Notices. Notice and request for public comment
20,587 words·~94 min read·
/register/2007/01/23/07-261A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Economic Analysis Proposed Data Sharing Activity AGENCY: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice and request for public comment. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA)proposes to provide to the Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) data collected from several surveys that it conducts on U.S. direct investment abroad, foreign direct investment in the United States, and U.S. international services transactions for statistical purposes exclusively. In accordance with the requirement of Section 524(d) of the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA), we are providing the opportunity for public comment on this data-sharing action. The data provided to the Census Bureau will be used for two purposes:
(1)Data from BEA surveys of U.S direct investment abroad and foreign direct investment in the United States will be linked with data from the Survey of Industrial Research and Development conducted by the Census Bureau under a joint partnership agreement with the National Science Foundation (NSF). The linked data will be used to produce aggregate tabulations for the NSF, which will provide an integrated data set on R&D performance and funding with domestic and foreign ownership detail. BEA will use the linked data to augment its existing R&D-related data, identify data quality issues arising from reporting differences in BEA and Census Bureau surveys, and improve its survey sample frames. The Census Bureau will identify unmatched companies on BEA files that conduct R&D activities and add them to the R&D survey to improve the survey's sample. The NSF will be provided non-confidential aggregate data (public use) and reports that have cleared BEA and Census Bureau disclosure review. Disclosure review is a process conducted to verify that the data to be released do not reveal any confidential information.
(2)BEA will also provide data to the Census Bureau in order to link records from its surveys of U.S. international services transactions, U.S. direct investment abroad, and foreign direct investment in the United States with information from the Census Bureau's Business Register and with data from the 2002 Economic Census. This linked information will be used by the BEA to evaluate the feasibility of developing state-level estimates of service exports. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before March 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Please direct all written comments on this proposed program to the Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BE-1), Washington, DC 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information on this proposed program should be directed to Ned G. Howenstine, Chief, Research Branch, International Investment Division, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BE-50), Washington, DC 20230, by phone
(202)606-9845 or by fax
(202)606-5318. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background CIPSEA (Pub. L. 107-347, Title V) and the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (Pub. L. 94-472, 22 United States Code (U.S.C.) 3101-3108) allow BEA and the Census Bureau to share certain business data for exclusively statistical purposes. Section 524(d) of the CIPSEA requires a **Federal Register** notice announcing the intent to share data (allowing 60 days for public comment). Section 524(d) also requires us to provide information about the terms of the agreement for data sharing. For purposes of this notice, BEA has decided to group these terms by three categories. The categories are: • Shared data. • Statistical purposes for the shared data. • Data access and confidentiality. Shared Data BEA proposes to provide the Census Bureau with data from its surveys of U.S. direct investment abroad, foreign direct investment in the United States, and U.S. international services transactions. The agreement also calls for the Census Bureau to share data collected from the Survey of Industrial Research and Development, the 2002 Economic Census, and its Business Register with BEA. The Census Bureau will issue a separate notice addressing this issue. The shared BEA and Census Bureau data will be used for statistical purposes only. Statistical Purposes for the Shared Data Data collected in BEA's surveys of direct investment are used to develop estimates of the financing and operations of U.S. parent companies, their foreign affiliates, and U.S. affiliates of foreign companies, and estimates of transactions and positions between parents and affiliates. Data collected in BEA's surveys of U.S. international services transactions are used to develop estimates of services transactions between U.S. persons (in a broad legal sense, including companies) and foreign persons. These estimates are published in the *Survey of Current Business,* BEA's monthly journal; in other BEA publications; and on BEA's Web site at *http://www.bea.gov/.* All data are collected under sections 3101-3108, of Title 22, U.S.C. The data sets created by linking these data with the data from the above-designated Census Bureau surveys and Business Register will be used for several exclusively statistical purposes by both agencies, such as for evaluating the feasibility of developing state-level estimates of U.S. services exports, and producing aggregate tabulations of data for the NSF that augment and improve information on international aspects of R&D performance, funding, and related economic activity. Data Access and Confidentiality Title 22, U.S.C. 3104 protects the confidentiality of the data to be provided by BEA to the Census Bureau. The data may be seen only by persons sworn to uphold the confidentiality of the information. Access to the shared data will be restricted to specifically authorized personnel and will be provided for statistical purposes only. Any results of this research are subject to BEA disclosure protection. All Census Bureau employees with access to these data will become BEA Special Sworn Employees—meaning that they, under penalty of law, must uphold the data's confidentiality. Selected NSF employees will provide BEA with expertise on various aspects of R&D performance and funding of companies that provide data to BEA. These NSF consultants assisting with the work at the BEA also will become BEA Special Sworn Employees. No confidential data will be provided to the NSF. J. Steven Landefeld, Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis. [FR Doc. E7-938 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-570-892) Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Trainor or Terre Keaton, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-4007 or
(202)482-1280, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 7, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of the first antidumping duty administrative review of carbazole violet pigment 23 (CVP-23) from the People's Republic of China (PRC), covering the period June 24, 2004, through November 30, 2005. *See Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission in Part* , 71 FR 65073 (November 7, 2006). The final results for this administrative review are currently due no later than March 7, 2007. Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue the final results of an administrative review within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within that time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the deadline for the final results by a maximum of 180 days. The Department requires additional time to consider complex issues raised by interested parties, particularly with respect to surrogate values. Thus, it is not practicable to complete this review within the original time limit. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the final results by 60 days, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The final results are now due not later than May 7, 2007, the next business day after 180 days from publication of the preliminary results. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: January 17, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-929 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-888 Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 29, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review on floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables and certain parts thereof (ironing tables) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review
(POR)is August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. This review is now being rescinded for Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd. (Foshan Shunde) because the only requesting party withdrew its request in a timely manner. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristina Horgan or Bobby Wong, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-8173 or
(202)482-0409, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 6, 2004, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order on ironing tables from the PRC. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 47868 (August 6, 2004) (Ironing Tables Order). On August 1, 2006, the Department published a *Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation* , 71 FR 43441. On August 2, 2006, Foshan Shunde, requested, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on ironing tables from the PRC. On August 29, 2006, Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Since Hardware) requested, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on ironing tables from the PRC. On August 31, 2006, Home Products International Inc., petitioner, also requested, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on ironing tables from the PRC for Since Hardware for the POR. On September 29, 2006, the Department initiated an administrative review of the two companies. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 2006). On December 21, 2006, Foshan Shunde filed a letter withdrawing its request. Foshan Shunde was the only party to request a review of entries of subject merchandise exported by Foshan Shunde. Rescission of Review The applicable regulation, 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), states that if a party that requested an administrative review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review, the Secretary will rescind the review. Foshan Shunde timely filed a request withdrawing its request for an administrative review within the 90-day deadline, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Because Foshan Shunde was the only party to request an administrative review, we are partially rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on ironing tables from the PRC covering the period August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006, with respect to Foshan Shunde. Assessment The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the company for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(2). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice. Notification of Interested Parties This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders
(APOs)of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751 and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: January 12, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-868 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-552-801 Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 28, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 56953) a notice announcing the initiation of a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”) for East Sea Seafoods Joint Venture Co., Ltd. (“East Sea Seafoods”). The period of review (“POR”) is August 1, 2005, to July 31, 2006. This review is now being rescinded because East Sea Seafoods withdrew its request in a timely manner. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Renkey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 4003, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:
(202)482-2312. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 12, 2003, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order covering certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 68 FR 47909 (August 12, 2003). On August 31, 2006, East Sea Seafoods, requested, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(d), that the Department a conduct a new shipper review of this antidumping duty order covering the period August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. On September 22, 2006, the Department initiated a new shipper review of East Sea Seafoods. *See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review* , 71 FR 56953 (September 28, 2006). On November 13, 2006, East Sea Seafoods filed a letter withdrawing its request for a new shipper review. Rescission of Review 19 CFR 351.214(f)(1) states that if a party that requested a new shipper review withdraws the request within 60 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review, the Secretary will rescind the review. East Sea Seafoods withdrew its new shipper review request within the 60-day deadline, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(f)(1). Accordingly, we are rescinding this new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam for East Sea Seafoods covering the period August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. Notification of Interested Parties This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(f)(3). Dated: January 12, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-867 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-351-838, A-331-802, A-533-840, A-549-822, A-570-893, A-552-802 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; Amended Orders AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Johnson at
(202)482-4929 (Brazil), David Goldberger at
(202)482-4136 (Ecuador), Elizabeth Eastwood at
(202)482-3874 (India), Irina Itkin at
(202)482-0656 (Thailand), Christopher Riker at
(202)482-3441 (People's Republic of China), and Alex Villanueva at
(202)482-3208 (Socialist Republic of Vietnam); AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. Background On February 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** its notices on amended final determinations of sales at less than fair value and antidumping duty orders of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil* , 70 FR 5143 (Feb. 1, 2005); *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador* , 70 FR 5156 (Feb. 1, 2005); *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India* , 70 FR 5147 (Feb. 1, 2005); *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand* , 70 FR 5145 (Feb. 1, 2005); *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 5149 (Feb. 1, 2005); and * Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam * , 70 FR 5152 (Feb. 1, 2005) ( *Amended Shrimp Finals/Orders* ). In the *Amended Shrimp Finals/Orders* , the Department noted that the scope of the antidumping duty orders had been amended to exclude canned warmwater shrimp and prawns to reflect the International Trade Commission's finding that a domestic industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of canned warmwater shrimp and prawns from the countries in question. Subsequent to the issuance of the shrimp orders, we noticed that the first sentence of the first paragraph of the scope language of each order might suggest that the warmwater shrimp subject to the order includes warmwater shrimp in non-frozen form. Therefore, we are amending the scope language of the orders by moving the word “frozen” to be before “warmwater shrimp and prawns” in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the scope of each order to clarify that only frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns are subject to the order. As a result, the first paragraph of the scope of each order reads as follows: The scope of this order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught ( *ocean harvested* ) or farm-raised ( *produced by aquaculture* ), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form. We are thus amending the antidumping duty orders of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, as noted above. These amended orders are issued and published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: January 16, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-931 Filed 1-22-03; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-351-825, A-533-810, A-588-833, A-469-805) Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission
(ITC)that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel bar from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, the Department is publishing notice of the continuation of these antidumping duty orders. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Case or Minoo Hatten, Office 5, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3174 and
(202)482-1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 1, 2006, the Department initiated the second sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel bar
(SSB)from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). See *Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 71 FR 10476 (March 1, 2006). As a result of our review, we found that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and we notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the orders to be revoked. See *Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders* , 71 FR 38372 (July 6, 2006). On December 4, 2006, the ITC determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on SSB from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. See *Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain* , 72 FR 1243 (January 10, 2007), and ITC Publication 3895 (January 2007) entitled *Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-678, 679, 681 and 682 (Second Review)* . Scope of the Orders Imports covered by these orders are shipments of SSB. SSB means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process. Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products ( *i.e.* , cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), wire ( *i.e.* , cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes, and sections. The SSB subject to these orders is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive. Determination As a result of the determinations by the Department and ITC that revocation of these antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel bar from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect antidumping duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of continuation of these orders will be the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of this Notice of Continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year reviews of these orders not later than January 2012. This notice is in accordance with sections 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: January 16, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-862 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-580-844 Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from the Republic of Korea AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terre Keaton Stefanova or Katherine Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1280 or 202-482-4929, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 10, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of the 2004 - 2005 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bars from the Republic of Korea. *See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From The Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 59440 (October 10, 2006). The final results for this administrative review are currently due no later than February 7, 2007. 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 of an antidumping duty order within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are 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 final results of this review within the original time limit. Due to the complexity of the issue raised by the petitioners in its case brief regarding the respondents' reporting of yield strength, a model-match characteristic, the Department requires additional time to properly analyze this issue. Therefore, we are fully extending the deadline for the final results of this review until no later than April 9, 2007, the next business day after 180 days from publication of the preliminary results, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(3)(A), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: January 17, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-930 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-894 Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristina Horgan or Bobby Wong, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-8173, or
(202)482-0409, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 28, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain tissue paper from the People's Republic of China
(PRC)for the period September 21, 2004, to February 28, 2006. *Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 25145 (April 28, 2006). On October 24, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of review until February 16, 2007. *See Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review* , 71 FR 62249 (October 24, 2006). On November 6, 2006, the Department reopened the record of the instant review to allow interested parties to submit new factual information. See “Letter To All Interested Parties from James C. Doyle RE: First Administrative Review of Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China,” dated November 6, 2006. On December 22, 2006, the petitioner submitted a revised, final bracketed version of its timely filed November 13, 2006 submission, which contained comments regarding the Sansico Group's claim of no shipments. 1 On January 3, 2007, the Sansico Group timely filed comments addressing the petitioner's December 22, 2006, submission. 1 The Sansico Group claimed it had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR in a submission dated May 22, 2006. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1) require the Department to issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the order for which the administrative review was requested, and the final results of the review within 120 days after the date on which the notice of the preliminary results was published in the **Federal Register** . However, if the Department determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) allow the Department to extend the 245-day period to 365 days and the 120-day period to 180 days. We determine that it is not practicable to complete this administrative review by February 16, 2007. The Department requires additional time to review the recent comments regarding the Sansico Group's claim of no shipments in the instant review. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of these preliminary results by an additional 43 days to April 2, 2007, which is the first business day after the additional 43-day extension. The final results, in turn, will be due 120 days after the date of issuance of the preliminary results, unless extended. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: January 12, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-869 Filed 1-22-07; 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, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Request for Public Comment - Import Monitoring of Textile and Apparel Products from Vietnam. SUMMARY: As a follow-up to its December 4, 2006 request for public comment, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is providing an additional opportunity for the public to comment on the development and implementation of a monitoring program covering imports of textile and apparel products from Vietnam. This monitoring program will remain in place for the duration of this Administration. To help the Department implement the program and, at the same time, be advised of the concerns of all interested stakeholders, the Department is inviting the public to provide further input on the monitoring program and identify issues or considerations that submitters believe are deserving of the Department's attention as the program proceeds. Responses to comments already received by the Department as part of its December 4, 2006 request are also welcome. DATES: To be most useful, the Department requests that comments be submitted by close of business, January 31, 2007. However, the Department will continue to welcome and solicit additional views and input from all parties on an ongoing basis. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted in writing or electronically. Persons wishing to comment in writing should file, by the date 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. Electronic comments should be submitted to *vietnam-texapp-monitor-FRcomments@mail.doc.gov* . 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. In addition, all comments 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. To the extent possible, all comments will be posted within 48 hours. 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 instituting an import monitoring program for textile and apparel products from Vietnam. The Department currently monitors imports of textile and apparel products from Vietnam and all other textile and apparel producing countries as part of the regular monitoring and reporting conducted by Import Administration's Office of Textiles and Apparel. This program, which is not meant to inhibit legitimate trade, will supplement those monitoring activities already undertaken by that office and help ensure compliance with the trade remedy laws. Implementation of the program began on January 11, 2007 when Vietnam became a Member of the World Trade Organization
(WTO)and will cease at the end of the current Administration. Five product groups - trousers, shirts, underwear, swimwear and sweaters - have been identified as being of special sensitivity for monitoring purposes and specific products from these broad categories will constitute the initial focus of Import Administration's monitoring efforts. Outreach to interested parties, including domestic textile and apparel producers, workers, retailers, importers and the Government of Vietnam, will continue throughout the monitoring process and products may be added or removed from monitoring as appropriate. OUTREACH PROCESS: As noted, the outreach process will be ongoing and continue throughout the life of the program. All parties are welcome to meet with or otherwise provide input to the Department There will be no restrictions on access to the Department or preconditions for comment on the monitoring program. In addition, the Department will establish an electronic hotline - *vietnam-texapp-monitor-hotline@mail.doc.gov* - to make it easier for parties to provide input, raise questions or submit suggestions to the Department about the program. The Department fully anticipates that input from this outreach process will lead to improvements in the monitoring program, as the need arises. The Department intends to hold a public hearing on the program in Washington, D.C. within the next three months. A separate notice in the **Federal Register** announcing the hearing and providing guidance on participation will be issued no later than 30 days in advance of the hearing. The Department is also considering the possibility of holding a series of field hearings. If held, the Department intends to ensure that the locations of these hearings will be convenient to the broad array of parties that have expressed interest in the monitoring program including domestic textile and apparel producers, workers, retailers and importers. The Department is also examining ways in which access to the hearing(s) may be extended to those unable to attend in person. The Department also intends to develop an email notification system to provide parties notice of upcoming developments. Those interested in being included in the email notification system should provide the Department with their email address. Email addresses may be submitted in writing or through the email hotline - *vietnam-texapp-monitor-hotline@mail.doc.gov* . PRODUCT COVERAGE: The Department intends to monitor five product groups - trousers, shirts, underwear, swimwear and sweaters. However, the Department recognizes that these five product groups are too broad for effective monitoring. Within these five groups, the Department intends to focus on those traditional three-digit textile and apparel categories of greatest significance based on trade trends, composition of the U.S. industry and input from parties, as appropriate. In addition to gathering aggregate value data for each of the monitored three-digit categories, the Department intends to gather volume, value and average unit value data for selected products within those categories that will be collected and examined on a 10-digit Harmonized Tariff System
(HTS)code basis. All data will be updated monthly and made available to the public on the Import Administration's Office of Textile and Apparel website - *http://www.otexa.ita.doc.gov/* . Product coverage is not intended by the Department necessarily to be static. Changes in product coverage may occur in response to input received from interested parties, changes in the trade, or as the Department broadens its understanding of the composition and structure of the domestic textile and apparel industry. Further, as the Department's extends its knowledge of the domestic industry and the products it produces, as part of its monitoring, biannual evaluation and like product analysis, it intends to continue its interaction with stakeholders to allow for full comment and input. As part of this process, products may be added or removed from monitoring, as appropriate. PRODUCTION TEMPLATES: Production templates will be developed on an as-needed basis, as merited by the Department's analysis of the monitored imports, and their impact on, and relation to, the domestic industry. In developing these templates, the Department intends to gather input from parties knowledgeable about the production process. Proxy countries, appropriate for the product being examined, will not be selected until that time. BIANNUAL EVALUATION: The Department intends to conduct its formal evaluation of the information gathered under the monitoring program on a biannual basis. Interim reviews are not expected to be conducted unless warranted by unforeseen developments. As explained above, public import data gathered by the Department as part of its monitoring program will be posted on the Import Administration website and updated monthly. Data will be reviewed at the 10-digit HTS level and shifts in product mix and seasonality will be considered when evaluating price and volume trends, as appropriate. In addition to analyzing import data as part of this review process, the Department will consider domestic industry information including production, employment and other indicators of industry health, to the extent relevant to the biannual evaluation process. SELF-INITIATION: Any self-initiation of an antidumping investigation arising from this program will be fully consistent with U.S. law as set forth in the statute and the Department's regulations, and with the applicable WTO rules. CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES: Any application of critical circumstances in the context of a self-initiated investigation will be fully consistent with U.S. law, and with the applicable WTO rules. Should the Department find critical circumstances, suspension of liquidation would apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of: 1) 90 days before the date on which suspension of liquidation is first ordered; or 2) the date on which notice of the initiation of the investigation is published in the **Federal Register** (section 733(e)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended). NEW REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: There are no new paperwork or reporting requirements as a result of the Department's monitoring program. Furthermore, all responses to the Department's **Federal Register** notice requests for information, including this request, are strictly voluntary. Dated: January 17, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-928 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology [Docket No.: 061213336-6336-01] Announcing the Development of New Hash Algorithm(s) for the Revision of Federal Information Processing Standard
(FIPS)180-2, Secure Hash Standard AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: A process to develop and standardize one or more new hash algorithms to augment and revise FIPS 180-2, Secure Hash Standard, is being initiated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). As a first step in this process, NIST is publishing draft minimum acceptability requirements, submission requirements, and evaluation criteria for candidate algorithms to solicit public comment. It is intended that the revised hash function standard will specify one or more additional unclassified, publicly disclosed hash algorithms that are available royalty-free worldwide, and are capable of protecting sensitive government information well into the foreseeable future. 1 In this announcement, the term “has function” and “hash algorithm” are used interchangeably. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments on the draft minimum acceptability requirements, submission requirements, and evaluation criteria of candidate algorithms from the public, the cryptographic community, academic/research communities, manufacturers, voluntary standards organizations, and Federal, state, and local government organizations so that their needs can be considered in the process of developing the augmented and revised hash function standard. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Mr. William Burr, Attn: Hash Algorithm Requirements and Evaluation Criteria, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930. Electronic comments should be sent to *hash-function@nist.gov* with a subject line of “Hash Algorithm Requirements and Evaluation Criteria”. Comments received in response to this notice will be made part of the public record and will be available for inspection on the Web site: *http://www.nist.gov/hash-function.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact: Shu-jen Chang, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930; telephone 301-975-2940 or via fax at 301-975-8670. Technical inquiries regarding the proposed draft acceptability requirements, submission requirements, and evaluation criteria should be sent electronically to *hash-function@nist.gov,* or addressed to William Burr, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930; telephone 301-975-2914 or via fax at 301-975-8670 (Attn: Hash Algorithm Requirements and Evaluation Criteria). Answers to germane questions will be posted at *http://www.nist.gov/hash-function.* Questions and answers that are not pertinent to this announcement may not be posted. NIST will endeavor to answer all questions in a timely manner. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A hash function takes binary data, called the message, and produces a condensed representation, called the message digest. A cryptographic hash function is a hash function that is designed to achieve certain security properties. The Federal Information Processing Standard 180-2, Secure Hash Standard specifies algorithms for computing four cryptographic hash functions—SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512. FIPS 180-2 was issued in August, 2002, superseding FIPS 180-1. In recent years, several of the non-NIST approved cryptographic hash functions have been successfully attacked, and serious attacks have been published against SHA-1. In response, NIST held two public workshops on cryptographic hash functions, on Oct. 31-Nov. 1, 2005 and Aug. 24-25, 2006, to assess the status of its approved hash functions and to solicit public input on its cryptographic hash function policy and standard. As a result of these workshops, NIST has decided to develop one or more additional hash functions through a public competition, similar to the development process for the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES). To begin the competition process, NIST has drafted the following minimum acceptability requirements, submission requirements, and evaluation criteria for candidate algorithms. NIST seeks comments on these draft minimum acceptability requirements, submission requirements, and evaluation criteria, as well as suggestions for other criteria and for the relative importance of each individual criterion in the evaluation process. Since neither the submission requirements nor the evaluation criteria have been finalized, and may evolve over time as a result of the public comments that NIST receives, candidate algorithms should NOT be submitted at this time. Authority: This work is being initiated pursuant to NIST's responsibilities under the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) of 2002, Public Law 107-347. A. Proposed Draft Minimum Acceptability Requirements for Candidate Algorithms The draft minimum acceptability requirements for candidate hash algorithms are: A.1 The algorithm must be publicly disclosed and available on a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free basis. A.2 The algorithm must be implementable in a wide range of hardware and software platforms. A.3 The algorithm must support 224, 256, 384, and 512-bit message digests, and must support a maximum message length of at least 264 bits. B. Proposed Draft Submission Requirements In order to provide for an orderly, fair, and timely evaluation of candidate algorithms, submission requirements will specify the procedures and supporting documentation necessary to submit a candidate algorithm. The submission package must include the following: B.1 A complete written specification of the algorithm, including any applicable mathematical equations, tables, and parameters that are needed to implement the algorithm. The documentation must include design rationale; an explanation for all the important design decisions; any security argument that is applicable, such as a security reduction proof; and a preliminary analysis, such as possible attack scenarios for collision-finding, second-preimage-finding, or any cryptographic attacks that have been considered and their results. In addition, the documentation should suggest one or more parameters of the algorithm that can be modified, or suggest other modification techniques, to enhance the security of the design. A supporting rationale should also be provided. For example, for SHA-1 the number of rounds is a natural parameter to modify to increase the security of the design. B.2 An ANSI C source language reference implementation and an optimized implementation. The optimized code will be used to compare software performance and memory requirements to the implementations of other submitted algorithms. B.3 A statement of the estimated computational efficiency and memory requirements in hardware and software across a variety of platforms, including 8-, 32-, and 64-bit platforms. B.4 A hashing example that maps a specified message into its message digest. B.5 A statement of issued or pending patents that the submitter believes may be infringed by implementations of this algorithm. B.6 A statement of advantages and limitations of the submitted algorithm. If the submitter believes that the algorithm has certain advantageous features, then these should be listed and described, along with supporting rationale. Should NIST later decide to add such features to the evaluation criteria, submitters of candidate algorithms may be asked to provide additional information with respect to these new criteria. (End of draft submission requirements) C. Proposed Draft Evaluation Criteria of Candidate Algorithms Candidate algorithms that meet the minimum acceptability requirements and the submission requirements will be compared, based on the following factors: • Security, • Computational efficiency, • Memory requirements, • Hardware and software suitability, • Simplicity, • Flexibility, and • Licensing requirements. With the exception of self-explanatory items in the above list, these evaluation criteria are described below. C.1 Security Algorithms will be judged on the following factors: • The actual security provided by the algorithm as compared to other submitted algorithms (of the same hash length), including (but not limited to) first and second preimage resistance, collision resistance, and resistance to generic attacks (e.g., length extension). • The extent to which the algorithm output is indistinguishable from a random oracle. • The soundness of the mathematical basis for the algorithm's security. • Other security factors raised by the public during the evaluation process, including any attacks which demonstrate that the actual security of the algorithm is less than the strength claimed by the submitter. Claimed attacks will be evaluated for practicality. C.2 Cost C.2.1 Computational efficiency: The evaluation of computational efficiency will be applicable to both hardware and software implementations. Computational efficiency essentially refers to the throughput of an implementation. NIST will use the optimized software of each submission (discussed in B.2 above) on a variety of platforms and analyze their computation efficiency for a variety of message lengths. The data in the submission packages and any public comments on computational efficiency will also be taken into consideration. C.2.2 Memory requirements: The memory required for hardware and software implementations of the candidate algorithm will be considered during the evaluation process. Memory requirements will include such factors as gate counts for hardware implementations, and code size and RAM requirements for software implementations. NIST will use the optimized software of each submission (discussed in B.2 above) on a variety of platforms and test their memory requirements for a variety of message lengths. The data in the submission packages and any public comments on memory requirements will also be taken into consideration. C.3 Algorithm and Implementation Characteristics C.3.1 Flexibility: Candidate algorithms with greater flexibility that meet the needs of more users are preferable. Some examples of “flexibility” include (but are not limited to) the following: i. The algorithm is parameterizable, e.g. can accommodate additional rounds. ii. Implementations of the algorithm can be parallelized to achieve higher performance efficiency. iii. The algorithm can be implemented securely and efficiently in a wide variety of platforms, including constrained environments such as smart cards. C.3.2 Simplicity: A candidate algorithm will be judged according to relative simplicity of design. Dated: January 16, 2007. James E. Hill, Acting Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E7-927 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-CN-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket No. 070108002-7002-01; I.D. 122706A] Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating Critical Habitat: Petition to List Copper and Quillback Rockfishes in Puget Sound (Washington) as Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of finding. SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have received a petition to list copper rockfish ( *Sebastes caurinus* ) and quillback rockfish ( *S. maliger* ) in Puget Sound (Washington) as threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and related materials are available on the Internet at *http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Other-Marine-Species/PS-Marine-Fishes.cfm* , or upon request from the Chief, Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Scott Rumsey, NMFS, Northwest Region,
(503)872-2791; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources,
(301)713-1401. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 18, 2006, we received a petition from Mr. Sam Wright (Olympia, Washington) to list the Puget Sound Distinct Population Segments
(DPSs)of copper and quillback rockfish as endangered or threatened species under the ESA. Copies of this petition are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES , above). ESA Statutory and Policy Provisions Section 4(b)(3) of the ESA contains provisions concerning petitions from interested persons requesting the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to list species under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). Section 4(b)(3)(A) requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, within 90 days after receiving such a petition, the Secretary make a finding whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our ESA implementing regulations define Asubstantial information@ as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. In evaluating a petitioned action, the Secretary considers whether the petition contains a detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, including: past and present numbers and distribution of the species involved, and any threats faced by the species (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(ii)); and information regarding the status of the species throughout all or a significant portion of its range (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(iii)). Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, subspecies, or a DPS of any vertebrate species which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(15)). On February 7, 1996, we and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) adopted a policy to clarify the agencies' interpretation of the phrase “Distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife” (ESA section 3(15)) for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (51 FR 4722). The joint DPS policy established two criteria that must be met for a population or group of populations to be considered a DPS:
(1)The population segment must be discrete in relation to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs; and
(2)the population segment must be significant to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs. A species, subspecies, or DPS is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA Sections 3(6) and 3(19), respectively). Life History of Copper and Quillback Rockfish *Copper Rockfish* - Copper rockfish are found from the Gulf of Alaska southward to central Baja California (Eschmeyer *et al.* , 1983; Stein and Hassler, 1989; Matthews, 1990a; Love, 1991), including in Puget Sound (Buckley and Hueckel, 1985; Quinnel and Schmitt, 1991). Adult copper rockfish are found in nearshore waters from the surface to 183 m deep (Eschmeyer *et al.* , 1983; Stein and Hassler, 1989). Larval and small juvenile copper rockfish are pelagic for several months and are frequently found in surface waters and shallow habitats (Stein and Hassler, 1989; Love *et al.* , 1996). Juveniles use bays as nursery areas (Stein and Hassler, 1989) and recruit to nearshore benthic habitats (Matthews, 1990b) with cobble or rocky substrata. They are often associated with crevices, aquatic plants, and kelp holdfasts (Patten, 1973; Love, 1991; Love *et al.* , 1996; Buckley, 1997). Adults inhabit natural rocky reefs, artificial reefs, and rock piles, are closely associated with submerged vegetation (Matthews, 1990c), and exhibit strong site fidelity (Stein and Hassler, 1989; Matthews, 1990c; Love, 1991). In Puget Sound, copper rockfish males and females become sexually mature at three to four years of age (Stein and Hassler, 1989). They spawn once a year and, like all Sebastes species, are ovoviviparous (i.e., eggs are fertilized internally, eggs develop within the mother nourished by an egg-yolk sac, and larvae “hatch” internally or immediately after they are released). Mating occurs from March to May, embryos are mature by April, and larvae are released from April to June (DeLacy *et al.* , 1964; Matthews, 1990b). Adults move inshore to release their young (Matthews, 1990a), and larvae remain pelagic until they are 40 to 50 mm long (Stein and Hassler, 1989). Copper rockfish live up to 55 years (Matthews, 1990b) and can grow to 57 cm length (Eschmeyer *et al.* , 1983; Stein and Hassler, 1989). *Quillback Rockfish* - Quillback rockfish are found from the northern Channel Islands in southern California (Stout *et al.* , 2001), to the Gulf of Alaska (Miller and Lea, 1972), including the Strait of Georgia, the San Juan Islands, and Puget Sound (Clemons and Wilby, 1961; Hart, 1973; Matthews, 1990a; Love, 1991). Adult quillback rockfish are found in subtidal waters to depths of 275 m (Hart, 1973; Love, 1991), but typically inhabit depths from 41 m to 60 m (Murie *et al.* , 1994; Love, 1991). Larval and juvenile stages occupy mid-water habitats before they recruit to sandy substrata in nearshore waters associated with eelgrass, bull kelp beds, natural rocky reefs, and artificial reefs ((Matthews, 1990b; West *et al.* , 1994). Adults are solitary, exhibit site fidelity (Petten, 1973), live at or near the bottom (Miller and Lea, 1972; Matthews, 1988; Rosenthal *et al.* , 1988; Love, 1991), and are associated with artificial and natural reefs, coarse sand, or pebble substrata with flat-bladed kelps (Love, 1991). In Puget Sound, most female quillback rockfish become sexually mature at 2 or 3 (Gowan, 1983). Mating takes place in March, and the larvae are released from April to July, with a peak early in the season (Matthews, 1988, 1990b; Love, 1991). Female quillback rockfish probably move to non-reef habitats to release larvae (Matthews 1988). Quillback rockfish can live to be more than 50 years old (Gowan, 1983; Love, 1991), and can grow to 61 cm (Clemons and Wilby, 1961; Hart, 1973; Love, 1991). April 3,2001, we concluded that these DPSs did not warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species. Although these DPSs had experienced declines over the last 40 years likely due to overharvest, we noted that the populations appeared stable over the most recent 5 years, and that reductions in the recreational fishery bag limit and the establishment of voluntary no-take marine reserves had reduced levels of fishing mortality (66 FR 17659). Analysis of Petition We evaluated the information provided and/or cited in Mr. Wright's recent petition to determine if it presents substantial scientific and commercial information to suggest that the Puget Sound DPSs of copper and quillback rockfish may warrant listing under the ESA. Additionally, we reviewed other information readily available to our scientists (i.e., currently within agency files) to determine whether there is general agreement with the information presented in the petition. We addressed three questions in our analysis of the petition:
(1)Does the petition or other information in our files present substantial information indicating that the delineated Puget Sound DPSs might warrant reconsideration?;
(2)Does the petition present substantial information indicating that the 2001 extinction risk analyses or listing determinations might warrant reconsideration?; and
(3)Does the petition present substantial information indicating that the DPSs are in danger of extinction (endangered), or likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges? Our Northwest Fisheries Science Center evaluated the scientific merits of the petition with respect to these three questions, concluding that the petition does not present substantial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted, nor that would warrant a reevaluation of the conclusions of the 2001 BRT (Varanasi, 2006). Below are our summary and analysis of the information presented in the petition, organized according to the questions outlined above. Does the Petition or Other Information in Our Files Present Substantial Information Indicating that the Delineated DPSs May Warrant Reconsideration? With respect to the delineation of Puget Sound DPSs of copper and quillback rockfish, the petitioner concludes “There does not appear [to] be any critical flaws in the original assessment or any compelling recent information from the past five years that would justify re-examination of the Puget Sound DPSs previously defined by Stout *et al.* (2001).” We agree with the petitioner's conclusion. For copper rockfish, the 2001 BRT cited genetic data and analyses from Seeb (1998), Wimberger (unpublished), and Buonaccorsi (in prep) for genetic information relevant to the DPS question. The Buonaccorsi data have since been published (Buonaccorsi *et al.* , 2002), and the conclusions and analyses in the final publication are consistent with the conclusions of the 2001 BRT. We are aware of no new genetic data available for copper or quillback rockfish. There is ongoing research at the University of Washington to analyze otolith microchemistry in quillback rockfish that, when complete, may provide useful data to help confirm or refine the 2001 BRT's DPS conclusions for this species. Does the Petition Present Substantial Information Indicating That the 2001 Extinction Risk Analyses or Listing Determinations May Warrant Reconsideration? *Criticism of the 2001 BRT Approach* - The petitioner criticizes the general risk assessment approach used by the 2001 BRT. The petitioner contends that the approach relies on subjective and qualitative personal opinions and suggests that, with different membership, another BRT may have reached different risk conclusions. The risk assessment methods employed by the 2001 BRT are the same as those used in NMFS status reviews for West Coast species since 1998 including Pacific salmonids ( *Oncorhynchus* spp.), Pacific cod ( *Gadus macrocephalus* ), Pacific hake ( *Merluccius productus* ), Pacific herring ( *Clupea pallasi* ), southern resident killer whales ( *Orcinus orca* ), and North American green sturgeon ( *Acipenser medirostris* ). These methods are described in detail by Wainwright and Kope (1999). The petitioner points out some potential problems with this approach of using expert scientific panels to evaluate status information that often includes incomplete and/or qualitative information. Such data limitations necessitate subjective evaluations of risk. The petitioner is correct that care must be taken to avoid or minimize the potential for status review conclusions to be affected by the composition of a given BRT. To minimize the risk of individual biases influencing a BRT's risk assessments, we endeavor to convene BRTs composed of several members (e.g., the 2001 BRT that reviewed the subject species was composed of six expert members) reflecting a diversity of expertise and perspectives. Our approach to risk assessment is also designed to apply a consistent and transparent methodology that makes use of the best available scientific data and analyses, including both quantitative and qualitative information. We agree with the petitioner that using a variety of appropriate methods to assess extinction risk is prudent, and this is the approach we have taken in our status reviews. In the subject 2001 status review, the BRT also evaluated extinction risk according to the method outlined by Musick *et al.* (2000). This approach is similar to the Wainwright and Kope
(1999)method mentioned above, but evaluates risk relative to the reproductive potential and generation time of the species under consideration. The BRT considered the results from both the Wainwright and Kope
(1999)and Musick *et al.*
(2000)methods in reaching their conclusions that copper and quillback rockfish in Puget Sound are “neither in danger of extinction or likely to become so” (Stout *et al.* , 2001). *Criticism of the BRT's Consideration of Age Structure and Longevity* - The petitioner also asserts, quoting extensively from Berkeley *et al.* (2004), that the 2001 BRT did not explicitly account for the “truncation” of the age structure of rockfish populations by overfishing, and, consequently, underestimated the extinction risk of these rockfish DPSs in Puget Sound. We do not believe that the findings of Berkeley *et al.* (2004), published since the 2001 status review, represent substantial information indicating that the 2001 BRT's risk assessments warrant re-evaluation, or that the DPSs may be endangered or threatened. The following paragraphs explain the information considered in reaching this conclusion. Berkeley *et al.*
(2004)demonstrated in the laboratory that larvae of black rockfish ( *S. melanops* ) born of older females survived longer in unfed conditions than larvae originating from younger fish. The mechanism ostensibly underlying this result is a greater volume of the larval energy reserves (i.e., oil globule) at birth, which is strongly related to maternal age. The ability of larval fish to survive a period of starvation is often critical because of the temporal and spatial unpredictability of food resources. The results of Berkeley *et al.*
(2004)suggest that older females will produce larvae having greater average survival, while younger females will produce progeny with the highest larval mortality rates (hereafter we refer to this as the “maternal-age effect”). Berkeley *et al.*
(2004)argue that rockfish stock collapses may have resulted from an under-appreciation among fisheries managers of the maternal-age effect and the potentially disproportionate contribution of larger and older females to recruitment and maintaining sustainable rockfish populations over the long term. Directly applying these laboratory findings to the wild populations of copper and quillback rockfishes in Puget Sound is problematic. First, the Berkeley *et al.*
(2004)work did not actually measure differences in larval survival in the field. Moreover, even if there is a maternal-age effect, its population-level effect on recruitment will depend strongly on the population's age structure and age-at-maturity. For example, if the population is dominated by younger age classes, the survival advantage of larvae produced by older and larger females (which are few in number) is overridden by the larger number of females in younger age classes despite the relatively higher mortality of their progeny. The maternal-age effect may also be diminished depending on the age at which females become reproductively mature. In a recent study by O'Farrell and Botsford
(2006)on black rockfish, researchers quantitatively investigated the fisheries implications of the Berkeley *et al.*
(2004)maternal-age effect. O'Farrell and Botsford
(2006)found that, although the youngest females produce progeny with the highest level of larval mortality, only a small proportion of the females in the youngest age class are sexually mature, and thus the youngest females represent a very small proportion of the total reproductive potential of the stock. For populations with similar life-history traits to the black rockfish, projections of population dynamics would be nearly identical whether the maternal-age effect was included (O'Farrell and Botsford, 2006). Age-specific abundance data for Puget Sound was not available to the 2001 BRT, and at present there are no data specifically addressing the importance of the maternal-age effect for copper or quillback rockfish. However, given the similarity in life-history traits of these species to black rockfish, the subject of the O'Farrell and Botsford
(2006)study, it seems unlikely that the maternal-age effect would alter the conclusions of the 2001 status review. *Criticism of the Consideration of Fishing Impacts* - The petitioner also criticized the 2001 determinations not to list under the ESA for failing to adequately consider adverse genetic impacts from fishing. The petitioner notes that fisheries remove the largest and oldest fish in the targeted population, and thus may have the effect of selecting against those fish that are genetically predisposed to fast growth and late maturation. The petitioner asserts that this effect has been largely ignored by fisheries managers who allegedly assume that exploited populations maintain their inherent rates of productivity. The petitioner cites Olsen *et al.*
(2004)and Hutchings (2004), suggesting that heavy and continuous fishing pressure, by removing fast-growing, late-maturing fish, can select for slower growing individuals and result in the permanent loss of genetically based traits. We agree that some decrease in the relative abundance of older spawners is an unavoidable consequence of fisheries. Although the 2001 BRT did not explicitly discuss the potential impacts of such a decrease, it is implicit in the historical decline observed in the overall abundance of the copper and quillback rockfish DPSs. In its conclusions, the BRT acknowledged the historical decline and the fisheries' likely contribution to that decline. noted that these DPSs appeared to be stable over the most recent 5 years preceding the 2001 status review, indicating that any reduction in the relative abundance of older spawners, and any potential genetic impacts, had not resulted in persistent declines in recruitment. The petitioner also criticizes the management of rockfish fisheries by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), in particular asserting that WDFW's 2000 regulation reducing the daily bag limit for rockfish to one fish is an inadequate measure for conserving Puget Sound rockfish stocks. WDFW's rockfish fishing regulations, and their impacts as manifested in the status information for the Puget Sound copper and quillback rockfish DPSs, were considered in the 2001 status review. In addition to the establishment of voluntary no-take marine reserves, the 2000 reduction in the recreation fishery bag limit was noted in the 2001 determinations not to list as a measure that had reduced historical levels of fishery mortality. The petitioner further asserts that a 2004 regulation restricting spear and recreational fishing for rockfish to periods when fisheries were open for lingcod and/or Pacific salmon inadequately limits fishing effort and mortality during the open fishing periods. We recognize that the petitioner believes that WDFW could enact regulations to further protect Puget Sound rockfish stocks. However, the fishing regulations the petitioner criticizes represent a reduction in previous fishing levels, and do not portend an increasing threat due to fishing for the copper and quillback rockfish Puget Sound DPSs. Does the Petition Present Substantial Information Indicating That the DPSs May be Endangered or Threatened? The petitioner presents no new data or information regarding the abundance, trends, productivity, or distribution for these species. With respect to the maternal-age effect discussed above, the petitioner presents no substantive evidence that the age composition of these stocks has actually been truncated, or that the maternal-age effect is an important determinant for copper or quillback rockfish recruitment. Similarly, we do not have any new data on hand relevant to assessing the status of copper and quillback rockfishes in Puget Sound. We are aware that WDFW is in the process of compiling new abundance data and finalizing a status report for these species. As yet, the new data and analyses are not available. Petition Finding After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well as information readily available to our scientists, we determine that the petition fails to present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned actions may be warranted. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* Dated: January 17, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-943 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Oceanic and Atmospheric Research; National Sea Grant Review Panel AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Sea Grant Review Panel. The meeting will have several purposes. Panel members will discuss and provide advice on the National Sea Grant College Program in the areas of program evaluation, strategic planning, education and extension, science and technology programs, and other matters as described below. DATES: The announced meeting is scheduled for: February 21-22, 2007. ADDRESSES: Headquarters of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research & Education (CORE), 1201 New York Avenue, NW., 4th Floor Conference Room, Washington, DC 20005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Joseph Brown, National Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 11717, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910,
(301)734-1088. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Panel, which consists of a balanced representation from academia, industry, state government and citizens groups, was established in 1976 by Section 209 of the Sea Grant Improvement Act (Pub. L. 94-461, 33 U.S.C. 1128). The Panel advises the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the National Sea Grant College Program with respect to operations under the Act, and such other matters as the Secretary refers to them for review and advice. A link to the agenda for the meeting can be found on the web at *http://www.seagrant.noaa.gov/leadership/review_panel.html.* If you do not have access to the internet, please contact Joe Brown at the address above for a hard copy. This meeting will be open to the public. Dated: January 16, 2007. Mark E. Brown, Chief Financial Officer, Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E7-848 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-KA-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 011707D] New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council's (Council) Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS)/Enforcement Committee will meet to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 6, 2007, at 8 a.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Harborside, 250 Market Street, Portsmouth, NH 03801; telephone:
(603)431-2300. *Council address* : New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(978)465-0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The items of discussion in the committee's agenda are as follows: 1. Introduction: safety, regulation compliance, and familiarizing industry with proper use of VMS. 2. Presentation by Office for Law Enforcement: the capabilities and limitations of VMS as an enforcement tool. 3. Comments and recommendations from the public, VMS users, state agencies, and the Coast Guard. The committee received the following request: a. Safe harbor notification, to suspend fishing trip, due to storms or other emergencies; b. Declaration in/out of a fishery while at sea, rather than in port; c. Closed area transit notification, to replace gear stowage requirement. 4. Industry and law enforcement dialog on VMS usage, and how it can be improved. 5. Closed session: selection of new advisors and any other issues the committee finds pertinent. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: January 18, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-932 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 011707E] New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a three-day Council meeting on February 6-8, 2007, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 6 beginning at 1 p.m., and Wednesday and Thursday, February 7 and 8, beginning at 8:30 a.m. each day. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Harborside Hotel, 250 Market Street, Portsmouth, NH 03801; telephone:
(603)431-2300. *Council address* : New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, telephone:
(978)465-0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Tuesday, February 6, 2007 Following introductions, the Council will hear a series of brief reports from the Council Chairman and Executive Director, the NOAA Northeast Regional Administrator, Northeast Fisheries Science Center and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council liaisons, NOAA General Counsel and representatives of the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA Enforcement, and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Following these reports, the Council will have a general discussion about at-sea processing vessels, including potential monitoring, reporting, observer and Vessel Monitoring System
(VMS)requirements. Changes to Council processes and procedures as a result of reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act will then be reviewed. The day will conclude with a report from the Council's Enforcement Committee. Its chair will discuss committee progress to develop recommendations concerning the use of VMS and other tools to address safety-at sea, regulatory compliance, and other fishery management-related activities. Wednesday, February 7, 2007 During the morning session, the Council will receive a report on the comments received in response to public hearings held to consider standardized bycatch reporting methodology alternatives. The Council will also hold a hearing on Amendment 13 to the Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan. The intent is to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the establishment of a mechanism to reactivate the industry-funded observer program in the scallop fishery. The hearing will be followed by final action on the amendment. The Council will then discuss the alternatives identified in Amendment 11 to the Scallop Plan, some of which may be affected by provisions in the newly reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Council will hear an update concerning the status of five stocks of small mesh multispecies whiting, red hake and offshore hake. The briefing also will address issues related to the development of the next small mesh multispecies amendment. An open period for the public to address any other Council-related business will be provided at this point in the day. During the afternoon session of the meeting, the Trawl Survey Committee will seek approval of recommendations related to the FSV Henry Bigelow, soon to be deployed in the Northeast Region. At the end of the day, the Council plans to review and approve Phase I of the Essential Fish Habitat Draft Supplemental Environmental Impacts Statement. Thursday, February 8, 2007 The Council's Research Steering Committee Chairman will report on the committee's recommendations concerning the use of information provided in several cooperative research final reports. This will be followed by a discussion of other issues related to cooperative research, including the future use of industry-based surveys. There will be a presentation on the results of the 44th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop. The status of surf clams, ocean quahogs, and the skate complex will be reviewed. The Groundfish Committee will provide a report to the Council on scoping comments received for Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. The Council will consider committee recommendations concerning alternatives to be developed, including input from the on the Recreational Advisory Panel. Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: January 18, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service . [FR Doc. E7-934 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 011707F] Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Highly Migratory Species Management Team (HMSMT) and Highly Migratory Species Advisory Subpanel (HMSAS) will hold work sessions, which are open to the public. DATES: The HMSMT/HMSAS work sessions will be held on Wednesday, February 7, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. and on Thursday, February 8, 2008, beginning at 8:30 a.m. until business is completed. ADDRESSES: The work sessions will be held at the National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Large Conference Room and Green Room, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037; telephone:
(858)546-7000. *Council address* : Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Kit Dahl, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(503)820-2280. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The HMSMT/HMSAS work sessions will continue review of U.S. and Canadian albacore catch and effort data, with the intent of recommending an appropriate method to characterize historical effort in the fishery. The two groups will also review progress in developing environmental impact evaluations of exempted fishing permit proposals for 2007 and any information on potential applications for 2008. They will also discuss development of an fishery management plan amendment to address overfishing of yellowfin tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean and procedures to enhance communication with regional fishery management organizations, including the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council. The HMSMT will also discuss preparation of the 2007 stock assessment and fishery evaluation report and related data issues. Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations The meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at
(503)820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: January 18, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-933 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 011707A] Marine Mammals; File No. 774-1847-01 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application for amendment. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Antarctic Marine Living Resources Program (Rennie Holt, Ph.D., Principal Investigator), 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037, has requested an amendment to scientific research Permit No. 774-1847. DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before February 22, 2007. ADDRESSES: The amendment request and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): 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 Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562)980-4001; fax (562)980-4018. Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this request should be submitted to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular amendment request would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: File No. 774-1847-01. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Swails or Tammy Adams, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject amendment to Permit No. 774-1847, issued on September 11, 2006 (71 FR 53423) is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216). Permit No. 774-1847 authorizes the permit holder to continue a long-term ecosystem monitoring program of pinniped species in the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica. The applicant is authorized to take up to 710 Antarctic fur seals and 20 leopard seals annually. The animals are captured, measured, weighed, tagged, blood sampled, and have time-depth recorders, VHF transmitters, and platform terminal transmitters attached. A subset of fur seals are given an enema, have a tooth extracted, milk sampled, and are part of a doubly-labeled water study on energetics. A subset of leopard seals are blubber and muscle sampled. The permit authorizes the research-related mortality of up to three Antarctic fur seals (one adult and two pups) and one leopard seal annually. The permit holder requests authorization to increase research-related mortality to eight Antarctic fur seals (3 adults and 5 pups) and two leopard seals annually. Permit conditions are such that research must be stopped when the mortality level is reached. The requested amendment is intended to allow the continuation of the long-term monitoring studies in the event of greater than anticipated levels of research-related mortality. Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors. Dated: January 17, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-944 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Post Allowance and Refiling ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before March 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: Susan.Brown@uspto.gov.* Include “0651-0033 comment” in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:* 571-273-0112, marked to the attention of Susan Brown. • *Mail:* Susan K. Brown, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Architecture, Engineering and Technical Services, Data Architecture and Services Division, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. • *Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to Robert A. Clarke, Deputy Director, Office of Patent Legal Administration, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-7735; or by e-mail at *Robert.Clarke@uspto.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION I. Abstract The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is required by 35 U.S.C. 131 and 151 to examine applications and, when appropriate, allow applications and issue them as patents. When an application for a patent is allowed by the USPTO, the USPTO issues a notice of allowance and the applicant must pay the specified issue fee (including the publication fee, if applicable) within three months to avoid abandonment of the application. If the appropriate fees are paid within the proper time period, the USPTO can then issue the patent. If the fees are not paid within the designated time period, the application is abandoned and the applicant may petition the Director to accept a delayed payment with a satisfactory showing that the delay was unavoidable. This Petition for Revival of an Application for Patent Abandoned Unavoidably (Form PTO/SB/61) is approved under information collection 0651-0031. The rules outlining the procedures for payment of the issue fee and issuance of a patent are found at 37 CFR 1.18 and 1.311-1.317. Chapter 25 of Title 35 U.S.C. provides that there are several actions that the applicant may take after issuance of a patent, including requesting the correction of errors in a patent. For original patents that are deemed wholly or partly inoperative, applicants may file a reissue application, which entails several formal requirements including an oath or declaration stating that the errors in the patent were not the result of any deceptive intention on the part of the applicant. The rules outlining these procedures are found at 37 CFR 1.171-1.178 and 1.322-1.325. Chapter 30 of Title 35 U.S.C. provides that any person at any time may file a request for reexamination by the USPTO of any claim of a patent on the basis of prior art patents or printed publications. Once initiated, the reexamination proceedings are substantially *ex parte* and do not permit input from third parties under Chapter 30, but Chapter 31 also provides for *inter partes* reexamination allowing third parties to participate. If a request for *ex parte* or *inter partes* reexamination is denied, the requester may petition the Director to review the examiner's refusal of reexamination. The rules outlining *ex parte* and *inter partes* reexaminations are found at 37 CFR 1.510-1.570 and 1.902-1.997. The USPTO is adding two items to this information collection, an electronic version of the Issue Fee Transmittal (Form PTOL-85B) and a petition to request an extension of time in *ex parte* or *inter partes* reexamination proceedings. The USPTO is developing a new version of the existing Issue Fee Transmittal that customers will be able to submit electronically through EFS-Web, the USPTO's latest electronic filing initiative. EFS-Web is a web-based patent application and document submission system that allows customers to file applications and associated documents through their standard web browser. EFS-Web offers many benefits to filers, including immediate notification that a submission has been received by the USPTO, automated processing of requests, and avoidance of postage and other paper delivery costs. The petition for an extension of time in an *ex parte* or *inter partes* reexamination allows patent owners to request additional time to take action in a reexamination proceeding for sufficient cause and for a reasonable time specified. This petition is an existing requirement that was not previously covered under this information collection. No form is provided for this petition. The public uses this information collection to request corrections of errors in issued patents, to request reissue patents, to request reexamination proceedings, and to ensure that the associated fees and documentation are submitted to the USPTO. II. Method of Collection By mail, facsimile, hand delivery, or electronically to the USPTO. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0651-0033. *Form Number(s):* PTO/SB/44/50/51/51S/52/53/56/57/58 and PTOL-85B. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Businesses or other for-profits; not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 224,926 responses per year. *Estimated Time Per Response:* The USPTO estimates that it will take the public from 1.8 minutes (0.03 hours) to 2 hours to gather the necessary information, prepare the appropriate form or other document, and submit the information to the USPTO. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours:* 68,245 hours per year. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden:* $12,486,080 per year. The USPTO expects that the information in this collection will be prepared by attorneys, except for the Issue Fee Transmittal, which will be prepared by paraprofessionals. Using the professional rate of $304 per hour for associate attorneys in private firms, the USPTO estimates that the respondent cost burden for attorneys submitting the information in this collection will be $9,012,080 per year. Using the paraprofessional rate of $90 per hour, the USPTO expects that the respondent cost burden for submitting the Issue Fee Transmittal will be $3,474,000 per year. Item Form No. Estimated time for response Estimated annual responses Estimated annual burden hours Certificate of Correction PTO/SB/44 1 hour 25,000 25,000 Reissue Documentation None 2 hours 1,100 2,200 Reissue Patent Application Transmittal PTO/SB/50 12 minutes 1,100 220 Reissue Application Declaration by the Inventor or the Assignee PTO/SB/51/52 30 minutes 1,100 550 Supplemental Declaration for Reissue Patent Application to Correct “Errors” Statement (37 CFR 1.175) PTO/SB/51S 1.8 minutes 700 21 Reissue Application: Consent of Assignee; Statement of Non-assignment PTO/SB/53 6 minutes 1,075 108 Reissue Application Fee Transmittal Form PTO/SB/56 12 minutes 1,100 220 Request for Ex Parte Reexamination Transmittal Form PTO/SB/57 2 hours 500 1,000 Request for Inter Partes Reexamination Transmittal Form PTO/SB/58 2 hours 100 200 Petition to Review Refusal to Grant Ex Parte Reexamination None 1 hour 100 100 Petition to Review Refusal to Grant Inter Partes Reexamination None 1 hour 1 1 Petition to Request Extension of Time in Ex Parte or Inter Partes Reexamination None 30 minutes 50 25 Issue Fee Transmittal PTOL-85B 12 minutes 154,400 30,880 Issue Fee Transmittal (EFS-Web) PTOL-85B 12 minutes 38,600 7,720 Totals 224,926 68,245 *Estimated Total Annual Non-hour Respondent Cost Burden:* $273,113,430 per year. There are no capital start-up or maintenance costs associated with this information collection. However, this collection does have annual (non-hour) costs in the form of filing fees, postage costs, and recordkeeping costs. The total estimated annual filing fees for this collection are calculated in the accompanying table. The Reissue Application Fee Transmittal Form includes the fees for the reissue application under 37 CFR 1.16, including the basic filing fee, search fee, and examination fee. These fees cover all parts of the application, including reissue documentation, reissue application transmittal, reissue application declarations, and consent of assignee or statement of non-assignment. There is no fee for the supplemental declaration for a reissue patent application to correct an “errors” statement. Additionally, there are several different issue fees under 37 CFR 1.18 depending on the type of patent being issued, whether a publication fee is required, and whether the inventor is entitled to the discounted small entity fee. The additional publication fee may not be owed at the time of patent issue for any of the following reasons:
(1)The application requested non-publication under 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(i);
(2)the application will not be published due to national security concerns as provided in 35 U.S.C. 122(d);
(3)the applicant has paid the publication fee prior to issue due to a request for early or amended publication under 37 CFR 1.219; or
(4)the application was filed prior to November 29, 2000 and therefore not subject to eighteen-month publication under 35 U.S.C. 122(b). The USPTO estimates that the total filing costs associated with this collection will be $273,013,030 per year. Item Form No. Estimated annual responses Fee amount Estimated annual filing costs Certificate of Correction PTO/SB/44 25,000 $100.00 $2,500,000.00 Reissue Documentation None 1,100 0.00 0.00 Reissue Patent Application Transmittal PTO/SB/50 1,100 0.00 0.00 Reissue Application Declaration by the Inventor or the Assignee PTO/SB/51/52 1,100 0.00 0.00 Supplemental Declaration for Reissue Patent Application to Correct “Errors” Statement (37 CFR 1.175) PTO/SB/51S 700 0.00 0.00 Reissue Application: Consent of Assignee; Statement of Non-assignment PTO/SB/53 1,075 0.00 0.00 Reissue Application Fee Transmittal Form PTO/SB/56 657 1,400.00 919,800.00 Reissue Application Fee Transmittal Form (small entity) PTO/SB/56 443 700.00 310,100.00 Request for Ex Parte Reexamination Transmittal Form PTO/SB/57 500 2,520.00 1,260,000.00 Request for Inter Partes Reexamination Transmittal Form PTO/SB/58 100 8,800.00 880,000.00 Petition to Review Refusal to Grant Ex Parte Reexamination None 100 130.00 13,000.00 Petition to Review Refusal to Grant Inter Partes Reexamination None 1 130.00 130.00 Petition to Request Extension of Time in Ex Parte or Inter Partes Reexamination None 50 200.00 10,000.00 Issue Fee (utility patent, no publication fee) PTOL-85B 25,000 1,400.00 35,000,000.00 Issue Fee (utility patent, no publication fee, small entity) PTOL-85B 9,000 700.00 6,300,000.00 Issue Fee (utility patent, with publication fee) PTOL-85B 105,000 1,700.00 178,500,000.00 Issue Fee (utility patent, with publication fee, small entity) PTOL-85B 36,000 1,000.00 36,000,000.00 Issue Fee (design patent, no publication fee) PTOL-85B 8,500 800.00 6,800,000.00 Issue Fee (design patent, no publication fee, small entity) PTOL-85B 8,500 400.00 3,400,000.00 Issue Fee (plant patent, no publication fee) PTOL-85B 120 1,100.00 132,000.00 Issue Fee (plant patent, no publication fee, small entity) PTOL-85B 80 550.00 44,000.00 Issue Fee (plant patent, with publication fee) PTOL-85B 480 1,400.00 672,000.00 Issue Fee (plant patent, with publication fee, small entity) PTOL-85B 320 850.00 272,000.00 Totals 224,926 273,013,030.00 Customers may incur postage costs when submitting the information in this collection to the USPTO by mail. The USPTO estimates that the average first-class postage cost for a mailed submission will be 52 cents and that up to 186,326 submissions will be mailed to the USPTO per year. The total estimated postage cost for this collection is $96,890 per year. When submitting the electronic version of the Issue Fee Transmittal, the applicant is strongly urged to retain a copy of the acknowledgment receipt as evidence that the form was received by the USPTO on the date noted. The USPTO estimates that it will take 5 seconds (0.001 hours) to print and retain a copy of the acknowledgment receipt and that 38,600 submissions per year will submit the issue fee electronically, for a total of approximately 39 hours per year for printing this receipt. Using the paraprofessional rate of $90 per hour, the USPTO estimates that the recordkeeping cost associated with this requirement will be $3,510 per year. The total non-hour respondent cost burden for this collection in the form of filing fees, postage costs, and recordkeeping costs is $273,113,430 per year. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: January 16, 2007. Susan K. Brown, Records Officer, USPTO Office of the Chief Information Officer, Architecture, Engineering and Technical Services, Data Architecture and Services Division. [FR Doc. E7-908 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force Establishment and Operation of an Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Strike Capability, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam AGENCY: Department of the Air Force. ACTION: Record of Decision (ROD). SUMMARY: On January 12, 2007, the United States Air Force signed the ROD for the Establishment and Operation of an Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Strike Capability, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. The decision was based on matters discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), inputs from the public and regulatory agencies, and other relevant factors. The Final EIS was made available on November 24, 2006 in the **Federal Register** (Volume 71, Number 226, Page 67864) with a wait period ending December 26, 2006. The Air Force was the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)lead agency with the Department of the Navy acting as a Cooperating Agency under NEPA. The ROD documents only the decision of the Air Force with respect to the proposed Air Force actions analyzed in the Final EIS. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Jonathan Wald, 36 Civil Engineer Squadron, 671-366-2549. Bao-Anh Trinh, DAF, Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E7-893 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-05-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 26, 2007. 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. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues:
(1)Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department;
(2)will this information be processed and used in a timely manner;
(3)is the estimate of burden accurate;
(4)how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(5)how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Dated: January 17, 2007. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Institute of Education Sciences *Type of Review:* New. *Title:* Conversion Magnet Schools Evaluation. *Frequency:* On Occasion. *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 71. *Burden Hours:* 1,131. *Abstract:* The Conversion Magnet Schools Evaluation studies the impact of federally funded elementary magnet schools on the academic achievement of students who attend them, and on minority group isolation in the schools. The first phase of the study investigates the feasibility of conducting rigorous research using experimental or quasi-experimental designs to explore the impact of the magnet programs on students who attend them as their neighborhood schools and on students from other neighborhoods who compete in lotteries for admission. Collection and analysis of student data will proceed if rigorous studies are found to be feasible. The evaluation will inform policymakers and researchers on the effectiveness of magnet schools as an educational approach and a type of school choice. Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov,* by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3262. 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. E7-917 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-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 February 22, 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: January 17, 2007. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Vocational and Adult Education *Type of Review:* Reinstatement. *Title:* Native American Career and Technical Education Program. *Frequency:* Semi-Annually; Annually. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 80. *Burden Hours:* 9,600. *Abstract:* The Native American Career and Technical Education Program (NACTEP) is authorized under Section 116 of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006. The purpose of the Native American Career and Technical Education Program is to provide grants to improve career and technical education programs that are consistent with the purposes of the Act and that benefit American Indians and Alaska Natives. This information collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections (1890-0001). Therefore, the 30-day public comment period notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection. 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 3255. 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. E7-918 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [CFDA NO. 84.215X] Office of Innovation and Improvement, Teaching American History Program ACTION: Notice announcing a technical assistance workshop. SUMMARY: This notice provides information about a technical assistance workshop the Department will be holding to assist eligible applicants interested in preparing grant applications for fiscal year
(FY)2007 new awards under the Teaching American History
(TAH)program. Staff will present information about the purpose of the TAH program, selection criteria, application content, submission procedures, and reporting requirements. The notice inviting applications for new awards for FY 2007 for the TAH program was published in the **Federal Register** on January 8, 2007 (72 FR 748). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex Stein, Team Leader, or Emily Fitzpatrick, Program Officer, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-5960. *Telephone:*
(202)205-9085 or
(202)260-1498. *E-mail:* *teachingamericanhistory@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, audio tape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed in this section. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The technical assistance workshop will be conducted on Wednesday, January 31, 2007, from 9 a.m.-12 p.m. at the Holiday Inn Capitol, 550 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20024. *Hotel telephone:*
(202)479-4000. This site is in Southwest Washington, DC, across the street from the U.S. Department of Education headquarters at 400 Maryland Avenue, SW. This site is accessible by Metro on the Blue, Orange, Green, and Yellow Lines at the 7th Street and Maryland Avenue exit of the L'Enfant Plaza station. Please contact the U.S. Department of Education contact persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you have any questions about the details of the workshop. Individuals interested in attending this workshop are encouraged to pre-register by e-mailing their name, organization, and contact information to *teachingamericanhistory@ed.gov* . There is no registration fee for this workshop. We encourage attendance from those who will be responsible for submitting the application or otherwise providing technical support for submitting the application electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site. Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities Attending the Technical Assistance Workshop The technical assistance workshop site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. If you need an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the workshop (e.g., interpreting service, assistive listening device, or materials in an alternative format), notify the contact persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT . Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as 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 any questions about using the PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6721. Dated: January 18, 2007. Morgan S. Brown, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement. [FR Doc. E7-939 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [CFDA Nos: 84.350A, 84.350B, 84.350C] Office of Innovation and Improvement, Transition to Teaching Program ACTION: Notice announcing a technical assistance workshop. SUMMARY: This notice provides information about a technical assistance workshop the Department will be holding to assist eligible applicants interested in preparing grant applications for fiscal year
(FY)2007 new awards under the Transition to Teaching
(TTT)program. Staff will present information about the purpose of the TTT program, selection criteria, application content, submission procedures, and reporting requirements. The notice inviting applications for new awards for FY 2007 for the TTT program was published in the **Federal Register** on January 8, 2007 (72 FR 753). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thelma Leenhouts, Team Leader, or Kelly O'Donnell, Program Officer, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-5960. *Telephone:*
(202)260-0223 or
(202)205-5231. *E-mail:* *transitiontoteaching@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, audio tape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed in this section. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The technical assistance workshop will be conducted on Wednesday, January 31, 2007, from 1 p.m.-4 p.m. at the Holiday Inn Capitol, 550 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20024. *Hotel telephone:*
(202)479-4000. This site is in Southwest Washington, DC, across the street from the U.S. Department of Education headquarters at 400 Maryland Avenue, SW. This site is accessible by Metro on the Blue, Orange, Green, and Yellow Lines at the 7th Street and Maryland Avenue exit of the L'Enfant Plaza station. Please contact the U.S. Department of Education contact persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you have any questions about the details of the workshop. Individuals interested in attending this workshop are encouraged to pre-register by e-mailing their name, organization, and contact information to *transitiontoteaching@ed.gov* . There is no registration fee for this workshop. We encourage attendance from those who will be responsible for submitting the application or otherwise providing technical support for submitting the application electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site. Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities Attending the Technical Assistance Workshop The technical assistance workshop site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. If you need an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the workshop (e.g., interpreting service, assistive listening device, or materials in an alternative format), notify the contact persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT . Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as 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 any questions about using the PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6681-6684. Dated: January 18, 2007. Morgan S. Brown, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement. [FR Doc. E7-940 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION President's Board of Advisors on Tribal Colleges and Universities; Meeting AGENCY: President's Board of Advisors on Tribal Colleges and Universities, Department of Education. What Is the Purpose of This Notice? The purpose of this notice is to set forth the schedule and agenda of the meeting of the President's Board of Advisors on Tribal Colleges and Universities. Notice of this meeting is required under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and is intended to notify the public of its opportunity to attend. When and Where Will the Meeting Take Place? We will hold the public meeting on Monday, February 5, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. until approximately 5 p.m.; and on Tuesday, February 6, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. until approximately 4:30 p.m., at The Hotel Washington, 15th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20005. You may call the hotel at
(202)638-5900 to inquire about rooms. What Assistance Will Be Provided to Individuals With Disabilities? The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. If you will need an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting (e.g., interpreting service, assistive listening device, or materials in an alternate format), notify Tonya Ewers at
(202)219-7040, no later than Monday January 29, 2007. Although we will attempt to meet a request received after that date, we may not be able to make available the requested auxiliary aid or service because of insufficient time to arrange it. Who Is the Contact Person for the Meeting? Please contact Deborah Cavett, Executive Director, White House Initiative on Tribal Colleges and Universities. You may contact her at the U.S. Department of Education, Room 7010, 1990 K St., NW., Washington, DC 20006, *telephone:*
(202)219-7040, *fax:*
(202)219-7086, *e-mail: Deborah.Cavett@ed.gov.* Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339. What Is the Authority for the Board of Advisors? The President's Board of Advisors on Tribal Colleges and Universities is established under Executive Order 13270, dated July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13385, dated September 25, 2005. What Are the Functions of the National Advisory Committee? The Board Is Established • To report to the President annually on the results of the participation of tribal colleges and universities
(TCUs)in Federal programs, including recommendations on how to increase the private sector role, including the role of private foundations, in strengthening these institutions, with particular emphasis also given to enhancing institutional planning and development, strengthening fiscal stability and financial management, and improving institutional infrastructure, including the use of technology, to ensure the long-term viability and enhancement of these institutions; • To advise the President and Secretary of Education (Secretary) on the needs to TCUs in the areas of infrastructure, academic programs, and faculty and institutional development; • To advise the Secretary in the preparation of a three-year Federal plan for assistance to TCUs in increasing their capacity to participate in Federal programs; • To provide the President with an annual progress report on enhancing the capacity of TCUs to serve their students; and • To develop, in consultation with the Department of Education and other Federal agencies, a private sector strategy to assist TCUs. What Items Will Be on the Agenda for Discussion at the Meeting? Agenda topics will include the final 2005 draft report to the President, the agencies' three-year plans, and establish the 2007 action agenda as the Board pursues opportunities to strengthen capacity of programs at the tribal colleges and universities. How Do I Request To Present Comments at the Meeting? An opportunity for public comments is available on Tuesday, February 6, 2007 between 3:15-4:15 p.m. Comments will be limited to ten
(10)minutes for those speakers who sign up to speak. Those members of the public interested in submitting written comments may do so at the address indicated above by Monday, January 29, 2007. How May I Obtain Access to the Records of the Meeting? Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for public inspection at the Office of the White House Initiative on Tribal Colleges and Universities, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, during the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. How May I Obtain Electronic Access to This Document? You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/legislation/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/index.html.* Authority: 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2. Dated: January 17, 2007. James F. Manning, Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education. [FR Doc. E7-876 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION Information Collection; Study of the Feasibility and Advisability of Establishing a Program of Free Return or Reduced Postage for Absentee Ballots—Survey of Registered Voters AGENCY: U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: The EAC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a proposed information collection. 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 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 the information collection on respondents. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before March 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection in writing to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1225 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005, ATTN: Ms. Laiza N. Otero (or via the Internet at *lotero@eac.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the Focus Group Discussion Guide, please, write to the above address or call Ms. Laiza N. Otero at
(202)566-3100. You may also view the proposed collection instrument by visiting our Web site at *www.eac.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title and OMB Number:* Study of the Feasibility and Advisability of Establishing a Program of Free Return or Reduced Postage for Absentee Ballots—Survey of Registered Voters. *OMB Number:* Pending. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Needs and Uses:* Sec. 246 of the Help America Vote Act requires the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), in consultation with the United States Postal Service, to conduct a study on the feasibility and advisability of establishing a program under which the U.S. Postal Service shall waive or otherwise reduce the amount of postage applicable with respect to absentee ballots returned by voters in general elections for Federal office. This study does not address the cost to the U.S. Postal Service for free postage for sending absentee ballots but may consider costs to election officials that are related to implementing such a program including the costs of sending absentee ballots to voters. It also does not include consideration of the 39 U.S.C. 3406 provisions for the mailing of balloting materials for military and overseas absentee voters. As part of the study, the Commission is directed to conduct a survey of potential beneficiaries, including the elderly and disabled, and to take into account the results of this survey in determining the feasibility and advisability of establishing such a program. At the conclusion of the study effort, EAC is required to submit a report to Congress with recommendations for such legislative and administrative action as EAC determines appropriate. The report shall contain an analysis of the feasibility of implementing such a program and an estimate of the costs. *Affected Public:* Citizens. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,200. *Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Burden per Response:* .25 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 300 hours. Information will be collected through a survey of U.S. citizens to determine the possible effect that a free and/or reduced cost absentee ballot postage program would have on voter participation. The sample will be designed in such a way so as to afford analysis of the results according to significant sub-groups including those living in states with high versus low rates of absentee voting and states with restrictive versus states with laws favoring absentee voting. The surveys will be representative of the U.S. population and will be conducted by phone using random digit dialing
(RDD)technology. Within each contacted household, a respondent will be selected among all adults in the household aged 18 years and older. The following information will be requested from each respondent: 1. Background Information The survey will gather data regarding each respondent's background. Background information will include, the respondent's location (state, county, and zip code), the location of the respondent's voter registration (state, county, zip code), age, ethnicity, education, income bracket, whether the respondent is living with a disability, whether the respondent was displaced due to a natural disaster, and whether the respondent is currently an active-duty member of the armed forces (or a dependent thereof). 2. Voting Information The survey will gather date regarding the respondent's voting history. Voting information will include, registration status, whether the respondent voted in the 2006 Congressional election, whether the respondent voted in the 2004 Presidential election, whether the respondent voted in the 2000 Presidential election, how the respondent voted in past elections (in person, by mail, absentee), whether the respondent is eligible to vote absentee (or whether the respondent does not know). 3. Program Effect The survey will gather data from all respondents regarding the various effects that the establishment of this program would have on the targeted citizens. Questions on the program will cover
(1)whether the program will increase the likelihood that the respondent would use the absentee ballot process;
(2)whether the program will increase the likelihood that the respondent would vote in a federal election;
(3)whether the program will make it easier for the voter to participate in elections. This study is further being supplemented with information collected through a series of three focus groups comprised of potential beneficiaries of a free and/or discounted absentee ballot postage program. Information about the focus groups' information collection can be found at *www.eac.gov* and the **Federal Register** (Vol. 71, No. 219, Page 66321). Thomas R. Wilkey, Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance Commission. [FR Doc. 07-261 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 21
Traces to 21 documents
CFR
- Administrative review of orders and suspension agreements under section 751(a)(1) of the Act.§ 351.213
- Assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties; provisional measures deposit cap; interest on certain overpayments and underpayments.§ 351.212
- Calculation of export price and constructed export price; reimbursement of antidumping and countervailing duties.§ 351.402
- Access to business proprietary information.§ 351.305
- New shipper reviews under section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act; expedited reviews in countervailing duty proceedings.§ 351.214
- Patent post allowance (including issue) fees.§ 1.18
- Inventor's oath or declaration for a reissue application.§ 1.175
- National application filing, search, and examination fees.§ 1.16
- Early publication.§ 1.219
U.S. Code
- Determination of endangered species and threatened species§ 1533
- Definitions§ 1532
- Congressional findings and declaration of purposes and policy§ 1531
- National Sea Grant Advisory Board§ 1128
- Findings, purposes and policy§ 1801
- Congressional findings and declaration of policy§ 1361
- Federal agency responsibilities§ 3506
- Examination of application§ 131
- Confidential status of applications; publication of patent applications§ 122
- Balloting materials under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act§ 3406
11 references not yet in our index
- Pub. L. 107-347
- Pub. L. 94-472
- 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(ii)
- 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(iii)
- Pub. L. 94-461
- 50 CFR 216
- Pub. L. 104-13
- 37 CFR 1.171-1
- 37 CFR 1.510-1
- 20 USC 6721
- 20 USC 6681-6684
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice and request for public comment
Pub. L.Pub. L. 107-347
Pub. L.Pub. L. 94-472
Cite50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(ii)
Cites 32 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources