Notices. Request for Public Comment—Import Monitoring of Textile and Apparel Products From Vietnam
45,152 words·~205 min read·
/register/2006/12/04/06-9503A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-337-806 Certain Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile: Correction to Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 4, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yasmin Bordas or Julie H. Santoboni, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-3813 or
(202)482-4194, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 31, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received a request from Santiago Comercio Exterior Sociedad Anonima (SANCO) to defer for one year the initiation of the July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Individually Quick Frozen
(IQF)Red Raspberries from Chile with respect to SANCO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(c). The Department received no objections to this request from any party cited in 19 CFR 351.213(c)(1)(ii). On August 30, 2006, the Department published *Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 51573 (Aug. 30, 2006) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). In the Initiation Notice, the Department inadvertently included SANCO , despite SANCO's pending, unopposed request for deferral. We have granted SANCO's request for deferral. Therefore, we are correcting the Initiation Notice to defer for one year the initiation of the July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 administrative review of IQF Red Raspberries with respect to SANCO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(c). We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: November 21, 2006. Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-20459 Filed 12-01-06; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-428-830 Stainless Steel Bar from Germany: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 4, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Damian Felton or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-0133 or
(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 26, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of initiation of a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from Germany covering the period March 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006 (71 FR 24642). On May 10, 2006, Schmiedewerke Groditz GmbH (“SWG”) agreed to align the new shipper review with the ongoing fourth administrative review and waive the accelerated time limits for completion of the new shipper review. On July 28, 3006, the fourth administrative review was rescinded. (71 FR 42804). However, the new shipper review remains on the administrative review time line. The preliminary results for this new shipper review are currently due no later than December 1, 2006. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results 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 antidumping duty order for which a review is requested and issue the final results within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, 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. Due to the complexity of the issues in this case, including the need to issue another supplemental questionnaire, it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review within the original time limit ( *i.e.* , December 1, 2006). Therefore, the Department is partially extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results to no later than March 15, 2007. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: November 27, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-20457 Filed 12-01-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration C-533-825 Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate
(PET)Film from India AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 4, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi Blum, Nicholas Czajkowski, or Toni Page, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0197,
(202)482-1395, or
(202)482-1398, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 8, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on polyethylene terephthalate
(PET)film from India. *See Notice of Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India* , 71 FR 45037 (August 8, 2006). The current deadline for the final results of review is December 6, 2006. Extension of Time Limits for Final Results of Review Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the final results of the review within 120 days after the date on which notice of the preliminary results were published in the **Federal Register** . However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the final results to 180 days from the date of publication of the preliminary results. The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the review within the original time frame due to the complex nature of the case. As this case involves a large number of programs under review, the Department needs additional time to review information gathered at verification and to give parties time to submit subsequent comments. Consequently, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations, the Department is extending the deadline for completion of the final results of the administrative review by 60 days. As the 180th day falls on a Sunday, the final results will now be due no later than February 5, 2007. This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: November 28, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-20467 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Textile and Apparel Products From Vietnam: Import Monitoring Program; Request for Comments AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Request for Public Comment—Import Monitoring of Textile and Apparel Products From Vietnam. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is requesting public comment on the development of a monitoring program covering imports of textile and apparel products from Vietnam to remain in place for the duration of this Administration. To help the Department develop the program and, at the same time, be advised of the concerns of all interested stakeholders, the Department is inviting the public to provide input on the monitoring program and identify issues or considerations that they believe are deserving of the Department's attention as implementation of this program proceeds. DATES: Written comments and electronic files must be received on or before 5 p.m. on December 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to comment should file, by the deadline specified above, a signed original and four copies of each set of comments. Written comments should be addressed to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room 1870, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230. Comments should be limited to 25 pages or less. All comments will be available for public inspection at Import Administration's Central Records Unit, Room B-099, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on business days. The Department will not accept nor consider comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. While the Department requires that comments be submitted in written form, we also recommend submission of comments in electronic form. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted on CD-ROM, as comments submitted on diskettes are likely to be damaged by postal radiation treatment. Electronic files should indicate that they are in response to the request for public comment on import monitoring of textile and apparel products from Vietnam. Comments received in electronic form will be made available to the public in Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the Import Administration Web site at the following address: *http://ia.ita.doc.gov.* Any questions concerning file formatting, document conversion, access on the Internet, or other electronic filing issues should be addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import Administration Webmaster, at
(202)482-0866, e-mail address: *webmaster-support@ita.doc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Parkhill at
(202)482-3791. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department is establishing a monitoring program on imports of textile and apparel products from Vietnam. The program will begin upon Vietnam's accession to the World Trade Organization
(WTO)and will expire at the end of the current administration (January 19, 2009). While we seek comment on what textile and apparel goods should be subject to monitoring, we note that items in the following product groups have been identified as being of special sensitivity: trousers, shirts, underwear, swimwear and sweaters. In addition to monitoring import volumes and values, the Department will develop, in close cooperation with interested parties, production templates to assist it in its biannual evaluation of imports of these products to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to initiate an antidumping investigation consistent with U.S. law and our international obligations under the WTO. The Department is aware that such a program has an impact on a broad array of parties (e.g., domestic textile and apparel producers, retailers, workers, importers, and the Government of Vietnam) and is seeking input from all interested parties who wish to comment. This is the first step in our outreach to interested parties and will be followed up with other outreach efforts as we progress. If you have any thoughts on what the most effective means of outreach would be, please feel free to comment. *Guidance On Comments:* The following is a list of issues and questions on which we are requesting assistance and comment. This is not a questionnaire; it is simply for your convenience. Please feel free to comment on any or all of the issues outlined below as well as provide additional comments that you believe will assist the Department in developing this monitoring program. Please be as specific as possible in your comments, especially with respect to product categories and HTS numbers. When responding, please identify the name of your company. Also please provide contact information including address, phone number and e-mail address. Consultative Process With Interested Parties • The Department wants to ensure that all interested parties (e.g., producers, retailers, workers) are given a full opportunity to provide input into all aspects of the process, consistent with legal requirements. Is there any advice you would like to share on the establishment of consultative mechanisms with or outreach efforts to interested parties? • Are there advisory panels or industry groups that you believe the Department should meet with on an ongoing basis? Please identify and provide contact information, if possible. • The Department intends to hold public hearings on this process. In addition to hearings in Washington, DC, should the Department consider field hearings in select locations? Are there specific locations where you think such hearings should be held? • The Department is also considering options for other kinds of outreach sessions. Do you have suggestions for how such sessions should be structured and are there specific locations where or specific parties with whom you think such sessions should be held? • Are there any other companies, groups or associations whose views you believe are integral to this process? Please identify and, to the extent possible, provide contact information. Products • As noted above, five product groups—trousers, shirts, underwear, swimwear and sweaters—have been identified as being of special sensitivity. Within these broader groups, are there any particular products that should be monitored or could act as an indicator or bellwether for the category group as a whole? Please identify and explain. • What other textile and apparel categories or HTS numbers do you believe should be monitored? Please identify and explain. • What other textile and apparel product categories or HTS numbers do you believe could be excluded from monitoring? Please identify and explain. • For any additional textile and apparel categories that you have indicated should be monitored, are there any particular products that could act as an indicator or bellwether for the category group as a whole? Please identify and explain. • Textile and apparel import data from Vietnam are currently publicly available in the Major Shipper Reports issued by Import Administration's Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA). These reports include volume and value (US$) data according to the historical product categories used in current monitoring activities. Is there any other type of publicly available aggregate information that should be used for purposes of the Vietnam monitoring program? • In monitoring products, should the Department focus on products that specific U.S. domestic producers have identified as being products they produce? If not, please explain why? • Are there any other comments relating to products that you wish to provide? Production Templates • As part of the monitoring system, the Department of Commerce may find it necessary to develop production templates to assist it in its evaluation of textile and apparel imports from Vietnam. Development of these templates will require a detailed understanding of the production process associated with the products to be monitored. Once product categories have been selected, we will be, if necessary, soliciting information on these production templates. • As part of this process, the Department would likely examine information from market economy countries that it believes are most similar to Vietnam. In this regard, what countries would be the most appropriate for the Department to examine? To your knowledge, what market economy countries have the most similar textile and apparel industries to Vietnam? Please explain. • Are there any other comments with respect to production templates that you wish to provide? Domestic Industry Information • As part of its monitoring, the Department will examine a broad range of public information on the domestic textile and apparel industry (e.g., production, capacity utilization, employment). In your opinion, what information on the domestic industry should the Department examine as part of this process? Are there sources that you recommend for such information? Please identify and explain. • The Department will also examine public information on the domestic textile and apparel market (e.g., demand, domestic prices, market share). In your opinion, what information on the domestic market should the Department examine as part of this process? Are there sources that you recommend for such information? Please identify and explain. • Should the Department also examine global industry and market information? In your opinion, what information should the Department examine as part of this process? Are there sources that you recommend for such information? Please identify and explain. • Is there any other industry or market information that you think should be examined as part of this process? Are there sources that you recommend for such information? Please identify and explain. • How can the Department best ascertain the effects of shifts in the type of textile and apparel imports from Vietnam on the domestic textile and apparel industry? • Please identify interested parties (e.g., producers, retailers, workers) who are, in your view, relevant to our examination of the domestic industry. • Are there any other comments with respect to the domestic industry that you wish to provide? Biannual Evaluation Process • Every six months, for the duration of the monitoring program, the Department will evaluate the information it has compiled as part of this effort. What information do you think is most important for the Department to consider in its evaluation process? • As part of the biannual process, should the Department also undertake intermittent, mid-term or staged analyses of import and market trends? If so, what should be the focus of this analysis? • What advice do you have with respect to the consultative process with interested parties (e.g., industry, retailers, workers) to be undertaken as part of the biannual evaluation process? Should the Department hold hearings or conduct outreach as part of this process? • Are there any other comments you wish to provide on the biannual evaluation process. Public Dissemination of Information • What information should be disseminated to the public as part of this process (e.g., import data, U.S. industry information)? • Is there any information that you think should not be publicly disseminated (please note that the Department is prohibited from releasing business proprietary information to the public)? Please explain why. Additional Comments • Do you have any additional comments? Are there any other concerns that you wish the Department to be aware of as it develops this monitoring program? Dated: November 30, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-20545 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 112006G] Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of receipt of a permit application; request for comments. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that NOAA Fisheries has received an application for a permit to conduct research for scientific purposes from Elise Kelley, researcher at the University of California at Santa Barbara, in Santa Barbara County, California. The requested permit would affect the Southern California Coast Distinct Population Segment of endangered steelhead ( *Oncorhynchus mykiss* ). The public is hereby notified of the availability of the permit application for review and comment before NOAA Fisheries either approves or disapproves the application. DATES: Written comments on the permit application must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES ) on or before January 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments on the permit application should be sent to Matt McGoogan, Protected Resources Division, NOAA Fisheries, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. Comments may also be sent using email ( *FRNpermits.lb@noaa.gov* ) or fax (562.980.4027). The permit application is available for review, by appointment only, at the foregoing address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt McGoogan at phone number (562.980.4026) or e-mail: *matthew.mcgoogan@noaa.gov* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Issuance of permits, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531B1543) (ESA), is based on a finding that such permits:
(1)Are applied for in good faith;
(2)would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and
(3)are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NOAA Fisheries regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-226). Those individuals requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should provide the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES ). The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. All statements and opinions contained in the permit action summaries are those of the applicant and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA Fisheries. Permit Application Received Elise Kelley has applied for a scientific research permit to conduct a study with the Southern California Coast Distinct Population Segment of endangered steelhead ( *Oncorhynchus mykiss* ) in the Santa Ynez River and Santa Clara River systems respectively located in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties in southern California. The purpose of this study is to assess steelhead smolt residence time in the Santa Clara River and Santa Ynez River estuaries, assess steelhead smolt survival in the estuaries using acoustic tags, and assess adult steelhead return and straying rates in southern California by placing Passive Integrated Transponder
(PIT)tags in steelhead smolts. This study will be conducted during 3 years with sufficient flows and number of smolts. Due to the patterns of dry and wet years for this region it may take as many as 10 years to get the desired 3 years of data. Therefore, the duration of coverage requested by this permit covers about a 10-year period from January 2006 through July 2015. Elise Kelley has requested an annual non-lethal take of up to 575 steelhead. The annual unintentional lethal take that may occur during data collection is up to 16 steelhead or no more than 3 per cent of the total captured. Dated: November 29, 2006. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-20450 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 112706B] Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Receipt of an application to renew and to modify a scientific research permit; request for comments. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received an application to renew and modify a permit for scientific research from Hagar Environmental Science
(HES)in Richmond, California (1105). The permit would affect federally endangered Central California Coast coho salmon, threatened Central California Coast steelhead, and threatened South-Central California Coast steelhead. This document serves to notify the public of the availability of the permit application for review and comment. DATES: Written comments on the permit application must be received no later than 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on January 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments submitted by e-mail must be sent to the following address: *FRNpermits.SR@noaa.gov* . The application and related documents are available for review by appointment, for Permit 1105 Modification 1: Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 315, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 (ph: 707-575-6097, fax: 707-578-3435). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Jahn at phone number 707-575-6097, or e-mail: *Jeffrey.Jahn@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority Issuance of permits and permit modifications, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (ESA), is based on a finding that such permits/modifications:
(1)Are applied for in good faith;
(2)would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and
(3)are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits and modifications are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NMFS regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-226). Those individuals requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES ). The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. All statements and opinions contained in the permit action summaries are those of the applicant and do not necessarily reflect the views of NMFS. Species Covered in This Notice This notice is relevant to federally endangered Central California Coast coho salmon ( *Oncorhynchus kisutch* ), threatened Central California Coast steelhead ( *O. mykiss* ), and threatened South-Central California Coast steelhead ( *O. mykiss* ). Renewal and Modification Request Received HES requests to renew and modify a 5-year permit
(1105)for take of juvenile Central California Coast coho salmon, Central California Coast steelhead, and South-Central California Coast steelhead to assess salmonid population distribution, abundance, and habitat in the following watersheds and coastal lagoons: Pilarcitos Creek in San Mateo County, California; San Lorenzo River, Liddell Creek, Laguna Creek, and Majors Creek in Santa Cruz County, California; Salinas River in Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties, California; and Arroyo Grande Creek in San Luis Obispo County, California. HES requests authorization for an estimated annual non-lethal take of 640 juvenile Central California Coast coho salmon, 4,800 juvenile Central California Coast steelhead, and 1,920 juvenile South-Central California Coast steelhead, with no more than 3 percent unintentional mortality to result from capture (by electrofishing), handling, and release of fish. HES also requests authorization for an estimated annual non-lethal take of 320 juvenile Central California Coast coho salmon, 1,200 juvenile Central California Coast steelhead, and 320 juvenile South-Central California Coast steelhead, with no more than 1 percent unintentional mortality to result from capture (by seine), handling, and release of fish. Dated: November 29, 2006. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-20452 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 112806D] Endangered Species; File No. 1575 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Earth Tech Northeast Inc. (Joseph Falbo, Responsible Party), One World Financial Center, 200 Liberty Street, 25 th Floor, New York, New York 10281, has been issued a permit to conduct scientific research on shortnose sturgeon ( *Acipenser brevirostrum* ) on the Hudson River, New York. ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices: Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone
(301)713-2289; fax
(301)427-2521; and Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone
(978)281-9300; fax
(978)281-9394. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Malcolm Mohead or Brandy Hutnak, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 10, 2006, notice was published in the Federal Register (71 FR 27230) that a request for a scientific research permit to take shortnose sturgeon had been submitted by Earth Tech Northeast Inc. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226). Earth Tech Northeast Inc. proposes to document:
(1)The use of the existing Tappan Zee Bridge structure on the Hudson River as significant habitat by fisheries resources; and
(2)the relative abundance and spatial and temporal patterns of shortnose sturgeon, if these fish are present. The applicants propose to use anchored gill nets and traps to capture, measure, scan and release a maximum of 250 juvenile and adult shortnose sturgeon. The proposed research would occur at six stations alongside and under the existing Tappan Zee Bridge and at three reference locations within 700 feet north of the existing bridge. Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit
(1)was applied for in good faith,
(2)will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the subject of this permit, and
(3)is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Dated: November 28, 2006. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-20453 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Meeting of the U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Notice of partially closed meeting. SUMMARY: The U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors will meet to make such inquiry as the Board shall deem necessary into the state of morale and discipline, the curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, and academic methods of the Naval Academy. The meeting will include discussions of personnel issues at the Naval Academy, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The executive session of this meeting will be closed to the public. DATES: The open session of the meeting will be held on Monday, December 11, 2006, from 8 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. The closed executive session will be held from 10:30 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Major Craig C. Clemans, Executive Secretary to the Board of Visitors, Office of the Superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402-5000,
(410)293-1503. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice of meeting is provided per the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The executive session of the meeting will consist of discussions of personnel issues at the Naval Academy and internal Board of Visitors matters. Discussion of such information cannot be adequately segregated from other topics, which precludes opening the executive session of this meeting to the public. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Navy has determined in writing that the meeting shall be partially closed to the public because it will be concerned with matters listed in sections 552b(c)(2), (5), (6),
(7)and
(9)of title 5, United States Code. Dated: November 27, 2006. M. A. Harvison, Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Navy, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E6-20414 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Rachel Potter, Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or faxed to
(202)395-6974. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, *e.g.* new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. Dated: November 28, 2006. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services *Type of Review:* Revision. *Title:* Title I State Plan for Vocational Rehabilitation Services and Title VI—Part B Supplement for Supported Employment Services. *Frequency:* Annually. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 80. *Burden Hours:* 1,002,000. *Abstract:* The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (the Act), requires each state to submit to the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration
(RSA)a State Plan for the Vocational Rehabilitation
(VR)Services program and the State Supported Employment
(SE)Services program that meets the requirements of Sections 101(a) and 625 of the Act. Program funding is contingent on Departmental approval of the State Plan and its supplement. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from * http:// edicsweb.ed.gov * , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3189. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments “ to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E6-20418 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools—Discretionary Grant Programs AGENCY: Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of final eligibility requirement. SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools announces an eligibility requirement for the following discretionary grant programs administered by the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS Discretionary Grant Programs): • Federal Activities (CFDA No. 84.184). • Alcohol Abuse Reduction (CFDA No. 84.184A). • Mentoring Programs (CFDA No. 84.184B). • Student Drug Testing (CFDA No. 84.184D). • Emergency Response and Crisis Management (CFDA No. 84.184E). • Grants to Prevent High-Risk Drinking or Violent Behavior Among College Students (CFDA No. 84.184H). • Safe Schools/Healthy Students (CFDA No. 84.184L). • Prevention Models on College Campuses (CFDA No. 84.184N). • Grants to States to Improve Management of Drug and Violence Prevention Programs (CFDA No. 84.184R). • Native Hawaiians (CFDA No. 84.186C). • Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Program (CFDA No. 84.215E). • Carol M. White Physical Education Program (CFDA No. 84.215F). • Foundations for Learning (CFDA No. 84.215H). • Grants to Integrate Schools and Mental Health Systems (CFDA No. 84.215M). • Partnerships in Character Education Program (CFDA No. 84.215S/V). • Cooperative Civic Education and Economic Education Exchange (CFDA No. 84.304A). We may use the eligibility requirement for competitions under the OSDFS Discretionary Grant Programs in fiscal year 2007 and later years. We take this action to focus Federal financial assistance on identified national needs. We intend for the eligibility requirement to ensure an equitable distribution of awards among eligible applicants for grants under the OSDFS Discretionary Grant Programs. DATES: *Effective Date:* This requirement is effective January 3, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole A. White, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-6450. Telephone:
(202)260-1131. E-mail: *nicole.white@ed.gov.* If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format ( *e.g.* , Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS) Discretionary Grant Programs provide funding to develop, implement, or expand drug and violence prevention, physical education, school counseling, mentoring, character education, civics education, and related projects at the local and State levels. In addition to providing this initial funding, OSDFS also is committed to promoting sustainability of projects and activities by encouraging grantees to seek other sources of funding and support when their project period ends. We published a notice of proposed eligibility requirement in the **Federal Register** on February 23, 2006 (71 FR 9329). With one exception, there are no differences between the notice of proposed eligibility requirement and this notice of final eligibility requirement. The exception is that the final eligibility requirement in this notice does not include the Life Skills for State and Local Prisoners program (CFDA No. 84.255A) because that program is no longer administered by the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Analysis of Comments In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed eligibility requirement, fourteen parties submitted comments. Eleven comments did not address the proposed eligibility requirement and are not discussed here. An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the eligibility requirement since publication of the notice of proposed eligibility requirement follows. We group major issues according to subject. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes and suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority. Quality of Applications *Comments:* Several commenters said the quality of an application, regardless of an applicant's previous history, should be the main criterion for awarding Federal funds. *Discussion:* The quality of an application is, and will remain, the principal criterion for awarding Federal funds under the Discretionary Grant Programs. However, the eligibility requirement will permit the Secretary to take previous funding history into account when determining who is eligible to compete for an award. We take this action for several reasons: First, to focus Federal financial assistance on expanding the number of programs and projects that support activities in a covered program; second, to promote rigorous assessment of results of funded projects to determine their impact on target populations and to inform future improvement efforts before making a second award under the same program; and, finally, to promote management improvement in Federal grant administration by requiring grantees to complete activities under current grants before embarking on a second grant under the same program. *Change:* None. *Comment:* One commenter objected to excluding current grantees from reapplying to the same program because the experience of one grant often leads to the identification of gaps that need to be addressed through a second grant. *Discussion:* We agree that project implementation often results in grantees gaining a greater awareness of needs and gaps in service. For that reason, we encourage grantees to design procedures that ensure feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of their projects. By completing one full grant cycle before considering whether to apply for another award, we think grantees will achieve a better understanding of the effectiveness of their efforts and be better able to design new projects that are fully reflective of newly identified needs as well as what has been learned through their first implementation efforts. *Change:* None. *Comment:* One commenter expressed concern that the eligibility requirement would deny funding to the best qualified applicants and result in the selection of applications of lesser quality that are likely to have weaker outcomes. *Discussion:* OSDFS grant competitions are generally highly competitive, and fractions of a point may separate funded and unfunded applications. For example, in fiscal year 2006, 88 applications submitted for the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Program scored 90 or above, and we were able to fund only 49 of them. We do not agree, therefore, that excluding current grantees would necessarily result in poor-quality applications receiving funds. *Change:* None. *Comment:* Several commenters expressed strong opposition to the eligibility requirement's perceived limitation on the number of awards a grantee could have. *Discussion:* The eligibility requirement will prohibit only applicants with an active grant from receiving a new grant for that same program. The requirement would have no effect on the number of grants an entity could receive under different programs. Applicants may apply for and receive grants under competitions offered by the Department under any of the 16 named programs, except for any program in which they currently have an active grant. *Change:* None. *Comment:* One commenter expressed concern that the eligibility requirement would have a negative impact on large school districts with a greater need for Federal funds and recommended a per-student enrollment limitation on the number of active grants one entity could receive under the same program. *Discussion:* Although we understand that larger school districts may have greater needs, we do not think that multiple or overlapping grants in the same program are an appropriate means of meeting those needs because they encourage fragmentation of efforts rather than a comprehensive, unified approach to problems. All applicants, including those in larger school districts, are encouraged to carefully assess their needs and request an amount of funding commensurate with those needs in their initial application. *Change:* None. *Comment:* None. *Discussion:* Since publication of the notice of proposed eligibility requirement, administration of the Life Skills for State and Local Prisoners program has been assigned to the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, and therefore will not be subject to the final eligibility requirement. *Change:* We have removed the Life Skills for State and Local Prisoners program from the list of Discretionary Grant programs. Note: In any year in which we elect to use the eligibility requirement, we will announce the eligibility requirement in the **Federal Register** notice governing the applicable grant competition. *Eligibility Requirement for OSDFS Discretionary Grant Programs* —Federal Activities (CFDA No. 84.184); Alcohol Abuse Reduction (CFDA No. 84.184A); Mentoring Programs (CFDA No. 84.184B); Student Drug Testing (CFDA No. 84.184D); Emergency Response and Crisis Management (CFDA No. 84.184E); Grants to Prevent High-Risk Drinking or Violent Behavior Among College Students (CFDA No. 84.184H); Safe Schools/Healthy Students (CFDA No. 84.184L); Prevention Models on College Campuses (CFDA No. 84.184N); Grants to States to Improve Management of Drug and Violence Prevention Programs (CFDA No. 84.184R); Native Hawaiians (CFDA No. 84.186C); Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Program (CFDA No. 84.215E); Carol M. White Physical Education Program (CFDA No. 84.215F); Foundations for Learning (CFDA No. 84.215H); Grants to Integrate Schools and Mental Health Systems (CFDA No. 84.215M); Partnerships in Character Education (CFDA No. 84.215S/V); Cooperative Civic Education and Economic Education Exchange (CFDA No. 84.304A) Active Grants Under this requirement, the Secretary limits eligibility under the discretionary grant program competition to applicants that do not currently have an active grant under the same discretionary grant program. For the purpose of this eligibility requirement, a grant is considered active until the end of the grant's project or funding period, including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's authority to obligate funds. Executive Order 12866 This notice of final eligibility requirement has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with this notice of final eligibility requirement are those we have determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently. The benefit of this final eligibility requirement is to ensure that limited Federal financial assistance under the Discretionary Grant Programs is made available in a manner that is fair and equitable to the greatest number of applicants. In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of this notice of final eligibility requirement, we have determined that the benefits of the final eligibility requirement justify the costs. We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions. Intergovernmental Review This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive Order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance. This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program. Electronic Access To This Document You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office
(GPO)toll free at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1211-2 (1991), 6715, 7117, 7131, 7139, 7140, 7245, 7247, 7261, 7269, and 7269a. Dated: November 28, 2006. Deborah A. Price, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools. [FR Doc. E6-20456 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Notice of Availability; Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of availability and public hearings. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE)announces the availability of the document, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project, (DOE/EIS-0361), for public comment. The draft environmental impact statement
(EIS)analyzes the potential environmental consequences of providing Federal funding for the design, construction, and demonstration of a 98 megawatt
(MWe)net power plant and ash byproduct manufacturing facility to be located in the municipality of Rainelle, Greenbrier County, West Virginia. The facility would be constructed and demonstrated through a cooperative agreement between DOE and Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLC
(WGC)under the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI). WGC proposes to design, construct, and demonstrate an atmospheric pressure circulating fluidized-bed
(CFB)power plant that would generate electricity and steam by burning approximately 3,000 to 4,000 tons per day of coal refuse from several local sites as the primary fuel. The proposed power plant would be the first commercial application within the United States of a CFB combustor featuring a compact inverted cyclone design. The Department prepared this draft EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ)regulations that implement the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and the DOE procedures implementing NEPA (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's proposed action is to provide cost-shared financial assistance to WGC through a cooperative agreement under the CCPI for design, construction, and operation of the Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project. WGC proposes to design, construct, and operate a 98 MWe
(net)power plant that would generate electricity and steam by burning fuel derived from the beneficiation of approximately 3,000 to 4,000 tons per day of coal refuse. The proposed power plant would be the first commercial application within the United States of an atmospheric circulating fluidized-bed combustor featuring a compact inverted cyclone design. The design would require less steel and facilitate erection in remote areas by reducing the boiler system footprint and height. These innovations could reduce steel costs by approximately 40 percent and shorten construction time by approximately 10 percent. DATES: DOE invites the public to comment on the Draft EIS during the public comment period, which ends January 18, 2007. DOE will consider all comments postmarked or received during the public comment period in preparing the Final EIS, and will consider late comments to the extent practicable. DOE will hold a public hearing on Thursday, January 4, 2007, at Western Greenbrier Middle School, Crawley, West Virginia from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. An informational session will be held at the same location from 4 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., preceding the public hearing on the date noted above. ADDRESSES: Requests for information about this Draft EIS or to receive a copy of the Draft EIS should be directed to: Roy G. Spears, NEPA Document Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, M/S NO-3, P.O. Box 0880, Morgantown, West Virginia. Additional information about the Draft EIS may also be requested by telephone at:
(304)285-5460, or toll-free at:
(800)432-8330, x5460. The Draft EIS will be available at *http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/.* Copies of the Draft EIS are also available for review at the locations listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this Notice. Written comments on the Draft EIS can be mailed to Roy G. Spears, NEPA Document Manager, at the address noted above. Written comments may also be submitted by fax to:
(412)285-4403, or submitted electronically to: *roy.spears@netl.doe.gov.* Oral comments on the Draft EIS will be accepted only during the public hearing scheduled for the date and location provided in the DATES section of this Notice. Requests to speak at the public hearing can be made by calling or writing the EIS Document Manager (see ADDRESSES ). Requests to speak that have not been submitted prior to the hearing will be accepted in the order in which they are received at the hearing. Speakers are encouraged to provide a written version of their oral comments for the record. Each speaker will be allowed five minutes to present comments unless more time is requested and available. Comments will be recorded by a court reporter and will become part of the public hearing record. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the proposed project or the draft environmental impact statement, please contact Mr. Roy G. Spears, as directed above. For general information regarding the DOE NEPA process, please contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, Telephone:
(202)586-4600, or leave a message at:
(800)472-2756. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Description of Alternatives DOE analyzed two alternatives in the Draft EIS: The proposed action and the no-action alternative. Under the proposed action, DOE would provide cost-shared funding to a private-sector applicant for the design, construction and demonstration of a Co-Production Facility based on an innovative atmospheric-pressure circulating fluidized-bed
(ACFB)boiler with a compact inverted-cyclone design. In addition to producing electricity and steam, the Co-Production facility would include a kiln that would produce cement for use in the production of structural brick and other similar products. The Co-Production Facility would utilize coal refuse (also referred to as “gob”) from nearby coal refuse sites as the primary fuel source, and portions of the ash generated by the circulating fluidized-bed
(CFB)would be returned to the coal refuse sites for use in site reclamation efforts. DOE has entered into a 5-year cooperative agreement with WGC to provide financial support through the CCPI program. WGC was a successful applicant in Round 1 of the CCPI program and will be ultimately responsible for the siting, design, construction, and operation of the facility and related components. WGC is collectively owned by the towns of Rainelle, Rupert, and Quinwood, and its mission is to provide economic development for the area through the construction and operation of the proposed facility. The main focus of the WGC Co-Production Facility Project is the construction and operation of the 98 MWe generating plant that utilizes the technologies described in Section 2.3 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. However, there are several unique and important aspects of the project that extend beyond the construction and operation of the power plant. In addition to generating power for the national grid and demonstrating the inverted cyclone technology, the proposed plant is intended to use coal refuse as its primary fuel source, to apply potential waste streams to beneficial uses, and to serve as an economic catalyst for the region by providing an anchor tenant for a planned industrial park (the “EcoPark”) to be located in Rainelle. As a result, there are connected actions associated with the excavation and reclamation of the proposed coal refuse piles ( *e.g.* , beneficiation of the coal refuse by a third party), the additional industrial activities that may occur with the project ( *e.g.* , potential production of building products from the cement), and potential future commercial and industrial development that are intended to occur as a result of the plant. These additional project aspects are not integral to the DOE decision on whether to provide cost-shared funding to demonstrate the clean coal technologies of interest. Under the No Action Alternative, DOE would not provide cost-shared funding to demonstrate the Co-Production Facility Project. Although WGC could proceed to implement the proposed project in spite of DOE's No Action Alternative, it is unlikely that this project would be completed successfully without DOE funding support. The No Action alternative would not involve new construction, new discharges, or changes in land or water uses in the planning area. Because this alternative would not involve introducing new emission sources, no impact on the air quality, either locally or regionally, is expected. Aesthetic and scenic conditions, as well as surface and ground water, would remain unchanged. The No Action alternative would not contribute to the goal of the CCPI program, which is to accelerate commercial deployment of advanced technologies that provide the United States with clean, reliable, and affordable energy. Availability of the Draft EIS Copies of this Draft EIS have been distributed to Members of Congress, Federal, State, and local officials, and agencies, organizations and individuals who may be interested or affected. This Draft EIS will be available on the Internet at: *http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/.* Additional copies can also be requested by telephone at: 304-285-5460, or
(800)432-8330, x5460. Copies of the Draft EIS are also available for public review at the Greenbrier County Public Library, 301 Courtney Drive, Lewisburg, West Virginia, and at the Rainelle Municipal Public Library, 312 7th Street, Rainelle, West Virginia. Issued in Washington, DC, on November 28, 2006. Mark J. Matarrese, Director, Office of Environment, Security, Safety and Health, Office of Fossil Energy. [FR Doc. E6-20435 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. TX07-1-000] Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Filing November 27, 2006. Take notice that on October 13, 2006 and amended on November 21, 2006, Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. filed an application for an order directing a physical interconnection of facilities and transmission services under sections 210, 211 and 212 of the Federal Power Act. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible online at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 11, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-20469 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-74-000] Dauphin Island Gathering Partners; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff November 24, 2006. Take notice that on November 20, 2006, Dauphin Island Gathering Partners (Dauphin Island) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the revised tariff sheets listed below to become effective December 21, 2006: First Revised Sheet No. 5 First Revised Sheet No. 33 Third Revised Sheet No. 50 First Revised Sheet No. 89 Third Revised Sheet No. 115 First Revised Sheet No. 284 Second Revised Sheet No. 286 Second Revised Sheet No. 315 First Revised Sheet No. 342 First Revised Sheet No. 344 First Revised Sheet No. 358 Dauphin Island states that these tariff sheets reflect numerous housekeeping changes to Dauphin Island's tariff. Dauphin Island states that copies of the filing are being served contemporaneously on its customers and other interested parties. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible online at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-20464 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP05-413-004] East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC; Notice of Supplemental Filing November 24, 2006. Take notice that on November 17, 2006, East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC (East Tennessee) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Substitute Original Sheet No. 21A to be effective October 29, 2006. East Tennessee states that it is supplementing its filing approved by the Commission on September 15, 2006, in the captioned docket with the revised tariff sheet in order to reflect the reduced 2006 ACA unit charge in its rates for lateral service under Rate Schedules FT-L and IT-L. East Tennessee states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all affected customers and interested state commissions, as well as all parties on the Commission's official service list in this proceeding. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible online at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-20461 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP05-413-003, RP97-13-027 and PA05-63-003] East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC; Notice of Compliance Filing November 24, 2006. Take notice that on November 15, 2006, East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC (East Tennessee) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, which the effective date of the tariff sheets is October 29, 2006. East Tennessee states that the filing is being made in compliance with the Commission orders issued on September 15, 2006 and October 4, 2006 in Docket Nos. CP05-413-001 and RP97-13-025. Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible online at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Protest Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 8, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-20465 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PR07-3-000] Enbridge Pipelines (Alabama Intrastate), L.L.C.; Notice of Petition for Rate Approval November 24, 2006. Take notice that on November 14, 2006, Enbridge Pipelines (Alabama Intrastate), L.L.C. (Alabama Intrastate) filed a petition for rate approval pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2) of the Commission's regulations. Alabama Intrastate requests that the Commission approve as fair and equitable the existing maximum rate of $0.1621 per MMBtu plus actual fuel up to three percent for firm and interruptible transportation service provided under Section 311(a)(2) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978. Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible online at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time November 30, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-20463 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER07-45-000; ER07-45-001] Horizon Power and Light, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order November 27, 2006. Horizon Power and Light, LLC (Horizon) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff. The proposed market-based rate tariff provides for the sale of energy and capacity at market-based rates. Horizon also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, Horizon requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Horizon. On November 21 2006, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development—West, granted the request for blanket approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the **Federal Register** establishing a period of time for the filing of protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Horizon should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004). Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protest is December 21, 2006. Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above, Horizon is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Horizon, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes. The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of Horizon's issuance of securities or assumptions of liability. Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-20470 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP96-312-160] Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate Amendments November 24, 2006. Take notice that on November 20, 2006, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee) tendered for filing certain exhibits to two amendments to two Gas Transportation Agreements, dated November 1, 2002, between Tennessee and Calpine Energy Services L.P. pursuant to Tennessee's Rate Schedule FT-A. Tennessee requests the amendments to the Negotiated Rate Agreements to be effective on December 1, 2006. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible online at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-20460 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 November 27, 2006. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* EC07-24-000. *Applicants:* Endeavor Power Partners, LLC; Osceola Windpower, LLC. *Description:* Endeavor Power Partners, LLC and Osceola Windpower, LLC submit a joint application for authorization to dispose of jurisdictional facilities to acquire an existing Generation Facility. *Filed Date:* 11/17/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061122-0125. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 8, 2006. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings *Docket Numbers:* ER06-615-003. *Applicants:* California Independent System Operator Corporation. *Description:* California Independent System Operator Corp submits a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's 9/21/06 Order. *Filed Date:* 11/20/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061122-0123. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 11, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-729-003. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits a compliance filing to the Commission's 10/19/06 Order. *Filed Date:* 11/20/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061122-0193. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 11, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-869-001. *Applicants:* Consolidated Edison Company of New York. *Description:* Consolidated Edison Co of New York, Inc submits amendments to its Electric Tariff Rate Schedules 96 and 92 in compliance with the Commission's 5/15/06 letter order. *Filed Date:* 11/20/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061121-0273. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 11, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1308-003. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator submits a second errata to its 11/6/06 compliance filing, revisions to Schedules 10-C, 16-A and 17-A of its OAT&EM Tariff. *Filed Date:* 11/21/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061124-0079. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 12, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1537-001. *Applicants:* Public Service Company of New Mexico. *Description:* Public Service Company of New Mexico submits notices of cancellation of Rate Schedules 149 and 121 in compliance with the Commission's 11/15/06 letter order. *Filed Date:* 11/20/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061122-0185. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 11, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-235-000. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc submits proposed designation of an additional Narrow Constrained Area. *Filed Date:* 11/20/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061122-0192. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 11, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-236-000. *Applicants:* Carolina Power and Light Company. *Description:* California Power and Light Company submits an amendment to its Large Generator Interconnection Agreement filed on 2/1/06. *Filed Date:* 11/20/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061122-0190. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 11, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-237-000; EC05-104-002. *Applicants:* Monogahela Power Company; Allegheny Energy, Inc.; The Potomac Edison Company; Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC. *Description:* Monogahela Power Company *et al.* submit a Motion to amend application for authorization of disposition of jurisdictional assets and filing of related jurisdictional contract, Power Sales Agreement. *Filed Date:* 11/17/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061122-0191. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 8, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-239-000. *Applicants:* BG Energy Merchants, LLC. *Description:* BG Energy Merchants, LLC submits a petition for acceptance of Initial Rate Tariff, Waivers and Blanket Authority. *Filed Date:* 11/21/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061124-0086. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 12, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-240-000. *Applicants:* Twin Buttes Wind LLC. *Description:* Twin Buttes Wind LLC submits an application for market-based rate authority under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act and request for waivers and pre-approvals. *Filed Date:* 11/21/2006. *Accession Number:* 20061124-0087. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 12, 2006. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov* . To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-20466 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP06-12-000 and CP06-13-000] Gulf LNG Energy, LLC and Gulf LNG Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the LNG Clean Energy Project November 24, 2006. The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission), in cooperation with the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), has prepared this final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)for the construction and operation of the liquefied natural gas
(LNG)import terminal and natural gas pipeline facilities, referred to as the LNG Clean Energy Project, as proposed by Gulf LNG Energy, LLC and Gulf LNG Pipeline, LLC (collectively referred to as Gulf LNG) in the above-referenced dockets. This final EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The staff concludes that approval of the LNG Clean Energy Project, with appropriate mitigating measures as recommended, would have limited adverse environmental impact. The final EIS evaluates alternatives to the proposed action, including the Coast Guard's alternatives to issuing a Letter of Recommendation, system alternatives, alternative sites for the LNG import terminal, and pipeline alternatives. The final EIS also contains our Essential Fish Habitat Assessment. The final EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of construction and operation of the following facilities near the City of Pascagoula in Jackson County, Mississippi: • A ship berth and unloading facilities (i.e., marine facilities) capable of accommodating one LNG ship; • LNG transfer systems; • Two 160,000 cubic meter full containment LNG storage tanks; • 10 high-pressure submerged combustion vaporizers; • Vapor handling systems; • Hazard detection and response equipment, ancillary utilities, buildings, and service facilities; • A 5.0-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter natural gas sendout pipeline; and • Associated pipeline support facilities, including three interconnects/meter stations, one pig launcher, and one pig receiver. The analysis also includes operation of LNG vessels in the waterway from the territorial seas until moored at the proposed LNG terminal. The general purpose of the LNG Clean Energy Project is to provide up to 1.5 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas to markets in the United States. The final EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch, 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,
(202)502-8371. A limited number of copies of the final EIS are available from the Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch identified above. In addition, CD copies of the final EIS have been mailed to federal, state, and local agencies; elected officials; public interest groups; individuals and affected landowners; libraries; newspapers; and parties to these proceedings. Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the FERC Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at: *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY at
(202)502-8659. The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet website also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. To register for this service, go to the eSubscription link on the FERC Internet Web site. Information about the project is also available from the Coast Guard by contacting Captain James Bjostad, Captain of the Port, Sector Mobile, at
(251)441-5960. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-20462 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests and Comments (November 27, 2006) Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Type of Application:* Preliminary Permit. b. *Project No.:* 12741-000. c. *Date filed:* September 19, 2006. d. *Applicant:* Albany Engineering Corporation. e. *Name of Project:* Thomson Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* On the Hudson River, in Saratoga and Washington Counties, New York. Dam is owned by New York State Canal Corporation. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 791(a)-825(r). h. *Applicant Contact:* Mr. James A. Besha, P.E., Albany Engineering Corporation, 447 New Karner Road, Albany, NY 12205,
(518)456-7712, *jim@albanyengineering.com* . i. *FERC Contact:* Patricia W. Gillis at
(202)502-8735. j. *Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene:* January 30, 2007. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-12741-000) on any comments, protests, or motions filed. k. *Description of Project:* The proposed project would utilize an existing dam owned by New York State Canal Corporation and consist of:
(1)An existing 835-foot-long, 12-foot-high concrete dam;
(2)an existing impoundment having a surface area of 2,750 acres and a storage capacity of 3,350 acre-feet with a normal water surface elevation of 101.1 feet mean sea level;
(3)a proposed underground powerhouse containing one generating unit with an installed capacity of 20-megawatts;
(4)a proposed tailrace;
(5)a proposed 8,000-foot-long, 34.5-kilovolt transmission line; and
(6)appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an estimated annual generation of approximately 65-gigawatt-hours. The applicant plans to sell the generated energy to a local utility. l. *Location of Application:* A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling
(202)502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* . For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Competing Preliminary Permit* —Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36). Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36. o. *Competing Development Application* —Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36. p. *Notice of Intent* —A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice. q. *Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit* —A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project. r. *Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene* —Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; See 18 CFR 385.2001 (a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under “e-filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. s. *Filing and Service of Responsive Documents* —Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, “NOTICE OF INTENT”, or “COMPETING APPLICATION”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. t. *Agency Comments* —Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-20471 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments November 27, 2006. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Type of Application:* Preliminary Permit. b. *Project No.:* 12747-000. c. *Date filed:* October 31, 2006. d. *Applicant:* San Diego Water Authority. e. *Name of Project:* San Vicente Pumped Storage Project. f. *Location:* The project would be located on San Vicente Reservoir and San Vicente River in San Diego County, California. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r). h. *Applicant Contacts:* Mr. Paul Gebert, San Diego Water Authority, 4677 Overland Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123, phone: (858)-522-67551. i. *FERC Contact:* Robert Bell,
(202)502-4126. j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. k. *Description of Project:* There are three alternatives for the proposed project: Iron Mountain Alternative, Foster Canyon Alternative, and East Reservoir Alternative. Specific details about each of these alternatives are described below. Applicable To All Alternatives All of the alternatives will have the same lower reservoir consisting of:
(1)An existing dam to be raised to a dam height of 274 feet, and a length of 1,120 feet with the possibility that the dam could be raised to be 337 feet high with a length of 1,442 feet; and
(2)an existing impoundment increased to a surface area of 1,360 acres, having a storage capacity of 142,00 acre-feet with a normal maximum water surface elevation of 704 feet mean sea level (msl), and also the possibility to further increase the surface area to 1,667 acres, having a storage capacity of 247,000 acre-feet with a normal maximum water surface elevation of 767 feet msl. Iron Mountain Alternative
(1)A proposed 235-foot-high, 1,250-foot-long upper dam,
(2)a proposed upper reservoir with a surface area of 93 acres having a storage capacity of 8,070 acre-feet and a normal maximum water surface elevation of 2,110 feet msl,
(3)a proposed 12,300-foot-long, 20-foot-long concrete power tunnel,
(4)two proposed 300-foot-long steel lined penstocks,
(5)a proposed powerhouse containing two generating units having a total installed capacity of 550 megawatts,
(6)a proposed 3,300-foot-long, 24-foot-diameter concrete tailrace,
(7)a proposed 2,600-foot-long, 230 kilovolt transmission line, and
(8)appurtenant facilities. Foster Canyon Alternative
(1)A proposed 215-foot-high, 4,500-foot-long upper dam,
(2)a proposed upper reservoir with a surface area of 100 acres having a storage capacity of 12,200 acre-feet and a normal maximum water surface elevation of 1,490 feet msl,
(3)a proposed 3,000-foot-long, 20-foot-long concrete power tunnel,
(4)two proposed 300-foot-long steel lined penstocks,
(5)a proposed powerhouse containing two generating units having a total installed capacity of 480 megawatts,
(6)a proposed 2,700-foot-long, 24-foot-diameter concrete tailrace,
(7)a proposed 2,600-foot-long, 230 kilovolt transmission line, and
(8)appurtenant facilities. East Reservoir Alternative
(1)A proposed 200-foot-high, 2,200-foot-long upper dam,
(2)a proposed upper reservoir with a surface area of 60 acres having a storage capacity of 6,800 acre-feet and a normal maximum water surface elevation of 1,600 feet msl,
(3)a proposed 6,000-foot-long, 20-foot-long concrete power tunnel,
(4)two proposed 300-foot-long steel lined penstocks,
(5)a proposed powerhouse containing two generating units having a total installed capacity of 570 megawatts,
(6)a proposed 2,600-foot-long, 24-foot-diameter concrete tailrace,
(7)a proposed 2,600-foot-long, 230 kilovolt transmission line, and
(8)appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have a maximum estimated annual generation of up to 1,000 gigawatt-hours, which would be sold to a local utility. l. *Locations of Application:* A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426, or by calling
(202)502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Competing Preliminary Permit:* Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36). Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36. o. *Competing Development Application:* Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36. p. *Notice of Intent:* A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice. q. *Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit:* A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project. r. *Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene:* Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; See 18 CFR 385.2001 (a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site under “e-filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. s. *Filing and Service of Responsive Documents:* Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”,”COMPETING APPLICATION” OR “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. t. *Agency Comments:* Federal, State, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-20472 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Application for Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests November 27, 2006. Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Application Type:* Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters. b. *Project No:* 516-434. c. *Date Filed:* November 2, 2006. d. *Applicant:* South Carolina Electric & Gas Company. e. *Name of Project:* Saluda Project. f. *Location:* Lake Murray in Lexington County, South Carolina. This project does not occupy any federal or tribal lands. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 791(a)-825(r). h. *Applicant Contact:* Mr. Randolph R. Mahan, Manager, Environmental Programs and Special Projects, SCANA Services, Inc., Columbia, SC, 29218;
(803)217-9538. i. *FERC Contacts:* Any questions on this notice should be addressed to Ms. Shana High at
(202)502-8674. j. *Deadline for filing comments and or motions:* December 28, 2006. *All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:* Ms. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-516-434) on any comments or motions filed. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. *See,* 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages e-filings. k. *Description of Proposal:* South Carolina Electric & Gas Company is requesting Commission authorization to issue a permit to Dutch Fork Development Group for the use of project lands and waters to construct a 52 slip marina for the private recreational use of future landowners of Turner's Pointe Subdivision. The marina would not provide fuel services. There will be a wastewater pump out system for boats with marine sanitation devices, as required by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. l. *Location of the Applications:* The filings are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please call the Helpline at
(866)208-3676 or contact *FERCOnLineSupport@ferc.gov.* For TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene:* Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. o. *Filing and Service of Responsive Documents:* Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, OR “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. p. *Agency Comments:* Federal, State, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described applications. A copy of the applications may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives. q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. *See,* 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the “e-Filing” link. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-20473 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Western Area Power Administration Parker-Davis Project—Post-2008 Resource Pool AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE. ACTION: Notice of final power allocation. SUMMARY: The Western Area Power Administration (Western), a Federal power marketing agency of the Department of Energy (DOE), announces the Parker-Davis Project (P-DP) Post-2008 Resource Pool Final Allocation of Power (Resource Pool Final Power Allocation), developed under the requirements of the Energy Planning and Management Program (EPAMP). This notice also includes Western's responses to public comments on the proposed allocations published July 17, 2006. The Resource Pool Final Power Allocation documents Western's decisions prior to beginning the contractual phase of the process. Firm electric service contracts, with the allottees in this notice, will extend from October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2028. DATES: The Resource Pool Final Power Allocation will become effective January 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: Information regarding the Resource Pool Final Power Allocation, including comments, letters, and other supporting documents, is available for public inspection and copying at the Desert Southwest Regional Office, Western Area Power Administration, 615 South 43rd Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85009. Public comments and related information may be viewed at *http://www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Brian Young, Re-marketing Program Manager, Desert Southwest Regional Office, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005-6457,
(602)605-2594, e-mail *post2008pdp@wapa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Subpart C—Power Marketing Initiative
(PMI)of EPAMP's Final Rule, 10 CFR part 905 (60 FR 54151), developed in part to implement Section 114 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, became effective on November 20, 1995. EPAMP calls for planning and efficient electric energy use by Western's long-term firm power customers and provides a framework for extending Western's firm power resource commitments. One aspect of EPAMP is to establish project-specific power resource pools when existing resource commitments expire and to allocate power from these pools to eligible preference customers. Existing resource commitments for the P-DP expire on September 30, 2008. Western published its decision to apply the EPAMP PMI to the P-DP in the **Federal Register** on May 5, 2003 (68 FR 23709). This decision created a resource pool of approximately 17 megawatts
(MW)of summer season capacity and 13 MW of winter season capacity, based on estimates of current P-DP hydroelectric resource availability, for allocation to eligible preference customers for 20 years beginning October 1, 2008. The resource pool includes 0.869 MW of summer season withdrawable capacity and 0.619 MW of winter season withdrawable capacity. The associated energy will be a maximum of 3,441 kilowatthours per kilowatt (kWh/kW) in the summer season and 1,703 kWh/kW in the winter season, based on current marketing plan criteria. Western published a notice of proposed allocation procedures and a call for applications in the **Federal Register** on October 1, 2004 (69 FR 58900). Applications received by January 30, 2005, were considered. A notice of final procedures for use in allocating power from the P-DP Post-2008 resource pool (Final Allocation Procedures) was published in the **Federal Register** on December 16, 2005 (70 FR 74805). The Final Allocation Procedures include the eligibility criteria, allocation criteria, and P-DP power contract principles. Western published the Parker-Davis Project Post-2008 Resource Pool Proposed Power Allocation (Resource Pool Proposed Power Allocation) in the **Federal Register** on July 17, 2006, (71 FR 40503) and initiated a public comment period on the proposed power allocations. Public information forums were held on August 29 and August 31, 2006, and public comment forums were held on September 12 and September 14, 2006. The public comment period ended on September 15, 2006. The Resource Pool Final Power Allocation was determined from the applications received during the call for applications in accordance with the guidelines and criteria of the Final Allocation Procedures, the current P-DP Marketing Plan (49 FR 50582, 52 FR 7014, and 52 FR 28333), and EPAMP. Response to Comments on Resource Pool Proposed Power Allocation Comments and Responses *Comment:* Several comments commended Western for conducting a fair and equitable allocation process. The comments stated that Western went through a very thorough, complete, open, and methodical process to arrive at the proposed allocations. Western held a sequence of open meetings where all applicants had equal opportunity to access the program information regarding the allocation processes, obtain a clear definition of the information and data required for the application and the application schedule, and update the application data when the schedule was delayed. Western also provided applicants with a definitive investigation of load, organization, and the organizational ability to utilize the allocation in the manner prescribed. The comments also expressed great appreciation for the integrity of the allocation investigation and determination process which assured that the results were based upon a thorough review of each application to confirm qualifications and conformance with the Final Allocation Procedures. *Response:* Western appreciates the support for the lengthy, thorough and methodical P-DP re-marketing process. *Comment:* Western received a comment that it was inappropriate to limit the first priority of consideration for allocations to entities that have no contracts with Western stating that the existence of a power contract by itself is not adequate to disqualify an applicant from the first priority of consideration unless that contract provides meaningful electric service. The commenter stated that their allocation from the Colorado River Storage Project
(CRSP)was not meaningful because it did not consider loads on that portion of the reservation located in California. *Response:* The Final Allocation Procedures, consistent with EPAMP, provide first priority for consideration to preference entities in the P-DP marketing area that do not have a contract with Western for Federal power resources and are not a member of a parent entity that has a contract with Western for Federal power resources. This priority was incorporated in the Final Allocation Procedures to further promote widespread use of Federal resources which is a goal of EPAMP and this allocation process. The Final Allocation Procedures do not provide for an exception based upon the meaningfulness of electric service provided by the power allocation in such contract with Western or the loads considered when the allocation for Federal power under existing contracts was made. The entity submitting this comment has a CRSP allocation of 6.42 MW (summer capacity), and a P-DP allocation of 8.9 MW (summer capacity), for a total Federal power allocation of 15.32 MW (summer capacity). The existing P-DP allocation of 8.9 MW considered all loads in the P-DP marketing area, which includes that portion of the reservation located in California. Western considers all Federal power allocations to be meaningful, including this entity's existing Federal power allocations of 15.32 MW. Western's proposed power allocations conform to the Final Allocation Procedures by excluding entities from the first priority of consideration for an allocation of power from the resource pool based on their existing contracts with Western for Federal power resources. Comments proposing changes to the eligibility and allocation criteria are outside the scope of this notice. This notice of Final Power Allocation considers comments regarding the Resource Pool Proposed Power Allocation. *Comment:* A comment was received expressing appreciation for recognition of the statutory obligation to give priority consideration to Indian irrigation pumping load on certain Indian lands adjacent to the Colorado River in the lower basin. The comment stated that the Colorado River Indian Tribe
(CRIT)has irrigation pumping load in California and that they now look forward to getting a piece of that power, which Congress and the Supreme Court clearly wanted CRIT to have for the benefit of the tribes, and they look forward to using that power on the California side of the river, which they believe has been neglected in appraisals by Western. *Response:* The CRIT currently has a P-DP allocation of 8.9 MW (summer capacity) which was based on a consideration of loads in the P-DP marketing area which includes southern California. The CRIT P-DP allocation of 8.9 MW specifically considered and provided capacity for on-reservation irrigation pumping loads, as documented in the Bureau of Indian Affairs for Colorado River Indian Reservation Memorandum of Understanding for Electric Service (Memorandum No. 14-06-300-2627 dated April 1, 1976). CRIT's application data did not identify additional irrigation pumping load in California above that already provided for under their existing P-DP allocation. *Comment:* Several comments were received providing additional supplemental application information, revising load data previously submitted, or requesting that Western reconsider an allocation based upon potential future loads. Western also received several comments expressing appreciation that the process included ample opportunity to provide information in support of applications for power, including an extension of the deadline for receipt of applications to January 30, 2005, and the opportunity to provide updated application data by the deadline date of April 1, 2006. *Response:* Applications, including load information, were required to be submitted by January 30, 2005. In accordance with the Final Allocation Procedures, actual load data submitted no later than April 1, 2006, was considered for calendar year 2003 or the most recent 12 months. In response to a comment that Western should consider future projected load, Western declined to allow consideration of future load projections, but did provide an opportunity for applicants to update actual load data to the most recent 12 months available for submission prior to the April 1, 2006, deadline. *Comment:* One applicant for power from Western who was determined to not meet the General Eligibility Criteria of attaining electrical utility status requested an explanation of whether the decision to not grant an allocation of power was based upon the fact that their cooperative members are served by investor owned and publicly owned utilities, when the allocation criteria stated that arrangements with third parties for transmission and distribution by April 1, 2008, were acceptable. *Response:* Third party transmission and/or distribution arrangements are different criteria from electrical utility status. Having a need for third party transmission arrangements does not prevent an entity from satisfying the electrical utility requirements. Applicants, including cooperatives, desiring to purchase power from Western for resale to consumers were required to attain electrical utility status by April 1, 2006, to be eligible for an allocation. Having electrical utility status means the applicant has the responsibility to meet load growth, has a distribution system, and is ready, willing, and able to purchase Federal power from Western on a wholesale basis for resale to retail consumers. This applicant was determined to not be eligible for an allocation because it did not meet these electrical utility status requirements. Allottees, including those that are electrical utilities, are required to have transmission, displacement, or distribution arrangements in place by April 1, 2008, if such arrangements are needed to take delivery of P-DP power beyond the P-DP point(s) of delivery. Arrangements may be with investor owned utilities or publicly owned utilities for entities that require third party transmission, displacement, or distribution. *Comment:* Several comments expressed disappointment at not being selected for an allocation and expressed understanding that there was a limited quantity of power available to distribute among a significant number of applicants. Some of these entities supported the allocations as proposed, while others requested that Western reconsider them for allocations if one of the current successful applicants is unable to receive its proposed allocation. *Response:* If any of those receiving an allocation are unable to place the power under contract, the power will be offered to existing contractors up to the amount they contributed to the resource pool. Beyond that, any remaining resource pool power will be used as determined by Western. *Comment:* Several comments expressed appreciation for recognition of the Native American needs in making the allocations and noted the economic benefits that the Tribes will derive from the allocations. The allocations will help further support the Tribes' business plans and will provide employment opportunity to Tribal members. *Response:* Western appreciates the support for allocations to Native American entities. *Comment:* Western received several comments regarding the large positive economic impact to rural communities and the potential to finance infrastructure improvements with the electric service cost savings that will be realized as a result of the proposed allocations. *Response:* Western appreciates the support for widespread use of the P-DP resource including allocations to rural communities. *Comment:* Western received several comments expressing appreciation for allocations to municipal utilities other than electrical utilities, and noting the positive impact that the allocations will have on municipal utility rates. *Response:* Western appreciates the support for widespread use of the P-DP resource including allocations to municipal utilities. *Comment:* Several comments expressed that data provided by applicants in support of their allocation is proprietary and Western should not make the data available to the public. *Response:* Western does not intend to distribute or make public the proprietary data submitted by applicants in support of their applications for a P-DP power allocation. *Comment:* The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest (NAVFAC SW), as the contracting agency for the Navy and Marine Corps bases spread across the Southern California Edison
(SCE)and the San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) service territories in California, expressed appreciation for the 2 MW proposed allocation, which will allow for a significant savings to the military and the taxpayers. NAVFAC SW commented that the 2 MW P-DP allocation should be distributed equally among the 11 Marine Corps and Naval facilities that were included in the NAVFAC SW application to more widely disseminate the use of the Federal power allocation. *Response:* Western agrees that distribution of the NAFVAC SW allocation among all the NAVFAC SW facilities included in the application would further promote the widespread use of Federal resources. NAVFAC SW, as the sole contracting agent and allotee, may determine the specific distribution among the NAVFAC SW facilities in the P-DP marketing area provided Western is able to schedule power deliveries in 1 MW or greater quantities and Western is able to send a single billing statement to NAVFAC SW. This change is noted in the final allocation table. *Comment:* Several comments expressed support for the process employed by Western to allocate the Parker-Davis Project resource pool. The procedure set forth in the **Federal Register** on July 17, 2006, (71 FR 40503) to allocate Parker-Davis power was well reasoned, giving consideration for Indian irrigation pumping on certain Indian lands adjacent to the Colorado River in the lower basin, widespread use of the Federal resource, magnitude of the benefits, and load. Because proper procedures were followed and a logical rationale for the Parker-Davis allocation has been presented, the comments expressed support for the proposed allocations and requested that the allocations should be finalized as proposed. *Response:* Western appreciates the support for the proposed allocations. The Final Power Allocation of the Parker-Davis Project Resource Pool is presented below. Final Power Allocation The Resource Pool Final Power Allocation is made in accordance with the Final Allocation Procedures. All allocations are subject to the execution of a contract in accordance with the General Contract Principles contained in the Final Allocation Procedures. The Resource Pool Final Power Allocation is shown in the table below: Final Allocation Capacity in Megawatts
(MW)Allottee Summer Non- withdrawable FES allocation
(MW)Withdrawable FES allocation
(MW)Total FES allocation
(MW)Winter Non- withdrawable FES allocation
(MW)Withdrawable FES allocation
(MW)Total FES allocation
(MW)Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 Aha Macav Power Service 1 2.000 0.000 2.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Corona, CA, City of 2.000 0.000 2.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 Eastern Arizona Preference Pooling Association 2 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 Town of Gilbert, AZ Utility Department 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest 3 1.131 0.869 2.000 1.381 0.619 2.000 Pechanga Band of Luisen o Mission Indians 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 San Luis Rey River Indian Water Authority 4 2.000 0.000 2.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 Town of Marana, AZ Water Department 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 Williams, AZ, City of 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 City of Yuma, AZ Public Works Department 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 Total Allocations 16.131 0.869 17.000 12.381 0.619 13.000 1 Addition to existing post-2008 allocation to serve Indian irrigation pumping load of the Fort Mohave Indian Tribe. 2 Allocation to aggregated group consisting of the utility functions of Town of Eagar, AZ, City of St. Johns, AZ, Town of Springerville, AZ & Village of Reserve, NM. The Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, AZ is excluded from the allocation. 3 Allocation to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest as the contracting agency for California Marine Corps & Naval facilities included in the P-DP marketing area. 4 Allocation to aggregated group consisting of San Luis Rey River Indian Water Authority, Vista Irrigation District and the City of Escondido, CA Utility Division. The Resource Pool Final Power Allocation listed in the table above is based on the P-DP marketable resource available at this time. Firm electric service contracts will be offered to the customers listed in the table. The contracts offered will incorporate the general contract principles listed in the Final Allocation Procedures. If the P-DP marketable resource is adjusted in the future, P-DP power allocations may be adjusted accordingly. Regulatory Procedure Requirements Regulatory Flexibility Analysis The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq* .) requires Federal agencies to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis if a final rule is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and there is a legal requirement to issue a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Western has determined that this action does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis since it is a rulemaking of particular applicability involving rates or services applicable to public property. Environmental Compliance Western completed an environmental impact statement on EPAMP, under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Record of Decision was published in the **Federal Register** on October 12, 1995 (60 FR 53181). Western's NEPA review assured all environmental effects related to these actions have been analyzed. Determination Under Executive Order 12866 Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act Western has determined this rule is exempt from congressional notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 801 because the action is a rulemaking of particular applicability relating to rates or services and involves matters of procedure. Dated: November 20, 2006. Michael S. Hacskaylo, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-20438 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8250-5] Recent Posting to the Applicability Determination Index
(ADI)Database System of Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: This notice announces applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that EPA has made under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); and the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each complete document posted on the Applicability Determination Index
(ADI)database system is available on the Internet through the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA)Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html* . The document may be located by date, author, subpart, or subject search. For questions about the ADI or this notice, contact Maria Malave at EPA by phone at:
(202)564-7027, or by e-mail at: *malave.maria@epa.gov* . For technical questions about the individual applicability determinations or monitoring decisions, refer to the contact person identified in the individual documents, or in the absence of a contact person, refer to the author of the document. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The General Provisions to the NSPS in 40 CFR part 60 and the NESHAP in 40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or operator may request a determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed applicability determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP and section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA)regulations contain no specific regulatory provision that sources may request applicability determinations, EPA does respond to written inquiries regarding applicability for the 40 CFR part 63 and section 111(d) of the CAA programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping which is different from the promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, EPA responds to written inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP regulatory requirements as they pertain to a whole source category. These inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type of sources to which the regulation applies, or to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting requirements contained in the regulation. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed regulatory interpretations. EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations, and posts them on the Applicability Determination Index
(ADI)on a quarterly basis. In addition, the ADI contains EPA-issued responses to requests pursuant to the stratospheric ozone regulations, contained in 40 CFR part 82. The ADI is an electronic index on the Internet with over one thousand EPA letters and memoranda pertaining to the applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NSPS and NESHAP. The letters and memoranda may be searched by date, office of issuance, subpart, citation, control number or by string word searches. Today's notice comprises a summary of 63 such documents added to the ADI on November 10, 2006. The subject, author, recipient, date and header of each letter and memorandum are listed in this notice, as well as a brief abstract of the letter or memorandum. Complete copies of these documents may be obtained from the ADI through the OECA Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html* . The following table identifies the database control number for each document posted on the ADI database system on November 10, 2006; the applicable category; the subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63 (as applicable) covered by the document; and the title of the document, which provides a brief description of the subject matter. We have also included an abstract of each document identified with its control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely to alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended as substitutes for the full text of the documents. Control Category Subpart Title 0600001 NSPS Dc Alternative Fuel Monitoring. 0600002 NSPS BB Exemption from TRS Standard for Brown Stock Washer. 0600003 NSPS BB Alternative Monitoring for Scrubber. 0600004 NSPS Db, Dc Fuel Supplier Certification Statements. 0600006 NSPS J Alternative Monitoring Plan for a Catalytic Cracking Unit. 0600007 NSPS J Alternative Monitoring Plan for a Flare. 0600008 NSPS AAa Alterations to an Electric Arc Furnace. 0600082 NSPS A, J Alternative Monitoring Plan for Hydrogen Production Facility. M060001 MACT MMM Compliance Test Waiver Request. M060002 MACT MMMM Post Vulcanized Rubber-to-Metal Parts Bonding. M060003 MACT DDDDD Common Duct Testing and Acid Rain Program Opt-in. M060004 MACT DDDDD Firetube Boilers. M060005 MACT EEE Liquid-to-Gas Ratio Operating Parameter Limit. M060006 MACT IIII Use of Previously Conducted Transfer Efficiency Test. M060007 MACT MM Alternative Monitoring for Scrubber. M060008 MACT A, EEE Alternative Monitoring Locations and Parameters. M060009 MACT A, EEE Alternative Monitoring Plan for Hazardous Waste Combustor. Z060001 NESHAP FF, V Alternative Monitoring Plan for Dual Purpose Valves. 0600009 NSPS WWW Landfill Gas Processing System as Treatment. 0600010 NSPS WWW Landfill Gas Processing System as Treatment. 0600011 NSPS WWW Landfill Gas Processing System as Treatment. 0600012 NSPS WWW Landfill Gas Processing System as Treatment. 0600013 NSPS WWW Landfill Gas Processing System as Treatment. 0600014 NSPS WWW Temperature Monitors in Gas Turbines. 0600015 NSPS VV Liquid Urea Manufacturing Operations. A060001 Asbestos M Demolition under Control of Same Owner or Operator. A060002 Asbestos M Removal of Floor Mastic Using a Mechanical Buffer. A060003 Asbestos M Applicability of 260 Linear Feet Requirement. A060004 Asbestos M Test Method for Spray-applied Acoustical Materials. A060005 Asbestos M Regulated Asbestos Containing Material. A060006 Asbestos M Meaning of Preclude Access and Dripping. M060010 MACT HH, HHH Clarification of Ownership and Co-location. M060011 MACT NNN Metal Building Insulation. M060012 MACT MMMM Post Vulcanized Rubber-to-Metal Parts Bonding. M060013 MACT PPP Use of Tetrahydrofuran
(THF)as Raw Material. M060014 MACT H Nitrile Stripper Column System. M060015 MACT FFFF, HHHHH Non-Dedicated Mixing Vessels. 0600016 NSPS A, G Modification of Nitric Acid Plant. 0600017 NSPS UUU Tile Dryers. 0600018 NSPS SS Coating of Dishwasher Racks. 0600019 NSPS A, KKKK Commencement of Construction. 0600020 NSPS UUU Opacity Monitoring Exemption. 0600021 NSPS A, KKKK Commencement of Construction. 0600022 NSPS Dc Reporting Frequency Requirements. 0600023 NSPS OOO Air Classifiers. 0600024 NSPS UUU Titanium Dioxide Ore Dryers and Product Dryers. 0600025 NSPS A, D State Monitoring Requirements in Lieu of 40 CFR Part 60. 0600026 NSPS Dc Alternative Opacity Monitoring. 0600027 NSPS A, CC Modification and Capital Expenditure Calculations. 0600028 NSPS A, CC Modification and Capital Expenditure Calculations. 0600029 NSPS A SIP-mandated Expenditures and Reconstruction. M060016 MACT G Once In/Always In Rule. M060017 MACT YY Dry Spinning Spandex Production Process Units. M060018 MACT HHHHH, MMMM Coating of Test Panels Not Used in Final Product. M060019 MACT MM Alternative Monitoring of Smelt Dissolving Tank Scrubber. M060020 MACT JJJJ, OOOO Point of Determination for Group of Coating Lines. M060021 MACT NNNNN Alternative Monitoring Plan for HCL Scrubber. M060022 MACT S Alternative Monitoring Parameters for a Dual Control System. M060023 MACT S Clean Condensate Alternative & Creditable Reductions. M060024 MACT S Applicability of White Liquor Oxidation System. M060025 MACT EEEEE Molding and Core Making. M060026 MACT S Clean Condensate Alternative & Creditable Reductions. Z060003 NESH FF Benzene Emissions from Exchange Leaks. Summary of Headers and Abstracts Abstracts Abstract for [A060001] Q: Are residential structures that are demolished as part of a larger project, such as highway expansion, subject to the asbestos requirements under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M? A: Yes. EPA finds, pursuant to 40 CFR 61.145, that if two or more residences under the control of the same owner or operator are part of a larger demolition project, such as highway expansion, they are subject to the asbestos regulation, NESHAP subpart M. Abstract for [A060002] Q1: Is floor mastic a Category 1 asbestos-containing material under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M? A1: No. EPA finds that floor mastic is not a Category 1 asbestos-containing material under the Asbestos NESHAP. However, pursuant to 40 CFR 61.141, it is a Category II asbestos-containing material. Q2: Does the use of a mechanical buffer with an abrasive pad on floor mastic cause the floor mastic to become friable, and thus a Regulated Asbestos-Containing Material
(RACM)under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M? A2: Yes. EPA finds that pursuant to 40 CFR 61.141, the use of a mechanical buffer with an abrasive pad causes floor mastic to become friable and, thus, it is considered a RACM under the asbestos NESHAP. Abstract for [A060003] Q: Does the regulatory threshold of 260 linear feet on pipes apply to caulking and roof flashing materials that qualify as regulated asbestos-containing material
(RACM)under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M? A: No. EPA finds the 260 linear feet threshold is applicable only to pipes under the asbestos NESHAP. Other materials, such as caulking or roof flashing, are subject to the 160 square foot standard as specified in 40 CFR 61.145. Abstract for [A060004] Q1: Has EPA issued guidance specifically about spray-applied acoustical materials under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M? A1: No. EPA has not issued guidance under the asbestos NESHAP specifically about spray-applied acoustical materials. Q2: Does EPA recommend that the public assure spray-applied acoustical materials to contain asbestos without testing, and, what method(s) should be used to test these materials under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M? A2: No. EPA is not recommending that the public assure spray-applied acoustical materials to contain asbestos without testing. In regards to testing spray-applied acoustical materials, Polarized Light Microscopy
(PLM)is specified in 40 CFR part 63 as the approved testing method; however, Transmission Electron Microscopy
(TLM)is also an acceptable method. Abstract for [A060005] Q: Does 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, require that all asbestos-containing materials be removed before the demolition of a facility? A: No. The asbestos NESHAP does not require all asbestos-containing materials to be removed before demolition. However, all Regulated Asbestos Containing Material
(RACM)must be removed from a facility being demolished or renovated before any activity begins that would break up, dislodge, or similarly disturb the material or preclude access to the material for subsequent removal. Abstract for [A060006] Q: Could EPA clarify the meaning of the words “preclude access” and “dropping” in 40 CFR 61.145(c)(1) and 61.145(c)(6) of the asbestos NESHAP, subpart M? A: EPA finds that the use of the term “preclude access” in 40 CFR 61.145(c)(1) of the asbestos NESHAP is intended to ensure that all Regulated Asbestos Containing Material
(RACM)expected to be disturbed during the demolition or renovation is removed from the facility before any action is taken that could prevent safe removal of the RACM during a later phase of the project. The use of the term “dropping” is intended to prevent RACM from falling (instead of being “placed”) on the floor and to ensure that RACM is moved in a careful way to minimize asbestos fiber release. Abstract for [M060001] Q: Does EPA waive the Method 5 test requirement for a second process vent, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMM, at the Arkema facility in Riverview, Michigan? A: Yes. EPA waives the Method 5 test because information submitted by the facility shows that it is impractical to test the second vent due to short operating time, low flow rate, and low pressure drop. Dust emissions will be drawn through the first vent which will be tested, and any remaining dust will be trapped in the vent collection tank or in the mineral oil scrubbers. Abstract for [M060002] Q: Does EPA find that a coating being applied at the Cooper Tire & Rubber facility in Findlay, Ohio, that uses the same methodology, composition, and function as a rubber-to-metal coating, but that is bonded during a heating process not involving the vulcanization of rubber, is a rubber-to-metal coating under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM? A: No. EPA finds that because the bonding process is not performed during the vulcanization process, it is not considered a rubber-to-metal coating and should not be included in that category. Instead, the coating is subject to the general use coating subcategory emission limit in 40 CFR 63.3890(b)(1). Abstract for [M060003] Q1: Can the required emission tests, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD, be conducted in the common duct for boilers 1, 2, and 3 at the Dairyland Power Cooperative Alma Station in LaCrosse, Wisconsin? A1: No. 40 CFR 63.7510 requires that each unit be tested, and the language in Section II.F of the September 13, 2004 Preamble to the Final Rule reinforces this requirement. The facility is required to submit an alternative test procedure request with appropriate technical justification, if it wants to conduct common duct testing. However, testing in a common duct is considered a minor change to a test method; thus, EPA Regions and delegated States may approve such a request. Q2: Does EPA find that boilers 1, 2, and 3 would be exempt from the boiler MACT, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD, if they opt into the Acid Rain Program? A2: No. EPA finds that 40 CFR 63.7491 includes no such exemption. A source cannot avoid controlling mercury emissions by agreeing to control sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Abstract for [M060004] Q: Does EPA find that the two 250-horsepower firetube boilers planned for installation at Green Bay Packaging in Green Bay, Wisconsin, should be regulated within the “small gaseous fuel subcategory” as defined in MACT subpart DDDDD, 40 CFR 63.7575, even if each boiler's heat input rating at 100 percent efficiency may reach 10.5 million BTU per hour? A: Yes. EPA finds that these boilers are regulated within the “small gaseous fuel subcategory” as that term is defined in MACT subpart DDDDD, 40 CFR 63.7575. In response to comments, the Agency agreed to add firetube boilers to the definition of small liquid fuel and gaseous fuel subcategories in the final rule. Abstract for [M060005] Q: Does EPA approve a request from Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company (3M), under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, to establish a high energy wet scrubber's hydrogen chloride/chlorine liquid-to-gas ratio operating parameter limit for a hazardous waste incinerator unit that is equal to 20.4 gallons per 1,000 dry standard cubic feet based upon the data from 3M's September 1 and 2, 2004, comprehensive performance test and not upon the data from 3M's July 2001, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Trial Burn? A: No. EPA does not approve the request because the company has not demonstrated that the proposed hydrogen chloride/chlorine liquid-to-gas ratio operating parameter limit also corresponds to compliance with the particulate matter, semi-volatile metal, and low volatile metals emission standards. Abstract for [M060006] Q: Does EPA approve at the General Motors
(GM)Orion Assembly Plant in Orion, Michigan, the use of the results of a transfer efficiency test conducted in December 2004 for the primer surfacer and topcoat operations in lieu of performing another transfer efficiency test, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII? A: Yes. EPA approves the use of the December 2004 test results for the primer surfacer and the topcoat operations in lieu of performing an initial test to determine transfer efficiency. The test meets the requirements of MACT subpart IIII, 40 CFR 63.3160(c). There have been no process or equipment changes since the test that would trigger retesting, and the required operating parameters and transfer efficiency were established during the test. Abstract for [M060007] Q: Does EPA approve the continuous monitoring of fan amps and total scrubbing liquid flow rate as an alternative to the scrubber monitoring parameters required by NSPS Subpart BB and NESHAP Subpart MM, at the Weyerhaeuser Company facility in Bennettsville, South Carolina? A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative continuous monitoring plan under MACT subpart MM and NSPS subpart BB because the dynamic scrubber operates near atmospheric pressure and the proposed monitoring is an acceptable alternative. Consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 63.864, fan amps and scrubber liquid flow rate must be monitored at least once each successive 15-minute period, and continuous compliance must be determined based on a 3-hour average. Abstract for [M060008] Q1: Does EPA approve the request for an alternative monitoring location to continuously monitor total hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, at the Ash Grove Cement Company facility in Overland Park, Kansas? A1: Yes. EPA approves the request to monitor hydrocarbons in the by-pass and between stages numbers 2 and 3 of the preheater instead of in the main stack, pursuant to MACT subpart EEE, 40 CFR 63.1209(g)(1) and 63.8(f). Both the bypass and preheater gas streams must have a hydrocarbon limit of 10 ppmv on an hourly rolling average basis as defined in MACT subpart EEE. The location of the hydrocarbon monitors must be as specified in the Comprehensive Performance Test Plan, downstream of the bypass baghouse, while the preheater monitor shall be located in the gas stream between stages numbers 2 and 3 of the pre-heater in a manner that ensures a representative sample of gas will be monitored. Q2: Does EPA also approve the request for an alternative method to calculate the maximum gas temperature at the inlet to the facility's particulate matter control device, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE? A2: Yes. EPA approves this request for an alternative calculation pursuant to MACT subpart EEE, 40 CFR 63.1209(g)(1) and 63.8(f) due to the potential danger associated with operating the coal mill baghouse at an elevated temperature. The facility will establish that the maximum gas temperature at the inlet of the coal mill baghouse does not exceed 200 degrees Fahrenheit. Establishing the maximum gas temperature at the inlet is an alternative for the coal mill baghouse only. Q3: Does EPA also approve the request for an alternative to calculate the minimum combustion chamber temperature limit as required by 40 CFR 63.1209(j)(1) and (k)(2)? A3: No. EPA does not approve the request to set the minimum combustion chamber temperature as the average of the highest hourly rolling averages measured in each trial run burn. However, EPA finds the source could establish a minimum combustion chamber temperature by matching the combustion chamber temperature profile during the comprehensive performance test using the specific procedures described in EPA's response as an alternative to establishing the minimum combustion chamber temperature. Abstract for [M060009] Q: Does EPA approve the alternative monitoring request to continuously monitor oxygen and temperature instead of carbon monoxide or total hydrocarbons, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, at the Holcim facility in Clarksville, Montana? A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative monitoring request pursuant to MACT subpart EEE, 40 CFR 63.1209(g)(1) and 63.8(f), provided the facility meets the conditions established for the performance test for destruction and removal efficiency
(DRE)that demonstrates compliance with the DRE standard found in 40 CFR 63.1204(c), and carbon monoxide and total hydrocarbon standards found in 40 CFR 63.1204(a)(5), as indicated in EPA's response. Abstract for [M060010] Q: Could EPA clarify the relationship between ownership and co-location in regards to the applicability of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HH, to the Mocane Cryogenic/Compressor Station located near Forgan, Oklahoma, and owned by Regency Gas Services and Colorado Interstate Gas? A: EPA finds that all the facility operations are located at a single site, as defined in 40 CFR 63.761 of MACT subpart HH, and, because the transmission and storage source category begins where natural gas enters the transmission pipeline, the site is subject to MACT subpart HH. EPA also finds the equipment qualifies as a single Title V source with all equipment subject to Title V permitting. Because of separate ownership, individual Title V permits will be issued to the owner of the specific equipment. Abstract for [M060011] Q: Does 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN, apply to the metal building insulation produced at CertainTeed's facility in Kansas City, Kansas? A: Yes. EPA finds that metal building insulation meets the definition of building insulation for purposes of MACT subpart NNN, and that production of this insulation at the CertainTeed facility is subject to MACT subpart NNN. Abstract for [M060012] Q: Does EPA find that an autoclave should be included in the rubber-to-metal or general use subcategory, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, if a partial vulcanization occurs in the first heating step and the part is submitted fully vulcanized in the autoclave, as is the case of the Cooper Standard Automotive facility in Michigan? A: EPA finds that the autoclave should be included in the rubber-to-metal subcategory under MACT subpart MMMM. EPA has determined that the second coating step of a metal insert bonded to rubber does involve vulcanization based on the stress test results done on two metal parts coated with the same adhesive, and should be included in such subcategory. Abstract for [M060013] Q: Does EPA find that the substantive control, testing, and monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPP, apply to the 3M process using tetrahydrofuran
(THF)as a raw material at the Specialty Material Manufacturing facility in Cottage Grove, Minnesota? A: Yes. EPA finds that the language at 40 CFR 63.1420(d)(3) only exempts those processes which produce polyether polyols from epoxide polymerization, and, by its terms, does not extend the exemption under MACT subpart PPP to processes which produce polyether polyols from THF. The facility did not provide the Agency sufficient information to determine whether only the recordkeeping or demonstration requirements at 40 CFR 63.1420(b)(1) would apply to the process. Abstract for [M060014] Q1: Does EPA find that the nitrile stripper column
(NSC)system at the INVISTA S.a.r.l. (INVISTA) Victoria plant should be classified as a waste management unit or a recovery device, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPP, or can it be subject to two sets of requirements at the same time because it may qualify both as a waste management and a recovery device under the Hazardous Organic National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(HON)rule, 40 CFR part 63, subpart F? A1: EPA finds that the NSC system cannot be subject to two sets of standards under the HON rule and that it should be classified as a waste management unit under that rule. Based on the concept of “discarded” within the terms “point of determination” and “wastewater” in the HON rule, the NSC system must either be a recovery device within the CMPU or a waste management unit outside of the CMPU. The fact that the NSC system is receiving the stormwater stream from the Victoria plant, in addition to the stream from the ADN unit for which it was originally designed, clarifies for the Agency that the NSC system is outside of the CMPU. The liquid stream transferred from the ADN process to the NSC system is, therefore, “discharged” to the NSC system. This makes the NSC system a “waste management unit” and the ADN stream “wastewater”, subject to the performance standards of 40 CFR 63.138 of the HON rule. Q2: What is the appropriate classification for the NSC system if the stormwater runoff is no longer routed to the ADN unit? A2: When the stormwater runoff is removed from the NSC system, the NSC system should be evaluated as a recovery device because the NSC system potentially serves the purpose of recovering chemicals for fuel value, use, reuse or for sale for fuel value, use or reuse. Abstract for [M060015] Q: Could EPA clarify the applicability of the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP (MON rule) and the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing NESHAP (MCM rule), under 40 CFR part 63, subparts FFFF and HHHHH respectively, to non-dedicated mixing vessels which support coatings manufacturing in three different areas at the Cytec Industries facility in Havre de Grace, Maryland? A: EPA determines that in area one the non-dedicated HAP mixing vessels are used in the production of “pre-react” isolated intermediates which are stored below ambient temperature until further processing to produce a coating occurs, and therefore, are subject to the MON. The pre-react is similar to a synthesis operation producing a MON chemical described by SIC code 289, rather than a coating. EPA agrees that since the “pre-react” meets all of the criteria specified in EPA's response, it is a MON product and therefore the mixing vessel that produces it is subject to the MON. In area two, the MON chemical is mixed with curing systems, fillers, and other additives, and a coating is produced. Since the non dedicated HAP mixing vessels in area two are associated with the production of a coating, they are part of the miscellaneous coating manufacturing subject to the MCM rule. Area three consists of the application of the coating produced in area two. Neither the MON nor the MCM apply to the application of coatings. Abstract for [M060016] Q: Does MACT subpart G, pursuant to 40 CFR 63.100(b)(4), provide minor source status to International Specialty Products' butanediol facility in Lima, Ohio, given that the facility is no longer part of the BP Amoco Chemical Company
(BP)major source; has actual emissions of less than 2 tpy of individual hazardous air pollutants
(HAP)and less than 4 tpy of total HAP; shares no common control or ownership with BP; and is a discrete facility that is not contiguous with any BP property or any of the remaining sources listed on the current BP Title V permit? A: No. EPA finds that the facility is not eligible for minor source status under MACT subpart G. It was constructed and permitted as a major source on the compliance date for new sources in the HON. Thus, according to the “once in, always in” policy, it remains subject to the HON rule, even if it subsequently reduces its emissions below major source thresholds. Abstract for [M060017] Q: Does 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY, apply to the spandex production equipment at the Invista facility in Waynesboro, Virginia, where the equipment is part of one or more dry spinning spandex production process units? A: No. EPA finds that the spandex production equipment is not subject to MACT subpart YY. 40 CFR 63.1103(h)(1)(ii) defines emission points, listed in paragraphs (h)(1)(i)(A) through (C), that are associated with a dry spinning spandex production process unit that are not subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 63.1103(h)(3) even though the process is part of the spandex production source category. Abstract for [M060018] Q: Does 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, apply to a spray booth at the PPG Industries, Inc.
(PPG)facility in Springdale, Pennsylvania, that would be used to prepare painted sample panels to be tested at a laboratory? A: No. EPA determines that PPG's proposed new spray booth would not be subject to NESHAP subpart MMMM, the Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products rule, since the spray booth would not be used to apply surface coating of “miscellaneous metal parts or products,” which include certain various “industrial, household, and consumer products,” or their “metal components,” i.e., parts, as defined in 40 CFR 63.3881. The sample panels that PPG plans to prepare in its new spray booth do not qualify as “industrial, household, and consumer products” because they will be prepared solely to allow coatings to be tested in a laboratory, will not be sold in commerce, and will eventually be recycled as scrap metal. The sample panels also do not qualify as “metal components” of “industrial, household, and consumer products” because the panels will never become part of an industrial, household, or consumer product. Abstract for [M060019] Q: Does EPA approve continuous monitoring of fan amperage and scrubbing liquid flow rate in lieu of scrubber pressure drop under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM, for the smelt dissolving tank scrubber at the Smurfit-Stone Container Hopewell Mill in Hopewell, Virginia? A: Yes. EPA finds that pressure drop is not the best indicator of control device performance for low-energy entrainment scrubbers. Compliance with MACT subpart MM could be demonstrated by verifying ID fan operation, maintaining a scrubber liquid flow rate, and maintaining a scrubbing liquid supply pressure based on established parameters from the facility's performance test. Abstract for [M060020] Q: Does EPA agree that the Point of Determination
(POD)for the predominant use ratio (e.g., 90 percent/10 percent) which, according to 40 CFR 63.4281(e), would determine whether part 63, subpart OOOO (“Fabric NESHAP”) or subpart JJJJ (“Paper and Other Web Coating NESHAP, POWC NESHAP”) would apply, can be located at the entry point to the common control device for the Cytec Engineered Materials Inc. facility in Havre de Grace, Maryland? A: No. EPA does not approve Cytec's request to consider the entry point to the common control device for the four coaters/dryers as a POD for purposes of establishing the MACT subpart OOOO predominant use ratio. 40 CFR 63.4281(e) states that “any web coating line must comply with the subpart of this part that applies to the predominant use activity conducted at the affected source.” This indicates that a predominant use determination under the Fabric NESHAP can be made only with respect to a single coating line, not groups of coating lines. Therefore, Cytec, Inc. must assure ensure that its three coaters/dryers subject to POWC NESHAP comply with all of the POWC NESHAP's requirements, and that its one coater/dryer subject to the Fabric NESHAP complies with all of the Fabric NESHAP's requirements. Abstract for [M060021] Q: Does EPA approve, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN, the monitoring of alternative operating limit parameters (scrubber base temperature and indicators of proper liquid flow) at the DuPont Washington Works facility in Washington, West Virginia? A: Yes. EPA finds that DuPont has demonstrated that the scrubber monitoring specified under MACT subpart NNNNN is not appropriate for its process, and that the proposed alternative monitoring meets the requirements for approval in 40 CFR 63.9025(b) and 63.8(f). Abstract for [M060022] Q: Does EPA approve monitoring the secondary power from the electrostatic precipitator
(ESP)as an alternative monitoring parameter to monitoring pressure drop on the scrubber, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart S, for a dual-control device consisting of an ESP followed by a packed tower scrubber at the International Paper Georgetown Mill, in Georgetown, South Carolina? A: No. EPA does not approve monitoring secondary power from the ESP in-lieu-of monitoring the pressure drop on the scrubber because there is no demonstration to show that the negative electric charge on particles exiting the ESP will have anything more than negligible effects on the efficiency of the scrubber. Abstract for [M060023] Q: Does EPA approve that emission reductions achieved as a result of upgrades to a wastewater lagoon at the Buckeye facility in Perry, Florida, are creditable to demonstrate compliance with the condensate collection requirements in 40 CFR 63.446(c) of the Pulp and Paper MACT, 40 CFR part 63, subpart S? A: EPA determines that the reductions may be creditable provided that Buckeye can provide the necessary data to satisfactorily demonstrate continuous compliance with the lb/ODTP compliance option for condensate collection and treatment, beginning at the initial compliance date, as described in EPA's response. The data would be generally considered creditable if it demonstrates that such emission reductions resulted from efficiency improvements to a control device that can be verified; are clearly from additional improvements in technology; and are not otherwise needed to meet regulatory requirements. Abstract for [M060024] Q: Does EPA find that the White Liquor Oxidation (WLO <sup>x</sup> ) system portion of a pulp and paper mill's oxygen delignification system subject to the requirements of the Pulp and Paper MACT, 40 CFR part 63, subpart S, at the Palatka Mill in Palatka, Florida? A: No. EPA finds that the WLO <sup>x</sup> system is not named as one of the pieces of process equipment in the regulatory definition of an oxygen delignification system and therefore is not subject to the MACT subpart S requirements in 40 CFR 63.443. Abstract for [M060025] Q: Does EPA find that mold and core making lines that use the “Expandable Pattern Casting” (or “Lost Foam”) process at the Mueller Company's facility in Albertville, Alabama subject to the MACT requirements for Iron and Steel Foundries under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE? A: Yes. The pouring, cooling, and shakeout operations of Mueller's Expendable Pattern Casting process are not significantly different than a conventional sand casting operation, and therefore should be considered as such for 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE purposes. In addition, Mueller's pouring operations would be classified as pouring stations, not pouring areas. The main distinctions between a pouring station and a pouring area are that pouring stations are automated and that the pouring can reasonably be assumed to occur at distinct points. Abstract for [M060026] Q: Does EPA approve that emission reductions resulting from improvements to the pulp washer line fans, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart S, creditable for the Pulp & Paper MACT Clean Condensate Alternative
(CCA)at the Smurfit-Stone facility in Fernandina Beach, Florida? A: No. Generally, a mill can make efficiency improvements to a control device and then use the incremental improvements for CCA credit if the emission changes are verifiable and clearly from additional improvements in technology. The modifications described for this facility are not additional improvements in technology, but rather equipment upgrades to meet proper operating levels and result in HAP reductions from emissions that should never have been emitted. Abstract for [Z060001] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for pressure/vacuum relief valves, under 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, for the wastewater treatment plant tanks and oil-water separator at the Flint Hills Resources refinery in Saint Paul, Minnesota? A: Yes. EPA concludes that the pressure/vacuum relief valves function as both pressure relief devices and dilution air openings. Further, the Agency recognizes that the requirements of 40 CFR 61.343(a)(1)(i)(B) and
(C)do not account for this dichotomy, and it approves the proposed alternative monitoring plan under NESHAP subpart FF to resolve the conflicting requirements. Abstract for [0600001] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan altering the required daily monitoring, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, 40 CFR 60.48c(g), to a monthly monitoring schedule for natural gas fuel usage at the Ypsilanti Community Utilities Authority facility in Ypsilanti, Michigan? A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the alternative monitoring request to record natural gas usage for two new boilers on a monthly, rather than a daily basis. EPA finds that compliance with NSPS Subpart Dc can be adequately verified by keeping fuel usage records on a monthly basis if only natural gas is burned. The facility must also specify how the total fuel usage will be apportioned to individual boilers. Abstract for [0600002] Q: Does EPA approve an exemption from the Total Reduced Sulfur
(TRS)standard in NSPS subpart BB, 40 CFR 60.283(a)(1)(iv), for the brown stock washer
(BSW)system at the Buckeye Florida Limited Partnership facility in Perry, Florida? A: Yes. Based on cost information supplied and recent cost estimates from other facilities, EPA finds that the BSW system qualifies for a temporary exemption under NSPS subpart BB. Should future changes make the control of TRS emissions from the Number 2 Mill BSW system cost effective, this exemption will no longer apply, and it will be necessary for Buckeye to control TRS emissions. Abstract for [0600003] Q: Does EPA approve the continuous monitoring of fan amps and the total scrubbing liquid flow rate as an alternative to the scrubber monitoring parameters required by 40 CFR part 60, subpart BB, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM, for a smelt dissolving tank dynamic scrubber at the Weyerhaeuser Company facility in Bennettsville, South Carolina? A: Yes. EPA approves these alternative monitoring parameters. The dynamic scrubber operates near atmospheric pressure and thus the proposed monitoring, in combination with monitoring of scrubber liquid flow rate, is an acceptable alternative to the NESHAP subpart MM requirement to monitor the pressure loss of the gas stream and the scrubbing liquid flow rate. In addition, EPA approves the request to monitor scrubbing liquid flow rate as an alternative to the NSPS subpart BB requirement to monitor scrubber liquid supply pressure. Abstract for [0600004] Q: Does EPA exempt facilities which use very low sulfur oil from the requirement to obtain certifications of sulfur content for each shipment of fuel oil delivered, under 40 CFR part 60, subparts Db and Dc, and permit them to provide only receipts indicating the type of fuel delivered? A: No. EPA does not exempt facilities from the requirement to obtain certifications of sulfur content for shipments of fuel oil. The requirements of NSPS subparts Db and Dc regarding certification of fuel sulfur content must be met. Abstract for [0600006] Q: Does EPA approve a request for an exemption from the requirement in NSPS subpart J, 40 CFR 60.105(a)(2)(ii), to install, calibrate, operate, and maintain a carbon monoxide continuous emission monitor with a 1,000-ppmv span gas for a fluid catalytic cracking unit at the Flint Hills Resources facility in Saint Paul, Minnesota? A: Yes. EPA finds that the facility qualifies for the exemption set forth in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(2)(ii) because the company has met the following requirements: calibrated a CO CEM with a span value of 100 parts per million by volume, dry basis (PPMVD); demonstrated that the relative accuracy is 10 percent of the average CO emissions or 5 PPM CO, whichever is greater; and demonstrated that the average CO emissions during a 30-day period are less than 50 PPMVD with the CO CEM. The facility still must comply with a state air permit requirement to install and maintain a CO CEM with a 100 PPMV span. Abstract for [0600007] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for a zinc thermal oxidizer flare used during periods of maintenance or malfunction of a vapor recovery unit at a gasoline loading rack, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, at the Flint Hills Resources facility in Saint Paul, Minnesota? A: Yes. EPA finds that the company has demonstrated that this refinery fuel gas meets the criteria in EPA's guidance for refinery fuel gas stream alternative monitoring plans and approves the alternative monitoring plan. Abstract for [0600008] Q1: Does EPA find that the alterations made in 1985 to electric arc furnace
(EAF)number 2 at Oregon Steel Mill's facility in Portland, Oregon, meet the definition of “modification” under 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa? A1: No. Based on the information provided, EPA finds that the alterations made in 1985 to EAF number 2 do not constitute a modification under NSPS subpart AAa. Although the alterations increased the production rate of steel from 25 tons per hour to 50 tons per hour, they did not increase particulate matter emissions. Q2: Does EPA find that the alterations meet the definition of “reconstruction” under 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa? A2: No. Based on the information provided, EPA finds that the changes made in 1985 to EAF number 2 do not constitute a reconstruction under NSPS subpart AAa. Reconstruction is based on a comparison of the fixed capital cost of the new components and a comparable entirely new facility, that is, a new eccentric bottom tap EAF capable of producing 50 tons of steel per hour. The EAF consists of the furnace shell and roof and the transformer. The cost of the 1985 alterations was 31.8 percent of the cost of the comparable entirely new facility, which is less than the 50 percent reconstruction cost threshold. Q3: Does EPA find that the other changes made to the EAF number that resulted in an increase on the potential emission rate was accomplished with a “capital expenditure” as defined under 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa? A3: No. EPA finds that the changes made in 1987, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1997 and 1998 to EAF number 2 did not require capital expenditures as defined in 40 CFR 60.2. The annual asset guideline repair allowance percentage for an EAF is 18 percent. The changes that enabled increases in production rate included the purchase of a transformer and the installation of oxy-fuel burners, a post combustion system, aluminum current arms, and other changes, all of which did not cost more than 18 percent of the basis for an EAF. Abstract for [0600009] Q: Does EPA find that the gas processing system at the Bethel Landfill in Hampton, Virginia, qualifies as treatment under NSPS subpart WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)? A: Yes. EPA considers compression, filtration, and moisture removal from a landfill gas for use in eight reciprocating internal combustion engines to be treatment pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C). Because the engines will be exempt from monitoring, they do not have to be included in the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan (SSM Plan) required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA. However, the treatment system supplying gas to the turbines will have to be included in the SSM Plan. Abstract for [0600010] Q: Does EPA consider the gas processing system that includes the three turbines at the Grand Central Landfill in Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania, to be treatment under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)? A: Yes. EPA considers compression, filtration, and moisture removal from a landfill gas for use in an energy recovery device to be treatment under NSPS subpart WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C). Because the engines will be exempt from monitoring, they do not have to be included in the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan (SSM Plan) required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA. However, the treatment system supplying gas to the turbines will have to be included in the SSM Plan. Also, Pennsylvania may include state enforceable requirements in any permit it issues, based on its review of state laws and regulations. Abstract for [0600011] Q: Does EPA consider the gas processing system at Keystone Potato Products' facility in Hegins, Pennsylvania, to be treatment under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW? A: Yes. EPA considers compression, filtration, and moisture removal from a landfill gas for use in an energy recovery device to be treatment under NSPS subpart WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C). Because the engines will be exempt from monitoring, they do not have to be included in the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan (SSM Plan) required by 40 CFR Part 63, subpart AAAA. However, the treatment system supplying gas to the turbines will have to be included in the SSM Plan. Also, Pennsylvania may include state enforceable requirements in any permit it issues, based on its review of state laws and regulations. Abstract for [0600012] Q: Does EPA consider the gas processing system at the Lake View Landfill in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to be treatment under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW? A: Yes. EPA considers compression, filtration, and moisture removal from a landfill gas for use in an energy recovery device to be treatment under NSPS subpart WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C). Because the engines will be exempt from monitoring, they do not have to be included in the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan (SSM Plan) required by 40 CFR Part 63, subpart AAAA. However, the treatment system supplying gas to the turbines will have to be included in the SSM Plan. Abstract for [0600013] Q: Does EPA consider gas processing system to be treatment as specified under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW at the Modern Landfill facility in York, Pennsylvania? A: Yes. EPA considers compression, filtration, and moisture removal from a landfill gas for use in an energy recovery device to be treatment under NSPS subpart WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C). Because the engines will be exempt from monitoring, they do not have to be included in the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan (SSM Plan) required by 40 CFR Part 63, subpart AAAA. However, the treatment system supplying gas to the turbines will have to be included in the SSM Plan. Abstract for [0600014] Q: Does EPA approve the use of post-combustion chamber temperature monitors as an alternative to combustion chamber temperature monitors in turbines at the Pottstown Landfill facility in Pottstown, Pennsylvania, required by 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW? A: Yes. EPA has determined that the location of the temperature monitors on these turbines is acceptable as an alternative to being located in the combustion zone of the turbines. Abstract for [0600015] Q: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, apply to liquid urea manufacturing operations? A: EPA has not provided a site-specific determination in this case because the source has not been identified. Additionally, EPA is not prepared to issue a blanket exemption for liquid urea manufacturing operations as none was issued during the rulemaking process. In addition, a liquid urea facility must look to the same criteria in 40 CFR 60.480(a) and
(b)as other manufacturers of listed chemicals to determine whether it is subject to NSPS subpart VV. The facility must then consider whether it might be exempted under 40 CFR 60.480(d). Abstract for [0600016] Q: Will plant changes to increase production capacity result in a modification of the C-1 Nitric Acid Plant located at the PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer facility in Augusta, Georgia? Is the use of pre-change and post-change emission testing the appropriate means of determining whether the change results in an increase in the NO <sup>X</sup> emission rate that will trigger the finding of a modification? A: Yes. EPA finds that the plant changes do constitute a modification under the NSPS, and the unit would become subject to NSPS subpart G. EPA also finds that the manner in which the Masar emission control system has been operated in the past and its improper maintenance makes it impossible to establish rational pre-change test conditions for purposes of determining whether the plant changes will cause an increase in NO <sup>X</sup> emission rate. In this case, emission factors are the most appropriate method to determine if an emission increase occurs, and the appropriate factors show that the increase in nitric acid production capacity will result in an emission increase. Thus, the plan will be subject to NSPS subpart G requirements following the proposed production rate increase. Abstract for [0600017] Q: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, apply to a tile dryer at the Florim USA facility in Clarksville, Tennessee, that dries formed tiles by convection? A: No. EPA finds that the tile dryer operates in a manner that is typical of tunnel dryers, which are exempt from NSPS subpart UUU. Abstract for [0600018] Q: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart SS, apply to surface coating operations at the Nestaway facility in McKenzie, Tennessee, which fabricates and coats wire racks that are sold for use in new dishwashers of various manufacturers and as aftermarket replacements? A: No. EPA finds that because the facility is not part of a large appliance assembly plant, NSPS subpart SS does not apply to its surface coating operation. Abstract for [0600019] Q: What requirements under 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK, would apply to a simple cycle combustion turbine to be operated at the Stock Island Power Plant in Key West, Florida, since the Florida Municipal Power Agency and GE Packaged Power entered into a contract for the fabrication and construction of the turbine on February 18, 2005, the final date by which a unit must have commenced construction to be treated as an existing unit not subject to NSPS subpart KKKK? A: EPA finds that additional documentation must be submitted to make a determination. Without adequate documentation that the February 18, 2005 contract for the fabrication and construction of the turbine will result in a continuous program of construction, the combustion turbine in question would be considered subject to NSPS subpart KKKK requirements for new affected facilities. Refer to ADI determination 0600021. Abstract for [0600020] Q: Does EPA approve an exemption from opacity monitoring under 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, for a flash dryer that uses baghouses to control emissions as it dries product at the DuPont DeLisle titanium dioxide production facility in Pass Christian, Mississippi? A: Yes. EPA finds that because the dryer has a particulate matter emission rate of less than 11 tons/year, an exemption from the opacity monitoring requirement of NSPS subpart UUU is appropriate. Abstract for [0600021] Q: What requirements under 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK, would apply to a simple cycle combustion turbine to be operated at the Stock Island Power Plant in Key West, Florida, since the Florida Municipal Power Agency and GE Packaged Power entered into a contract for the fabrication and construction of the turbine on February 18, 2005, the final date by which a unit must have commenced construction to be treated as an existing unit not subject to NSPS subpart KKKK. The facility has provided follow-up information in response to EPA's request for more information. Refer to ADI determination 0600019. A: Based on the information submitted, EPA concludes that the combustion turbine, construction of which commenced on February 18, 2005, will not be subject to NSPS subpart KKKK, provided that a continuous program of construction is maintained and construction is completed within a reasonable time. Abstract for [0600022] Q: Does EPA allow the owners or operators of certain affected facilities under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc to submit reports annually instead of each six-month period, as required by 40 CFR 60.48(c)(j), if a facility is not required to obtain a Title V permit? A: No. EPA finds that the reporting frequency in NSPS subpart Dc is intended to apply to owners and operators of affected facilities regardless of whether they are required to obtain a Title V permit. Abstract for [0600023] Q: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO, apply to air classifiers at nonmetallic mineral processing plants? A: EPA finds that air classifiers are regulated by NSPS subpart OOO if they are part of a grinding mill. A grinding mill is the only affected facility under NSPS subpart OOO that includes air classifiers. If air classifiers are not part of a grinding mill, then they are not regulated by the standard since these are not identified as a separate category in the rule. Abstract for [0600024] Q: Does EPA find that 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, applies to the Line 2 ore dryer and product dryer at the DuPont DeLisle Plant in Pass Christian, Mississippi, where the facility uses a chlorination-oxidation process to manufacture titanium dioxide pigment? A: Yes. EPA finds that although the chlorination-oxidation process is exempt from NSPS subpart UUU, the ore dryer and product dryer at the DuPont plant are not part of the chlorination-oxidation process. Thus, the dryers are subject to NSPS subpart UUU. Abstract for [0600025] Q: Does EPA find that the requirements of the 25 Pennsylvania
(PA)Code Chapter 139 and the PA Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) Continuous Source Monitoring Manual can be applied in lieu of the requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and D, and 40 CFR part 60.13, for sulfur dioxide (SO <sup>2</sup> ) emissions for two power boilers at Weyerhaeuser's Johnsonburg Mill in Johnsonburg, Pennsylvania? A: Yes. EPA finds that the requirements of 25 PA Code Chapter 139 and PADEP's Continuous Source Monitoring Manual can be applied in lieu of corresponding NSPS requirements in CFR part 60, subparts A and D and 40 CFR part 60.13, provided that SO <sup>2</sup> emissions from the two power boilers remain less than 0.20 lbs/mmBtu and provided that, for validating hourly averages, the source computes one hour averages from 6 or more data points equally spaced over the one-hour period. Abstract for [0600026] Q: Does EPA approve EPA Method 9 visible emissions observations as an alternative to installing and certifying a continuous opacity monitoring system
(COMS)when oil is burned in a boiler subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, at the Penreco plant in Karns City, Pennsylvania? A: Yes. EPA finds that the alternative opacity monitoring can be performed in lieu of installing and certifying a COMS. However, specific procedures outlined in EPA's response must be followed to ensure compliance with this approval under NSPS subpart Dc. The procedures are consistent with those that EPA has approved for other Subpart Dc boilers that burn gas as a primary fuel and that have an annual capacity factor of 10 percent or less for oil when used as a backup fuel. Abstract for [0600027] Q: Do the changes at the glass melting furnace, Furnace 52, cause an emissions increase at the Flat River Glass facility in Park Hills, Missouri, and if so, was the increase accomplished through a capital expenditure such that it would be considered a modification pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and CC? Refer to ADI Control No. 0600028. A: Yes. EPA finds that the changes at the furnace constitute a capital expenditure and therefore, the furnace has been modified for purposes of NSPS subparts A and CC. This determination provides further detail on the equipment considered in the calculations, the estimated cost of the changes, and the results of the calculation that show a capital expenditure. Abstract for [0600028] Q1: Do the physical or operational changes to Furnace 52 at the Flat River Glass facility in Park Hills, Missouri, result in an emissions increase pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and C? Refer to ADI determination 0600027. A1: Yes. Based on evaluation of the AP-42 factors, historical test data, and 40 CFR part 60, Appendix C calculations, EPA has determined that Furnace 52 has been modified since a kilogram per hour emission increase did occur as a result of the change, and that such modification was accomplished with a capital expenditure. Q2: Was the emissions increase accomplished through a capital expenditure pursuant to 40 CFR 60.14(e) at the Flat River Glass facility in Park Hills, Missouri? A2: Yes. EPA finds that there was a capital expenditure made for purposes of NSPS subpart CC. Based on the information submitted, EPA has determined that the cost of the changes made to the furnace exceeded 12 percent of the facility's basis, the threshold for a capital expenditure. Because the company did not include any cost data for the initial installation of the glass furnace, the existing facility's basis was calculated by using the current cost of a new glass furnace and back-calculating the cost to the year of installation. Abstract for [0600029] Q: Does EPA find that a source's intent in incurring costs of component replacement as a result of SIP control requirements should be a factor in determining whether a source has exceeded the 50 percent cost threshold of the NSPS reconstruction provisions under 40 CFR part 60, subpart A? A: EPA finds that replacement costs may not be disregarded based on the owner's intent in incurring them. Creating an intent-based exemption for owners whose SIP-related expenditures pass the 50 percent threshold in Section 60.15 would be inconsistent with Section 111. However, EPA could conclude in the future that only certain facilities should be considered new once the 50 percent threshold for reconstruction is surpassed. Alternatively, EPA could determine that it is appropriate to exempt sources in individual cases or to exempt identifiable groups of sources where NSPS compliance is not “technologically or economically feasible,” which is consistent with section 111 of the Clean Air Act. Abstract for [Z060003] and [M060035] Q: Does EPA find that benzene emissions that occur from heat exchanger leaks at a facility, located in Texas and represented by Baker Botts, are to be included in the calculation of the Total Annual Benzene
(TAB)quantity from facility waste water under the NESHAP for Benzene Waste Operations, 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF? A: Yes. EPA finds that neither benzene emissions occurring from non-contact heat exchanger leaks into cooling tower water nor benzene quantities from “contact heat exchangers” qualify for the exemption or exclusion from the required benzene calculation
(TAB)under the NESHAP for Benzene Waste Operations, 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF. Therefore, waste in the form of gases or vapors that is emitted from process fluids is required to be part of the calculation of the total annual benzene quantity in facility waste generation. This determination is based on the fact that the benzene emissions are directly generated by the respective process, and are neither the result of leakage nor of process offgas. Abstract for [0600082] Q: Does EPA approve a request for an alternative monitoring plan for a hydrogen production facility to allow grab sampling of refinery fuel gas combusted in the two reformer furnaces on a staggered schedule, as opposed to installing a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS), under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, at the Air Products and Chemicals hydrogen production facility at the Exxon Mobil refinery in Joliet, Illinois? A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request for an alternative monitoring plan under NSPS subpart J, provided the facility meets the conditions and terms of approval specified in EPA's response. This AMP approval is consistent with the EPA guidance entitled “Alternative Monitoring Plan for NSPS Subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas: Conditions for Approval of the Alternative Monitoring Plan for Miscellaneous Refinery Fuel Gas Streams.” Dated: November 22, 2006. Lisa C. Lund, Acting Director, Office of Compliance. [FR Doc. E6-20440 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System SUMMARY: Background On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act, as per 5 CFR 1320.16, to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board under conditions set forth in 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Request for comment on information collection proposal The following information collection, which is being handled under this delegated authority, has received initial Board approval and is hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collection, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following: a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility; b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by FR 4004 (OMB No. 7100-0112), by any of the following methods: • Agency Web Site: *http://www.federalreserve.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments at http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *regs.comments@federalreserve.gov* . Include the OMB control number in the subject line of the message. • FAX: 202-452-3819 or 202-452-3102. • Mail: Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20551. All public comments are available from the Board's web site at *www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm* as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper in Room MP-500 of the Board's Martin Building (20th and C Streets, NW.) between 9 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A copy of the proposed form and instructions, the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statement, and other documents that will be placed into OMB's public docket files once approved may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears below. Michelle Long, Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer (202-452-3829), Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf
(TDD)users may contact (202-263-4869), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. Proposal to approve under OMB delegated authority the extension for three years, without revision, of the following report: *Report title:* Written Security Program for State Member Banks *Agency form number:* FR 4004 *OMB control number:* 7100-0112 *Frequency:* On occasion *Reporters:* State member banks *Annual reporting hours:* 35 hours *Estimated average hours per response:* 0.5 hours *Number of respondents:* 70 *General description of report:* This recordkeeping requirement is mandatory pursuant to section 3 of the Bank Protection Act [12 U.S.C. § 1882(a)] and Regulation H [12 CFR § 208.61]. Because written security programs are maintained at state member banks, no issue of confidentiality under the Freedom of Information Act normally arises. However, copies of such documents included in examination work papers would, in such form, be confidential pursuant to exemption 8 of the Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(8)]. *Abstract:* Each state member bank must develop and implement a written security program and maintain it in the bank's records. This program should include a requirement to install security devices and should establish procedures that satisfy minimum standards in the regulation, with the security officer determining the need for additional security devices and procedures based on the location of the banking office. There is no formal reporting form and the information is not submitted to the Federal Reserve. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 29, 2006. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E6-20424 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank Holding Companies The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than December 19, 2006. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City** (Donna J. Ward, Assistant Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001: *1. Charles Patrick Larsh* , Yucaipa, California; Jeffrey Scott Larsh, Indianapolis, Indiana; Lorene Stuart Larsh, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Steven Stuart Larsh, Libby, Montana; Mary Katherine McCarson, Kannapolis, North Carolina; Krista Marie Gomez, Arlington, Virginia; Thelma Stuart Stevens, Billings, Montana; Douglas Grant Stuart, Wagoner, Oklahoma; Douglas Grant Stuart, Jr., Austin, Texas; Elizabeth Allison Stuart, Silver Spring, Maryland; Ellen Rothermel Stuart, Dallas, Texas; Emily Anne Stuart, Columbia, Missouri; John Arthur Stuart, Jr., M.D., Dallas, Texas; John Arthur Stuart, III, Chandler, Arizona; Katherine Allison Stuart, West Lafayette, Indiana; Margaret Elizabeth Stuart, Chicago, Illinois; Monica Ann Stuart, Wagoner, Oklahoma; Sarah Rothermel Stuart, Nashville, Tennessee; as a group acting in concert; and Ellen Rothermel Stuart and John Arthur Stuart, Jr., M.D., both of Dallas, Texas; as individuals, to acquire voting shares of Pawhuska Financial Corp., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First National Bank in Pawhuska, both in Pawhuska, Oklahoma. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 29, 2006. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E6-20443 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 *et seq.* ) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below. The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at *www.ffiec.gov/nic/* . Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 29, 2006. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis** (Glenda Wilson, Community Affairs Officer) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034: *1. LINCO Bancshares Inc.* , St. Louis, Missouri; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Centennial Bancshares, Inc., Elsberry, Missouri, and thereby indirectly acquire Bank of Lincoln County, Elsberry, Missouri. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 29, 2006. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E6-20442 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage *de novo* , or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center Web site at *www.ffiec.gov/nic/* . Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 19, 2006. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta** (Andre Anderson, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309: *1. Iberiabank Corporation* , La Fayette, Louisiana; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Southern Mortgage Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and thereby engage in making, acquiring, brokering, or servicing loans or other extensions of credit, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 29, 2006. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc.E6-20441 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Federal Travel Regulation
(FTR)Maximum Per Diem Rates for Florida and Virginia AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA). ACTION: Notice of Per Diem Bulletin 07-02, revised continental United States (CONUS) per diem rates. SUMMARY: The General Services Administration
(GSA)has reviewed the lodging rate of a certain location in the State of Florida. Also, GSA is adding Greene County, Virginia to the County column for Charlottesville, Virginia, and will begin to receive Charlottesville's maximum per diem rate. The per diems prescribed in Bulletin 07-02 may be found at *www.gsa.gov/perdiem* . DATES: This notice is effective December 4, 2006, and applies to travel performed on or after December 14, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For clarification of content, contact Mr. Cy Greenidge, Office of Governmentwide Policy, Travel Management Policy, at
(202)219-2349. Please cite FTR Per Diem Bulletin 07-02. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background After an analysis of the per diem rates established for FY 2007 (see the **Federal Register** notice at 71 FR 43772, August 2, 2006), the per diem rate is being changed in the following locations: *State of Florida* • Brevard County *State of Virginia* • Greene County Per diem rates are published on the Internet at *www.gsa.gov/perdiem* as an FTR Per Diem Bulletin and published in the **Federal Register** on a periodic basis. This process ensures timely increases or decreases in per diem rates established by GSA for Federal employees on official travel within CONUS. Notices published periodically in the **Federal Register** , such as this one, now constitute the only notification of revisions in CONUS per diem rates to agencies. Dated: November 22, 2006. Russ H. Pentz, Assistant Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Transportation and Personal Property. [FR Doc. E6-20407 Filed 12-01-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-14-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-07-06AU] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC)publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at
(404)639-5960 or send an e-mail to *omb@cdc.gov.* Send written comments to CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC or by fax to
(202)395-6974. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice. Proposed Project Formative Research on Issues Related to the Use of Mass Media in African-American Women: Phase II—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Control (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Background and Brief Description Women's health programs, including the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP), offer low-cost or free breast cancer screening to uninsured, low-income women. In 1991, CDC established the NBCCEDP to increase breast and cervical cancer screening among uninsured, underserved, low-income women. To date, over 1.5 million women have received services from NBCCEDP-sponsored programs, yet NBCCEDP-sponsored programs are estimated to reach only 18% of women 50 years old and older who are eligible for screening services. Why women do not participate in this screening is not well understood. A research priority for the NBCCEDP is to identify effective strategies to increase enrollment among eligible women who have never received breast or cervical cancer screening. CDC conducted a phase I study (OMB number 0920-0652) to investigate, through a series of eight focus groups in Macon and Savannah, Georgia, the reasons why women who were eligible for NBCCEDP services did or did not participate in the program. Respondents were low-income, African American women aged 40 to 64 years. The study also investigated viable sources, messages, and channels through which to reach this population with promotional messages about breast cancer screening. The proposed phase II data collection will build on phase I activities. Eight additional focus groups will be conducted in Macon and Savannah, Georgia, to
(1)test consumer response to concepts that arose in the Phase I formative research related to breast cancer screening, and
(2)test a series of radio and print health messages aimed at increasing mammography screening among low-income African American women for cultural appropriateness. Respondents will be NBCCEDP-eligible African-American women aged 40-64 years. There are no costs to the respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 175. Estimated Annualized Burden Table Type of respondent Form name Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden per response (in hours) African American women, aged 40-64 years, GA residents Recruitment Screener (initial) 150 1 5/60 Recruitment Screener (spot-check) 24 1 5/60 Pre-discussion Information Sheet 80 1 30/60 Informed Consent and Focus Group Discussion 80 1 90/60 Dated: November 27, 2006. Deborah Holtzman, Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E6-20413 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-07-0582] Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC)will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-5960 and send comments to Seleda Perryman, CDC Assistant Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an e-mail to *omb@cdc.gov.* 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 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. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice. Proposed Project Youth Media Campaign Awareness and Reaction Tracking Study—Extension (0920-0582)—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Background and Brief Description In FY 2001, Congress established the Youth Media Campaign at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Specifically, the House Appropriations Language said: *The Committee believes that, if we are to have a positive impact on the future health of the American population, we must change the behaviors of our children and young adults by reaching them with important health messages.* CDC coordinated the planning, implementation, and evaluation of a campaign, VERB. It's what you do., designed to encourage tweens (children aged 9 to 13 years old) to be physically active everyday. The campaign was based on principles that have been shown to enhance success, including: Designing messages based on research; testing messages with the intended audiences; involving young people in all aspects of campaign planning and implementation; enlisting the involvement and support of parents and other influencers; tracking the campaign's effectiveness; and revising Campaign messages and strategies as needed. The campaign was implemented June 2002 through September 30, 2006. As part of the monitoring of the VERB brand awareness and understanding of its messages, the CDC conducted a tracking study (YMC Tracking Survey). In accordance with the original OMB approval (OMB NO. 0920-0582; Exp. May 2007), the data collection was done by telephone survey on a monthly, then quarterly, basis through out the campaign, surveying 300 tweens at each data collection. The survey measured VERB awareness and understanding, various attributes of the brand (coolness, likeability) and appeal of the advertising. All VERB advertising ended September 30, 2006. The purpose of this collection is to examine the tween audience's retention of the brand and its meaning 1-year post campaign. Results will inform future planners of health marketing and communication campaigns on how a campaign's awareness and understanding diminish over time. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time. Estimate of Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden per response (in hours) Total burden hours Parent YMC Tracking Survey Screening 600 1 2/60 20 Tween YMC Tracking Survey 600 1 15/60 150 Total 170 Dated:November 28, 2006. Joan F. Karr, Acting Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E6-20417 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Privacy Act of 1974; Report of a Modified or Altered System of Records AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). ACTION: Notice of a Modified or Altered System of Records (SOR). SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, we are proposing to modify or alter an existing SOR, “Medicare Beneficiary Database (MBD),” System No. 09-70-0536, established at 66 **Federal Register**
(FR)63392 (December 6, 2001), and modified at 71 FR 11420 (March 7, 2006). The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act
(MMA)authorizes Medicare payment to Part D sponsors (including Medicare Advantage prescription drug plan sponsors) that contract with CMS to provide qualified Part D prescription drug coverage as described in 42 CFR Parts 417, 422 and 423. The MBD will include data necessary to process certain activities associated with the new Part D benefit including, but not limited to, the following activities:
(1)Determination of the status of Medicare beneficiaries who are eligible for the Low Income Subsidy Program
(LIS)and are deemed to receive certain drug benefits; and
(2)auto-assignment/auto-enrollment of beneficiaries as required by the MMA, and regulation, to include all LIS and deemed individuals who are not voluntarily enrolled in a drug plan, will automatically be assigned to a Prescription Drug Plan
(PDP)or Medicare Advantage
(MA)Prescription Drug Plan (MA-PD). We propose to broaden the scope of the disclosure provisions of this system by adding a new routine use to permit the release of Part D enrollment data maintained in the MBD to support Patient Assistance Programs
(PAP)and other groups providing pharmaceutical assistance to the Medicare beneficiary. The new routine use will be published as routine use number 8. Specifically, the new routine use will facilitate the sharing of information between PAPs and Part D plans to meet the MMA provisions for drug utilization reviews, drug medication therapy management, and quality of care that can only be addressed through the cooperation between the PAP and the Part D Plan. Information may be released to these organizations upon a specific request, and only if the requester meets the following requirements. They must
(1)Provide an attestation or other qualifying information that they are providing pharmaceutical assistance to Medicare beneficiaries;
(2)submit a finder file identifying Medicare beneficiaries receiving pharmaceutical assistance and/or services;
(3)safeguard the confidentiality of any CMS data received and prevent unauthorized access; and,
(4)complete a written statement attesting to the information recipient's understanding of and willingness to abide by CMS provisions regarding Privacy protections and information security. Recipients of CMS data must complete the Coordination of Benefits PAP Data Sharing Agreement prior to the release of CMS data. The finder file submitted by the PAP must provide the following data elements:
(a)First initial of the first name,
(b)first 6 letters of the last name,
(c)social security number or health insurance claims number,
(d)date of birth, and
(e)sex. Part D data maintained in the MBD that will be released to a PAP or a group providing pharmaceutical assistance will consist of the verification of Medicare status and the identification of the current Part D Plan selected by the Medicare beneficiary. We will delete published routine use number 8 authorizing disclosure to support constituent requests made to a congressional representative. If an authorization for the disclosure has been obtained from the data subject, then no routine use is needed. The Privacy Act allows for disclosures with the “prior written consent” of the data subject. We will broaden the scope of published routine uses number 10 and 11 authorizing disclosures to combat fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to include combating “waste” which shall refer to specific beneficiary/recipient practices that result in unnecessary cost to all federally-funded health benefit programs. The primary purpose of this modified system is to provide CMS with a singular, authoritative, database of comprehensive enrollment data on individuals in the Medicare program to support ongoing and expanded program administration, service delivery modalities, and payment coverage options. This collection will contain a complete “beneficiary insurance profile” that reflects the individual's Medicare health insurance coverage and Medicare health plan and demonstration enrollment. Information retrieved from this system of records will also be disclosed to:
(1)Support regulatory, reimbursement, and policy functions performed within the agency or by a contractor, consultant or a CMS grantee;
(2)assist another Federal or State agency, agency of a State government, an agency established by State law, or its fiscal agent;
(3)support providers and suppliers of services for administration of Title XVIII;
(4)assist third parties where the contact is expected to have information relating to the individual's capacity to manage his or her own affairs;
(5)support Quality Improvement Organizations (QIO);
(6)assist other insurers for processing individual insurance claims;
(7)facilitate research on the quality and effectiveness of care provided, as well as payment related projects;
(8)support Patient Assistance Programs and other groups providing pharmaceutical assistance or services to Medicare beneficiaries;
(9)support litigation involving the agency; and
(10)combat fraud, waste, and abuse in certain health benefits programs. We have provided background information about the modified system in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Although the Privacy Act requires only that CMS provide an opportunity for interested persons to comment on the routine uses, CMS invites comments on all portions of this notice. See EFFECTIVE DATES section for comment period. DATES: *Effective Dates* : CMS filed a modified or altered SOR report with the Chair of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs, and the Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)on 11/28/2006. To ensure that all parties have adequate time in which to comment, the new system will become effective 30 days from the publication of the notice, or 40 days from the date it was submitted to OMB and the Congress, whichever is later. We may defer implementation of this system or one or more of the routine use statements listed below if we receive comments that persuade us to defer implementation. ADDRESSES: The public should address comments to: CMS Privacy Officer, Division of Privacy Compliance, Enterprise Architecture and Strategy Group, Office of Information Services, CMS, Room N2-04-27, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850. Comments received will be available for review at this location, by appointment, during regular business hours, Monday through Friday from 9 a.m.-3 p.m., Eastern Time zone. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Danielle Moon, Director, Division of Enrollment and Eligibility Policy, Medicare Enrollment and Appeals Group, Center for Beneficiary Choices, CMS, Mail Stop S1-05-06, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850. Her telephone number is 410-786-5724, and via e-mail at *Danielle.Moon@cms.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Description of the Modified or Altered System of Records A. Statutory and Regulatory Basis for SOR Authority for maintenance of the system is given under §§ 226, 226A, 1811, 1818, 1818A, 1831, 1833(a)(1)(A), 1836, 1837, 1838, 1843, 1866, 1876, 1881, and 1902(a)(6) of the Act and Title 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 426, 426-1, 1395c, 1395cc, 1395i-2, 1395i-2a, 1395j, 13951, 1395mm, 1395o, 1395p, 1395q, 1395rr, 1395v, 1396a, and Section 101 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-173) (Regulations at 42 CFR Parts 403, 411, 417 and 423). B. Collection and Maintenance of Data in the System This system contains information on individuals age 65 or over who have been, or currently are, entitled to health insurance (Medicare) benefits under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act) or under provisions of the Railroad Retirement Act; individuals under age 65 who have been, or currently are, entitled to such benefits on the basis of having been entitled for not less that 24 months to disability benefits under Title II of the Act or under the Railroad Retirement Act; individuals who have been, or currently are, entitled to such benefits because they have End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD); individuals age 64 and 8 months or over who are likely to become entitled to health insurance (Medicare) benefits upon attaining age 65, and individuals under age 65 who have at least 21 months of disability benefits who are likely to become entitled to Medicare upon the 25th month or entitlement to such benefits and those populations that are dually eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid (Title XIX of the Act). Information maintained in the system include, but are not limited to: Standard data for identification such as health insurance claim number, social security number, gender, race/ethnicity, date of birth, geographic location, Medicare enrollment and entitlement information, MSP data necessary for appropriate Medicare claim payment, hospice election, MA plan elections and enrollment, End Stage Renal Disease
(ESRD)entitlement, historic and current listing of residences, and Medicare eligibility and Managed Care institutional status. II. Agency Policies, Procedures, and Restrictions on the Routine Use A. Agency Policies, Procedures, and Restrictions on the Routine Use The Privacy Act permits us to disclose information without an individual's consent if the information is to be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information was collected. Any such disclosure of data is known as a “routine use.” The government will only release MBD information that can be associated with an individual as provided for under “Section III. Proposed Routine Use Disclosures of Data in the System.” Both identifiable and non-identifiable data may be disclosed under a routine use. We will only collect the minimum personal data necessary to achieve the purpose of MBD. CMS has the following policies and procedures concerning disclosures of information that will be maintained in the system. Disclosure of information from this system will be approved only to the extent necessary to accomplish the purpose of the disclosure and only after CMS: 1. Determines that the use or disclosure is consistent with the reason that the data is being collected, *e.g.* , to provide CMS with a singular, authoritative, database of comprehensive data on individuals in the Medicare program to support ongoing and expanded program administration, service delivery modalities, and payment coverage options. 2. Determines that: a. The purpose for which the disclosure is to be made can only be accomplished if the record is provided in individually identifiable form; b. The purpose for which the disclosure is to be made is of sufficient importance to warrant the effect and/or risk on the privacy of the individual that additional exposure of the record might bring; and c. There is a strong probability that the proposed use of the data would in fact accomplish the stated purpose(s). 3. Requires the information recipient to: a. Establish administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized use of disclosure of the record; b. Remove or destroy at the earliest time all patient-identifiable information; and c. Agree to not use or disclose the information for any purpose other than the stated purpose under which the information was disclosed. 4. Determines that the data are valid and reliable. III. Modified Routine Use Disclosures of Data in the System A. The Privacy Act allows us to disclose information without an individual's consent if the information is to be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information was collected. Any such compatible use of data is known as a “routine use.” The proposed routine uses in this system meet the compatibility requirement of the Privacy Act. We are modifying/altering the routine use disclosures of information maintained in the system so that the routine uses include the following: 1. To support agency contractors, consultants or grantees who have been engaged by the agency to assist in the performance of a service related to this system and who need to have access to the records in order to perform the activity. We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which CMS may enter into a contractual or similar agreement with a third party to assist in accomplishing CMS function relating to purposes for this system. CMS occasionally contracts out certain of its functions when doing so would contribute to effective and efficient operations. CMS must be able to give a contractor, consultant or grantee whatever information is necessary for the contractors, consultants or grantees to fulfill its duties. In these situations, safeguards are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor, consultant or grantee from using or disclosing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract and requires the contractor, consultant or grantee to return or destroy all information at the completion of the contract. 2. To assist another Federal or State agency, agency of a State government, an agency established by State law, or its fiscal agent to: a. Contribute to the accuracy of CMS' proper payment of Medicare benefits, b. Enable such agency to administer a Federal health benefits program, or as necessary to enable such agency to fulfill a requirement of a Federal statute or regulation that implements a health benefits program funded in whole or in part with Federal funds, and/or c. Assist Federal/State Medicaid programs within the State. Other Federal or State agencies in their administration of a Federal health program may require MBD information in order to support evaluations and monitoring of Medicare claims information of beneficiaries, including proper reimbursement for services provided. The Internal Revenue Service may require MBD data for the application of tax penalties against employers and employee organizations that contribute to Employer Group Health Plan or Large Group Health Plans that are not in compliance with 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b). In addition, other State agencies in their administration of a Federal health program may require MBD information for the purpose of determining, evaluating and/or assessing cost effectiveness, and/or the quality of health care services provided in the State. The Railroad Retirement Board requires MBD information to administer provisions of the Railroad Retirement Act and Social Security Act relating to railroad employment and/or the administration of the Medicare program. The Social Security Administration requires MBD data to enable them to assist in the implementation and maintenance of the Medicare program. Disclosure under this routine use shall be used by State Medicaid agencies pursuant to agreements with HHS for determining Medicaid and Medicare eligibility, for quality control studies, for determining eligibility of recipients of assistance under Titles IV, XVIII, and XIX of the Act, and for the administration of the Medicaid program. Data will be released to the State only on those individuals who are patients under the services of a Medicaid program within the State who are residents of that State. 3. To assist providers and suppliers of services directly or through fiscal intermediaries or carriers for the administration of Title XVIII of the Act. Providers and suppliers of services require MBD information in order to establish the validity of evidence or to verify the accuracy of information presented by the individual, as it concerns the individual's entitlement to benefits under the Medicare program, including proper reimbursement for services provided. 4. To assist third party contact in situations where the party to be contacted has, or is expected to have information relating to the individual's capacity to manage his or her affairs or to his or her eligibility for, or an entitlement to, benefits under the Medicare program and; a. The individual is unable to provide the information being sought (an individual is considered to be unable to provide certain types of information when any of the following conditions exists: the individual is confined to a mental institution, a court of competent jurisdiction has appointed a guardian to manage the affairs of that individual, a court of competent jurisdiction has declared the individual to be mentally incompetent, or the individual's attending physician has certified that the individual is not sufficiently mentally competent to manage his or her own affairs or to provide the information being sought, the individual cannot read or write, cannot afford the cost of obtaining the information, a language barrier exists, or the custodian of the information will not, as a matter of policy, provide it to the individual), or b. The data are needed to establish the validity of evidence or to verify the accuracy of information presented by the individual, and it concerns one or more of the following: the individual's entitlement to benefits under the Medicare program, the amount of reimbursement, and in cases in which the evidence is being reviewed as a result of suspected fraud and abuse, program integrity, quality appraisal, or evaluation and measurement of activities. Third parties contacts require MBD information in order to provide support for the individual's entitlement to benefits under the Medicare program; to establish the validity of evidence or to verify the accuracy of information presented by the individual, and assist in the monitoring of Medicare claims information of beneficiaries, including proper reimbursement of services provided. 5. To support Quality Improvement Organizations
(QIO)in connection with review of claims, or in connection with studies or other review activities conducted pursuant to Part B of Title XI of the Act, and in performing affirmative outreach activities to individuals for the purpose of establishing and maintaining their entitlement to Medicare benefits or health insurance plans. As established by the Part D Program, QIOs will conduct reviews of prescription drug events data, or in connection with studies or other review activities conducted pursuant to Part D of Title XVIII of the Act. QIOs will work to implement quality improvement programs, provide consultation to CMS, MA-PD, PDPs, and State agencies, to assist CMS in prescription drug event assessments, and prepare summary information for release to CMS. QIOs will work to implement quality improvement programs, provide consultation to CMS, its contractors, and to State agencies. QIOs will assist State agencies in related monitoring and enforcement efforts, assist CMS and intermediaries in program integrity assessment, and prepare summary information for release to CMS. 6. To other insurers, underwriters, third party administrators (TPAs), self-insurers, group health plans, employers, health maintenance organizations, health and welfare benefit funds, Federal agencies, a State or local government or political subdivision of either (when the organization has assumed the role of an insurer, underwriter, or third party administrator, or in the case of a State that assumes the liabilities of an insolvent insurers pool or fund), multiple-employers trusts, no-fault medical, automobile insurers, workers' compensation carriers plans, liability insurers, and other groups providing protection against medical expenses who are primary payers to Medicare in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b), or any entity having knowledge of the occurrence of any event affecting: a. An individual's right to any such benefit or payment, or b. The initial or continued right to any such benefit or payment (for example, a State Medicaid Agency, State Workers' Compensation Board, or Department of Motor Vehicles) for the purpose of coordination of benefits with the Medicare program and implementation of the MSP provisions at 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b). The information CMS may disclose will be: • Beneficiary Name • Beneficiary Address • Beneficiary Health Insurance Claim Number • Beneficiary Social Security Number • Beneficiary Gender • Beneficiary Date of Birth • Amount of Medicare Conditional Payment • Provider Name and Number • Physician Name and Number • Supplier Name and Number • Dates of Service • Nature of Service • Diagnosis To administer the MSP provision at 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b) (2), (3), and
(4)more effectively, CMS would receive (to the extent that it is available) and may disclose the following types of information from insurers, underwriters, third party administrator, self-insurers, etc.: • Subscriber Name and Address • Subscriber Date of Birth • Subscriber Social Security number • Dependent Name • Dependent Date of Birth • Dependent Social Security Number • Dependent Relationship to Subscriber • Insurer/Underwriter/TPA Name and Address • Insurer/Underwriter/TPA Group Number • Insurer/Underwriter/Group Name • Prescription Drug Coverage • Policy Number • Effective Date of Coverage • Employer Name, Employer Identification Number
(EIN)and Address • Employment Status • Amounts of Payment To administer the MSP provision at 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(1) more effectively for entities such as Workers' Compensation carriers or boards, liability insurers, no-fault and automobile medical policies or plans, CMS would receive (to the extent that it is available) and may disclose the following information: • Beneficiary's Name and Address • Beneficiary's Date of Birth • Beneficiary's Social Security Number • Name of Insured • Insurer Name and Address • Type of coverage; automobile medical, no-fault, liability payment, or workers' compensation settlement • Insured's Policy Number • Effective Date of Coverage • Date of accident, injury or illness • Amount of payment under liability, no-fault, or automobile medical policies, plans, and workers' compensation settlements • Employer Name and Address (Workers' Compensation Only) • Name of insured could be the driver of the car, a business, the beneficiary ( *i.e.* , the name of the individual or entity which carries the insurance policy or plan) In order to receive this information the entity must agree to the following conditions: c. To utilize the information solely for the purpose of coordination of benefits with the Medicare program and other third party payer in accordance with Title 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b); d. To safeguard the confidentiality of the data and to prevent unauthorized access to it; and, e. To prohibit the use of beneficiary-specific data for the purposes other than for the coordination of benefits among third party payers and the Medicare program. This agreement would allow the entities to use the information to determine cases where they or other third party payers have primary responsibility for payment. Examples of prohibited uses would include but are not limited to: creation of a mailing list, sale or transfer of data. To administer the MSP provisions more effectively, CMS may receive or disclose the following types of information from or to entities including insurers, underwriters, TPAs, and self-insured plans, concerning potentially affected individuals: • Subscriber HICN • Dependent Name • Funding arrangements of employer group health plans, for example, contributory or non-contributory plan, self-insured, re-insured, HMO, TPA insurance • Claims payment information, for example, the amount paid, the date of payment, the name of the insurers or payer • Dates of employment including termination date, if appropriate • Number of full and/or part-time employees in the current and preceding calendar years • Employment status of subscriber, for example, full or part time or self-employed Other insurers, HMO, and Health Care Prepayment Plans may require MBD information in order to support evaluations and monitoring of Medicare claims information of beneficiaries, including proper reimbursement for services provided. 1860D-23 and 1860D-24 of the Act require that the Secretary establish requirements for prescription drug plans (Part D plans) to ensure the effective coordination between a Part D plan and a State Pharmaceutical Assistance Program (SPAP), as well as other payers of prescription drug benefits, including enrollment file sharing. CMS, using its coordination of benefits contractor, allows this to happen by having payers that will be secondary to Part D submit their enrollment data in exchange for Part D enrollment data. The data shared is mainly enrollment information (date of enrollment into Part D, what Part D plan they are enrolled with). SPAPs, but not other payers, will also receive data indicating whether the beneficiary qualifies for a low-income subsidy to pay for drug costs. 7. To assist an individual or organization for a research project or in support of an evaluation project related to the prevention of disease or disability, the restoration or maintenance of health, or payment related projects. The MBD data will provide for research or in support of evaluation projects, a broader, longitudinal, national perspective of the status of Medicare beneficiaries. CMS anticipates that many researchers will have legitimate requests to use this data in projects that could ultimately improve the care provided to Medicare beneficiaries and the policy that governs the care. 8. To support Patient Assistance Programs and other groups providing pharmaceutical assistance to a Medicare beneficiary. Medicare Part D enrollment information may be released to these organizations upon specific request, and then only if they meet the following requirements, they must: a. Provide an attestation or other qualifying information that they are providing pharmaceutical assistance to Medicare beneficiaries; b. Submit a finder file to CMS to identify Medicare beneficiaries receiving pharmaceutical assistance and/or services consisting of the following data elements:
(1)First initial of the first name,
(2)First 6 letters of the last name,
(3)Social security number or health insurance claims number,
(4)Date of birth, and
(5)Sex; c. Safeguard the confidentiality of any data received and prevent unauthorized access to the data; and, d. Complete a written statement attesting to the information recipient's understanding of and willingness to abide by CMS provisions regarding Privacy protections and information security. Recipients of CMS data must complete the PAP Data Sharing Agreement prior to the release of CMS data. Part D data maintained in the MBD that will be released to PAPs or a group providing pharmaceutical assistance will consist of the verification of Medicare status and the name of the current Part D Plan selected by the Medicare beneficiary. 9. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), court or adjudicatory body when: a. The agency or any component thereof, or b. Any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity, or c. Any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ has agreed to represent the employee, or d. The United States Government is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, CMS determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and that the use of such records by the DOJ, court or adjudicatory body is compatible with the purpose for which the agency collected the records. Whenever CMS is involved in litigation, and occasionally when another party is involved in litigation and CMS' policies or operations could be affected by the outcome of the litigation, CMS would be able to disclose information to the DOJ, court or adjudicatory body involved. 10. To a CMS contractor (including, but not necessarily limited to fiscal intermediaries and carriers) that assists in the administration of a CMS-administered health benefits program, or to a grantee of a CMS-administered grant program, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud, waste or abuse in such program. We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which CMS may enter into a contractual relationship or grant with a third party to assist in accomplishing CMS functions relating to the purpose of combating fraud, waste or abuse. CMS occasionally contracts out certain of its functions and makes grants when doing so would contribute to effective and efficient operations. CMS must be able to give a contractor or grantee whatever information is necessary for the contractor or grantee to fulfill its duties. In these situations, safeguards are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor or grantee from using or disclosing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract and requiring the contractor or grantee to return or destroy all information. 11. To another Federal agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States (including any State or local governmental agency), that administers, or that has the authority to investigate potential fraud, waste or abuse in, a health benefits program funded in whole or in part by Federal funds, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud, waste or abuse in such programs. Other agencies may require MBD information for the purpose of combating fraud, waste or abuse in such Federally-funded programs. B. Additional Provisions Affecting Routine Use Disclosures To the extent this system contains Protected Health Information
(PHI)as defined by HHS regulation “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” (45 CFR Parts 160 and 164, Subparts A and E) 65 FR 82462 (12-28-00). Disclosures of such PHI that are otherwise authorized by these routi ne uses may only be made if, and as, permitted or required by the “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information.” (See 45 CFR 164.512
(a)(1).) In addition, our policy will be to prohibit release even of data not directly identifiable, except pursuant to one of the routine uses or if required by law, if we determine there is a possibility that an individual can be identified through implicit deduction based on small cell sizes (instances where the patient population is so small that individuals could, because of the small size, use this information to deduce the identity of the beneficiary). IV. Safeguards CMS has safeguards in place for authorized users and monitors such users to ensure against unauthorized use. Personnel having access to the system have been trained in the Privacy Act and information security requirements. Employees who maintain records in this system are instructed not to release data until the intended recipient agrees to implement appropriate management, operational and technical safeguards sufficient to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the information and information systems and to prevent unauthorized access. This system will conform to all applicable Federal laws and regulations and Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards as they relate to information security and data privacy. These laws and regulations may apply but are not limited to: The Privacy Act of 1974; the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002; the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986; the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996; the E-Government Act of 2002, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996; the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, and the corresponding implementing regulations. OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Resources, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources also applies. Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards include but are not limited to: All pertinent National Institute of Standards and Technology publications; the HHS Information Systems Program Handbook and the CMS Information Security Handbook. V. Effects of the System of Records on Individual Rights CMS proposes to modify this system in accordance with the principles and requirements of the Privacy Act and will collect, use, and disseminate information only as prescribed therein. Data in this system will be subject to the authorized releases in accordance with the routine uses identified in this system of records. CMS will take precautionary measures to minimize the risks of unauthorized access to the records and the potential harm to individual privacy or other personal or property rights of patients whose data are maintained in the system. CMS will collect only that information necessary to perform the system's functions. In addition, CMS will make disclosure from the proposed system only with consent of the subject individual, or his/her legal representative, or in accordance with an applicable exception provision of the Privacy Act. CMS, therefore, does not anticipate an unfavorable effect on individual privacy as a result of information relating to individuals. Dated: November 24, 2006. John R. Dyer, Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. System No. 09-70-0536 SYSTEM NAME: “Medicare Beneficiary Database (MBD), HHS/CMS/CBC.” SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: Level Three Privacy Act Sensitive Data. SYSTEM LOCATION: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
(CMS)Data Center, 7500 Security Boulevard, North Building, First Floor, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: Individuals age 65 or over who have been, or currently are, entitled to health insurance (Medicare) benefits under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act) or under provisions of the Railroad Retirement Act; individuals under age 65 who have been, or currently are, entitled to such benefits on the basis of having been entitled for not less that 24 months to disability benefits under Title II of the Act or under the Railroad Retirement Act; individuals who have been, or currently are, entitled to such benefits because they have End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD); individuals age 64 and 8 months or over who are likely to become entitled to health insurance (Medicare) benefits upon attaining age 65, and individuals under age 65 who have at least 21 months of disability benefits who are likely to become entitled to Medicare upon the 25th month or entitlement to such benefits and those populations that are dually eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid (Title XIX of the Act). CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Information maintained in the system include, but are not limited to: Standard data for identification such as health insurance claim number, social security number, gender, race/ethnicity, date of birth, geographic location, Medicare enrollment and entitlement information, MSP data necessary for appropriate Medicare claim payment, hospice election, MA plan elections and enrollment, End Stage Renal Disease
(ESRD)entitlement, historic and current listing of residences, and Medicare eligibility and Managed Care institutional status. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM Authority for maintenance of the system is given under §§ 226, 226A, 1811, 1818, 1818A, 1831, 1833(a)(1)(A), 1836, 1837, 1838, 1843, 1866, 1876, 1881, and 1902(a)(6) of the Act and Title 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 426, 426-1, 1395c, 1395cc, 1395i-2, 1395i-2a, 1395j, 13951, 1395mm, 1395o, 1395p, 1395q, 1395rr, 1395v, 1396a, and Section 101 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-173) (Regulations at 42 CFR Parts 403, 411, 417 and 423). PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM: The primary purpose of this modified system is to provide CMS with a singular, authoritative, database of comprehensive enrollment data on individuals in the Medicare program to support ongoing and expanded program administration, service delivery modalities, and payment coverage options. This collection will contain a complete “beneficiary insurance profile” that reflects the individual's Medicare health insurance coverage and Medicare health plan and demonstration enrollment. Information retrieved from this system of records will also be disclosed to:
(1)Support regulatory, reimbursement, and policy functions performed within the agency or by a contractor, consultant or a CMS grantee;
(2)assist another Federal or State agency, agency of a State government, an agency established by State law, or its fiscal agent;
(3)support providers and suppliers of services for administration of Title XVIII;
(4)assist third parties where the contact is expected to have information relating to the individual's capacity to manage his or her own affairs;
(5)support Quality Improvement Organizations (QIO);
(6)assist other insurers for processing individual insurance claims;
(7)facilitate research on the quality and effectiveness of care provided, as well as payment related projects;
(8)support Patient Assistance Programs and other groups providing pharmaceutical assistance or services to Medicare beneficiaries;
(9)support litigation involving the agency; and
(10)combat fraud, waste, and abuse in certain health benefits programs. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OR USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: A. The Privacy Act allows us to disclose information without an individual's consent if the information is to be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information was collected. Any such compatible use of data is known as a “routine use.” The proposed routine uses in this system meet the compatibility requirement of the Privacy Act. We are modifying/altering the routine use disclosures of information maintained in the system so that the routine uses include the following: 1. To support agency contractors, consultants or grantees who have been engaged by the agency to assist in the performance of a service related to this system and who need to have access to the records in order to perform the activity. 2. To assist another Federal or State agency, agency of a State government, an agency established by State law, or its fiscal agent to: a. Contribute to the accuracy of CMS' proper payment of Medicare benefits, b. Enable such agency to administer a Federal health benefits program, or as necessary to enable such agency to fulfill a requirement of a Federal statute or regulation that implements a health benefits program funded in whole or in part with Federal funds, and/or c. Assist Federal/State Medicaid programs within the State. 3. To assist providers and suppliers of services directly or through fiscal intermediaries or carriers for the administration of Title XVIII of the Act. 4. To assist third party contact in situations where the party to be contacted has, or is expected to have information relating to the individual's capacity to manage his or her affairs or to his or her eligibility for, or an entitlement to, benefits under the Medicare program and; a. The individual is unable to provide the information being sought (an individual is considered to be unable to provide certain types of information when any of the following conditions exists: The individual is confined to a mental institution, a court of competent jurisdiction has appointed a guardian to manage the affairs of that individual, a court of competent jurisdiction has declared the individual to be mentally incompetent, or the individual's attending physician has certified that the individual is not sufficiently mentally competent to manage his or her own affairs or to provide the information being sought, the individual cannot read or write, cannot afford the cost of obtaining the information, a language barrier exists, or the custodian of the information will not, as a matter of policy, provide it to the individual), or b. The data are needed to establish the validity of evidence or to verify the accuracy of information presented by the individual, and it concerns one or more of the following: The individual's entitlement to benefits under the Medicare program, the amount of reimbursement, and in cases in which the evidence is being reviewed as a result of suspected fraud and abuse, program integrity, quality appraisal, or evaluation and measurement of activities. 5. To support Quality Improvement Organizations
(QIO)in connection with review of claims, or in connection with studies or other review activities conducted pursuant to Part B of Title XI of the Act, and in performing affirmative outreach activities to individuals for the purpose of establishing and maintaining their entitlement to Medicare benefits or health insurance plans. As established by the Part D Program, QIOs will conduct reviews of prescription drug events data, or in connection with studies or other review activities conducted pursuant to Part D of Title XVIII of the Act. 6. To other insurers, underwriters, third party administrators (TPAs), self-insurers, group health plans, employers, health maintenance organizations, health and welfare benefit funds, Federal agencies, a State or local government or political subdivision of either (when the organization has assumed the role of an insurer, underwriter, or third party administrator, or in the case of a State that assumes the liabilities of an insolvent insurers pool or fund), multiple-employers trusts, no-fault medical, automobile insurers, workers' compensation carriers plans, liability insurers, and other groups providing protection against medical expenses who are primary payers to Medicare in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b), or any entity having knowledge of the occurrence of any event affecting; a. An individual's right to any such benefit or payment, or b. The initial or continued right to any such benefit or payment (for example, a State Medicaid Agency, State Workers' Compensation Board, or Department of Motor Vehicles) for the purpose of coordination of benefits with the Medicare program and implementation of the MSP provisions at 42 U.S.C. 1395 y(b). The information CMS may disclose will be: • Beneficiary Name • Beneficiary Address • Beneficiary Health Insurance Claim Number • Beneficiary Social Security Number • Beneficiary Gender • Beneficiary Date of Birth • Amount of Medicare Conditional Payment • Provider Name and Number • Physician Name and Number • Supplier Name and Number • Dates of Service • Nature of Service • Diagnosis To administer the MSP provision at 42 U.S.C. 1395 y(b)(2), (3), and
(4)more effectively, CMS would receive (to the extent that it is available) and may disclose the following types of information from insurers, underwriters, third party administrator, self-insurers, etc.: • Subscriber Name and Address • Subscriber Date of Birth • Subscriber Social Security number • Dependent Name • Dependent Date of Birth • Dependent Social Security Number • Dependent Relationship to Subscriber • Insurer/Underwriter/TPA Name and Address • Insurer/Underwriter/TPA Group Number • Insurer/Underwriter/Group Name • Prescription Drug Coverage • Policy Number • Effective Date of Coverage • Employer Name, Employer Identification Number
(EIN)and Address • Employment Status • Amounts of Payment To administer the MSP provision at 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(1) more effectively for entities such as Workers' Compensation carriers or boards, liability insurers, no-fault and automobile medical policies or plans, CMS would receive (to the extent that it is available) and may disclose the following information: • Beneficiary's Name and Address • Beneficiary's Date of Birth • Beneficiary's Social Security number • Name of Insured • Insurer Name and Address • Type of coverage; automobile medical, no-fault, liability payment, or workers' compensation settlement • Insured's Policy Number • Effective Date of Coverage • Date of accident, injury or illness • Amount of payment under liability, no-fault, or automobile medical policies, plans, and workers' compensation settlements • Employer Name and Address (Workers' Compensation Only) • Name of insured could be the driver of the car, a business, the beneficiary ( *i.e.* , the name of the individual or entity which carries the insurance policy or plan) In order to receive this information the entity must agree to the following conditions; c. To utilize the information solely for the purpose of coordination of benefits with the Medicare program and other third party payer in accordance with Title 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b); d. To safeguard the confidentiality of the data and to prevent unauthorized access to it; and e. To prohibit the use of beneficiary-specific data for the purposes other than for the coordination of benefits among third party payers and the Medicare program. This agreement would allow the entities to use the information to determine cases where they or other third party payers have primary responsibility for payment. Examples of prohibited uses would include but are not limited to; creation of a mailing list, sale or transfer of data. To administer the MSP provisions more effectively, CMS may receive or disclose the following types of information from or to entities including insurers, underwriters, TPAs, and self-insured plans, concerning potentially affected individuals: • Subscriber HICN • Dependent Name • Funding arrangements of employer group health plans, for example, contributory or non-contributory plan, self-insured, re-insured, HMO, TPA insurance • Claims payment information, for example, the amount paid, the date of payment, the name of the insurers or payer • Dates of employment including termination date, if appropriate • Number of full and/or part-time employees in the current and preceding calendar years • Employment status of subscriber, for example, full or part time or self-employed 7. To assist an individual or organization for a research project or in support of an evaluation project related to the prevention of disease or disability, the restoration or maintenance of health, or payment related projects. 8. To support Patient Assistance Programs and other groups providing pharmaceutical assistance to a Medicare beneficiary. Medicare Part D enrollment information may be released to these organizations upon specific request, and then only if they meet the following requirements, they must: a. Provide an attestation or other qualifying information that they are providing pharmaceutical assistance to Medicare beneficiaries; b. Submit a finder file to CMS to identify Medicare beneficiaries receiving pharmaceutical assistance and/or services consisting of the following data elements:
(1)First initial of the first name,
(2)First 6 letters of the last name,
(3)Social security number or health insurance claims number,
(4)Date of birth,
(5)Sex; c. Safeguard the confidentiality of any data received and prevent unauthorized access to the data; and d. Complete a written statement attesting to the information recipient's understanding of and willingness to abide by CMS provisions regarding Privacy protections and information security. Recipients of CMS data must complete the PAP Data Sharing Agreement prior to the release of CMS data. 9. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), court or adjudicatory body when: a. The agency or any component thereof, or b. Any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity, or c. Any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ has agreed to represent the employee, or d. The United States Government is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, CMS determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and that the use of such records by the DOJ, court or adjudicatory body is compatible with the purpose for which the agency collected the records. 10. To a CMS contractor (including, but not necessarily limited to fiscal intermediaries and carriers) that assists in the administration of a CMS-administered health benefits program, or to a grantee of a CMS-administered grant program, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud, waste or abuse in such program. 11. To another Federal agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States (including any State or local governmental agency), that administers, or that has the authority to investigate potential fraud, waste or abuse in, a health benefits program funded in whole or in part by Federal funds, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud, waste or abuse in such programs. B. Additional Provisions Affecting Routine Use Disclosures To the extent this system contains Protected Health Information
(PHI)as defined by HHS regulation “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” (45 CFR parts 160 and 164, subparts A and E) 65 FR 82462 (12-28-00). Disclosures of such PHI that are otherwise authorized by these routine uses may only be made if, and as, permitted or required by the “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information.” (See 45 CFR 164.512 (a)(1).) In addition, our policy will be to prohibit release even of data not directly identifiable, except pursuant to one of the routine uses or if required by law, if we determine there is a possibility that an individual can be identified through implicit deduction based on small cell sizes (instances where the patient population is so small that individuals could, because of the small size, use this information to deduce the identity of the beneficiary). POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE: All records are stored electronically. RETRIEVABILITY: All Medicare records are accessible by HICN, and SSN search. This system supports both on-line and batch access. SAFEGUARDS: CMS has safeguards in place for authorized users and monitors such users to ensure against unauthorized use. Personnel having access to the system have been trained in the Privacy Act and information security requirements. Employees who maintain records in this system are instructed not to release data until the intended recipient agrees to implement appropriate management, operational and technical safeguards sufficient to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the information and information systems and to prevent unauthorized access. This system will conform to all applicable Federal laws and regulations and Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards as they relate to information security and data privacy. These laws and regulations may apply but are not limited to: The Privacy Act of 1974; the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002; the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986; the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996; the E-Government Act of 2002, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996; the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, and the corresponding implementing regulations. OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Resources, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources also applies. Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards include but are not limited to: All pertinent National Institute of Standards and Technology publications; the HHS Information Systems Program Handbook and the CMS Information Security Handbook. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: Records are maintained in the active files for a period of 15 years. The records are then retired to archival files maintained at the Health Care Data Center. All claims-related records are encompassed by the document preservation order and will be retained until notification is received from DOJ. SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS: Director, Division of Enrollment and Eligibility Policy, Medicare Enrollment and Appeals Group, Center for Beneficiary Choices, CMS, Mail Stop S1-05-06, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: For purpose of access, the subject individual should write to the system manager who will require the system name, HICN, address, date of birth, and gender, and for verification purposes, the subject individual's name (woman's maiden name, if applicable), and SSN. Furnishing the SSN is voluntary, but it may make searching for a record easier and prevent delay. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE: For purpose of access, use the same procedures outlined in Notification Procedures above. Requestors should also specify the record contents being sought. (These procedures are in accordance with department regulation 45 CFR 5b.5(a)(2).) CONTESTING RECORDS PROCEDURES: The subject individual should contact the system manager named above, and reasonably identify the records and specify the information to be contested. State the corrective action sought and the reasons for the correction with supporting justification. (These Procedures are in accordance with Department regulation 45 CFR 5b.7.) RECORDS SOURCE CATEGORIES: The data contained in this system of records are extracted from other CMS systems of records: Enrollment Database, Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug System, and the Medicaid Statistical Information System. Information will also be provided from the application submitted by the individual through State Medicaid agencies, the Social Security Administration and through other entities assisting beneficiaries. SYSTEMS EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT: None. [FR Doc. E6-20408 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-03-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Privacy Act of 1974; Report of a Modified or Altered System of Records AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). ACTION: Notice of a Modified or Altered System of Records (SOR). SUMMARY: In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, we are proposing to modify or alter an existing SOR, “Medicare Supplier Identification File (MSIF),” System No. 09-70-0530, last published at 67 **Federal Register** 48184 (July 23, 2002). The system will facilitate the identification of business owners who have been sanctioned by the Office of Inspector General and/or have questionable business practices within the Medicare program. The carriers will be able to review questionable claims before payment that has been found to be more effective than post-payment reviews. We propose to modify existing routine use number 1 that permits disclosure to agency contractors and consultants to include disclosure to CMS grantees who perform a task for the agency. CMS grantees, charged with completing projects or activities that require CMS data to carry out that activity, are classified separate from CMS contractors and/or consultants. The modified routine use will remain as routine use number 1. We will delete routine use number 2 authorizing disclosure to support constituent requests made to a congressional representative. If an authorization for the disclosure has been obtained from the data subject, then no routine use is needed. The Privacy Act allows for disclosures with the “prior written consent” of the data subject. We will broaden the scope of routine uses number 4 and 5, authorizing disclosures to combat fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to include combating “waste” which refers to specific beneficiary/recipient practices that result in unnecessary cost to all Federally-funded health benefit programs. We are modifying the language in the remaining routine uses to provide a proper explanation as to the need for the routine use and to provide clarity to CMS's intention to disclose individual-specific information contained in this system. The routine uses will then be prioritized and reordered according to their usage. We will also take the opportunity to update any sections of the system that were affected by the recent reorganization or because of the impact of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003
(MMA)(Pub. L. 108-173) provisions and to update language in the administrative sections to correspond with language used in other CMS SORs. The primary purpose of this modified system is to identify supplier businesses that are eligible to receive Medicare payments for items and services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries as well as owners, managing employees, and subcontractors in those suppliers. The information retrieved from this system of records will also be disclosed to:
(1)Support regulatory, reimbursement, and policy functions performed within the agency or by a contractor, consultant, or grantee;
(2)support litigation involving the agency; and
(3)combat fraud, waste, and abuse in Federally-funded health benefits programs. We have provided background information about the modified system in the “Supplementary Information” section below. Although the Privacy Act requires only that CMS provide an opportunity for interested persons to comment on the modified or altered routine uses, CMS invites comments on all portions of this notice. See EFFECTIVE DATES section for comment period. DATES: *Effective Dates:* CMS filed a modified or altered system report with the Chair of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs, and the Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)on November 28, 2006. To ensure that all parties have adequate time in which to comment, the modified system, including routine uses, will become effective 30 days from the publication of the notice, or 40 days from the date it was submitted to OMB and Congress, whichever is later, unless CMS receives comments that require alterations to this notice. ADDRESSES: The public should address comments to: CMS Privacy Officer, Division of Privacy Compliance, Enterprise Architecture and Strategy Group, Office of Information Services, CMS, Room N2-04-27, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850. Comments received will be available for review at this location, by appointment, during regular business hours, Monday through Friday from 9 a.m.-3 p.m., eastern time zone. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barry Bromberg, Division of Provider/Supplier Enrollment, Program Integrity Group, Office of Financial Management, CMS, Mail Stop N3-02-16, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850. He can also be reached by telephone at 410-786-9953, or via e-mail at *Barry.Bromberg@cms.hhs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CMS established a new SOR, in 1992, under the authority of sections 1124, 1124A, 1126, and 1833(e) of Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act) (Title 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) §§ 405, 426, 1395c, and 1395k). Notice of this system, MSIF, was most recently published in the **Federal Register** (Fed. Reg.) 67 FR 48184 (July 23, 2002), deleting 2 routine uses and updating the security classification, two fraud and abuse routine uses were revised and one deleted at 65 FR 50552 (August 18, 2000), one routine use was added at 61 FR 6645 (February 21, 1996), and at 57 FR 23420 (June 3, 1992). I. Description of the Modified or Altered System of Records A. Statutory and Regulatory Basis for SOR Authority for maintenance of the system is given under sections 1124, 1124A, 1126, and 1833(e) of the Social Security Act (Title 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) §§ 1320a-3, 1320a-3a, 1320a-5, and 13951(e)). B. Collection and Maintenance of Data in the System MSIF contains information on owners and managing employees of suppliers of Durable Medicare Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS), which provide service or supplies to Medicare beneficiaries. The system contains, but is not limited to: Business names and addresses, owner's name, owner's social security number, Unique Physician/Practitioner Identification Number, managing employee's name, employer identification number or other tax reporting number, and the carrier assigned billing numbers. II. Agency Policies, Procedures, and Restrictions on the Routine Use A. Agency Policies, Procedures, and Restrictions on the Routine Use The Privacy Act permits us to disclose information without an individual's consent if the information is to be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information was collected. Any such disclosure of data is known as a “routine use.” The government will only release MSIF information that can be associated with an individual as provided for under “Section III. Proposed Routine Use Disclosures of Data in the System.” Both identifiable and non-identifiable data may be disclosed under a routine use. We will only collect the minimum personal data necessary to achieve the purpose of MSIF. CMS has the following policies and procedures concerning disclosures of information that will be maintained in the system. Disclosure of information from this system will be approved only to the extent necessary to accomplish the purpose of the disclosure and only after CMS: 1. Determines that the use or disclosure is consistent with the reason that the data is being collected, *e.g.* , to identify supplier businesses that are eligible to receive Medicare payments for items and services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries as well as owners, managing employees, and subcontractors in those suppliers. 2. Determines that: a. The purpose for which the disclosure is to be made can only be accomplished if the record is provided in individually identifiable form; b. The purpose for which the disclosure is to be made is of sufficient importance to warrant the effect and/or risk on the privacy of the individual that additional exposure of the record might bring; and c. There is a strong probability that the proposed use of the data would in fact accomplish the stated purpose(s). 3. Requires the information recipient to: a. Establish administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized use of disclosure of the record; b. Remove or destroy at the earliest time all patient-identifiable information; and c. Agree to not use or disclose the information for any purpose other than the stated purpose under which the information was disclosed. 4. Determines that the data are valid and reliable. III. Proposed Routine Use Disclosures of Data in the System A. The Privacy Act allows us to disclose information without an individual's consent if the information is to be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information was collected. Any such compatible use of data is known as a “routine use.” The proposed routine uses in this system meet the compatibility requirement of the Privacy Act. We are proposing to establish the following routine use disclosures of information maintained in the system: 1. To agency contractors, or consultants, or to a grantee of a CMS-administered grant program who have been engaged by the agency to assist in the accomplishment of a CMS function relating to the purposes for this system and who need to have access to the records in order to assist CMS. We contemplate disclosing this information under this routine use only in situations in which CMS may enter into a contractual or similar agreement with a third party to assist in accomplishing a CMS function relating to purposes for this system. CMS occasionally contracts out certain of its functions when doing so would contribute to effective and efficient operations. CMS must be able to give a contractor, consultant or grantee whatever information is necessary for the contractor, consultant or grantee to fulfill its duties. In these situations, safeguards are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor, consultant or grantee from using or disclosing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract and requires the contractor, consultant or grantee to return or destroy all information at the completion of the contract. 2. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), court or adjudicatory body when: a. The agency or any component thereof, or b. Any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity, or c. Any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ has agreed to represent the employee, or d. The United States Government is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, CMS determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and that the use of such records by the DOJ, court or adjudicatory body is compatible with the purpose for which the agency collected the records. Whenever CMS is involved in litigation, and occasionally when another party is involved in litigation and CMS' policies or operations could be affected by the outcome of the litigation, CMS would be able to disclose information to the DOJ, court or adjudicatory body involved. 3. To a CMS contractor (including, but not necessarily limited to fiscal intermediaries and carriers) that assists in the administration of a CMS-administered health benefits program, or to a grantee of a CMS-administered grant program, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud, waste, or abuse in such program. We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which CMS may enter into a contractual relationship or grant with a third party to assist in accomplishing CMS functions relating to the purpose of combating fraud, waste, and abuse. CMS occasionally contracts out certain of its functions and makes grants when doing so would contribute to effective and efficient operations. CMS must be able to give a contractor or grantee whatever information is necessary for the contractor or grantee to fulfill its duties. In these situations, safeguards are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor or grantee from using or disclosing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract and requiring the contractor or grantee to return or destroy all information. 4. To another Federal agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States (including any State or local governmental agency), that administers, or that has the authority to investigate potential fraud, waste, or abuse in, a health benefits program funded in whole or in part by Federal funds, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud, waste, or abuse in such programs. Other agencies may require MSIF information for the purpose of combating fraud, waste, and abuse in such federally-funded programs. B. Additional Provisions Affecting Routine Use Disclosures To the extent this system contains Protected Health Information
(PHI)as defined by HHS regulation “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” (45 CFR Parts 160 and 164, Subparts A and E) 65 FR 82462 (12-28-00). Disclosures of such PHI that are otherwise authorized by these routine uses may only be made if, and as, permitted or required by the “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information.” (See 45 CFR 164-512(a)(1)). In addition, our policy will be to prohibit release even of data not directly identifiable, except pursuant to one of the routine uses or if required by law, if we determine there is a possibility that an individual can be identified through implicit deduction based on small cell sizes (instances where the patient population is so small that an individual could, because of the small size, use this information to deduce the identity of the beneficiary). IV. Safeguards CMS has safeguards in place for authorized users and monitors such users to ensure against unauthorized use. Personnel having access to the system have been trained in the Privacy Act and information security requirements. Employees who maintain records in this system are instructed not to release data until the intended recipient agrees to implement appropriate management, operational and technical safeguards sufficient to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the information and information systems and to prevent unauthorized access. This system will conform to all applicable Federal laws and regulations and Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards as they relate to information security and data privacy. These laws and regulations may apply but are not limited to: The Privacy Act of 1974; the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002; the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986; the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996; the E-Government Act of 2002, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996; the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, and the corresponding implementing regulations. OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Resources, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources also applies. Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards include but are not limited to: All pertinent National Institute of Standards and Technology publications; the HHS Information Systems Program Handbook and the CMS Information Security Handbook. V. Effects of the Modified System of Records on Individual Rights CMS proposes to modify this system in accordance with the principles and requirements of the Privacy Act and will collect, use, and disseminate information only as prescribed therein. Data in this system will be subject to the authorized releases in accordance with the routine uses identified in this system of records. CMS will take precautionary measures to minimize the risks of unauthorized access to the records and the potential harm to individual privacy or other personal or property rights of patients whose data are maintained in the system. CMS will collect only that information necessary to perform the system's functions. In addition, CMS will make disclosure from the proposed system only with consent of the subject individual, or his/her legal representative, or in accordance with an applicable exception provision of the Privacy Act. CMS, therefore, does not anticipate an unfavorable effect on individual privacy as a result of information relating to individuals. Dated: November 24, 2006. John R. Dyer, Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. SYSTEM NO. 09-70-0530 SYSTEM NAME: “Medicare Supplier Identification File (MSIF),” HHS/CMS/OFM SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: Level Three Privacy Act Sensitive Data SYSTEM LOCATION: National Supplier Clearing House, Palmetto Government Benefits Administrators, Interstate 20 at Alpine Road, Columbia, South Carolina 29219. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: MSIF contains information on owners and managing employees of suppliers of Durable Medicare Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS), which provide service or supplies to Medicare beneficiaries. CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: The system contains, but is not limited to: business names and addresses, owner's name, owner's social security number (SSN), Unique Physician/Practitioner Identification Number (UPIN), managing employee's name, employer identification number or other tax reporting number, and the carrier assigned billing numbers. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: Authority for maintenance of the system is given under sections 1124, 1124A, 1126, and 1833(e) of the Social Security Act (Title 42, United States Code (U.S.C.) §§ 1320a-3, 1320a-3a, 1320a-5, and 13951(e)). PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM: The primary purpose of this modified system is to identify supplier businesses that are eligible to receive Medicare payments for items and services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries as well as owners, managing employees, and subcontractors in those suppliers. The information retrieved from this system of records will also be disclosed to:
(1)support regulatory, reimbursement, and policy functions performed within the agency or by a contractor, consultant, or grantee;
(2)support litigation involving the agency; and
(3)combat fraud, waste, and abuse in Federally-funded health benefits programs. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OR USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: B. The Privacy Act allows us to disclose information without an individual's consent if the information is to be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information was collected. Any such compatible use of data is known as a “routine use.” The proposed routine uses in this system meet the compatibility requirement of the Privacy Act. We are proposing to establish the following routine use disclosures of information maintained in the system: 1. To agency contractors, or consultants, or to a grantee of a CMS-administered grant program who have been engaged by the agency to assist in the accomplishment of a CMS function relating to the purposes for this system and who need to have access to the records in order to assist CMS. 2. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), court or adjudicatory body when: a. The agency or any component thereof, or b. Any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity, or c. Any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ has agreed to represent the employee, or d. The United States Government is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, CMS determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and that the use of such records by the DOJ, court or adjudicatory body is compatible with the purpose for which the agency collected the records. 3. To a CMS contractor (including, but not necessarily limited to fiscal intermediaries and carriers) that assists in the administration of a CMS-administered health benefits program, or to a grantee of a CMS-administered grant program, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud, waste, or abuse in such program. 4. To another Federal agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States (including any State or local governmental agency), that administers, or that has the authority to investigate potential fraud, waste, or abuse in, a health benefits program funded in whole or in part by Federal funds, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud, waste, or abuse in such programs. C. Additional Provisions Affecting Routine Use Disclosures: To the extent this system contains Protected Health Information
(PHI)as defined by HHS regulation “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” (45 CFR Parts 160 and 164, Subparts A and E) 65 FR 82462 (12-28-00). Disclosures of such PHI that are otherwise authorized by these routine uses may only be made if, and as, permitted or required by the “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information.” (See 45 CFR 164-512(a)(1)). In addition, our policy will be to prohibit release even of data not directly identifiable, except pursuant to one of the routine uses or if required by law, if we determine there is a possibility that an individual can be identified through implicit deduction based on small cell sizes (instances where the patient population is so small that an individual could, because of the small size, use this information to deduce the identity of the beneficiary). POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE: All records are stored on computer diskette and magnetic storage media. RETRIEVABILITY: Information can be retrieved by the business names and addresses, owner's name, owner's SSN, UPIN, managing employee's name, employer identification number or other tax reporting number, and the Medicare contractor assigned billing numbers. SAFEGUARDS: CMS has safeguards in place for authorized users and monitors such users to ensure against unauthorized use. Personnel having access to the system have been trained in the Privacy Act and information security requirements. Employees who maintain records in this system are instructed not to release data until the intended recipient agrees to implement appropriate management, operational and technical safeguards sufficient to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the information and information systems and to prevent unauthorized access. This system will conform to all applicable Federal laws and regulations and Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards as they relate to information security and data privacy. These laws and regulations may apply but are not limited to: the Privacy Act of 1974; the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002; the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986; the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996; the E-Government Act of 2002, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996; the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, and the corresponding implementing regulations. OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Resources, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources also applies. Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards include but are not limited to: all pertinent National Institute of Standards and Technology publications; the HHS Information Systems Program Handbook and the CMS Information Security Handbook. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: Records are maintained by CMS for a period not to exceed 15 years. All claims-related records are encompassed by the document preservation order and will be retained until notification is received from DOJ. SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: Director, Division of Provider/Supplier Enrollment, Program Integrity Group, Office of Financial Management, CMS, Mail Stop C3-02-16, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: For purpose of access, the subject individual should write to the system manager who will require the system name, address, date of birth, and gender, and for verification purposes, the subject individual's name (woman's maiden name, if applicable), and SSN. Furnishing the SSN is voluntary, but it may make searching for a record easier and prevent delay. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE: For purpose of access, use the same procedures outlined in Notification Procedures above. Requestors should also specify the record contents being sought. (These procedures are in accordance with department regulation 45 CFR 5b.5(a)(2).) CONTESTING RECORDS PROCEDURES: The subject individual should contact the system manager named above, and reasonably identify the records and specify the information to be contested. State the corrective action sought and the reasons for the correction with supporting justification. (These Procedures are in accordance with Department regulation 45 CFR 5b.7.) RECORDS SOURCE CATEGORIES: Sources of information contained in this records system include data collected from the application which the supplier completes to obtain Medicare billing numbers. (CMS Form 192—prior to August 1996, CMS Form 888—April 1996 through May 1997, and CMS Form 855S—after May 1997). SYSTEMS EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT: None. [FR Doc. E6-20409 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request *Proposed Projects:* *Title:* Form OCSE-396A: Financial Report; Form OCSE-34A: Quarterly Report of Collections. *OMB No.:* 0970-0181. *Description:* State agencies administering the Child Support Enforcement Program under title IV-D of the Social Security Act are required to provide information each fiscal quarter to the Office of Child Support Enforcement
(OCSE)concerning administrative expenditures and the receipt and disposition of child support payments from non-custodial parents. Together with a third quarterly report, “Itemized Undistributed Collections” (Schedule UDC—OMB No. 0970-0268), these forms provide information from each State that is used to compute the quarterly grant awards, the annual incentive payments and provide valuable information on program finances. This information is also included in a published annual statistical and financial report, available to the general public. Pub. L. 109-171, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, contains a number of provisions that will impact the States' completion and submission of these quarterly financial reports. These changes become effective in fiscal years 2006, 2007 and 2008. These changes require revisions to some of the data entry lines and reporting instructions currently contained on these forms. In addition, a periodic review of the data currently requested on these forms will assure that OCSE collections the information needed in the most efficient format feasible. *Respondents:* State agencies administering the Child Support Enforcement Program. Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden hours per response Total burden hours OCSE-396A 54 4 8 1,728 OCSE-34A 54 4 8 1,728 Estimate Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,456 In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. E-mail address: *infocollection@acf.hhs.gov.* The Department specifically requests comments 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 of the proposed collection of information;
(c)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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication. Dated: November 28, 2006. Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. 06-9503 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 46
Traces to 46 documents
CFR
- Administrative review of orders and suspension agreements under section 751(a)(1) of the Act.§ 351.213
- Protests other than under Rule 208 (Rule 211).§ 385.211
- Protests, interventions, and comments.§ 154.210
- Filings and Other Submissions.§ 385.2001
- Competing applications: deadlines for filing; notices of intent; comparisons of plans of development.§ 4.36
- Applicability and definitions.§ 4.30
- Method of notice; dates established in notice (Rule 210).§ 385.210
- Determination of construction or modification.§ 60.5
- Monitoring requirements.§ 60.13
- Standard for demolition and renovation.§ 61.145
- Definitions.§ 61.141
- Monitoring requirements.§ 63.864
- What are the monitoring requirements?§ 63.1209
- What are the standards for hazardous waste burning cement kilns that are effective until compliance with the standards under § 63.1220?§ 63.1204
- Definitions.§ 63.761
- Applicability and designation of affected sources.§ 63.1420
- Process wastewater provisions—performance standards for treatment processes managing Group 1 wastewater streams and/or residuals removed from Group 1 wastewater streams.§ 63.138
- Applicability and designation of source.§ 63.100
- Source category-specific applicability, definitions, and requirements.§ 63.1103
- Standards for kraft pulping process condensates.§ 63.446
- Standards for the pulping system at kraft, soda, and semi-chemical processes.§ 63.443
- Standards: Tanks.§ 61.343
- Standard for total reduced sulfur (TRS).§ 60.283
- Monitoring of emissions and operations.§ 60.105
- Definitions.§ 60.2
- Standards for air emissions from municipal solid waste landfills.§ 60.752
- Applicability and designation of affected facility.§ 60.480
- Modification.§ 60.14
- Bank security procedures.§ 208.61
- Transactions requiring prior notice.§ 225.41
- List of permissible nonbanking activities.§ 225.28
U.S. Code
- Congressional findings and declaration of purposes and policy§ 1531
- Congressional declaration of purpose§ 4321
- Repealed. Aug. 26, 1935, ch. 687, title II, § 212, 49 Stat. 847§ 791
- Definitions§ 601
- SHORT TITLE.§ 801
- Security measures§ 1882
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- Assessments§ 1817
- Definitions§ 1841
- Acquisition of bank shares or assets§ 1842
- Interests in nonbanking organizations§ 1843
- Exclusions from coverage and medicare as secondary payer§ 1395y
- Prohibition against any Federal interference§ 1395
29 references not yet in our index
- 16 USC 1531B
- 16 USC 1531-1543
- 34 CFR 79
- 20 USC 1211-2
- 10 CFR 1021
- 18 CFR 34
- 10 CFR 905
- 40 CFR 60
- 40 CFR 61
- 40 CFR 63
- 40 CFR 82
- 40 CFR 63.3890(b)(1)
- 40 CFR 63.7510
- 40 CFR 63.7491
- 40 CFR 63.7575
- 40 CFR 63.3160(c)
- 40 CFR 63.3881
- 40 CFR 63.4281(e)
- 40 CFR 63.9025(b)
- 40 CFR 60.48
- 40 CFR 60.48(c)(j)
- 5 CFR 1320.16
- 5 CFR 1320
- 12 CFR 225
- Pub. L. 108-173
- 45 CFR 164.512
- 45 CFR 5
- 45 CFR 164
- Pub. L. 109-171
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Request for Public Comment—Import Monitoring of Textile and Apparel Products From Vietnam
Cite16 USC 1531B
Cite16 USC 1531-1543
Cite34 CFR 79
Cites 75 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources