Rules and Regulations. Proposed rule
21,107 words·~96 min read·
/register/2006/10/16/06-8667·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Part 613 RIN 3052-AC33 Eligibility and Scope of Financing; Processing and Marketing AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Farm Credit Administration (FCA or Agency) proposes to amend its regulation governing financing of processing and marketing operations by Farm Credit System (Farm Credit, FCS, or System) institutions under titles I and II of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act).
Specifically, this proposal would revise the criteria used to determine eligibility of legal entities for financing as processing and marketing operations. FCA further proposes a non-substantive technical correction to its regulation defining the term “person.” DATES: Comments should be received on or before December 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: We offer a variety of methods to receive your comments. For accuracy and efficiency reasons, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by e-mail or through the Agency's Web site or the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
As faxes are difficult for us to process and achieve compliance with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, please consider another means to submit your comment if possible. Regardless of the method you use, please do not submit your comment multiple times via different methods. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • E-mail: Send us an e-mail at *reg-comm@fca.gov.* Agency Web site: *http://www.fca.gov.* Select “Legal Info,” then “Pending Regulations and Notices.” • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail:
Gary K. Van Meter, Deputy Director, Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, VA 22102-5090. • Fax:
(703)883-4477. Posting and processing of faxes may be delayed. Please consider another means to comment, if possible. You may review copies of comments we received at our office in McLean, Virginia, or from our Web site at *http://www.fca.gov.* Once you are in the Web site, select “Legal Info,” and then select “Public Comments.” We will show your comments as submitted, but for technical reasons we may omit items such as logos and special characters. Identifying information that you provide, such as phone numbers and addresses, will be publicly available. However, we will attempt to remove e-mail addresses to help reduce Internet spam. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barry Mardock, Associate Director, Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, VA,
(703)883-4456, TTY
(703)883-4434; or Michael A. Anderson, Policy Analyst, Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit Administration, Denver, CO,
(303)696-9737, TTY
(303)696-9259; or Howard I. Rubin, Senior Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090,
(703)883-4029, TTY
(703)883-4020. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Sections 1.11(a)(1) and 2.4(a)(1) of the Act authorize Farm Credit Banks and associations to finance the processing and marketing operations of bona fide farmers, ranchers, and aquatic producers or harvesters that are “directly related” to the operations of the borrower, provided that the operations of the borrower supply some portion of the raw materials used in the processing or marketing operation (throughput). 1 Current § 613.3010(a)(1) provides that a borrower is eligible for financing for a processing or marketing operation only if the borrower is eligible to borrow from the System or is a legal entity in which eligible borrowers own more than 50 percent of the voting stock or equity. 1 12 U.S.C. 2019(a)(1), 2075(a)(1). Each Farm Credit Bank has transferred its title I authority to make long-term real estate mortgage loans to Federal land bank associations pursuant to section 7.6 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 2279b). We believe that our current rule, focusing solely on the percentage of eligible borrower ownership in a legal entity, is unnecessarily narrow. Therefore, FCA proposes to add additional specific criteria for determining what legal entities are eligible for financing for processing and marketing operations in accordance with the provisions in §§ 1.11(a) and 2.4(a) of the Act. While potentially expanding the pool of eligible legal entities, we believe that the additional criteria properly ensure that there is a sufficiently strong economic link—or identity of interests—between eligible borrowers and the processing or marketing entity so that the financing can be considered made and “directly related” to eligible borrowers and their operations. II. Need for Proposed Rule FCA believes its amendment to § 613.3010 will permit System associations to more effectively meet the credit needs of eligible borrowers in the face of changing agricultural and economic conditions while remaining consistent with the Act. We recognize the increasing importance of value-added agriculture and aquaculture and the changing ownership structures in processing and marketing operations. As part of these changing agricultural and economic conditions, FCA seeks to ensure that affordable and dependable credit for businesses that add value to farm and aquatic products and commodities remains available for the benefit of agricultural and aquacultural producers (and the rural communities in which they operate). As farmers, ranchers, and producers or harvesters of aquatic products look for opportunities to increase farm and aquaculture income and diversify income sources, the importance of value-added agriculture and aquaculture has emerged, benefiting both producers and rural communities. Producers are pursuing value-added activities to gain more direct access to markets and a greater share of the consumers' food dollar. As such, farmers are increasingly relying on vertical integration and coordination of production, processing, and marketing to deliver products that meet consumer needs. These opportunities have stemmed from increased consumer demands regarding health, nutrition, and convenience; efforts by food processors to improve their productivity; and technological advances that enable producers to produce what consumers and processors desire. With the continuous shifting to a global economy, the international market for value-added products is growing. Ownership structures within processing and marketing operations are changing as substantial capital investments cannot be fully raised through traditional methods. The farmer-owned sole proprietorships or closely held entities prevalent in the past are often no longer economically viable. Therefore, new forms of cooperatives, limited liability corporations, limited liability partnerships, and other ownership structures—requiring outside investment—are being used to address equity and debt capital needs. For example, many of the new ethanol plants are only partially owned by farmers; however, these plants are usually directly related to the farmer-owners' operations and provide significant benefits to the rural communities in which they are located. Moreover, even where sole proprietorships or closely held entities are economically viable, they are often not advisable from a legal liability, tax, or estate planning perspective. In fact, structuring a processing or marketing operation with prudent legal liability considerations protects borrowers' financial interests and is an acceptable safety and soundness practice. We believe that our rules shouldn't create a circumstance that forces eligible borrowers to reject prudent legal, business and tax advice if they wish to continue borrowing from their FCS lender. Processing and marketing agricultural businesses are projected to continue to evolve and grow within rural America. The entrepreneurial spirit of farmers, ranchers, and producers of aquatic products will require a reliable and flexible source of credit and financial services. As value-added agriculture continues to grow, agricultural producers are challenged by the need to attract substantial capital in order to improve income for their benefit and the benefit of rural America. FCA recognizes the importance of these value-added enterprises to producers and rural America and believes this proposed regulation will help ensure dependable credit for businesses that add value to farm and aquatic products and commodities, as well as the communities in which they operate. We believe that revisions to this regulation will provide the FCS with the additional flexibility to meet the existing and future credit needs of processing and marketing entities upon which farmers, ranchers, and producers or harvesters of aquatic products are increasingly dependent for economic survival. III. Section-by-Section Analysis The two criteria contained in existing § 613.3010(a)(1) and (a)(2) are retained in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2), with paragraph (a)(2) making clear that it only applies to a legal entity that does not qualify for financing under paragraph (a)(1) as a bona fide farmer, rancher, or producer or harvester of aquatic products. However, as discussed above, we believe that a limitation based solely on the percentage of voting stock held by eligible borrowers—representing pure numerical voting “control” of the entity—is an unnecessarily narrow way of looking through a legal entity to determine whether a loan can be viewed as made to an eligible borrower or “directly related to” an eligible borrower's operation. Therefore, the proposal would add new paragraph (a)(3) to provide alternative ways of determining actual eligible borrower “control” over a legal entity where the eligible borrower owns 50 percent or less of the voting stock or equity, new paragraph (a)(4) to provide eligibility for legal entities where eligible borrowers have a significant equity stake and provide a substantial amount of the throughput, and new paragraph (a)(5) to provide financing for legal entities that are a direct extension or outgrowth of an eligible borrower's production operation, regardless of the amount of eligible borrower ownership of the legal entity. A legal entity will need to meet one of these criteria in order to borrow from an FCS association. A. Section 613.3010(a)(3)—Majority Voting, Management, or Actual Control Under proposed § 613.3010(a)(3), if eligible borrowers own 50 percent or less of the voting stock or equity and one or more of those eligible borrowers/owners regularly produce some portion of the throughput used in the processing or marketing operation, then one of the following criteria must be met: 1. Majority Voting Control Proposed § 613.3010(a)(3)(i) provides that a legal entity is eligible for financing under this paragraph if eligible borrowers under § 613.3000(b) own 50 percent or less of the voting stock or equity, regularly produce some portion of the throughput used in the processing or marketing operation and “exercise majority voting control over the entity.” An example of this is a corporation with separate classes of voting stock, where the eligible farmer-owned class of stock exercises actual majority voting control regardless of their overall percentage ownership of stock. Another example would be where holders of a majority of voting stock agree, by contract or otherwise, to allow eligible farmer-owners to exercise voting control. This provision would also encompass a legal entity in which eligible borrowers have the voting power to elect at least 40 percent of the entity's board of directors (or general partners of a limited partnership, or managing members of a limited liability company) and non-eligible investors can elect no more than 40 percent, with the remainder to be elected through mutual agreement. 2. Management Control Proposed § 613.3010(a)(3)(ii) would authorize financing for a legal entity in which eligible borrowers under § 613.3000(b) own 50 percent or less of the voting stock or equity, regularly produce some portion of the throughput used in the processing or marketing operation and “exercise control over management of the legal entity.” Eligible borrowers could exercise control over management by “constituting a majority of the directors of a corporation, general partners of a limited partnership, or managing members of a limited liability company.” In these circumstances, eligible borrowers are exercising actual management direction and control over the entity, even though they may not own a majority of the voting stock or equity. 3. Actual Control Proposed § 613.3010(a)(3)(iii) would authorize financing for a legal entity in which eligible borrowers under § 613.3000(b) own 50 percent or less of the voting stock or equity, regularly produce some portion of the throughput used in the processing or marketing operation and “exercise the documented power and authority to directly determine and implement the policies, business practices, management, and decision-making process of the legal entity.” This is intended to cover unusual circumstances where the borrower does not meet the specific criteria of paragraphs (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) but where, through contractual agreement or otherwise, eligible borrowers have “documented power and authority” over the legal entity. B. Section 613.3010(a)(4)—Substantial Ownership Interest and Supply of Throughput Proposed § 613.3010(a)(4) would authorize financing for a legal entity “in which eligible borrowers under § 613.3000(b) own at least 25 percent of the voting stock or equity and supply 20 percent or more of the throughput used in the processing or marketing operation.” Under this provision, eligible borrower-owners do not need to exercise voting control over the entity because the substantial ownership requirement coupled with the 20-percent throughput requirement ensures that eligible borrowers have both a significant investment in the entity and the operation is “directly related to” eligible borrowers' operations. C. Section 613.3010(a)(5)—Extension or Outgrowth of Production Operations Proposed § 613.3010(a)(5) would authorize financing for a legal entity that regularly processes or markets some portion of an eligible borrower's throughput and whose operations are a direct extension or outgrowth of that eligible borrower's operation. This is intended to cover entities—regardless of ownership—in which an eligible borrower has significant involvement, that fulfill the eligible borrower's business needs, and that are functionally integrated with the eligible borrower's production operation. Under paragraph (a)(5), the legal entity's financial condition is necessarily dependent upon the continued involvement of the eligible borrower. This mutual interdependency in financial performance is further indicia that the processing and marketing operation is part, or an “extension or outgrowth,” of the eligible borrower's production operation. As discussed above, many farming operations are evolving to include value-added processing and marketing operations. In many instances, value-added processing and marketing operations are formed by, and for the direct benefit of, eligible borrowers, their families, or other individuals with direct ties to an eligible borrower's production activities. In these instances, the processing or marketing operation is truly part of—or a “direct extension or outgrowth” of—the production operation. However, the ownership structures of these value-added operations are typically crafted to meet tax and liability concerns—rather than FCS requirements—and consequently may not satisfy the requirements of our current rule. Moreover, family members owning and operating value-added businesses may not themselves qualify for financing as “bona fide farmers.” However, the economic reality is that these value-added operations are integrated with and inextricably linked to an eligible borrower's production activities. Under the Act and our rules, the processing or marketing financing must be a credit need of the eligible borrower. Therefore, paragraph (a)(5) provides that the eligible borrower must establish the necessary link between the processing and marketing entity and the eligible borrower's operation. The first specific element that an eligible borrower must demonstrate under paragraph (a)(5) is that “the legal entity was created and operates with the active support and involvement of the eligible borrower.” An example of this is the eligible borrower who assists a family member or friend in a start-up processing or marketing company in which the eligible borrower does not have any legal ownership; however, the start-up company provides an opportunity for the eligible borrower to manage production risk through product control for the benefit of that eligible borrower. The eligible borrower's “active” involvement (meaning more than a token investment of money, time, resources, or throughput) in the creation of the legal entity and continued active involvement in the operation of the legal entity is evidence that the operation is truly an “extension or outgrowth” of the eligible borrower's production operation. Where the financing is for a start-up venture, the eligible borrower should be able to demonstrate, through a business plan or otherwise, the eligible borrower's intent to remain actively involved in the processing and marketing operation. The second specific element that an eligible borrower must demonstrate under paragraph (a)(5) is that “the legal entity fulfills a business need and supports the operation of the eligible borrower through product branding or other value-added business activity directly related to the operations of the eligible borrower.” Regardless of direct ownership by an eligible borrower, a processing or marketing operation may be so integral to the eligible borrower's operation and economic well-being that without it, the eligible borrower would not receive the same economic benefit. This processing or marketing operation may support the eligible borrower's business needs through product branding, product customization to meet specific contract requirements, or any other value-added activity that meets the needs of the user or consumer and benefits the economic well-being of the eligible borrower. The third criterion an eligible borrower must demonstrate is that “the legal entity and the eligible borrower coordinate to operate in a functionally integrated manner.” This coordination may be evidenced by shared resources (such as management expertise, employees, or assets) or other indicia of integration. We believe that Congress intended for the System to provide financing to assist eligible borrowers in the upward vertical integration of their operations. The fourth requirement implements the statutory mandate that the eligible borrower must provide some throughput to the processing or marketing operation. IV. Technical Correction We are also proposing to correct an omission that inadvertently occurred during the January 30, 1997, regulatory amendments 2 by adding the words “a legal entity or” to the § 613.3000(a)(3) definition of “[p]erson”. This does not provide any additional authority and is in accord with our stated intent published in the 1997 **Federal Register** final rule preamble. 2 *See* 62 FR 4441 (Jan. 30, 1997). V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), the FCA hereby certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Each of the banks in the System, considered together with its affiliated associations, has assets and annual income in excess of the amounts that would qualify them as small entities. Therefore, System institutions are not “small entities” as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 613 Agriculture, Banks, banking, Credit, Rural areas. For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 613 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be amended to read as follows: PART 613—ELIGIBILITY AND SCOPE OF FINANCING 1. The authority citation for part 613 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 1.5, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 2.2, 2.4, 2.12, 3.1, 3.7, 3.8, 3.22, 4.18A, 4.25, 4.26, 4.27, 5.9, 5.17 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2013, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2073, 2075, 2093, 2122, 2128, 2129, 2143, 2206a, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2243, 2252). Subpart A—Financing Under Titles I and II of the Farm Credit Act § 613.3000 [Amended] 2. Amend § 613.3000(a)(3) by adding the words “a legal entity or” before the words “an individual”. 3. Revise § 613.3010(a) to read as follows: § 613.3010 Financing for processing or marketing operations.
(a)*Eligible borrowers.* A borrower is eligible for financing for a processing or marketing operation under titles I and II of the Act only if the borrower:
(1)Is a bona fide farmer, rancher, or producer or harvester of aquatic products who regularly produces some portion of the throughput used in the processing or marketing operation; or
(2)Is a legal entity not eligible under paragraph (a)(1) of this section in which eligible borrowers under § 613.3000(b) own more than 50 percent of the voting stock or equity and regularly produce some portion of the throughput used in the processing or marketing operation; or
(3)Is a legal entity not eligible under paragraph (a)(1) of this section in which eligible borrowers under § 613.3000(b) own 50 percent or less of the voting stock or equity, regularly produce some portion of the throughput used in the processing or marketing operation and:
(i)Exercise majority voting control over the legal entity; or
(ii)Exercise control over management of the legal entity, such as constituting a majority of the directors of a corporation, general partners of a limited partnership, or managing members of a limited liability company; or
(iii)Exercise the documented power and authority to directly determine and implement the policies, business practices, management, and decision-making process of the legal entity; or
(4)Is a legal entity not eligible under paragraph (a)(1) of this section in which eligible borrowers under § 613.3000(b) own at least 25 percent of the voting stock or equity and supply 20 percent or more of the throughput used in the processing or marketing operation; or
(5)Is a legal entity not eligible under paragraph (a)(1) of this section that is a direct extension or outgrowth of an eligible borrower's operation. To obtain financing for a legal entity under this paragraph, the eligible borrower must establish that:
(i)The legal entity was created and operates with the eligible borrower's active support and involvement,
(ii)The legal entity fulfills a business need and supports the operation of the eligible borrower through product branding or other value-added business activity directly related to the operations of the eligible borrower,
(iii)The legal entity and the eligible borrower coordinate to operate in a functionally integrated manner, and
(iv)The legal entity regularly processes or markets some portion of the eligible borrower's throughput. Dated: October 11, 2006. Roland E. Smith, Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. [FR Doc. E6-17170 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6705-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration 49 CFR Part 624 [Docket No. FTA-2006-24708] RIN 2132-AA91 Clean Fuels Grant Program AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: Section 3010 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), amended section 5308 of title 49 United States Code, commonly referred to as the Clean Fuels Grant Program. SAFETEA-LU changes the program from a formula-based to a discretionary grant program. The Federal Transit Administration
(FTA)proposes to amend its clean fuels grant program regulations to comport with the provisions of SAFETEA-LU. DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 15, 2006. Late filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: Written comments: Submit written comments to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may submit comments identified by the docket number (FTA-2006-24708) by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *Web Site* : *http://dms.dot.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. • *Mail:* Docket Management System: U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2478. • *Hand Delivery:* To the Docket Management System, Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the agency name (Federal Transit Administration) and Docket number (FTA-2006-24708) or Regulatory Identification Number
(RIN)(2132-AA91) for this notice. Note that all comments received will be posted, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* including any personal identifying information. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For program issues, Kimberly Sledge, Office of Program Management,
(202)366-2053 (telephone);
(202)366-7951 (fax); or *Kimberly.Sledge@dot.gov* (e-mail). For legal issues, Scheryl Portee, Office of the Chief Counsel,
(202)366-4011 (telephone);
(202)366-3809 (fax); or *Scheryl.Portee@dot.gov* (e-mail). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Section 3008 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Pub. L. 105-178, June 9, 1998, established the Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program (the program) with a two-fold purpose. First, the program was developed to assist nonattainment and maintenance areas in achieving or maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and carbon monoxide (CO). Second, the program supported emerging clean fuel and advanced propulsion technologies for transit buses and markets for those technologies. We promulgated the formula program as a final rule at 49 CFR part 624. (See 67 FR 40100, June 11, 2002 and 67 FR 41579, June 18, 2002). From its inception the program was authorized as a formula program. However, Congress did not fund the program. II. Overview and General Discussion of the Proposed Rule A. Why is FTA amending the Clean Fuels Grant Program? Section 3010 of SAFETEA-LU, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1572 (2005), changed the grant program from a formula-based to a discretionary grant program; however, the program retains its two-fold purpose as noted above. We propose to revise 49 CFR part 624 to reflect the amendments made by SAFETEA-LU. With TEA-21, Congress authorized funding levels for the program at $100 million. Although funding was authorized, appropriation bills for fiscal years 1999 through 2005 directed FTA to transfer and merge all allocated funding for the program to the bus and bus facilities categories of the Capital Investment Grants and Loans Program (49 U.S.C. 5309), which funds the replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase of buses and related equipment and the construction of bus-related facilities. In fiscal year 2006, however, Congress provided $17,607,150 to sixteen specific clean fuels projects and transferred the remaining balance of funds to the bus and bus facilities program of 49 U.S.C. 5309(b)(3). ( *See* Department of Transportation Appropriations Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-115, 119 Stat. 2396, 2417-2418 (2005)). To ensure that procedures are in place when funding is appropriated for the program, we propose to establish criteria for the allocation of discretionary program funds in accordance with SAFETEA-LU. B. To what revisions of 49 CFR part 624 does FTA seek comments? SAFETEA-LU has modified the program by re-establishing it as a discretionary grant program. You are requested to comment on our proposal to implement the provisions of SAFETEA-LU by revising 49 CFR part 624 as follows: Eligible Recipients 1. SAFETEA-LU amended eligible recipients to now include smaller urbanized areas with populations of less than 200,000. Accordingly, we propose to amend section 624.1 to reflect eligible applicants as follows:
(1)“designated recipients,” as that term is defined in 49 U.S.C. 5307(a)(2); and
(2)recipients in urbanized areas with populations of less than 200,000. A “designated recipient” must be an entity designated to receive Federal urbanized formula funds per 49 U.S.C. 5307, in accordance with the applicable metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes, by the chief executive officer of a State, responsible local officials, and publicly owned operators of public transportation. For an urbanized area with a population of less than 200,000, however, SAFETEA-LU requires the smaller urbanized area's respective State to act as the recipient. Further, all recipients must meet one of the following criteria:
(1)Be designated as an ozone or CO nonattainment area as established by section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d); or
(2)be designated as a maintenance area for ozone or CO. A maintenance area is a previously designated nonattainment area that has been redesignated to attainment status by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Eligible Activities 2. We propose to amend section 624.3 by amending paragraph
(a)and removing paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) to exclude repowering and retrofitting of pre-1993 buses as eligible activities. Both activities were specifically authorized as eligible projects under TEA-21; however, SAFETEA-LU repealed those provisions. Accordingly, we have determined that such activities should not be authorized under this program. In addition, we propose to amend paragraph
(c)by renumbering the current paragraph (c)(6) as a new (c)(3), and adding new paragraphs (c)(4), (5), and
(6)to reflect SAFETEA-LU provisions applicable to eligible projects. a. We propose to amend paragraph
(a)to reflect the provisions in 49 U.S.C. 5323(i), which SAFETEA-LU amended to include facilities as well as vehicles. Accordingly, the Federal share for eligible projects will not exceed 90 percent of the net cost to comply with or maintain compliance with the Clean Air Act. Further, the Administrator is authorized to administratively determine the *net* cost of such equipment or facilities attributable to compliance with the Clean Air Act. Therefore, for purposes of complying with cross-cutting provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5307, which limit the Federal share to 80 percent, we have administratively determined that the composite Federal share for vehicles and vehicle related equipment shall be 83 percent. For facilities, however, the 90 percent share would apply to the actual incremental costs of improvements for compliance with the Clean Air Act and recipients would be requested to provide supporting documentation. We note that the President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2007 proposed that FTA grants awarded during fiscal years 2007 and 2008 should reflect 100 percent of the net capital costs of factory-installed or retrofitted hybrid electric propulsion systems and any equipment related to such systems. This budget proposal also provides for administrative discretion to determine costs attributable to such systems and related-equipment. If Congress enacts the proposal, we will address the issue in the final rule. b. Paragraph (c)(5) reflects the congressionally mandated provision limiting available funding for “clean diesel buses” for each fiscal year to not more than 25 percent of funds allocated by 49 U.S.C. 5338(b)(2)(C). On January 18, 2001, EPA published a final rule establishing a comprehensive national control program to regulate heavy-duty vehicles and its fuel as a single system. As part of this program, new emission standards will start to take effect in model year 2007, and will apply to heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles. These standards are based on the use of high-efficiency catalytic exhaust emission control devices or comparably effective advanced technologies. The EPA standards are codified at 40 CFR parts 69, 80, and 86. (See 66 FR 5001 (Jan. 18, 2001)). Accordingly, FTA proposes to interpret “clean diesel” to mean diesel engines certified to meet EPA's heavy-duty engine emissions standards for model-years 2007 and later. c. Paragraph (c)(6) proposes to amend section 624.3 to reflect that funds designated for eligible projects will remain available for obligation for three fiscal years, which includes the year of appropriation plus two additional fiscal years. Application Process 3. Since the program is now a discretionary grant program, the pre-application included in Appendix A no longer applies. Accordingly, we propose to remove Appendix A from part 624 and revise § 624.5 to reflect that applications will be requested in a **Federal Register** notice each fiscal year that discretionary funds are appropriated by Congress for the program. Additionally, since technological innovations continue to evolve, we believe the criteria for selecting eligible projects should be flexible. Accordingly, we propose to revise section 624.5 to reflect general criteria for selection of eligible projects. More specific selection criteria may be published in the **Federal Register** with a Notice of Funding Availability each fiscal year that discretionary funding is appropriated by Congress for the program. Certifications 4. We propose to retain the current certification process noted in section 624.7. Each vehicle purchased with a grant under this program will be operated by the grantee using only clean fuels. The certification would be included with the **Federal Register** notice announcing our annual certifications and assurances. This is consistent with our policy of one-stop filing for all required certifications and assurances. Transit operators planning to apply for the Clean Fuels Grant Program would indicate compliance with this certification when submitting its annual certifications and assurances. Additionally, grantees purchasing or leasing “clean diesel” buses would certify that the buses would be operated using only ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel. Statutory Cross-Cutting Requirements 5. Since the program is now a discretionary grant program, we propose to amend section 624.9 by removing the grant formula because it no longer applies. SAFETEA-LU requires that a grant under this program be subject to the applicable requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5307. Accordingly, we propose to amend section 624.9 by inserting the applicable statutory provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5307. Many of these requirements are contained in FTA Circular 9030.1C, which is available from the FTA Regional Office nearest you. The circular is also on the FTA Web site at ( *http://www.fta.dot.gov* ). Further, all FTA grants provided under chapter 53 of title 49 of the United States Code, are subject to applicable requirements of the FTA Master Agreement (MA), which is incorporated by reference in the grant agreement. Additional project management guidelines and requirements may also be found in FTA Circular 5010.1C. The circular and the MA are located on the FTA Web site at ( *http://www.fta.dot.gov* ). Reporting 6. We support the development and deployment of clean fuel and advanced propulsion technologies for transit buses. We remain interested in collecting relevant information on the operations and performance of these clean fuel technology buses to help assess the reliability, benefits, and costs of certain technologies compared to conventional vehicle technologies. Accordingly, we propose to retain the reporting requirements of § 624.11, which require grantees receiving program funds for hybrid electric, battery electric, and fuel cell vehicles to provide information to us on the operations, performance, and maintenance of those vehicles purchased or leased with program funds. We have determined, however, that *semiannual* instead of *quarterly* reporting for the first three years of the useful life of the vehicle is sufficient for this objective; thus, we propose to provide administrative relief by amending the reporting requirements in § 624.11 from quarterly to semiannually. Submission of data on the operation of the vehicle beyond the three-year period would continue to be voluntary. Likewise, we continue to encourage transit agencies acquiring other types of alternative fuel buses ( *e.g.* , compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), etc.) to voluntarily report similar information. However, recipients acquiring clean diesel vehicles are not required to report the data requested under section 624.11 because we believe that sufficient information about this technology has been compiled. We will request Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)approval to collect information from recipients receiving Federal financial assistance under the Clean Fuels program. We intend to collect information such as vehicle miles traveled, fuel costs, vehicle fuel/energy consumption and oil consumption, road calls or breakdowns resulting from clean fuel and advanced propulsion technology systems, and maintenance costs associated with these systems. You are invited to comment on our information collection proposal for evaluating the operating costs of clean fuel and advanced propulsion technology vehicles. We will use the data collected to provide more accurate information to transit agencies for future clean fuel and advanced propulsion vehicle acquisitions. III. Regulatory Analyses and Notices Statutory/Legal Authority for This Proposed Rulemaking This rule is authorized pursuant to section 3010 of SAFETEA-LU, which amended section 5308 of Title 49, United States Code. We previously implemented section 5308, referred to as the Clean Fuels Grant Program, as part 624 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. Executive Order 12866 Under Executive Order 12866, the Department of Transportation
(DOT)must examine whether this proposed rule is a “significant regulatory action.” A significant regulatory action is subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order (E.O.). E.O. 12866 defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $120 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2)create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4)raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the E.O. This proposed rule amends an existing grant program and is not expected to impose any new compliance costs. Specifically, we propose amending the existing program from a formula program to a discretionary grant program in accordance with section 3010 of SAFETEA-LU. We believe that the industry costs and benefits of the Clean Fuels Grant Program do not warrant designating this a significant rule under E.O. 12866 because it involves grant application procedures and will not cost more than $120 million annually. Additionally, we propose to provide administrative relief in the reporting criteria by increasing the reporting period from quarterly to semiannually. For these reasons, we have determined that this proposed rule is a nonsignificant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by OMB. Executive Order 13132 This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 (Federalism). This proposed rule does not include any provisions that have substantial direct effect on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply because this proposed rule only sets forth application procedures for an existing formula grant program that has been statutorily amended to a discretionary grant program. Executive Order 13175 This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria of E.O. 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments). Because the proposal does not have tribal implications and does not impose direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply. Executive Order 13272 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), requires each agency to analyze regulations and proposals to assess their impact on small businesses and other small entities to determine whether the rule or proposal will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We evaluated the effects of this proposed rule on small entities and determined that it will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities. This proposal imposes no new costs because it merely modifies the application procedures for an existing grant program. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule includes information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB previously approved our information collection request under the Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program, 2132-0560. However, that approval expired on August 31, 2003, because funding was not allocated for the program. Now that Congress appropriated funding in fiscal year 2006, we will submit a new information collection request to OMB. The affected public under this proposed rulemaking remains public transportation providers who apply for Federal funds under this program. Our new information collection request will not include any new reporting requirements. In fact, if the proposals contained in this NPRM are adopted as final, recipients would experience a decrease in reporting because we intend to extend the reporting period from quarterly to semiannually. We solicit comments on the proposed reporting requirements. Comments should address: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FTA grant process; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the applicants, including the use of alternative collection techniques ( *e.g.* , filing applications and reports via facsimile (fax), electronic mail or other forms of information technology). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This rule does not propose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. If the proposals are adopted into a final rule, it will not result in costs of $100 million or more (adjusted for inflation), in the aggregate, to any of the following: State, local, or Native American tribal governments, or the private sector. National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347 as amended), requires Federal agencies to consider the consequences of major federal actions and prepare a detailed statement on actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Since this proposed rule promotes the use of clean fuels in vehicles used for public transportation, it potentially may have a positive impact on the environment. Alternatively, there are no significant environmental impacts associated with this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 624 Grant Programs—Transportation, Mass transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, FTA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 624 as follows: PART 624—CLEAN FUELS GRANT PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for part 624 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5308; 49 CFR 1.51. 2. The heading to part 624 is revised to read as set forth above. 3. Revise § 624.1 to read as follows: § 624.1 Eligible applicant.
(a)An eligible applicant is:
(1)A designated recipient (designated recipient has the same meaning as in 49 U.S.C. 5307(a)(2)); or
(2)A recipient for an urbanized area with a population of less than 200,000 (smaller urbanized area). The State in which the smaller urbanized area is located shall act as the recipient.
(b)An eligible applicant, as defined in paragraph
(a)of this section, shall operate in an area that is either:
(1)An ozone or carbon monoxide nonattainment area as specified under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)); or
(2)A maintenance area for ozone or carbon monoxide. 4. Amend § 624.3 by revising paragraphs
(a)and (c)(3) through
(6)to read as follows: § 624.3 Eligible activities.
(a)Eligible activities include purchasing or leasing clean fuel buses and constructing new or improving existing public transportation facilities to accommodate clean fuel buses.
(3)At the discretion of the Administrator, projects relating to clean fuel, biodiesel, hybrid electric, or zero emissions technology buses that exhibit equivalent or superior emissions reductions to existing clean fuel or hybrid electric technologies.
(4)The Federal share for eligible activities undertaken for the purpose of complying with or maintaining compliance with the Clean Air Act under this program shall be limited to 90 percent of the net (incremental) cost of the activity.
(i)The Administrator may exercise discretion and determine the percentage of Federal share for eligible activities to be less than 90 percent.
(ii)An administrative determination per this subsection will be published in accordance with § 624.5(a).
(5)Funding for clean diesel buses shall be limited to not more than 25 percent of the amount made available or allocated and appropriated each fiscal year to carry out the program.
(6)Any amount made available or appropriated for this section shall remain available to an eligible activity for two years after the fiscal year for which the amount is made available or appropriated. Any amount that remains unobligated at the end of the three-year-period shall be added to the amount made available in the following fiscal year. 5. Revise § 624.5 to read as follows: § 624.5 Application process.
(a)FTA shall publish a Notice of Funding Availability in the **Federal Register** each fiscal year that funds are appropriated and discretionary funding made available for the Clean Fuels program. The notice shall provide the criteria by which the eligible projects will be evaluated for selection and the Administrator's administrative determination of the net Federal share for projects funded under this part.
(b)The Administrator shall determine the criteria for selecting proposed projects for funding, which may include, but are not limited to the following factors:
(1)Whether the proposed project is a transportation control measure in an approved State Implementation Plan;
(2)The benefits of the proposed project in reducing transportation-related pollutants;
(3)Consistency with the recipient's fleet management plan;
(4)The applicant's ability to implement the project and facilities to maintain and fuel the proposed vehicles;
(5)The applicant's coordination of the proposed project with other public transportation entities or other related projects within the applicant's Metropolitan Planning Organization or the geographic region within which the proposed project will operate.
(6)The proposed project's ability to support emerging clean fuels technologies or advanced technologies for transit buses. 6. Revise § 624.9 to read as follows: § 624.9 Grant requirements. A grant under this section shall be subject to the following requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5307(d):
(a)*General.* All recipients shall maintain and report financial and operating information on an annual basis, as prescribed in 49 CFR part 630 et seq., and the most recent National Transit Database Reporting Manual.
(b)*Labor Standards.* As a condition of financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. 5308, the interests of employees affected by the assistance shall be protected under arrangements that the Secretary of Labor concludes are fair and equitable.
(c)*Satisfactory Continuing Control.*
(1)An FTA grantee shall:
(i)Maintain control over federally funded property;
(ii)Ensure that it is used in transit service; and
(iii)Dispose of it in accordance with Federal requirements.
(2)Under this paragraph (c), if the grantee leases federally funded property to another party, the lease must provide the grantee satisfactory continuing control over the use of that property as determined in two areas: real property
(land)and facilities; and personal property (equipment and rolling stock, both revenue and non-revenue).
(d)*Maintenance.* The grant applicant shall certify annually that pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5307(d)(1)(C), it will maintain (federally funded) facilities and equipment. In addition, the grantee shall keep equipment and facilities acquired with Federal assistance in good operating order, which includes maintenance of rolling stock (revenue and non-revenue), machinery and equipment, and facilities.
(e)*Rates Charged Elderly and Persons with Disabilities during Nonpeak Hours.* In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5307(d)(1)(D), the grant applicant shall certify that the rates charged the elderly and persons with disabilities during nonpeak hours for fixed-route transportation using facilities and equipment financed with Federal assistance from FTA will not exceed one-half of the rates generally applicable to other persons at peak hours, whether the operation is by the applicant or by another entity under lease or otherwise.
(f)*Use of Competitive Procurements.* Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5307(d)(1)(E), the grant applicant shall certify that it will use competitive procurements and will not use procurements employing exclusionary or discriminatory specifications.
(g)*Compliance with Buy America Provisions.* The grant applicant shall certify that in carrying out a procurement authorized for this program, the applicant will comply with applicable Buy America laws.
(h)*Certification that Local Funds Are Available for the Project.* The grant applicant shall certify that the local funds are or will be available to carry out the project.
(i)*Compliance with National Policy Concerning Elderly Persons and Individuals with Disabilities.* The grant applicant shall certify that it will comply with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5301(d) concerning the rights of elderly persons and persons with disabilities.
(j)*FTA Master Agreement.* The grant applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the FTA Master Agreement which is incorporated by reference in the grant agreement. 7. Amend § 624.11 by revising paragraph
(a)introductory text and
(c)to read as follows: § 624.11 Reporting.
(a)Recipients of financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. 5308 who purchase or lease hybrid electric, battery electric and fuel cell vehicles shall report semiannually the following information to the appropriate FTA Regional Office for the first three years of the useful life of the vehicle:
(c)Recipients of financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. 5308 that purchase or lease clean diesel vehicles are not required to report information beyond FTA grant reporting requirements for capital projects. Appendix A to Part 624 [Removed] 8. Remove Appendix A to part 624. Issued in Washington, DC, this 10th day of October, 2006. James S. Simpson, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration. [FR Doc. E6-17071 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-57-P 71 199 Monday, October 16, 2006 Notices BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: The Broadcasting Board of Governors. ACTION: Submission for OMB review; comment request. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 3506(c)(2)(A)], this notice announces that the information collection activity titled, “Surveys and Other Audience Research for Radio and TV Marti” has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and comment. The Broadcasting Board of Governors
(BBG)is requesting reinstatement of this collection for a three-year period and approval of a revision to the burden hours. The information collection activity involved with this program is conducted pursuant to the mandate given to the BBG (formerly the United States Information Agency) in accordance with Pub. L. 98-111, the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act, dated, October 4, 1983, to provide for the broadcasting of accurate information to the people of Cuba and for other purposes. This act was amended by Pub. L. 101-246, dated February 16, 1990, which established the authority for TV Marti. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 15, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jeannette Mancus, the BBG Clearance Officer, BBG, M/AA, Room 1657, 330 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20237, telephone
(202)203-4664, e-mail address *jgmancus@IBB.GOV;* or Mr. Alex Hunt, the OMB Desk Officer for BBG, via fax at 202-395-7285 or by e-mail at: *Alexander_T._Hunt@omb.eop.gov.* COPIES: Copies of the proposed collection submitted to OMB for approval may be obtained from the BBG Clearance Officer or the OMB Desk Officer for BBG. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The **Federal Register** Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on August 3, 2006, Volume 71, Number 149, Page 44014. Public reporting burden for this proposed collection of information is estimated to average 30 minutes (.50 of an hour) per response for field survey respondents (400), and 240 minutes (4 hours) for Focus Group Study respondents (48), including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Responses are voluntary and respondents will be required to respond only one time. Comments are requested on the proposed information collection concerning:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b)The accuracy of the Agency's burden estimates;
(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. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information to Ms. Jeannette Mancus, the BBG Clearance Officer, BBG, M/AA, Room 1657, 330 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20237, telephone
(202)203-4664, e-mail address *jgmancus@ibb.gov;* or to Mr. Alex Hunt, the OMB Desk Officer for BBG, via fax at 202-395-7285 or by e-mail at: *Alexander_T._Hunt@omb.eop.gov.* *Current Actions:* BBG is requesting reinstatement of this collection for a three-year period and approval for a revision to the burden hours. *Title:* Interviews and Other Audience Research for Radio and TV Marti. *Abstract:* Data from this information collection are used by BBG's Office of Cuba Broadcasting
(OCB)in fulfillment of its mandate to evaluate effectiveness of Radio and TV Marti operations by estimating the audience size and composition for broadcasts; and assess signal reception, credibility and relevance of programming through this research. *Proposed Frequency of Responses:* No. of Respondents: 400 Field Study + 48 Group Study = 448. *Recordkeeping Hours:* .50 Field Study + 4 Group Study =
(200)+
(192)= Total Annual Burden: 392. Dated: October 4, 2006. Carol F. Baker, Director of Administration. [FR Doc. E6-17136 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8610-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security [Docket No. 0610006259-6259-01] National Defense Stockpile Market Impact Committee Request for Public Comments on the Potential Market Impact of Proposed Stockpile Disposals for Fiscal Year 2008 AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of inquiry. SUMMARY: This notice is to advise the public that the National Defense Stockpile Market Impact Committee, co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and State, is seeking public comments on the potential market impact of the proposed disposal levels of excess materials for the Fiscal Year
(FY)2008 Annual Materials Plan. DATES: To be considered, written comments must be received by November 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to Michael Vaccaro, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 3876, Washington, DC 20230, fax:
(202)482-5650 (Attn: Michael Vaccaro), e-mail: *MIC@bis.doc.gov* ; or Peter Haymond, U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, Office of International Energy and Commodity Policy, Washington, DC 20520, fax:
(202)647-8758 (Attn: Peter Haymond), or e-mail: *haymondp@state.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Newsom, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Telephone:
(202)482-7417. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Under the authority of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. 98, *et seq.* ), the Department of Defense (DOD), as National Defense Stockpile Manager, maintains a stockpile of strategic and critical materials to supply the military, industrial, and essential civilian needs of the United States for national defense. Section 3314 of the Fiscal Year
(FY)1993 National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA)(50 U.S.C. 98h-1) formally established a Market Impact Committee (the Committee) to “advise the National Defense Stockpile Manager on the projected domestic and foreign economic effects of all acquisitions and disposals of materials from the stockpile * * * .” The Committee must also balance market impact concerns with the statutory requirement to protect the Government against avoidable loss. The Committee is comprised of representatives from the Departments of Commerce, State, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, the Treasury, and Homeland Security, and is co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and State. The FY 1993 NDAA directs the Committee to consult with industry representatives that produce, process, or consume the materials contained in the stockpile. In Attachment 1, the Defense National Stockpile Center lists the proposed quantities that are enumerated in the stockpile inventory for the FY 2008 Annual Materials Plan. The Committee is seeking public comments on the potential market impact of the sale of these materials. Public comments are an important element of the Committee's market impact review process. The quantities listed in Attachment 1 are not disposal or sales target quantities, but rather a statement of the proposed maximum disposal quantity of each listed material that may be sold in a particular fiscal year by the DNSC. The quantity of each material that will actually be offered for sale will depend on the market for the material at the time of the offering as well as on the quantity of each material approved for disposal by Congress. Submission of Comments The Committee requests that interested parties provide written comments, supporting data and documentation, and any other relevant information on the potential market impact of the sale of these commodities. All comments must be submitted to the address indicated in this notice. All comments submitted through e-mail must include the phrase “Market Impact Committee Notice of Inquiry” in the subject line. The Committee encourages interested persons who wish to comment to do so at the earliest possible time. The period for submission of comments will close on November 15, 2006. The Committee will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered, if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured. All comments submitted in response to this notice will be made a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying. Anyone submitting business confidential information should clearly identify the business confidential portion of the submission and also provide a non-confidential submission that can be placed in the public record. The Committee will seek to protect such information to the extent permitted by law. The Office of Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, displays public comments on the BIS Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA)Web site at *http://www.bis.doc.gov/foia* . This office does not maintain a separate public inspection facility. If you have technical difficulties accessing this Web site, please call BIS's Office of Administration at
(202)482-1900 for assistance. Dated: October 6, 2006. Matthew S. Borman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. Attachment 1.—Proposed FY 2008 Annual Materials Plan Material Unit Quantity Footnote Aluminum Oxide, Abrasive ST 5,500 Bauxite, Metallurgical Jamaican LDT 2,000,000 Beryl Ore ST 3,000
(1)Beryllium Metal ST 40 Beryllium Copper Master Alloy ST 300 Chromite, Chemical SDT 100
(1)Chromium, Ferro ST 150,000 Chromium, Metal ST 1,000 Cobalt LB Co 3,500,000
(1)Columbium Concentrates LB Cb 100,000
(1)Columbium Metal Ingots LB Cb 20,000 Diamond Stones ct 520,000
(1)Fluorspar, Metallurgical Grade SDT 35,000
(1)Germanium Kg 8,000 Graphite ST 120
(1)Iodine LB 1,000,000
(1)Lead ST 4,000
(1)Manganese, Battery Grade, Natural SDT 20,000
(1)Manganese, Battery Grade, Synthetic SDT 3,000
(1)Manganese, Chemical Grade SDT 25,000
(1)Manganese, Ferro ST 100,000 Manganese, Metallurgical Grade SDT 250,000 Mica, All LB 17,000
(1)Platinum Tr Oz 9,000
(1)Platinum-Iridium Tr Oz 3,000
(1)Talc ST 1,000
(1)Tantalum Carbide Powder LB Ta 8,000
(1)Tantalum Metal Powder LB Ta 10,000
(1)Tantalum Minerals LB Ta 140,000
(1)Tin MT 12,000
(1)Tungsten Metal Powder LB W 300,000 Tungsten Ores & Concentrates LB W 8,000,000 VTE, Chestnut LT 10
(1)VTE, Quebracho LT 6,000 VTE, Wattle LT 200
(1)Zinc ST 30,000
(1)1 Actual quantity will be limited to remaining inventory. [FR Doc. E6-17066 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-427-801, A-428-801, A-475-801, A-588-804, A-559-801, A-412-801] Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On July 3, 2006, in response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce published a notice of initiation of administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings (and parts thereof) from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. The period of review is May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006. The Department of Commerce is rescinding these reviews in part. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 16, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Case or Richard Rimlinger, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3174 and
(202)482-4477, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 3, 2006, in response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (Department) published a notice of initiation of administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings (and parts thereof) from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. See *Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 37892 (July 3, 2006). Subsequent to the initiation of these reviews, we received timely withdrawals of the requests we had received for the following reviews: ABB Turbo Systems Limited and ABB Inc. (collectively ABB) and NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH (NTN GmbH) with respect to ball bearings and parts thereof from Germany; INA with respect to ball bearings and parts thereof from France; Alcatel Vacuum Technology France
(AVTF)with respect to ball bearings and parts thereof from France and the United Kingdom; NSK Europe Ltd., NSK Bearings Europe Ltd. and NSK Corporation (collectively NSK UK) and SKF Aeroengine Bearings UK (SKF UK) with respect to ball bearings and parts thereof from the United Kingdom; and Toyota Industries Corporation (Toyota), Takeshita Seiko Co., Ltd. (Takeshita), and Minebea Co., Ltd. (Minebea) with respect to ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan. 1 Because there are no other requests for review of the above-named firms, we are rescinding the reviews with respect to these companies in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d). We also received a timely withdrawal of the request we received for Sapporo Precision, Inc. (Sapporo) with respect to ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan. 2 A review of Sapporo was also requested by another interested party which has not withdrawn its request. Consequently, we have continued our review of Sapporo. 1 On August 15, 2006, ABB submitted its withdrawal of request for review. On September 13, 2006, AVTF submitted its withdrawals of request for review. On September 21, 2006, Toyota submitted its withdrawal of request for review. On September 25, 2006, NSK UK submitted its withdrawal of request for review. On September 29, 2006, Timken submitted its withdrawals of request for review of INA, Minebea, NTN GmbH, SKF UK, and Takeshita. 2 On September 1, 2006, Sapporo submitted its withdrawal of request for review. Rescission of Reviews In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d) the Department will rescind an administrative review “if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.” ABB, AVTF, NSK UK, and Toyota withdrew their requests within the 90-day time limit. Timken U.S. Corporation (Timken) withdrew its requests for INA, Minebea, NTN GmbH, SKF UK, and Takeshita within the 90-day time limit. Because the Department received no other requests for review of ABB, AVTF, INA, NSK UK, NTN GmbH, Minebea, SKF UK, Takeshita, and Toyota, the Department is rescinding the reviews in part with respect to ball bearings and parts thereof from France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom by these firms. The above rescissions are pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection within 15 days of publication of this notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's assumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. 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 the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these rescissions in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: October 10, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-17148 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-580-837] Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from Korea; Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 16, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolanta Lawska, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-8362. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Information On April 5, 2006, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of initiation of the administrative review on the countervailing duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon quality steel plate from the Republic of Korea, covering the period January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 17077 (April 5, 2006). The preliminary results of this review are currently due no later than October 31, 2006. Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue preliminary results within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order or finding for which a review is requested. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act further states that if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period specified, the administering authority may extend the 245-day period to issue its preliminary results by up to 120 days. We have determined that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review within the 245-day period. Given the number and complexity of issues in this case, and in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of review by 120 days. Therefore, the preliminary results are now due no later than February 28, 2007. The final results continue to be due 120 days after publication of the preliminary results. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: October 6, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-17040 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-820] Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: After the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products
(HRS)from India covering the period December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005 (the period of review or POR), the sole respondent, Essar Steel Ltd. (Essar), claimed it did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. The Department is now rescinding this review based on record evidence consistent with Essar's no shipments claim. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 16, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Pedersen or Howard Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone:
(202)482-2769 or
(202)482-5193, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 1, 2005, the Department published, in the **Federal Register** , a notice of the opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on HRS from India, covering the period December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 72109 (December 1, 2005). On December 30, 2005 and January 3, 2006, Nucor Corporation and U.S. Steel Corporation (collectively, petitioners), respectively, requested an administrative review of the above-referenced antidumping order with respect to Essar. On February 1, 2006, the Department initiated the requested administrative review. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 5241 (February 1, 2006). On February 10, 2006, Essar submitted a letter to the Department in which it certified that it made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. On July 14, 2006, the Department published notification of its intent to rescind the instant review in the **Federal Register** . *See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Notice of Intent to Rescind Administrative Review* , 71 FR 40068 (July 14, 2006) ( *Intent to Rescind* ). The Department stated in that notice that it intended to rescind the instant administrative review of Essar because U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)data supported the conclusion that there were no entries, exports, or sales of subject merchandise from Essar. The Department provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on the rescission and received no comments. Scope of the Order The products covered by the antidumping duty order are certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of the order. Specifically included within the scope of the order are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy
(HSLA)steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. Steel products to be included in the scope of the order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products in which: i) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; ii) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and iii) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of the order unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of the order: • Alloy HRS products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, *e.g.* , American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM)specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506). • Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron & Steel Institute
(AISI)grades of series 2300 and higher. • Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS. • Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS. • Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent. • ASTM specifications A710 and A736. • USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500). • All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507). • Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTSUS. The merchandise subject to the order is classified in the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products covered by the order, including: vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive. Rescission of Administrative Review In accordance with 19 CFR § 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind an administrative review, in whole or with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if the Department concludes that, during the period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise. Because Essar was the only company for which a review was requested and it did not have any sales or exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, we are rescinding this review pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.213(d)(3). *See* , *e.g.* , *Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination not to Revoke in Part* , 68 FR 53127 (September 9, 2003) (after finding no evidence of entries of subject merchandise from two companies that made “no shipments” claims, the Department stated that “consistent with our practice, we are rescinding our review for Diler and Ekinciler”). Although Essar did not have any sales or exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, its subject merchandise may have entered the United States during the POR under CBP's antidumping case number for Essar by way of intermediaries (without Essar's knowledge). Within 15 days of publication of this notice, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the “all-others” rate in effect on the date of the entry. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Administrative Protective Orders This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders
(APOs)of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: October 6, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-17041 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-412-822] Stainless Steel Bar From the United Kingdom: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of the 2005-2006 Administration Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 16, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Trainor or Kate Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-4007 or
(202)482-4929, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 28, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from the United Kingdom, covering the period March 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 25145 (April 28, 2006). The preliminary results for this administrative review are currently due no later than December 1, 2006. Statutory Time Limits Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and a final determination within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively. Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results The Department is in the process of collecting additional information and clarifications of submitted data from the respondent. Furthermore, we require additional time to conduct verifications. Thus, it is not practicable to complete this review within the original time limit ( *i.e.* , 245 days). Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results by 120 days, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The preliminary results are now due not later than March 30, 2007. The final results continue to be due 120 days after publication of the preliminary results. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: October 6, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-17129 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-588-833] Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed-Circumstances Review: Stainless Steel Bar From Japan AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In accordance with section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and § 351.216(b) of the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) regulations, TRW Fuji Valve, Inc. (TRW), a U.S. importer, filed a request for a changed-circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from Japan. The petitioners and domestic interested parties have affirmatively expressed a lack of interest in the continuation of the order with respect to 21-2N modified valve/stem stainless steel round bar. 1 In response to this request, the Department is initiating a changed-circumstances review of the order on stainless steel bar from Japan with respect to this product as described below. 1 The petitioners and domestic interested parties include Carpenter Technology Corp., Crucible Specialty Metals Division of Crucible Materials Corp., Electralloy Corp., North American Stainless, Universal Stainless and Alloy Products, Inc., and Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 16, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0665 or
(202)482-1690. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 28, 2006, TRW 2 requested that the Department conduct a changed-circumstances review of the order on stainless steel bar from Japan and exclude a product to which it referred as 21-2N modified valve/stem stainless steel round bar from the scope of the order. See TRW's letter to the Secretary, dated August 28, 2006. Specifically, TRW requested that the Department exclude imports meeting the following description from the order on stainless steel bar from Japan: certain valve/stem stainless steel round bar of 21-2N modified grade, having a diameter of 5.7 millimeters (with a tolerance of 0.025 millimeters), in length no greater than 15 meters, having a chemical composition consisting of a minimum of 0.50 percent and a maximum of 0.60 percent of carbon, a minimum of 7.50 percent and a maximum of 9.50 percent of manganese, a maximum of 0.25 percent of silicon, a maximum of 0.04 percent of phosphorus, a maximum of 0.03 percent of sulfur, a minimum of 20.0 percent and a maximum of 22.00 percent of chromium, a minimum of 2.00 percent and a maximum of 3.00 percent of nickel, a minimum of 0.20 percent and a maximum of 0.40 percent of nitrogen, a minimum of 0.85 percent of the combined content of carbon and nitrogen, and a balance minimum of iron, having a maximum core hardness of 385 HB and a maximum surface hardness of 425 HB, with a minimum hardness of 270 HB for annealed material. See TRW's letter to the Secretary, dated August 28, 2006. TRW requested that the Department revoke the order in part retroactively to February 1, 2006, the beginning of the anniversary month of the order. TRW stated that the steel product in question is not produced in commercial quantities in the United States. 2 In its August 28, 2006, request TRW did not identify the sub-section of the term “interested party,” as defined by section 771(9) of the Act, which applies to TRW. In response to our September 21, 2006, request for clarification, in its September 25, 2006, response TRW identified itself as a U.S. importer of the subject merchandise. On September 18, 2006, the petitioners and domestic interested parties provided a letter attesting to their expressed lack of interest in having this merchandise, as described above, continue to be subject to the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from Japan. Scope of the Order The scope of the order covers stainless steel bar (SSB). The term SSB with respect to the order means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process. Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut-length flat-rolled products ( *i.e.,* cut-length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), wire ( *i.e.,* cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes and sections. The SSB subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050, 7222.20.0005, 7222.20.0045, 7222.20.0075, and 7222.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Initiation of Changed-Circumstances Review Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act, the Department will conduct a changed-circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. As stated above, on August 28, 2006, TRW requested a determination by the Department in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(b) to exclude the product described above from the scope of the order. TRW also requested that the Department make the revocation effective February 1, 2006. Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(b), we are initiating a changed-circumstances review. Although the petitioners and domestic interested parties have expressed a lack of interest in the order with respect to the product in question, they did not claim that they represent substantially all of the production of the domestic like product nor has the Department made such a determination. Interested parties are invited to comment on this initiation or to demonstrate that the petitioners and domestic interested parties account for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product. Public Comment Interested parties may submit comments which the Department will take into account in the preliminary results of this review. The due date for filing any such comments is no later than 15 days after the date of publication of this notice. Responses to those comments may be submitted not later than 7 days following submission of the comments. All written comments must be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. The Department will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of preliminary results of changed-circumstances review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 351.221(c)(3)(i), which will set forth the Department's preliminary factual and legal conclusions. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. The Department will issue its final results of review in accordance with the time limits set forth in 19 CFR 351.216(e). This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and § 351.221(b) of the Department's regulations. Dated: October 10, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-17149 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Decision of Panel. SUMMARY: On October 6, 2006, the binational panel issued its decision in the full sunset review of the antidumping and countervailing duty determination made by the International Trade Commission, respecting Magnesium from Canada, Secretariat File No. USA-CDA-2000-1904-09. The binational panel affirmed the International Trade Commission determination with two dissenting opinions. Copies of the panel decision are available from the U.S. Section of the NAFTA Secretariat. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230,
(202)482-5438. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) establishes a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of the final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination. Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico established *Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews* (“Rules”). These Rules were published in the **Federal Register** on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686). The panel review in this matter has been conducted in accordance with these Rules. *Panel Decision:* The determination is as follows: The majority opinion stated that “While the Panel had some reasonable concerns about the evidence supporting the Commission's price underselling finding, the totality of the Commission's determination, including its alternative price depression finding, is reasonable, made in accordance with law, and supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Therefore, the second determination on remand is hereby AFFIRMED”. The minority opinion stated “Having reviewed the Commission Second Remand Determination, the briefs, substantial parts of the Record and the views of the majority, we hold unlawful the Commission's findings as they are unsupported by substantial evidence on the record”. The panel has directed the Secretary to issue a Notice of Final Panel Action on the 11th day following the issuance of the panel decision. Dated: October 10, 2006. Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat. [FR Doc. E6-17126 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Allocation of Resources for Fire Service and Emergency Medical Service ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before December 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Jason D. Averill, Fire Protection Engineer, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8664,
(301)975-2585; or *jason.averill@nist.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract This information collection will be conducted by the Building and Fire Research Laboratory, a part of the National Institution of Standards and Technology, to establish a technical basis for optimal allocation of fire service and emergency medical service
(EMS)resources. Presently, no scientifically-based method exists with which a fire chief or local administrator may evaluate the capacity of the fire and emergency medical services to respond to risks which are or may be present within the community served. Additionally, there is no validated capability to quantitatively evaluate alternative levels of hazard mitigation or services. This project will provide the technical foundation to model the existing community hazards and response capacity, as well as explore the impact of changes to the service capacity. II. Method of Collection Respondents from fire and emergency service districts throughout the United States will record event-specific fire and emergency medical response data through a secure, web-based database program. Respondents are authorized representatives of a fire or EMS district trained in the data entry format required in this data collection. The data will be collected in a statistically representative manner in order to support generalization of the findings to a wide array of communities in the United States. III. Data *OMB Number:* None. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 128. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 10 minutes per response. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 4,267. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $0.00. IV. Request for Comments *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: October 10, 2006. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-17068 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 071806C] Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal School Training Operations at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA)regulations, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization
(IHA)to Eglin Air Force Base
(EAFB)for the take of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, incidental to Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal School (NEODS) training operations at EAFB, Florida. DATES: Effective from October 5, 2006, through October 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and the application are available by writing to Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation, and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning the contact listed here. A copy of the application containing a list of references used in this document may be obtained by writing to this address, by telephoning the contact listed here ( FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) or online at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm* . Documents cited in this notice may be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolie Harrison, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
(301)713-2289, ext. 166. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and
(D)of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. Authorization for incidental takings may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have no more than a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as: an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2004
(NDAA)(Public Law 108-136) removed the “small numbers” limitation and amended the definition of “harassment” as it applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows:
(i)any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or
(ii)any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing,nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B Harassment]. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization. Summary of Request On May 2, 2006, NMFS received an application from EAFB requesting re-authorization of their IHA for the harassment, by Level B harassment only, of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins ( *Tursiops truncatus* ) and Atlantic spotted dolphins ( *Stenella frontalis* ) incidental to NEODS training operations at EAFB, Florida, in the northern Gulf of Mexico (GOM). Each of up to six missions per year would include up to five live detonations of approximately 10-lb (4.6-kg) net explosive weight charges to occur in approximately 60-ft (18.3-m) deep water from one to three nm (1.9 to 5.6 km) off shore. Because the relative low cost and ease of use of mines lends itself to use by an array of transnational, rogue, and subnational adversaries that now pose the most immediate threat to American interests and because NEODS supports the Naval Fleet by providing training to personnel from all four armed services, civil officials, and military students from over 70 countries, this activity constitutes a “military readiness activity” pursuant to Section 315(f) of the NDAA. Specified Activities The mission of NEODS is to train personnel to detect, recover, identify, evaluate, render safe, and dispose of unexploded ordnance
(UXO)that constitutes a threat to people, material, installations, ships, aircraft, and operations. The NEODS plans to utilize three areas within the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range (EGTTR), consisting of approximately 86,000 mi 2 (222,739 km 2 ) within the GOM and the airspace above, for Mine Countermeasures
(MCM)detonations, which involve mine-hunting and mine-clearance operations. The detonation of small, live explosive charges disables the function of the mines, which are inert for training purposes. The training would occur approximately one to three nautical miles
(nm)(1.9 to 5.6 km) offshore of Santa Rosa Island
(SRI)six times annually, at varying times within the year. Each of the six training classes would include one or two “Live Demolition Days.” During each set of Live Demolition Days, five inert mines would be placed in a compact area on the sea floor in approximately 60 ft (18.3 m) of water. Divers would locate the mines by hand-held sonars. The AN/PQS-2A hand-held acoustic locator has a sound pressure level
(SPL)of 178.5 re 1 μPascal @ 1 meter and the Dukane Underwater Acoustic Locator has a SPL of 157-160.5 re 1 μPascal @ 1 meter. Because output from these hand-held sound sources would attenuate to below any current threshold for protected species within approximately 10-15 m, noise impacts are not anticipated and are not addressed further in this analysis. Five charges packed with five lbs (2.3 kg) of C-4 explosive material will be set up adjacent to each of the mines. No more than five charges will be detonated over the 2-day period. Detonation times will begin no earlier than 2 hours after sunrise and end no later than 2 hours before dusk and charges utilized within the same hour period will have a maximum separation time of 20 minutes. Mine shapes and debris will be recovered and removed from the water when training is completed. A more detailed description of the work is contained in the application which is available upon request (see ADDRESSES ). Marine Mammals and Habitat Affected by the Activity Marine mammal species that potentially occur within the EGTTR include several species of cetaceans and the West Indian manatee. While a few manatees may migrate as far north from southern Florida (where there are generally confined in the winter) as Louisiana in the summer, they primarily inhabit coastal and inshore waters and rarely venture offshore. NEODS missions are conducted one to 3 nm (5.6 km) from shore and effects on manatees are therefore considered very unlikely and not discussed further in this analysis. Cetacean abundance estimates for the project area are derived from GulfCet II aerial surveys conducted from 1996 to 1998 over a 70,470 km 2 area, including nearly the entire continental shelf region of the EGTTR, which extends approximately 9 nm (16.7 km) from shore. The dwarf and pygmy sperm whales are not included in this analysis because their potential for being found near the project site is remote. Although Atlantic spotted dolphins do not normally inhabit nearshore waters, NMFS has included them in the analysis to ensure conservative mitigation measures are applied. The two marine mammal species expected to be affected by these activities, whose status and distribution were discussed in the proposed IHA (71 FR 43470; August 1, 2006), are the bottlenose dolphin ( *Tursiops truncatus* ) and the Atlantic spotted dolphin ( *Stenella frontalis* ). Further descriptions of the biology and local distribution of these species can be found in the application (see ADDRESSES ); other sources such as Wursig *et al* . (2000), and the NMFS Stock Assessments, can be viewed at: *http://www.NMFS.noaa.gov/pr/PR2/* *Stock_Assessment_Program/sars.html* . Potential Effects of Activities on Marine Mammals The primary potential impact to the Atlantic bottlenose and the Atlantic spotted dolphins occurring in the EGTTR from the planned detonations is Level B harassment from noise. In the absence of any mitigation or monitoring measures, there is a very small chance that a marine mammal could be injured or killed when exposed to the energy generated from an explosive force on the sea floor. However, NMFS believes the required mitigation measures will preclude this possibility in the case of this particular activity. Analysis of NEODS noise impacts to cetaceans was based on criteria and thresholds initially presented in U.S. Navy Environmental Impact Statements for ship shock trials of the SEAWOLF submarine and the WINSTON CHURCHILL vessel and subsequently adopted by NMFS. Non-lethal injurious impacts (Level A Harassment) are defined in EAFB's application and this document as tympanic membrane
(TM)rupture and the onset of slight lung injury. The threshold for Level A Harassment corresponds to a 50-percent rate of TM rupture, which can be stated in terms of an energy flux density
(EFD)value of 205 dB re 1 μPa 2 s. TM rupture is well-correlated with permanent hearing impairment (Ketten
(1998)indicates a 30-percent incidence of permanent threshold shift
(PTS)at the same threshold). The zone of influence
(ZOI)(farthest distance from the source at which an animal is exposed to the EFD level referred to) for the Level A Harassment threshold is 52 m (172 ft). Level B (non-injurious) Harassment includes temporary (auditory) threshold shift (TTS), a slight, recoverable loss of hearing sensitivity. One criterion used for TTS is 182 dB re 1 μPa 2 s maximum EFD level in any 1/3-octave band above 100 Hz for toothed whales (e.g., dolphins). The ZOI for this threshold is 230 m (754 ft). A second criterion, 23 psi, has recently been established by NMFS to provide a more conservative range for TTS when the explosive or animal approaches the sea surface, in which case explosive energy is reduced, but the peak pressure is not. The ZOI for 23 psi is 222 m (728 ft) (NMFS will apply the more conservative of these two). Level B Harassment also includes behavioral modifications resulting from repeated noise exposures (below TTS) to the same animals (usually resident) over a relatively short period of time. Threshold criteria for this particular type of harassment are currently still under debate. One recommendation is a level of 6 dB below TTS (see 69 FR 21816, April 22, 2004), which would be 176 dB re 1 μPa 2 s. However, due to the infrequency of the detonations, the potential variability in target locations, and the continuous movement of marine mammals off the northern Gulf, NMFS believes that behavioral modification from repeated exposures to the same animal is highly unlikely. Comments and Responses On August 1, 2006, NMFS published in the **Federal Register** a notice of a proposed IHA for EAFB's request to take marine mammals incidental to NEODS training exercises in the GOM, and requested comments regarding this request (See 71 FR 43470). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission). In addition, NMFS received comments from one member of the public who objected to the killing of marine mammals. However, NMFS is not authorizing the killing of marine mammals and, therefore, that comment is not addressed further. *Comment 1:* The Commission recommends NMFS grant the requested authorizations provided that Eglin AFB conduct all practicable monitoring and mitigation measures to afford the potentially affected marine mammal species adequate protection from serious and lethal injury. *Response:* NMFS believes that the IHA includes all practicable monitoring and mitigation measures to avoid serious or lethal injury of marine mammals, and we believe that they will be effective. The radius around the site of the explosion where the animals could potentially be injured is 52 m, and animals would have to be significantly closer than that for the potential for serious injury or death to occur. MMOs will be monitoring a 460-m radius area for the entire 15 minutes leading up to the detonation and the operation will be postponed if animals are seen within the 230-dB ZOI or if large schools of fish, which could attract the delphinids, are seen within the ZOI. *Comment 2:* The Commission recommends that NEODS training operations be suspended immediately if a seriously injured or dead marine mammal is found in the vicinity of the operations and the death or injury could be attributable to the NEODS activities. Further,the Commission recommends that any suspension should remain in place until NMFS has
(1)reviewed the situation and determined that further deaths or serious injuries are unlikely to occur or
(2)issued regulations authorizing such takes under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. *Response:* NMFS concurs with the Commission's recommendation and will include this provision in the IHA. *Comment 3:* The Commission also resubmitted the identical comments it submitted on the 2005 NEODS IHA. *Response:* NMFS stated the Commission's concerns and addressed them in the **Federal Register** notice announcing the issuance of the 2005 IHA (70 FR 51341; August 30, 2005), and they may be referenced there. Numbers of Marine Mammals Estimated To Be Harassed Estimates of the potential number of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins and Atlantic spotted dolphins to be harassed by the training were calculated using the number of distinct firing or test events (maximum 30 per year), the ZOI for noise exposure, and the density of animals that potentially occur in the ZOI. The take estimates provided here do not include mitigation measures, which are expected to further minimize impacts to protected species and make injury or death highly unlikely. The estimated number of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins and Atlantic spotted dolphins potentially taken through exposure to the Level A Harassment threshold (205 dB re 1 μPa 2 s), are less than one (0.22 and 0.19, respectively) annually. For Level B Harassment, two separate criteria were established, one expressed in dB re 1 μPa 2 s maximum EFD level in any 1/3-octave band above 100 Hz, and one expressed in psi. The estimated numbers of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins and Atlantic spotted dolphins potentially taken through exposure to 182 dB are 4 and 3 individuals, respectively. The estimated numbers potentially taken through exposure to 23 psi are also 4 and 3 individuals, respectively. Possible Effects of Activities on Marine Mammal Habitat NMFS anticipates no loss or modification to the habitat used by Atlantic bottlenose dolphins or Atlantic spotted dolphins in the EGTTR. The primary source of marine mammal habitat impact resulting from the NEODS missions is noise, which is intermittent (maximum 30 times per year) and of limited duration. The effects of debris (which will be recovered following test activities), ordnance, fuel, and chemical residues were analyzed in the NEODS Biological Assessment and the Air Force concluded that marine mammal habitat would not be affected. Mitigation and Monitoring Mitigation will consist primarily of surveying and taking action to avoid detonating charges when protected species are within the ZOI. A trained, NMFS-approved observerwill be staged from the highest point possible on a support ship and have proper lines of communication to the Officer in Tactical Command. The survey area will be 460 m (1509 ft) in every direction from the target, which is twice the radius of the ZOI for Level B Harassment (230 m (755 ft)). To ensure visibility of marine mammals to observers, NEODS missions will be delayed if whitecaps cover more than 50 percent of the surface or if the waves are greater than 3 feet (Beaufort Sea State 4). Pre-mission monitoring will be used to evaluate the test site for environmental suitability of the mission. Visual surveys will be conducted two hours, one hour, and the entire 15 minutes prior to the mission to verify that the ZOI (230 m (755 ft)) is free of visually detectable marine mammals and large schools of fish, and that the weather is adequate to support visual surveys. The observer will plot and record sightings, bearing, and time for all marine mammals detected, which would allow the observer to determine if the animal is likely to enter the test area during detonation. If a marine mammal appears likely to enter the test area during detonation, if large schools of fish are present, or if the weather is inadequate to support monitoring, the observer will declare the range fouled and the tactical officer will implement a hold until monitoring indicates that the test area is and will remain clear of detectable marine mammals. Monitoring of the test area will continue throughout the mission until the last detonation is complete. The mission would be postponed if:
(1)Any marine mammal is visually detected within the ZOI (230 m (755 ft)). The delay would continue until the animal that caused the postponement is confirmed to be outside the ZOI (visually observed swimming out of the range).
(2)Any marine mammal is detected in the ZOI and subsequently is not seen again. The mission would not continue until the last verified location is outside of the ZOI and the animal is moving away from the mission area.
(3)Large schools of fish are observed in the water within of the ZOI. The delay would continue until large fish schools are confirmed to be outside the ZOI. In the event of a postponement, pre-mission monitoring would continue as long as weather and daylight hours allow. If a charge failed to explode, mitigation measures would continue while operations personnel attempted to recognize and solve the problem (e.g., detonate the charge). Post-mission monitoring is designed to determine the effectiveness of pre-mission mitigation by reporting any sightings of dead or injured marine mammals. Post-detonation monitoring, concentrating on the area down current of the test site, would commence immediately following each detonation and continue for at least two hours after the last detonation. The monitoring team would document and report to the appropriate marine animal stranding network any marine mammals killed or injured during the test and, if practicable, recover and examine any dead animals. The species, number, location, and behavior of any animals observed by the teams would be documented and reported to the Officer in Tactical Command. Additionally, in the unlikely event that a seriously injured or dead marine mammal is found in the vicinity of the operations and the death or injury could be attributable to the NEODS activities, training operations will be suspended and NMFS contacted immediately. This suspension would remain in place until the Service has
(1)reviewed the situation and determined that further deaths or serious injuries are unlikely to occur or
(2)issued regulations authorizing such takes under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. Reporting The Air Force will notify NMFS 2 weeks prior to initiation of each training session. Any takes of marine mammals other than those authorized by the IHA, as well as any injuries or deaths of marine mammals, will be reported to the Southeast Regional Administrator, NMFS, within 24 hours. A summary of mission observations and test results, including dates and times of detonations as well as pre- and post-mission monitoring observations, will be submitted to the Southeast Regional Office
(NMFS)and to the Division of Permits, Conservation, and Education, Office of Protected Resources
(NMFS)within 90 days after the completion of the last training session. Endangered Species Act In a Biological Opinion issued on October 25, 2004, NMFS concluded that the NEODS training missions and their associated actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species under the jurisdiction of NMFS or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat that has been designated for those species. NMFS has issued an incidental take statement
(ITS)for NEODS for sea turtles pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The ITS contains reasonable and prudent measures with implementing terms and conditions to minimize the effects of this take. This IHA action is within the scope of the previously analyzed action and does not change the action in a manner that was not considered previously. National Environmental Policy Act In 2005, NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA)on the Issuance of Authorizations to Take Marine Mammals, by Harassment, Incidental to Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal School Training Operations at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, and subsequently issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). This IHA action is within the scope of the previously analyzed action and does not change the action in a manner that was not considered previously. Therefore, preparation of an EIS on this action is not required by NEPA or its implementing regulations. Conclusions NMFS has issued an IHA to the Air Force for the NEODS training missions to take place at EAFB over a 1-year period. The issuance of this IHA is contingent upon adherence to the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements. NMFS has determined that the NEODS training, which entails up to six missions per year, including up to five live detonations per mission of approximately 5-lb (2.3 kg) net explosive weight charges to occur in approximately 60-foot (18 m) deep water from one to three nm off shore, will result in the Level B harassment of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins and Atlantic spotted dolphins (less than 0.0002 percent of the population for each species, and perhaps 1-2 percent of an inshore stock of bottlenose dolphin, if one of them were harassed) and will have a negligible impact on these marine mammal species and stocks. While behavioral modifications may be made by Atlantic bottlenose dolphins and Atlantic spotted dolphins to avoid the resultant acoustic stimuli, when the potential density of dolphins in the area and the required mitigation and monitoring are taken into consideration NMFS does expect any injury or mortality to result. The effects of the NEODS training are expected to be limited to short-term and localized TTS-related behavioral changes. No rookeries, mating grounds, areas of concentrated feeding, or other areas of special significance for marine mammals occur within or near the NEODS test sites. Authorization As a result of these determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to the Air Force for NEODS training operations at EAFB, Florida, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. Dated: October 5, 2006. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-17127 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 101006D] Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting 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 one public meeting of the Ad Hoc Shrimp Effort Working Group (SEWG). DATES: The SEWG meeting will convene at 9 a.m. on Thursday, November 2, 2006 and conclude no later than 3 p.m. on Friday, November 3, 2006. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the NMFS Galveston Laboratory, Building 216, 4700 Avenue U, Galveston, TX. *Council address* : Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Assane Diagne, Economist, telephone:
(813)348-1630. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene one meeting of the Ad Hoc Shrimp Effort Working Group
(SEWG)to evaluate shrimp effort in the Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ)of the Gulf of Mexico. The working group, appointed by the Council during its March 2006, regular meeting, is charged with providing the Council with alternatives for determining the appropriate level of effort in the shrimp fishery in the EEZ. The group will also discuss the level of effort necessary to achieve optimum yield in the shrimp fishery and what level of effort would derive the maximum benefits of that fishery. The SEWG includes fishery biologists, economists and others knowledgeable about shrimp effort in the Gulf of Mexico. Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the SEWG for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the SEWG will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnsuon-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency. Copies 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: October 11, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-17074 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 101006C] Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting 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 (Council) to convene a workgroup of its Socioeconomic Panel
(SEP)via conference call. DATES: The conference call will be held November 2, 2006, at 11 a.m. EDT. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held via conference call and listening stations will be available. For specific locations see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . *Council address* : Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Assane Diagne, Economist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(813)348-1630. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The conference call will begin at 11 a.m. EDT and conclude no later than 1 p.m. EDT. Listening stations are available at the following locations: The Gulf Council office (see ADDRESSES ), and The National Marine Fisheries Service office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; Contact: Stephen Holiman,
(727)551-5719. The SEP workgroup will hold a conference call to discuss methods and data needed to evaluate total allowable catch
(TAC)allocations between the recreational and commercial sectors. Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the SEP workgroup for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during the meeting. Actions will be restricted to the issue specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the SEP workgroup's intent to take action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations The meetings are 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: October 11, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-17075 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 101006B] New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council's (Council) Groundfish Committee will meet to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). DATES: The meeting will be held on Friday, November 3, 2006, at 9 a.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn, One Newbury Street, Peabody, MA 01960; telephone:
(978)535-4600. *Council address* : New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(978)465-0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The items of discussion in the committee's agenda are as follows: The Groundfish Oversight Committee will meet to continue work on the adjustment to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan that is planned for implementation on May 1, 2009. This adjustment will adopt management measures necessary to continue the stock rebuilding programs that were adopted in 2004 by Amendment 13. For this action the Council is planning to submit an amendment supported by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A notice of intent will be published announcing plans to prepare an EIS and announcing the scoping period and a series of scoping meetings. In order to facilitate informed comments during the scoping period, the Council plans to prepare a scoping document that will describe the standards and/or requirements that should be considered when submitting comments. At this meeting, the Committee will develop advice for the Council to consider when establishing those standards. This Committee meeting will be held in the form of a workshop. Committee members will be assigned to working groups that will be assisted by the participation of members of the Groundfish Advisory Panel, Recreational Advisory Panel, and Groundfish Plan Development Team. The Committee may also consider other business after the workshop discussions are concluded. Workshop discussions will be reported to the Council on November 14-16, 2006. After the Council reviews and acts on the Committee recommendations, a scoping document will be prepared and published. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: October 11, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-17073 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force Notice is Given of the Names of Members of a Performance Review Board for the Department of the Air Force AGENCY: Department of the Air Force. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is given of the names of members of a Performance Review Board for the Department of the Air Force. Effective Date is November 16, 2006. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 4314(c)(1) through
(5)of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations, one or more Senior Executive Service performance review boards. The boards shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of senior executives' performance by supervisors and make recommendations to the appointing authority or rating official relative to the performance of these executives. The members of the Performance Review Board for the U.S. Air Force are: 1. Board President—Gen Norton A. Schwartz, USTRANSCOM/CC. 2. Lt Gen Donald J. Hoffman, Military Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition). 3. Lt Gen Stephen R. Lorenz, Commander, Air University. 4. Mr Roger M. Blanchard, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force. 5. Mrs Barbara A. Westgate, Executive Director, Air Force Materiel Command. 6. Mr Robert E. Dawes, Auditor General of the Air Force, Secretary of the Air Force. 7. Mr Charlie E. Williams, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary (Contracting), Secretary of the Air Force. 8. Mr Kenneth Percell, Executive Director, Warner Robins Air Logistics Center. 9. Mr John Salvatori, Director, Intell Systems Support Office (ISSO). 10. RADM Donna L. Crisp, Director for Manpower and Personnel, J1 , The Joint Staff. 11. Mr John Argodale, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Operations) OASA (Financial Management & Comptroller). 12. Ms Mary George, Deputy Director for Information Operations and Reports, Washington Headquarters Services. 13. Ms Ellen E. McCarthy, Director, Personnel Development and Readiness, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Department of Defense. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please direct any written comments or requests for information to Mr. Greg Price, Senior Leader Management, AF/DPS, 1040 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1040 (PH: 703-697-8332; *gregory.price@pentagon.af.mil* ). Bao-Anh Trinh, Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E6-17089 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-05-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Notice of Availability of the Fort Bliss, Texas and New Mexico, Mission Master Plan Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The Department of the Army announces the availability of a Draft Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) identifying the potential environmental effects of changing land and airspace use at Fort Bliss to support evolving changes in missions and units and support Army Transformation, Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy, Base Realignment And Closure (BRAC), the Army Campaign Plan and other Army initiatives. The SEIS will supplement the *Fort Bliss, Texas and New Mexico, Mission Master Plan Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement* (PEIS), for which a Record of Decision was signed in 2001. DATES: The public comment period for the DSEIS will end 60 days after publication of the NOA in the **Federal Register** by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Mr. John F. Barrera, Directorate of Environment, B624 Pleasonton Avenue, Attention: IMSW-BLS-Z, (barreraj), Forest Bliss, TX 79916-6812; facsimile:
(915)568-3548; e-mail: *SEIS@bliss.army.mil.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jean Offutt, Public Affairs Officer, IMSW-BLS-PA; Fort Bliss, TX 79916-6812; telephone:
(915)568-6812; fax:
(915)568-2995; e-mail: *jean.offutt@bliss.army.mil.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Proposed Action would change land use in the Main Cantonment to support units assigned to Fort Bliss under BRAC, and in the Fort Bliss Training Complex to support construction of live-fire ranges and off-road maneuver space needed to train soldiers to doctrinal standards. In addition to the Proposed Action, the DSEIS analyzes the environmental affects of three other action alternatives and a no action alternative. The action alternatives differ in the amount (216,000-352,000 acres) and location of land in the Tularosa Basin portion of McGregor Range proposed for off road maneuver, resulting in varied abilities to meet the defined need for maneuver training, accommodate units and missions in addition to the BRAC package, and flexibility to meet future requirements. Those portions of McGregor Range outside the Tularosa basin, specifically Otero Mesa and the Sacramento Mountain foothills, will not experience changes in land use. Issues associated with land use changes in the Training Complex include potential impacts to natural resources and cultural resources, potential land use conflicts with grazing portions of the off-road maneuver space on McGregor Range, access to roads to the Forest Service grazing allotments on McGregor Range, recreational use of McGregor Range, and closures of NM Highway 506. Noise issues are part of the upgrade, or construction of firing ranges. Issues associated with land use changes and construction in the Main Cantonment include potential increases in noise and dust, and transportation issues. Socioeconomic issues include population growth and development, public services and utilities, education, and quality of life. Alternative four, the Proposed Action, is anticipated to generate substantial economic benefits and significantly affect population growth and development, traffic, utility demands, and demand for public and medical services in the region. Expansion of off-road vehicle maneuver training into the Tularosa Basin portion of McGregor Range, along with increased maneuvers in the North and South Training Areas, is expected to increase wind and water erosion and will likely result in long-term changes in vegetation communities in the more intensely used training areas. Training related noise is also expected to increase in areas adjacent to Don a Ana Range and portions of McGregor Range. Copies of the Draft SEIS are available for review at the following libraries: In El Paso, the Richard Burges Regional Library, 9600 Dyer; the Irving Schwartz Branch Library, 1865 Dean Martin; the Clardy Fox Branch Library, 5515 Robert Alva; and the Doris van Doren Regional Branch Library, 551 Redd Road. In Las Cruces, NM, the New Mexico State University Zuhl Library at 2999 McFie Circle; and in Alamogordo, NM at the Alamogordo Public Library, 920 Oregon Avenue. The document can also be reviewed at *https://www.bliss.army.mil.* Public meetings will be announced through regional newspapers and other public affairs outlets. These public meetings will be held in El Paso, Las Cruces and Alamogordo to accept comments on the DSEIS, and are expected to occur in November 2006. Dated: October 5, 2006. John A. Macdonald, Brigadier General, U.S. Army, Director, Installation Management Agency. [FR Doc. 06-8667 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 24
Traces to 24 documents
U.S. Code
- Purposes for extensions of credit§ 2019
- Transfer of lending authority§ 2279b
- Definitions§ 601
- General corporate powers§ 2013
- Fixed guideway capital investment grants§ 5309
- Urbanized area formula grants§ 5307
- Air quality control regions§ 7407
- General provisions§ 5323
- Authorizations§ 5338
- Repealed. Pub. L. 112–141, div. B, § 20002(a), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 622]§ 5308
- Policies and purposes§ 5301
- Short title§ 98
- Strategic and Critical Materials Board of Directors§ 98h–1
- Congressional findings and declaration of policy§ 1361
- Findings, purposes and policy§ 1801
register
CFR
- Administrative review of orders and suspension agreements under section 751(a)(1) of the Act.§ 351.213
- Access to business proprietary information.§ 351.305
- Changed circumstances review under section 751(b) of the Act.§ 351.216
- Filing, document identification, format, translation, service, and certification of documents.§ 351.303
- Review procedures.§ 351.221
16 references not yet in our index
- 12 CFR 613
- 49 CFR 624
- Pub. L. 105-178
- Pub. L. 109-59
- 119 Stat. 1144
- Pub. L. 109-115
- 119 Stat. 2396
- 5 USC 601-612
- 42 USC 4321-4347
- 49 CFR 1.51
- 49 CFR 630
- Pub. L. 104-13
- Pub. L. 98-111
- Pub. L. 101-246
- 50 CFR 216.103
- Pub. L. 108-136
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Proposed rule
Cite12 CFR 613
Cite49 CFR 624
Pub. L.Pub. L. 105-178
Cites 40 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources