov.* Issued in Washington, DC, on August 31, 2006. Anthony J. Como, Director, Permitting and Siting, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. [FR Doc. E6-14804 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RR06-3-000] North American Electric Reliability Council; North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Notice of Filing August 25, 2006. Take notice that on August 23, 2006, North American Electric Reliability Corporation submitted for filing pursuant to Commission's Regulations 18 CFR 39.4 its initial business plan and budget as the electric reliability organization for the year ending December 31, 2007. 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. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on September 13, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-14768 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Tennessee Valley Authority; Notice of Filing August 25, 2006. Take notice that on August 21, 2006, Tennessee Valley Authority filed a revised Interconnection Agreement with East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc., in compliance with the Commission's order issued July 20, 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, 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 and all the parties in this proceeding. 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 September 20, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-14767 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [ Docket No. CP04-400-002] Golden Pass Pipeline LP; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Northern Segment Amendment Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues August 25, 2006. The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment
(EA)that discusses the environmental impacts of Golden Pass Pipeline LP's (Golden Pass) proposed Northern Segment Amendment Project (Northern Segment Amendment or Project) which involves design and workspace changes to the pipeline facilities previously approved as part of the Golden Pass LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project. 1 In the Northern Segment Amendment, Golden Pass proposes the following changes to the previously authorized facilities:
(1)Replace the authorized, but not yet constructed, 36-inch-diameter pipeline with a 42-inch-diameter pipeline between approximate milepost
(MP)42.81 and MP 77.87, at the American Electric Power Texoma Pipeline (AEP Texoma) interconnect and the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) interconnect, respectively;
(2)relocate a mainline valve
(MLV)from MP 54.11 to 52.50 and install a 42-inch MLV rather than a 36-inch MLV;
(3)remove from the approved facilities the 36-inch pig receiver and launcher at the AEP Texoma interconnect; and
(4)install a 42-inch pig receiver and MLV at the Transco interconnect. The pipeline route would not change as a result of the amended facilities. However, due to the increased diameter of the pipeline, Golden Pass is requesting additional temporary workspaces at certain locations. 1 On July 6, 2005, the Commission approved the Golden Pass LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project in Docket Nos. CP04-386-000, CP04-400-000, CP04-401-000, and CP04-402-000. The Golden Pass LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project included a liquefied natural gas
(LNG)terminal and associated LNG facilities, 77.8 miles of 36-inch diameter mainline pipeline, 42.8 miles of 36-inch diameter looping pipeline that would be constructed adjacent to the mainline, and associated pipeline facilities. This notice announces the opening of the scoping period that will be used to gather environmental input from the public and interested agencies on the Project. Please note that the scoping period will close on September 25, 2006. Details on how to submit comments are provided in the Public Participation section of this notice. This notice is being sent to potentially affected landowners along the Project route; Federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; and local libraries and newspapers. With this notice, we 2 are asking Federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. These agencies may choose to participate once they have evaluated the proposal relative to their responsibilities. Agencies which would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing comments described later in this notice. We encourage government representatives to notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern. 2 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Office of Energy Projects. Some affected landowners may be contacted by a project representative about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed pipeline. If so, the company should seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. In the event that the Project is certificated by the Commission, that approval conveys the right of eminent domain for securing easements for the pipeline. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with state law. A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site ( *www.ferc.gov* ). Summary of the Proposed Project In the Commission's July 6, 2005 Order, Golden Pass was authorized to construct and operate approximately 77.8 miles of 36-inch-diameter mainline, 42.8 miles of 36-inch-diameter loop, and 1.8 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline and related pipeline facilities. These facilities (or the Authorized Pipeline) will be used to transport natural gas on an open-access basis from the Golden Pass LNG Terminal on the Port Arthur ship channel to various interstate and intrastate pipelines in Texas and Louisiana. The EA prepared for the Project will incorporate by reference information provided in the environmental impact statement prepared for the Golden Pass LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project. Golden Pass presently has a pending application for the Optimized Pipeline Project (OP Project) by which it proposes to construct and operate a single 42-inch-diameter pipeline, in place of the 42.8 miles of dual 36-inch-diameter pipelines and to shorten the pipeline route. That proposal would involve only those pipeline facilities in Jefferson and Orange Counties, Texas, south of approximate MP 42.81. An environmental assessment of the OP Project was issued on August 15, 2006. The Northern Segment Amendment would affect the authorized pipeline north of MP 42.81. A map illustrating the authorized facilities and the proposed Project is provided in Appendix 1. 3 3 The appendices referenced in this notice are not being printed in the **Federal Register** . Copies are available on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) at the “eLibrary” link or from the Commission's Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch at 1-202-502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the Additional Information section of this notice. Non-Jurisdictional Facilities There are no proposed non-jurisdictional facilities associated with this proposal. Land Requirements for Construction Construction of the Project would not change the permanent pipeline right-of-way, but it would require additional temporary construction workspace at certain waterbody, road, and pipeline crossings. The total increase in temporary land requirements would be about 4.89 acres. The EA Process NEPA requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping”. The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the EA. By this notice, we are also asking Federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. Agencies that would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing comments below. In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed Project under these general headings: • Land use. • Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands. • Cultural resources. • Vegetation and wildlife. • Endangered and threatened species. We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed Project or portions of the Project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Our independent analysis of the issues will be included in the EA. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA would be published and mailed to Federal, state, and local agencies, Native American tribes, public interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners, newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for this proceeding. A comment period would be allotted for review of the EA. All comments received on the EA would be considered before we make our recommendations to the Commission. The EA is used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the Project is in the public convenience and necessity. To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the public participation section described later in this notice. Currently Identified Environmental Issues We have identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the environmental information provided by Golden Pass. This preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis. • Water Resources. • Impact on water quality. • Impact on wetlands. • Endangered and Threatened Species. • Land use. Public Participation You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the Project. By becoming a commentor, your concerns may be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission. You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the proposal, alternatives to the proposal (including alternative locations and routes), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they may be. 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 letter to: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. • Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 2. • Reference Docket No. CP04-400-002 on the original and both copies. • Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC, on or before September 25, 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 this project. However, the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments or interventions or protests 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 open a free account which can be created online. Becoming an Intervenor In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an official party to the proceeding known as an “intervenor”. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process. Among other things, intervenors have the right to receive copies of case-related Commission documents and filings by other intervenors. Likewise, each intervenor must send one electronic copy (using the Commission's eFiling system) or 14 paper copies of its filings to the Secretary of the Commission and must send a copy of its filings to all other parties on the Commission's service list for this proceeding. If you want to become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene according to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214, see Appendix 2). Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your environmental comments considered. Environmental Mailing List If you do not want to send comments at this time, but still want to remain on our mailing list, please return the attached Mailing List Retention Form (Appendix 3). If you do not return the form, you will be taken off the mailing list. Additional Information 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 ( *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, please contact FERC Online Support at *FercOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact 1-202-502-8659. The eLibrary link 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 *www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.* Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at *www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx* along with other related information. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-14769 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments August 28, 2006. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Type of Application:* Preliminary Permit. b. *Project No.:* 12703-000. c. *Date filed:* June 28, 2006. d. *Applicant:* Goshen Hydroelectric Power LLC. e. *Name of Project:* Goshen Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* The project would be located on the Elkhart River in Elkhart County, Indiana. The project would use the Goshen Dam owned by the Elkhart County Parks and Recreation. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r). h. *Applicant Contact:* Mr. William Stockhausen, 218 W. Dunlap Street, Northville, MI 48167
(248)349-2833. i. *FERC Contact:* Patricia W. Gillis at
(202)502-8735. j. *Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene:* 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. k. *Description of Project:* The proposed project would consist of the following:
(1)The existing 130-foot-wide, 5-foot-high Goshen Dam owned by the Elkhart County Park and Recreation,
(2)an existing impoundment having a surface area of 765 acres with a storage capacity of 3100 acre-feet and normal water surface elevation of 790.9 feet mean sea level,
(3)a proposed reconstructed powerhouse containing two proposed generating unit with an installed capacity of 500 kilowatts,
(4)an existing 100 feet long and 50 feet wide tailrace,
(5)a proposed 60-foot-long, 12.5 kilovolt transmission line, and
(6)appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an average annual generation of 2.575 gigawatt-hours, which would be sold to a local utility. l. *Locations of Applications:* A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling
(202)502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Competing Preliminary Permit:* Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36). Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36. o. *Competing Development Application:* Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36. p. *Notice of Intent:* A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice. q. *Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit:* A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project. r. *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. 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 under “e-filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. s. * 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. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The 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. t. *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. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-14770 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments August 28, 2006. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Type of Application:* Preliminary Permit. b. *Project No.:* 12702-000. c. *Date filed:* June 28, 2006. d. *Applicant:* Baintertown Hydroelectric Power LLC. e. *Name of Project:* Baintertown Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* The project would be located on the Elkhart River in Elkhart County, Indiana. The project would use the Baintertown Dam owned by the Elkhart County Parks and Recreation. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r). h. *Applicant Contact:* Mr. William Stockhausen, 218 W. Dunlap Street, Northville, MI 48167
(248)349-2833. i. *FERC Contact:* Patricia W. Gillis at
(202)502-8735. j. *Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene:* 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. k. *Description of Project:* The proposed project would consist of the following:
(1)The existing 130-foot-wide, 4-foot-high Baintertown Dam owned by the Elkhart County Parks and Recreation,
(2)an existing concrete and rock fill spillway with mean crest elevation of 803 feet mean sea level,
(3)a proposed reconstructed powerhouse containing one proposed generating unit with an installed capacity of 325 kilowatts,
(4)an existing 500 feet long and 50 feet wide tailrace,
(5)a proposed 200-foot-long, 12.5 kilovolt transmission line, and
(6)appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an average annual generation of 870 megawatt-hours, which would be sold to a local utility. l. *Locations of Applications:* A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling
(202)502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Competing Preliminary Permit:* Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36). Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36. o. *Competing Development Application:* Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36. p. *Notice of Intent:* A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice. q. *Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit:* A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project. r. *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. 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 under “e-filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. s. *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. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The 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. t. *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. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-14771 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments August 28, 2006. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Type of Application:* Preliminary Permit. b. *Project No.:* 12701-000. c. *Date filed:* June 28, 2006. d. *Applicant:* Benton Hydroelectric Power LLC. e. *Name of Project:* Benton Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* The project would be located on the Elkhart River in Elkhart County, Indiana. The project would use the Benton Dam owned by the Elkhart County Parks and Recreation. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r). h. *Applicant Contact:* Mr. William Stockhausen, 218 W. Dunlap Street, Northville, MI 48167
(248)349-2833. i. *FERC Contact:* Patricia W. Gillis at
(202)502-8735. j. *Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene:* 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. k. *Description of Project:* The proposed project would consist of the following:
(1)The existing 130-foot-wide, 5-foot-high Benton Dam owned by the Elkhart County Department of Parks and Recreation,
(2)an existing concrete and rock fill spillway with mean crest elevation of 822 feet mean sea level,
(3)a proposed reconstructed powerhouse containing one proposed generating unit with an installed capacity of 325 kilowatts,
(4)an existing 700 feet long and 50 feet wide tailrace,
(5)an existing one-mile-long, 12.5 kilovolt transmission line, and
(6)appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an average annual generation of 1.7 gigawatt-hours, which would be sold to a local utility. l. *Locations of Applications:* A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426, or by calling
(202)502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* . For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Competing Preliminary Permit:* Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36). Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36. o. *Competing Development Application:* Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36. p. *Notice of Intent:* A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice. q. *Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit:* A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project. r. *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. 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 under “e-filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. s. *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. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The 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. t. *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. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-14772 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. ACTION: Notice of information collection—new: EEOC National Contact Center Customer Service Survey. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Commission announces its intent to submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)a request to approve a new information collection as described below. DATES: Written comments on this notice must be submitted on or before November 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to Stephen Llewellyn, Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 10th Floor, 1801 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507. As a convenience to commentators, the Executive Secretariat will accept comments transmitted by facsimile
(fax)machine. The telephone number of the fax receiver is
(202)663-4114. (This is not a toll-free number.) Only comments of six or fewer pages will be accepted via fax transmittal. This limitation is necessary to assure access to the equipment. Receipt of fax transmittals will not be acknowledged, except that the sender may request confirmation of receipt by calling the Executive Secretariat staff at
(202)663-4070 (voice) or
(202)663-4074 (TTY). (These are not toll-free telephone numbers.) Copies of comments submitted by the public will be available to review at the Commission's library, Room 6502, 1801 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507 between the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Pierre, Director, Field Management Programs, Office of Field Programs, 1801 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507,
(202)663-7115 (voice). This notice is available in the following formats: large print, braille, audio tape and electronic file on computer disk. Requests for this notice in an alternative format should be made to the Publications Center at 1-800-699-3362. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC)enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Rehabilitation Act, Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Pregnancy Employment Discrimination Act. Pursuant to its authority under those statutes, EEOC created a National Contact Center to provide the public with 24-hour access to EEOC and information about equal employment rights and responsibilities. The EEOC National Contact Center provides the public with a centralized point of access for reaching the EEOC and offers several choices for communicating with the EEOC, such as phone, TTY, e-mail, facsimile, and standard mail. In an effort to ensure continued quality service, EEOC proposes this customer satisfaction survey in order to request each person who uses the National Contact Center to respond to three questions about the service they received. This constitutes a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and OMB regulation 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), the Commission solicits public comment on its proposed survey to enable it to:
(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. The remainder of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section provides the public with information it will need to comment on the EEOC proposal. It contains an overview of the information collection and the proposed survey. Overview of This Information Collection *Collection Title:* EEOC National Contact Center Customer Satisfaction Survey. *OMB-Number:* None. *Description of Affected Public:* Individuals or households; Businesses or other for profit, not-for-profit institutions; state or local governments. *Number of Responses:* Unknown. *Estimated Reporting Time Per Respondent:* 5 minutes. *Total Burden Hours:* Unknown. *Federal Cost:* None. *Form:* Customer Satisfaction Survey Questions EEOC National Contact Center (To be used with persons who call, e-mail, fax, or write the Contact Center) Question 1: Overall, I was satisfied with the quality of service that I received. A. Strongly Agree B. Agree C. Neutral D. Disagree E. Strongly Disagree Question 2: The Customer Service Representative who assisted me was helpful. A. Strongly Agree B. Agree C. Neutral D. Disagree E. Strongly Disagree Question 3: I would use the EEOC National Contact Center again. A. Strongly Agree B. Agree C. Neutral D. Disagree E. Strongly Disagree Paperwork Reduction Act Notice (Public Law 104-13) Persons are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)control number. This collection of information is approved under OMB number __ (Expiration Date: __ ). The obligation to respond to this information collection is voluntary; The average time to respond to this information collection is estimated to be 5 minutes. Submit comments regarding this estimate; including suggestions for reducing response time to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of the Chair, 1801 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507. Please reference to OMB Number __ . We are very interested in your thoughts and suggestions about your experience in responding to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's National Contact Center Customer Satisfaction Survey. Your comments will be very useful to the Commission in making improvements in our National Contact Center. Dated: August 30, 2006. For the Commission. Cari M. Dominguez, Chair. [FR Doc. E6-14813 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6570-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission for Extension Under Delegated Authority August 29, 2006. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning
(a)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Persons wishing to comment on this information collection should submit comments by November 6, 2006. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: You may submit your Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)comments by email or U.S. postal mail. To submit your comments by e-mail send them to: *PRA@fcc.gov.* To submit your comments by U.S. mail, mark it to the attention of Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 1-B441, Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about the information collection(s) send an e-mail to *PRA@fcc.gov* or contact Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214. If you would like to obtain or view a copy of this information collection after this 60 day comment period, you may do so by visiting the FCC PRA Web page at: *http://www.fcc.gov/omd/pra.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control No.:* 3060-0782. *Title:* Petition for Limited Modification of LATA Boundaries to Provide Expanded Local Calling Service
(ELCS)at Various Locations. *Form No.:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 20 respondents; 100 responses. *Estimated Time per Response:* 8 hours (5 times/year). *Frequency of Response:* On occasion reporting requirement. *Total Annual Burden:* 800 hours. *Annual Cost Burden:* N/A. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* N/A. *Needs and Uses:* This collection will be submitted as an extension (no change in reporting requirements) after this 60 day comment period to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)in order to obtain the full three year clearance. The Commission, pursuant to the provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“the Act”), requests that Bell Operating Companies
(BOCs)provide certain information to the Commission regarding BOC requests for limited modification of local access and transport area
(LATA)boundaries to provide extended local calling service (ELCS). The Commission has provided voluntary guidelines for filing ELCS. These guidelines will allow the Commission to conduct smooth and continuous processing of these requests. The collection of information will enable the Commission to determine if there is a public need for expanded local calling service in each area subject to the request. *OMB Control No.:* 3060-0786. *Title:* Petition for LATA Association Changes by Independent Telephone Companies. *Form No.:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 20. *Estimated Time per Response:* 6 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion reporting requirement. *Total Annual Burden:* 120 hours. *Annual Cost Burden:* N/A. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* N/A. *Needs and Uses:* This collection will be submitted as an extension (no change in reporting requirements) after this 60 day comment period to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)in order to obtain the full three year clearance. The Commission, pursuant to the provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“the Act”), requests that independent telephone companies
(ITCs)and Bell Operating Companies
(BOCs)provide certain information to the Commission regarding ITC requests for changes in local access and transport areas
(LATA)association and modification of LATA boundaries to permit the change in association. The Commission has provided voluntary guidelines for filing LATA association change requests. These guidelines will allow the Commission to conduct smooth and continuous processing of these requests. The collection of information will enable the Commission to determine if there is a public need for changes in LATA association in each area subject to the request. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-14785 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission, Comments Requested August 23, 2006. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning
(a)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Written Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)comments should be submitted on or before November 6, 2006. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: You may submit your all Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)comments by email or U.S. postal mail. To submit your comments by e-mail send them to *PRA@fcc.gov.* To submit your comments by U.S. mail, mark them to the attention of Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission,Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about the information collection(s) send an e-mail to *PRA@fcc.gov* or contact Cathy Williams at
(202)418-2918. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0647. *Title:* Annual Survey of Cable Industry Prices (“Price Survey”). *Form Number:* Not applicable. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit entities; State, Local or Tribal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 780. *Estimated Time per Response:* 8 hours. *Frequency of Response:* Annual reporting requirement. *Total Annual Burden:* 6,240 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* None. *Privacy Impact Assessment:* No impact(s). *Needs and Uses:* Section 623(k) of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 requires the Commission to publish annually a statistical report on average rates for basic cable service, cable programming service, and equipment. The report must compare the prices charged by cable operators subject to “effective competition” and those not subject to effective competition. The data needed to prepare this report is collected using the annual cable industry Price Survey. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-14789 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-10-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Submitted for Review to the Office of Management and Budget August 23, 2006. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning
(a)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Written Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)comments should be submitted on or before November 6, 2006. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Direct all Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)comments to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-B441, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet to *PRA@fcc.gov.* If you would like to obtain or view a copy of this information collection, you may do so by visiting the FCC PRA Web page at: *http://www.fcc.gov/omd/pra.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), send an e-mail to *PRA@fcc.gov* or contact Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214. If you would like to obtain or view a copy of this information collection, you may do so by visiting the FCC PRA Web page at: *http://www.fcc.gov/omd/pra.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control No.:* 3060-0307. *Title:* Amendment of Pat 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band. *Form Nos.:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local or tribal government. *Number of Respondents:* 1,042. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 2-4.5 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement. *Total Annual Burden:* 524 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* $304,313. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* N/A. *Needs and Uses:* This collection will be submitted as a revision after this 60 day comment period to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)in order to obtain the full three year clearance. There are eight reporting requirements in this information collection. They are:
(1)Applicants in the specific categories of 800 Specialized Mobile Radio
(SMR)spectrum may request an extended period of time within which to construct their radio systems provided that they demonstrate such additional time is needed and provide a timetable for completing such construction;
(2)licensees authorized to use a specific block of 800 MHz SMR frequencies within one of 175 Economic Areas (EAs), must notify the Commission of the technical parameters for any base stations operating on channels within their respective spectrum blocks that have been added, removed, relocated, or otherwise modified in accordance with the Commission's rules;
(3)licensees operating on 800 MHz SMR frequencies who do not hold EA licenses must notify the Commission of the technical parameters for any base stations which they operate that have been added, removed, relocated, or otherwise modified in accordance with the Commission's rules;
(4)incumbent licensees operating at multiple sites may exchange their multiple site licenses for a single license after the completion of the auction for the spectrum blocks within which their frequencies are included provided they submit a showing that their authorized facilities have been constructed and placed in operation and the contours associated with these facilities are contiguous and overlapping;
(5)EA licensees must submit proof of their notification to incumbents operating on frequencies included within the EA licensees' spectrum blocks of their intention to relocate such incumbents;
(6)auction winners claiming status as a small business must submit detailed ownership and gross revenue information necessary to determine they qualify as a small business pursuant to the Commission's rules;
(7)auction winners must disclose the terms of any joint bidding agreements, if any, with other auction participants, and
(8)EA licensees who transfer or assign their license within three years are required to file, together with a transfer application, a statement indicating that the license was obtained through competitive bidding, as well as the associated contracts for sale, option agreements, management agreements and all other documents disclosing the total consideration received in return for the transfer or assignment of the license. The Commission has revised this collection because on July 22, 2005, the Commission adopted a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (20 FCC Rcd 16293) to streamline and harmonize licensing provisions in the wireless radio services pursuant to biennial regulatory review responsibilities. The Commission modified section 90.693 to eliminate the necessity of incumbent 800 SMR licensees filing notifications of minor modifications in certain circumstances. Specifically, notification of minor modifications is no longer required where a license locates its facilities closer than the minimum required distance separation but nonetheless falls within the parameters of the Short Space Separation Table under 47 CFR 90.621. The information will be used by the Commission for the following purposes:
(a)To update the Commission's licensing database and thereby facilitate the successful coexistence of EA licensees and incumbents in the 800 MHz SMR band; and
(b)to determine whether an applicant is eligible for special provisions for small businesses provided for applicants in the 800 MHz service. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-14790 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Submitted for Review to the Office of Management and Budget August 14, 2006. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning
(a)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Written Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)comments should be submitted on or before October 10, 2006. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Direct all Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)comments to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-B441, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet to *PRA@fcc.gov.* If you would like to obtain or view a copy of this information collection, you may do so by visiting the FCC PRA Web page at: *http://www.fcc.gov/omd/pra.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), send an e-mail to *PRA@fcc.gov* or contact Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control No.:* 3060-1031. *Title:* Commission Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems—Petition of the City of Richardson, TX, Order on Reconsideration II. *Form No.:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local or tribal government. *Number of Respondents:* 1,158. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 4-20 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement. *Total Annual Burden:* 6,576 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* N/A. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* N/A. *Needs and Uses:* This collection will be submitted as an extension (no change in reporting or third party disclosure requirements) after this 30 day comment period to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)in order to obtain the full three year clearance. Under the Commission's E911 rules, a wireless carrier must provide E911 service to a particular Public Safety Answering Point
(PSAP)within six months only if that PSAP makes a request for the service and is capable of receiving and utilizing the information provided. In the City of Richardson, TX, Order on Reconsideration II, the Commission adopted rules clarifying what constitutes a valid PSAP request so as to trigger a wireless carrier's obligation to provide service to a PSAP within six months. The Commission's actions were intended to facilitate the E911 implementation process by encouraging parties to communicate with each other early in the implementation process, and to maintain a constructive, on-going dialog throughout the implementation process. *OMB Control No.:* 3060-0233. *Title:* Part 36—Separations. *Form Nos.:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 1,804 respondents; 5,788 responses. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 22 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion, annual and quarterly reporting requirements and third party disclosure requirement. *Total Annual Burden:* 58,418 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* N/A. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* N/A. *Needs and Uses:* In order to allow determination of the study areas that are entitled to an expense adjustment, and the wire centers that are entitled to high-cost universal service support, incumbent and competitive telecommunications carriers must provide certain data to the National Exchange Carrier Association
(NECA)or the Universal Service Administrative Company
(USAC)annually and/or quarterly. Local telecommunications carriers that want to participate in the federal universal service program must make certain informational showings to demonstrate eligibility. Without such information, NECA and USAC would not be able to calculate such payments to eligible carriers. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-14791 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission for Extension Under Delegated Authority August 30, 2006. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning
(a)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Written Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)comments should be submitted on or before November 6, 2006. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: You may submit all your Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)comments by e-mail or U.S. postal mail. To submit your comments by e-mail send them to *PRA@fcc.gov.* To submit your comments by U.S. mail, mark them to the attention of Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about the information collection(s) send an e-mail to *PRA@fcc.gov* or contact Cathy Williams at
(202)418-2918. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control Number:* 3060-1045. *Title:* Operator: Operator, Mail Address and Operational Information Changes. *Form Number:* FCC Form 324. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 5,000. *Estimated Time per Response:* 0.5 hours (30 minutes). *Frequency of Response:* On occasion reporting requirement. *Total Annual Burden:* 2,500 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* None. *Privacy Impact Assessment:* No impact(s). *Needs and Uses:* On March 13, 2003, the Commission adopted a Report and Order (R&O), Amendment of the Commission's Rules for Implementation of its Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS) to Allow for Electronic Filing of Licensing Applications, Forms, Registrations and Notifications in the Multichannel Video and Cable Television Service and the Cable Television Relay Service, FCC 03-55. This R&O provided for electronic filing and standardized information collections. Under 47 CFR 76.1610, cable operators must notify the Commission of changes in ownership information or operating status within 30 days of such change using FCC Form 324. FCC Form 324 will cover a variety of changes related to cable operators, replacing the requirement of a letter containing approximately the same information. Every Form 324 filing will require biographical information about the operator and system—the additional information required depending largely upon the nature of the change. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-14807 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notices Date and Time: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 10 a.m. Place: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. Status: This meeting will be closed to the public. Items to be Discussed: Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g. Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C. Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration. Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee. Date and Time: Thursday, September 14, 2006 at 10 a.m. Place: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (ninth floor). Status: This meeting will be open to the public. Items to be Discussed: Correction and Approval of Minutes. Advisory Opinion 2006-22: Wallace for Congress by counsel, Andrius R. Knotrimas. Routine Administrative Matters. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, Telephone:
(202)694-1220. Mary W. Dove, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 06-7528 Filed 9-5-06; 2:58 pm]
Connectionstraces to 34
Traces to 34 documents
CFR
8 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 94-582
  • 90 Stat. 2867
  • 243 F.3d 1301
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • Pub. L. 106-554
  • 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1)
  • 47 CFR 90.621
  • 47 CFR 76.1610
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 71
U.S.C.§ 2341
C.F.R.§ 351.214
C.F.R.§ 351.302
U.S.C.§ 381
C.F.R.§ 351.305
C.F.R.§ 351.403
C.F.R.§ 351.102
F. App'x243 F.3d 1301
Pub. L.Pub. L. 94-582
Stat.90 Stat. 2867
Cites 42 · 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.