Notices. Notice
14,817 words·~67 min read·
/register/2007/02/06/07-500·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C 72 24 Tuesday, February 6, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). *Agency:* U.S. Census Bureau. *Title:* Generic Clearance for MAF & TIGER Updating Activities. *Form Number(s):* Will vary by activity. *Agency Approval Number:* 0607-0809. *Type of Request:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Burden:* 14,290 hours. *Number of Respondents:* 849,750. *Average Hours Per Response:* 1 minute. *Needs and Uses:* The Census Bureau requests approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for an extension of the generic clearance for a number of activities it plans to conduct to update its Master Address File
(MAF)and maintain the linkage between the MAF and the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) database of address ranges and associated geographic information. The Census Bureau plans to use the MAF for post-Census 2000 evaluations, various pre-2010 census tests, and as a sampling frame for the American Community Survey and our other demographic current surveys. In the past, the Census Bureau has built a new address list for each decennial census. The MAF built during Census 2000 is meant to be kept current thereafter, eliminating the need to build a completely new address list for future censuses and surveys. The TIGER is a geographic system that maps the entire country in Census Blocks with applicable address range of living quarter location information. Linking MAF and TIGER allows us to assign each address to the appropriate Census Block, produce maps as needed and publish results at the appropriate level of geographic detail. The generic clearance for the past three years has proved to be very beneficial to the Census Bureau. The generic clearance allowed us to focus our limited resources on actual operational planning and development of procedures. This extension will be especially beneficial over the upcoming three years by allowing us to focus on the other work involved in improving new procedures for 2010, and keeping the MAF current. We will follow the protocol of past generic clearances: we will send a letter to OMB at least two weeks before the planned start of each activity that gives more exact details, examples of forms, and final estimates of respondent burden. We also will file a year-end summary with OMB after the close of each fiscal year giving results of each activity conducted. The following sections describe the categories of activities to be included under the clearance. The Census Bureau has conducted these activities (or similar ones) previously and the respondent burden remains relatively unchanged from one time to another. Demographic Area Address Listing
(DAAL)The Demographic Area Address Listing
(DAAL)program encompasses the geographic area updates for the Community Address Updating System
(CAUS)and the area and group quarters frame listings for many ongoing demographic surveys (the Current Population Survey, the Consumer Expenditures Survey, etc.). The CAUS program was designed to address quality concerns relating to areas with high concentrations of noncity-style addresses, and to provide a rural counterpart to the update of city-style addresses the MAF will receive from the U.S. Postal Services's Delivery Sequence File. The ongoing demographic surveys, as part of the 2000 Sample Redesign Program, plan to use the MAF as one of several sources of addresses from which to select their samples. In addition to the area and group quarters frame listings, the demographic surveys will also list blocks via the DAAL program for their Frame Assessment for Current Household Surveys (FACHS) evaluations. The DAAL program is a cooperative effort across many divisions at the Census Bureau; it includes automated listing software, systems, and procedures that will allow us to conduct listing operations in a dependent manner based on information contained in the MAF. The DAAL operations will be conducted on an ongoing basis in potentially any county across the country. Field Representatives
(FRs)will canvass selected Census tabulation blocks to improve the address list in areas where substantial address changes have occurred that have not been added to the MAF through regular update operations, and/or in blocks in the area or group quarters frame sample for the demographic surveys. FRs will update existing address information, and when necessary, contact individuals, to collect accurate location and mailing address information. In general, contact will occur only when the FR is adding to the address list, and the individual's address is not posted or visible to the FR. If the occupants of these households are not at home, the FR may attempt to contact a neighbor to determine the best time to find the occupants at home and/or to obtain the correct address information. DAAL is an ongoing operation. Listing assignments are distributed quarterly with the work conducted throughout the time period. We expect that DAAL listings will be conducted throughout the entire time period of the extension. Dress Rehearsal Address Canvassing An Address Canvassing operation will take place as part of the 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal. The operation will take place between May 7, 2007 and June 26, 2007. The operation will be a standard address canvassing operation where census listers will canvass specified blocks and conduct brief interviews to verify or update address information against address information on the Census Bureau's address lists and maps. Listers will enter an address status for every address based on what they found out during the visit. Listers will also visit addresses not listed on our address lists and add them. They will record address information and address statuses on the address lists that reside on the hand held computer (HHC). Sites for the 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal will be San Joaquin County, California and Fayetteville and Eastern North Carolina. Decennial Address Canvassing An Address Canvassing operation will take place as part of the 2010 Decennial Census. The operation will take place between April 13, 2009 and May 2009. The operation will be a standard address canvassing operation where census listers will canvass specified blocks and conduct brief interviews to verify or update address information against address information on the Census Bureau's address lists and maps. Listers will enter an address status for every address based on what they found out during the visit. Listers will also visit addresses not listed on our address lists and add them. They will record address information and address statuses on the address lists that reside on the hand held computer (HHC). Sites for the 2010 Decennial Census will be nation wide. Dress Rehearsal Update/Leave The U.S. Census Bureau will conduct the Update/Leave operation, March 3, 2008 through April 7, 2008 in the 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal sites of San Joaquin County, California and Fayetteville and Eastern North Carolina. Update/Leave is a field operation for the 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal. The results of this test will enable the Census Bureau to identify, refine, and improve our address collection procedures for a more cost-effective and accurate decennial census. Update/Leave requires Listers to update the Census Bureau's address list and maps, and to leave a census questionnaire at each housing unit. Listers verify and update the addresses on the address list and their locations on census maps to ensure that they are as current, complete and accurate as possible. Listers will use Form DX-105A (U/L), Update/Leave Address Listing Pages to verify, and update addresses currently in the Census Bureau's Update/Leave universe. Listers will enter an action code for every address based on what they found out. Listers will visit addresses not already listed and add them to our address list. To add addresses, Listers will use Form DX-105B (U/L), Update/Leave Add Pages. If the occupants of these living quarters are not at home the Listers will leave a questionnaire at the household in a plastic bag, then attempt to contact neighbors in order to obtain the correct address information. If the Lister is unable to contact anyone about an address, they will use their own judgment, and information from surrounding addresses to enter the address information. Quality Control
(QC)for Update/Leave consists of an initial observation, a dependent quality control check in the field and an office review of completed work. Decennial Update/Leave The U.S. Census Bureau will conduct the Update/Leave operation in the 2010 Decennial Census. Update/Leave requires Listers to update the Census Bureau's address list and maps, and to leave a census questionnaire at each housing unit. Listers verify and update the addresses on the address list and their locations on census maps to ensure that they are as current, complete and accurate as possible. Listers will use Form DX-105A (U/L), Update/Leave Address Listing Pages to verify, and update addresses currently in the Census Bureau's Update/Leave universe. Listers will enter an action code for every address based on what they found out. Listers will visit addresses not already listed and add them to our address list. To add addresses, Listers will use Form DX-105B (U/L), Update/Leave Add Pages. If the occupants of these living quarters are not at home the Listers will leave a questionnaire at the household in a plastic bag, then attempt to contact neighbors in order to obtain the correct address information. If the Lister is unable to contact anyone about an address, they will use their own judgment, and information from surrounding addresses to enter the address information. Quality Control
(QC)for Update/Leave consist of an initial observation, a dependent quality control check in the field and an office review of completed work. Dress Rehearsal Group Quarters Validation
(GQV)The U.S. Census Bureau will conduct the Group Quarters Validation Operation from September 17—October 24, 2007 at the 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal sites of San Joaquin County, California and Fayetteville and Eastern North Carolina. The GQV operation, which supports the Census Bureau's strategic goal of developing methodologies for compiling a complete and accurate MAF for the 2010 Census, is designed to verify and classify addresses identified as other living quarters during the 2006 Address Canvassing operation. The addresses will be classified as Group Quarters (GQ), Housing Unit (HU), or “not a living quarters”. If the address is a GQ, the lister will label it with the correct type code, (e.g. as a college residence hall or skilled nursing unit). Listers will use the DX-351 GQV Questionnaire to list address information and type codes for each GQ in their workload. GQV creates the universe for a follow-up operation known as Group Quarters Enumeration (GQE), in which we count the residents of identified GQs. Decennial Group Quarters Validation The U.S. Census Bureau will conduct the Group Quarters Validation Operation as part of the 2010 Decennial Census. The operation will take place between Sept 11, 2009—October 22, 2009. The GQV operation verifies and classifies addresses identified as other living quarters during the Decennial Address Canvassing operation. The addresses will be classified as Group Quarters (GQ), Housing Unit (HU), or “not a living quarters”. If the address is a GQ, the lister will label it with the correct type code, (e.g. as a college residence hall or skilled nursing unit). Listers will use the DX-351 GQV Questionnaire to list address information and type codes for each GQ in their workload. GQV creates the universe for a follow-up operation known as Group Quarters Enumeration (GQE), in which we count the residents of identified GQs. The list above is not exhaustive of all activities, which may be performed under this generic clearance. We will follow the approved procedure when submitting any additional activities not specifically listed here. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Frequency:* One-time. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *Legal Authority:* Title 13 U.S.C., Sections 141 and 193. *OMB Desk Officer:* Brian Harris-Kojetin,
(202)395-7314. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dhynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB Desk Officer either by fax (202-395-7245) or e-mail ( *bharrisk@omb.eop.gov* ). Dated: January 31, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-1819 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). *Agency:* U.S. Census Bureau. *Title:* 2007 Census Bilingual Form Study. *Form Number(s):* Advance Letter Package/Reminder Card DE-5(L)—Advance Letter (English). DE-5(L)(E/S)—Advance Letter Bilingual English/Spanish. DE-5—Outgoing Envelope for Advance Letters. DE-9—Reminder Postcard (English). DE-9(L)(E/S)—Reminder Letter Bilingual English/Spanish. Questionnaires DE-1—Mailback INITIAL Mailing (Also used for Replacement). DE-1(E/S)—Bilingual English/Spanish (Start Here Cover/7&8person panels). DE-2(E/S)— Bilingual English/Spanish (Directors Letter Cover). Letters DE-16(L)— Cover Letter—INITIAL Mailing. DE-16(L)(E/S)—Cover Letter Bilingual—INITIAL Mailing [DE-1(E/S)]. DE-17(L)—Cover Letter REPLACEMENT Mailing. Envelopes DE-6A—INITIAL Mailing Outgoing Envelope (English). DE-8A—INITIAL Mailing Return Envelope. DE-6C—REPLACEMENT Mailing Outgoing Envelope. DE-6B—Bilingual/INITIAL Mailing Outgoing Envelope. DE-8B—BilingualReturn Envelope. *Agency Approval Number:* 0607-0915. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden:* 5,000 hours. *Number of Respondents:* 30,000. *Average Hours Per Response:* 10 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The Census Bureau tested a bilingual census form in the 2005 National Census Test (NCT). The bilingual questionnaire had a “swim lane” design that provided two response columns, one in English and one in Spanish, each containing the same questions and response categories. This form was mailed to a randomly selected set of 10,000 housing units across the United States. The results from the 2005 NCT show that the bilingual form significantly increased the self response rate nationally (by 2.2 percentage points for paper response, and 1.1 percentage points for total response), and more specifically, in areas where there is a high concentration of non-White and Hispanic populations (Bouffard and Tancreto, 2006). Moreover, the bilingual form resulted in a higher proportion of response from Hispanic persons than the English-only form. However, item nonresponse rates for the bilingual form were higher for all household level items and Hispanic origin compared to the English-only form (Bouffard et al., 2006). There are many potential reasons for these item nonresponse discrepancies, including forms design, question wording, translation, and differences in the responding population. The purpose of a follow-up test of the bilingual form is to discern if the item nonresponse issues can be resolved by improved form design and utilization of the questions that will be on the form in the 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal. Moreover, this test provides the opportunity to study the impact of the bilingual form in areas that contain a heavy concentration of Spanish-speaking people with limited English proficiency. Furthermore, this test provides the opportunity to verify the 2005 NCT finding of increased response to the bilingual census form. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Frequency:* One time. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *Legal Authority:* Title 13 U.S.C., Sections 141 and 193. *OMB Desk Officer:* Brian Harris-Kojetin,
(202)395-7314. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB Desk Officer either by fax (202-395-7245) or e-mail ( *bharrisk@omb.eop.gov* ). Dated: January 31, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-1821 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). *Agency:* U.S. Census Bureau. *Title:* Report of Privately-Owned Residential Building or Zoning Permits Issued. *Form Number(s):* C-404. *Agency Approval Number:* 0607-0094. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Burden:* 17,568 hours. *Number of Respondents:* 19,450. *Average Hours Per Response:* 9 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The U.S. Census Bureau is requesting an extension of a currently approved collection of the Form C-404, “Report of Privately-Owned Residential Building or Zoning Permits Issued” otherwise known as the Building Permits Survey (BPS). The Census Bureau produces statistics used to monitor activity in the large and dynamic construction industry. Given the importance of this industry, several of the statistical series are key economic indicators. Two such series are
(a)Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits and
(b)Housing Starts. These statistics help state, local, and federal governments, as well as private industry, analyze this important sector of the economy. All of these series are available monthly based on a sample of building permit offices, and annually based on the entire universe of permit offices. The Census Bureau collects these data primarily by mail using the Form C-404. Data are also collected via Internet Web pages and receipt of electronic files. The Census Bureau uses the Form C-404 to collect data that will provide estimates of the number and valuation of new residential housing units authorized by building permits. About one-half of the permit offices are requested to report monthly. The remainder are only surveyed once per year. We use the data, a component of the index of leading economic indicators, to estimate the number of housing units started, completed, and sold, if single-family. The Census Bureau also uses these data to select samples for its demographic surveys. Policymakers, planners, businessmen/women, and others use the detailed geographic data collected from state and local officials on new residential construction authorized by building permits to monitor growth and plan for local services, and to develop production and marketing plans. The BPS is the only source of statistics on residential construction for states and smaller geographic areas. *Affected Public:* State, local or tribal government. *Frequency:* Monthly and annually. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *Legal Authority:* Title 13, United States Code, Section 182. *OMB Desk Officer:* Brian Harris-Kojetin,
(202)395-7314. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dhynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB Desk Officer either by fax (202-395-7245) or e-mail ( *bharrisk@omb.eop.gov* ). Dated: January 31, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-1823 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). *Agency:* U.S. Census Bureau. *Title:* 2004 Panel of the Survey of Program Participation, Waves 10, 11, and 12. *Form Number(s):* SIPP 241005(L) Director's Letter; SIPP/CAPI Automated Instrument; SIPP 24003 Reminder Card. *Agency Approval Number:* 0607-0905. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Burden:* 44,799. *Number of Respondents:* 44,713. *Average Hours Per Response:* 30 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The U.S. Census Bureau requests authorization from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to extend the expiration date for the 2004 Panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation
(SIPP)to February 28, 2008. This will provide the time necessary to conduct the Wave 10, 11, and 12 interviews for the 2004 Panel of the SIPP. The interviews will include the core SIPP, which has already been approved by OMB under Authorization No. 0607-0905. Due to budget constraints, there are no topical modules for the Wave 10, 11, and 12 interviews. The SIPP represents a source of information for a wide variety of topics and allows information for separate topics to be integrated to form a single and unified database so that the interaction between tax, transfer, and other government and private policies can be examined. Government domestic policy formulators depend heavily upon the SIPP information concerning the distribution of income received directly as money or indirectly as in-kind benefits and the effect of tax and transfer programs on this distribution. They also need improved and expanded data on the income and general economic and financial situation of the U.S. population. The SIPP has provided these kinds of data on a continuing basis since 1983, permitting levels of economic well-being and changes in these levels to be measured over time. The survey is molded around a central “core” of labor force and income questions that remain fixed throughout the life of a panel. The SIPP is designed as a continuing series of national panels of interviewed households that are introduced every few years, with each panel having durations of 3 to 4 years. The 2004 Panel is scheduled for 4 years and will include 12 waves which began on February 1, 2004. All household members 15 years old or over are interviewed using regular proxy-respondent rules. They are interviewed a total of 12 times (12 waves), at 4-month intervals, making the SIPP a longitudinal survey. Sample people (all household members present at the time of the first interview) who move within the country and reasonably close to a SIPP primary sampling unit will be followed and interviewed at their new address. Individuals 15 years old or over who enter the household after Wave 1 will be interviewed; however, if these people move, they are not followed unless they happen to move along with a Wave 1 sample individual. Data provided by the SIPP are being used by economic policymakers, the Congress, state and local governments, and federal agencies that administer social welfare or transfer payment programs, such as the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Frequency:* Every 4 months. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *Legal Authority:* Title 13 U.S.C., Section 182. *OMB Desk Officer:* Brian Harris-Kojetin,
(202)395-7314. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dhynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB Desk Officer either by fax (202-395-7245) or e-mail ( *bharrisk@omb.eop.gov* ). Dated: January 31, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-1836 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Pure Magnesium in Granular Form from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order A-570-864 AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On October 2, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium in granular form from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and inadequate response from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review. As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. The dumping margins are identified in the *Final Results of Review* section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hilary E. Sadler, Esq., or Juanita Chen, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4340, or
(202)482-1904, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 2, 2006, the Department published the notice of initiation of the second sunset review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium in granular form from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 71 FR 57921 (October 2, 2006). The Department received the Notice of Intent to Participate from US Magnesium LLC 1 (“US Magnesium”), the domestic party, within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations (“Sunset Regulations”). US Magnesium claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a domestic producer of pure magnesium in granular form. The Department received a complete substantive response only from US Magnesium within the 30-day deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Department's regulations. The Department received no responses from the respondent interested parties. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(5)(A) of the Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the Department's regulations, the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of this order. 1 US Magnesium's predecessor is Magnesium Corporation of America, the original petitioner in this proceeding. Scope of the Order There is an existing antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from the People's Republic of China (PRC). *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation and Ukraine; Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation* , 60 FR 25691 (May 12, 1995). The scope of this order excludes pure magnesium that is already covered by the existing order on pure magnesium in ingot form and currently classifiable under item numbers 8104.11.00 and 8104.19.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The scope of this order includes imports of pure magnesium products, regardless of chemistry, including, without limitation, raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder, and briquettes, except as noted above. Pure magnesium includes:
(1)Products that contain at least 99.95 percent primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “ultra- pure” magnesium);
(2)products that contain less than 99.95 percent but not less than 99.8 percent primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “pure” magnesium);
(3)chemical combinations of pure magnesium and other material(s) in which the pure magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by weight that do not conform to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy” 2 (generally referred to as “off-specification pure” magnesium); and
(4)physical mixtures of pure magnesium and other material(s) in which the pure magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by weight. Excluded from this order are mixtures containing 90 percent or less pure magnesium by weight and one or more of certain non-magnesium granular materials to make magnesium-based reagent mixtures. The non-magnesium granular materials of which the Department is aware used to make such excluded reagents are: Lime, calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, carbon, slag coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline syenite, feldspar, aluminum, alumina (Al2O3), calcium aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons, graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, ferroalloys, dolomitic lime, and colemanite. A party importing a magnesium-based reagent which includes one or more materials not on this list is required to seek a scope clarification from the Department before such a mixture may be imported free of antidumping duties. 2 The meaning of this term is the same as that used by the American Society for Testing and Materials in its Annual Book of ASTM Standards: Volume 01.02 Aluminum and Magnesium Alloys. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under item 8104.30.00 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this review is addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated January 30, 2007, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the order were to be revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in room B-099 of the main Commerce Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* , under the heading “February 2007.” The paper copy and electronic versions of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Final Results of Review We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium in granular form from the PRC would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins: Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted-Average Margin (percent) Minmetals 24.67 PRC-wide Rate 305.56 We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: January 30, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-1894 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-469-805 Stainless Steel Bar from Spain: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0665 and
(202)482-1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background At the request of an interested party, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from Spain for the period March 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006. See *Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 25145 (April 28, 2006). On December 1, 2006, we published in the **Federal Register** a notice extending the due date for the completion of these preliminary results of review from December 1, 2006, to February 13, 2007. See *Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 69550 (December 1, 2006) ( *Extension Notice* ). 1 1 In the *Extension Notice* we stated inadvertently that we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of this review to February 13, 2006. On December 15, 2006, we published in the **Federal Register** a correction notice announcing the extension of the due date for the completion of these preliminary results of review to February 13, 2007. See *Correction to Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 75503 (December 15, 2006). Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and a final determination within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary determination is published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary determination to a maximum of 365 days after the last day of the anniversary month. We determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review by the current deadline of February 13, 2007. We require additional time to analyze supplemental questionnaire responses with respect to a number of cost issues in this administrative review. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of this review to March 22, 2007. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777 (i)(1) of the Act. Dated: January 31, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-1893 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Natural Resource Damage Assessment Restoration Project Information Sheet AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before April 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to John Rapp,
(225)578-7924 or *john.rapp@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Natural Resource Damage Assessment
(NRDA)Restoration Project Information Sheet is designed to facilitate the collection of information on existing, planned, or proposed restoration projects. This information will be used by the Natural Resource Trustees to develop potential restoration alternatives for natural resource injuries and service losses requiring restoration during the restoration planning phase of the NRDA process. II. Method of Collection The Restoration Project Information Sheet can be submitted on paper through the mail or faxed, or can be submitted electronically via the Internet or e-mail. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0497. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* State, local, or tribal governments; individuals or households; business or other for-profits organizations; not-for-profit institutions; farms; and the federal government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 66. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 20 minutes including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 55. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $0. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: January 31, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-1820 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Applications and Reporting Requirements for the Incidental Take of Marine Mammals by Specified Activities Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before April 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Kenneth R. Hollingshead,
(301)713-2055, ext. 128 or *ken.hollingshead@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA)prohibits the taking by harassment, injury, or mortality of marine mammals unless exempted or authorized by permit. The incidental-take program authorizes the taking of marine mammal incidental to maritime activities (military, oil industry, oceanographic research). It is the responsibility of the activity to determine if it might have a “taking” and, if it does, to apply for an authorization. Applications are necessary for NOAA to know that an authorization is needed and to determine whether authorization can be made under the MMPA. The reporting requirements are mandated by the MMPA and are necessary to ensure that determinations made concerning the impact on marine mammals are valid. II. Method of Collection Applications and reports are submitted by paper copy via overnight delivery and via e-mail to provide us with the .pdf and .doc copies that we use to work on the application and for posting for the public to download and review. While our application instructions are posted on the Web, we do not have the ability to accept applications via the Web. We are currently beta-testing the system for accepting applications for scientific research permits which we may be able to apply to this information collection also. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0151. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations; not-for-profit institutions; and State, Local, or Tribal Government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 72. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 483 hours for a request for new or the renewal of regulations; 45 hours for an application for Letter of Authorization (response times vary significantly based on the complexity of the application); 200 hours for an application for an Incidental Harassment Authorization; and 93-120 hours for a 90-day, quarterly, or annual report under a Letter of Authorization or Incidental Harassment Authorization. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 12,376. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $1,359. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: January 31, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-1822 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 020107B] Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits
(EFPs)AGENCY: Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). ACTION: Notification of a proposal for an EFP to conduct experimental fishing; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has made a preliminary determination that the subject EFP application from the University of New England
(UNE)that would allow Northeast multispecies vessels to possess spiny dogfish for a spiny dogfish life history study contains all the required information and warrants further consideration. The Regional Administrator has also made a preliminary determination that the activities authorized under the EFP would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). However, further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made. DATES: Comments on this document must be received on or before February 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *DA7-25@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: “Comments on UNE dogfish possession EFP proposal.” Written comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on UNE dogfish possession EFP proposal” Comments may also be sent via facsimile
(fax)to
(978)281-9135. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Silva, Fishery Management Specialist, phone: 978-281-9326, fax: 978-281-9135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FMP implemented a semi-annual quota. When a semi-annual quota is projected to be harvested, NMFS closes the fishery until the next semi-annual quota opens. During a dogfish closure, no vessel may fish for or possess dogfish. The dogfish fishery was closed on December 19, 2006 (71 FR 76222), and will not re-open until May 1, 2007. As part of a continuing research project, UNE, in collaboration with the University of New Hampshire (UNH), is investigating Gulf of Maine dogfish age and growth, and size at sexual maturity characteristics. The applicant states that current dogfish life history data need updating, particularly in light of recent stock declines and potential regional variability in life history traits. The project investigators are attempting to develop a more accurate aging tool, which will improve age and size at sexual maturity determinations. The applicant notes that these data will provide critical life history information needed for effective dogfish management decisions, particularly for the Gulf of Maine. The applicant would start collecting dogfish samples upon approval of the EFP and continue through June, 2007. The applicant would collect 15 dogfish per gender per 5-cm size class (<35 cm - >100 cm), for a total of 450 dogfish. Samples would be collected during commercial NE multispecies fishing trips in areas open to commercial NE multispecies regulations in statistical areas 125 and 132. Vessels would be fishing with otter trawl and gill net gear that is fully compliant with NE multispecies regulations. The applicant has indicated that up to 50 dead dogfish would be kept each trip, and that dogfish will not be targeted during the fishing trips. All live dogfish bycatch would be returned to the ocean as quickly as possible; only dead dogfish would be retained. If approved, participating vessels would not be allowed to possess or retain more than 50 dogfish on any trip, and no dogfish may be sold. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs. The applicant may place requests for minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and minimal so as not to change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: February 1, 2007. James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-1850 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 011807A] Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; An On-ice Marine Geophysical Research and Development Program in the Beaufort Sea AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of receipt of application and proposed incidental take authorization; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS has received an application from Shell Offshore, Inc.
(SOI)for an Incidental Harassment Authorization
(IHA)to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting an on-ice marine geophysical research and development (R&D) program in the U.S. Beaufort Sea from March to May, 2007. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an authorization to SOI to incidentally take, by harassment, small numbers of three species of pinnipeds for a limited period of time this year. DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than March 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning one of the contacts listed here. The mailbox address for providing email comments is *PR1.011807A@noaa.gov* . Comments sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. A copy of the application and other supporting material related to this proposed action may be obtained by writing to this address or by telephoning the first contact person listed here and is also available at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
(301)713-2289, ext 137 or Brad Smith, Alaska Region, NMFS,
(907)271-5006. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and
(D)of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. Permission shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as ”...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except for certain categories of activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which
(i)has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or
(ii)has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment]. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization. Summary of Request On January 17, 2007, NMFS received an application from SOI for the taking, by harassment, of three species of marine mammals incidental to conducting an on-ice marine geophysical R&D program. The proposed seismic survey would occur on U.S. Beaufort Sea. Sources and receivers would be placed above and below the ice in attempts to find pairings that provide the best mitigation of seismic noise in a shallow marine environment where conventional seismic vessels cannot operate. A variety of instruments will be used to create a complete catalogue of data for development of noise mitigation techniques. Sources include standard and lightweight vibrators, accelerated weight drop (impact) sources on the ice, and small volume airgun arrays deployed through holes augered in the ice. Receivers will be deployed both on the ice surface, as well as below the ice suspended in the water column and on the ocean floor. The program will also require a temporary camp facility geared to accommodate up to 100 people. The proposed program is expected to begin in March and last till May, 2007. Description of the Activity The proposed R&D program would occur on the U.S. Minerals Management Service
(MMS)Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS)lease blocks located offshore from Oliktok Point, Milne Point, West Dock, or Endeavor Islands, in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. This on-ice R&D will consist of 35 linear miles (56 km) of surveying withing a 16 km 2 (6.2 mi 2 ) area. The prospective locations have been selected on the basis of suitability for the scientific testing and proximity to facilities to help minimize impact on the region. The water depth at each location is less than 20 m (66 ft); deep enough that the ice is not grounded. Ice condition within the proposed survey area will determine the area selected, and SOI will consult with MMS and NMFS before the selection is made. Surface sources will be a variety of industry-standard vehicles and weigh drops. On-ice vibroseis will be conducted using 2 vibrators: a 68,000 lb gross vehicle weight
(GVW)wheeled vibrator capable of 49,440 foot-pounds (ft-lbs) of force and a 14,400 lb GVW wheeled mini-vibrator capable of 12,000 ft-lbs of force. A minimum ice thickness of 4 ft (1.2 m) is required in order to support the vibrators and recording equipment. Impact sources to be used include 2 weigh drops: a Digipulse 1180 with peak force output of 1,200,000 ft-lbs at base plate, and a Polaris Explorer 860 with peak force output of 866,000 ft-lbs at base plate. Both weigh drop impact sources have dominant frequency ranges from 10 to 90 Hz. No measurements of acoustic energy source levels have been taken in industry using these equipments, however, in air and underwater sound levels resulted from weigh drops will be measured and monitored during the proposed survey. An airgun array with 1 or 2 210 in 3 Generator/Injector
(GI)airguns would also be used and can produce between 345,000 and 560,000 ft-lbs of force at 2,000 and 3,000 pounds per square inch (PSI), respectively. The source level of the airgun, measured at 1 m from the source, ranges from 228 - 232 dB re: 1 microPa, when fired in open water without sea ice coverage. The dominant frequency of the airgun is below 188 Hz. The recording unit is comprised of 13 tracked vehicles for crew transport and technical support, 2 tracked recording trailers, and 2 ice drilling units. The program will also require a temporary camp facility geared to accommodate up to 200 people and will be composed of purpose-built accommodations which are largely self-sufficient for normal operations. Camp facilities may include as many as 35 sled trailers including medical facilities, crew quarters, offices, kitchen and dining facilities, laundry facilities, technical work spaces, generators, and fuel storage units. Two tracked vehicles will be available for camp site support and access trail maintenance. Prospective camp locations will be chosen based on ice conditions and safety of access to ice. SOI will consult with MMS and NMFS before moving camp location within the proposed project area. Mobilization and demobilization will take place from West Dock, Oliktok Point, Milne Point, or Endeavor Island. Given the logistics, it is unlikely that the operations would utilize each of the 4 prospective camp locations. The camp will be stationed on grounded ice beside the access route. Kuukpik Veritas will begin conducting surveys and ice checks and move the camp 7 to 12 days ahead of the seismic survey along the route away from the mobilization point. Re-supply operations will periodically be required for fuel and provisions. These operations will be based out of West Dock, Oliktok Point, Milne Point, or Endeavor Island. Camp mobilization is expected to begin on March 10, 2007. By March 15, the camp would be established and seismic acquisition will begin on or about March 17. Data acquisition will continue until May 5 to 10, followed by camp demobilization to Oliktok Point, Milne Point, West Dock, or Endeavor Island. Operations are expected to be occurring 24 hours a day through the entire survey period. The program is projected to take 30 to 40 days to acquire the necessary data. Description of Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity Four marine mammal species are known to occur within the proposed survey area: ringed seal ( *Phoca hispida* ), bearded seal ( *Erignathus barbatus* ), spotted seal ( *Phoca largha* ), and polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ). None of these species are listed under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA)as endangered or threatened species. Other marina mammal species that seasonally inhabit the Beaufort Sea, but are not anticipated to occur in the project area during the proposed R&D program, include the bowhead whales ( *Balaena mysticetus* ) and beluga whales ( *Delphinapterus leucas* ). SOI will seek a take Authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the incidental taking of polar bears because USFWS has management authority for this speciee. A detailed description of these species can be found in Angliss and Outlaw (2005), which is available at the following URL: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2005.pdf* . Additional information on the 3 pinniped species is presented below: Ringed Seals Ringed seals are widely distributed throughout the Arctic basin, Hudson Bay and Strait, and the Bering and Baltic seas. Ringed seals inhabiting northern Alaska belong to the subspecies *P. h. hispida* , and they are year-round residents in the Beaufort Sea. During winter and spring, ringed seals inhabit landfast ice and offshore pack ice. Seal densities are highest on stable landfast ice but significant numbers of ringed seals also occur in pack ice (Wiig *et al.* , 1999). Seals congregate at holes and along cracks or deformations in the ice (Frost *et al.* , 1999). Breathing holes are established in landfast ice as the ice forms in autumn and are maintained by seals throughout winter. Adult ringed seals maintain an average of 3.4 holes per seal (Hammill and Smith, 1989). Some holes may be abandoned as winter advances, probably in order for seals to conserve energy by maintaining fewer holes (Brueggeman and Grialou, 2001). As snow accumulates, ringed seals excavate lairs in snowdrifts surrounding their breathing holes, which they use for resting and for the birth and nursing of their single pups in late March to May (McLaren, 1958; Smith and Stirling, 1975; Kelly and Quakenbush, 1990). Pups have been observed to enter the water, dive to over 10 m (33 ft), and return to the lair as early as 10 days after birth (Brendan Kelly, pers comm to CPA, June 2002), suggesting pups can survive the cold water temperatures at a very early age. Mating occurs in late April and May. From mid-May through July, ringed seals haul out in the open air at holes and along cracks to bask in the sun and molt. The seasonal distribution of ringed seals in the Beaufort Sea is affected by a number of factors but a consistent pattern of seal use has been documented since aerial survey monitoring began over 20 years ago. Recent studies indicated that ringed seals showed a strong seasonal and habitat component to structure use (Williams *et al.* , 2006), and habitat, temporal, and weather factors all had significant effects on seal densities (Moulton *et al.* , 2005). The studies also showed that effects of oil and gas development on local distribution of seals and seal lairs are no more than slight, and are small relative to the effects of natural environmental factors (Moulton *et al.* , 2005; Williams *et al.* , 2006). A reliable estimate for the entire Alaska stock of ringed seals is currently not available (Angliss and Outlaw, 2005). A minimum estimate for the eastern Chukchi and Beaufort Sea is 249,000 seals, including 18,000 for the Beaufort Sea (Angliss and Outlaw, 2005). The actual numbers of ringed seals are substantially higher, since the estimate did not include much of the geographic range of the stock, and the estimate for the Alaska Beaufort Sea has not been corrected for animals missed during the surveys used to derive the abundance estimate (Angliss and Outlaw, 2005). Estimates could be as high or approach the past estimates of 1 - 3.6 million ringed seals in the Alaska stock (Frost, 1985; Frost *et al.* , 1988). Frost and Lowry
(1999)reported an observed density of 0.61 ringed seals/km 2 on the fast ice from aerial surveys conducted in spring 1997 of an area (Sector B2) overlapping the activity area, which is in the range of densities (0.28-0.66) reported for the Northstar development from 1997 to 2001 (Moulton *et al.* , 2001). This value (0.61) was adjusted to account for seals hauled out but not sighted by observers (x 1.22, based on Frost *et al.* (1988)) and seals not hauled out during the surveys (x 2.33, based on Kelly and Quakenbush (1990)) to obtain the 1.73 seals/km 2 . This estimate covered an area from the coast to about 2 - 20 miles beyond the activity area; and it assumed that habitat conditions were uniform. Bearded Seals The bearded seal has a circumpolar distribution in the Arctic, and it is found in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas (Jefferson *et al.* , 1993). Bearded seals are predominately benthic feeders, and prefer waters less than 200 m (656 ft) in depth. Bearded seals are generally associated with pack ice and only rarely use shorefast ice (Jefferson *et al.* , 1993). Bearded seals occasionally have been observed maintaining breathing holes in annual ice and even hauling out from holes used by ringed seals (Mansfield, 1967; Stirling and Smith, 1977). Seasonal movements of bearded seals are directly related to the advance and retreat of sea ice and to water depth (Kelly, 1988). During winter they are most common in broken pack ice and in some areas also inhabit shorefast ice (Smith and Hammill, 1981). In Alaska waters, bearded seals are distributed over the continental shelf of the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas, but are more concentrated in the northern part of the Bering Sea from January to April (Burns, 1981). Recent spring surveys along the Alaskan coast indicate that bearded seals tend to prefer areas of between 70 and 90 percent sea ice coverage, and are typically more abundant greater than 20 nm (37 km) off shore, with the exception of high concentrations nearshore to the south of Kivalina in the Chukchi Sea (Bengtson *et al.* , 2000; Simpkins *et al.* , 2003). Since bearded seals are normally found in broken ice that is unstable for on-ice seismic operation, bearded seals will be rarely encountered during seismic operations. There are no reliable population estimates for bearded seals in the Beaufort Sea or in the proposed project area (Angliss and Outlaw, 2005). Aerial surveys conducted by MMS in fall 2000 and 2001 sighted a total of 46 bearded seals during survey flights conducted between September and October (Treacy, 2002a; 2002b). Bearded seal numbers are considerably higher in the Bering and Chukchi seas, particularly during winter and early spring. Early estimates of bearded seals in the Bering and Chukchi seas range from 250,000 to 300,000 (Popov, 1976; Burns, 1981). Surveys flown from Shismaref to Barrow during May-June 1999 and 2000 resulted in an average density of 0.07 seals/km2 and 0.14 seals/km2, respectively, with consistently high densities along the coast of the south of Kivalina (Bengtson et al., 2005). These densities cannot be used to develop an abundance estimate because no correction factor is available. Spotted Seals Spotted seals occur in the Beaufort, Chukchi, Bering, and Okhotsk seas, and south to the northern Yellow Sea and western Sea of Japan (Shaughnessy and Fay, 1977). Based on satellite tagging studies, spotted seals migrate south from the Chukchi Sea in October and pass through the Bering Strait in November and overwinter in the Bering Sea along the ice edge (Lowry *et al.* , 1998). In summer, the majority of spotted seals are found in the Bering and Chukchi seas, but do range into the Beaufort Sea (Rugh *et al.* , 1997; Lowry *et al.* , 1998) from July until September. The seals are most commonly seen in bays, lagoons, and estuaries and are typically not associated with pack ice at this time of the year. A small number of spotted seal haul-outs are documented in the central Beaufort Sea near the deltas of the Colville and Sagavanirktok rivers (Johnson *et al.* , 1999). Previous studies from 1996 to 2001 indicate that few spotted seals (a few tens) utilize the central Alaska Beaufort Sea (Moulton and Lawson, 2002; Treacy, 2002a; 2002b). In total, there are probably no more than a few tens of spotted seals along the coast of central Alaska Beaufort Sea. A reliable abundance estimate for spotted seal is not currently available (Angliss and Outlaw, 2005), however, early estimates of the size of the world population of spotted seals was 335,000 to 450,000 animals and the size of the Bering Sea population, including animals in Russian waters, was estimated to be 200,000 to 250,000 animals (Burns, 1973). The total number of spotted seals in Alaskan waters is not known (Angliss and Outlaw, 2005), but the estimate is most likely between several thousand and several tens of thousands (Rugh et al., 1997). Using maximum counts at known haulouts from 1992 (4,135 seals), and a preliminary correction factor for missed seals developed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Lowry et al., 1998), an abundance estimate of 59,214 was calculated for the Alaska stock (Angliss and Outlaw, 2005). Potential Effects on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat Seismic surveys using acoustic energy, such as airguns and weigh drop impact sources, may have the potential to adversely impact marine mammals in the vicinity of the activities (Gordon et al., 2004). The sound source level of the GL airgun to be used in the proposed project is 228 dB re: 1 microPa at 1 m, which is strong enough to cause hearing threshold shift
(TS)in pinnipeds when exposed for an extended duration (Kastak *et al.* , 1999). However, it is extremely unlikely that any animals would be exposed to a sound level of this magnitude since acoustic energy is attenuated as it propagates through the water column. Preliminary results of the acoustic modeling, which did not take the ice effects into consideration, shows that the received sound pressure levels
(SPLs)dropped down to 190, 180, and 160 dB re: 1 microPa root mean square
(RMS)at distances of 120 m (394 ft), 330 m (1,083 ft), and 2.22 km (1.38 mi), respectively. However, with the sea ice dampening effects, actually received SPLs at these distances are expected to be lower (Richardson *et al.* , 1995). In addition, most acoustic energy from an airgun is directed downward, and the short duration of each pulse limits the total energy (Richardson *et al.* , 1995). Intense acoustic signals from seismic surveys are also known to cause behavioral alteration in marine mammals such as reduced vocalization rates (Goold, 1996), avoidance (Malme *et al.* , 1986, 1988; Richardson *et al.* , 1995; Harris *et al.* , 2001), and changes in blow rates (Richardson *et al.* , 1995) in several marine mammal species. One controlled exposure experiment using small airguns (source level: 215 224 dB re 1 microPa peak-to-peak (p-p)) was conducted on harbor seals ( *Phoca vitulina* ) and gray seals ( *Halichoerus grypus* ) that had been fitted with telemetry devices showed fright responses in two harbor seals when playback started (Thompson *et al.* , 1998). Their heart rate dropped dramatically from 35 45 beats/min to 5 10 beats/min. However, these responses were short-lived and following a typical surfacing tachycardia; there were no further dramatic drops in heart rate. Harbor seals showed strong avoidance behavior, swimming rapidly away from the source. Stomach temperature tags revealed that they ceased feeding during this time. Only one seal showed no detectable response to the airguns and approached to within 300 m (984 ft) of the sound source. The behavior of harbor seals seemed to return to normal soon after the end of each trial. Similar avoidance reponses were also documented in gray seals. By contrast, sighting rates of ringed seals from a seismic vessel in shallow Arctic waters showed no difference between periods with the full array, partial array, or no airguns firing (Harris *et al.* , 2001). Incidental harassment to marine mammals could also result from physical activities associated with on-ice seismic operations, which have the potential to disturb and temporarily displace some seals. Pup mortality could occur if any of these animals were nursing and displacement were protracted. However, it is unlikely that a nursing female would abandon her pup given the normal levels of disturbance from the proposed activities, potential predators, and the typical movement patterns of ringed seal pups among different holes. Seals also use as many as four lairs spaced as far as 3,437 m (11,276 ft) apart. In addition, seals have multiple breathing holes. Pups may use more holes than adults, but the holes are generally closer together than those used by adults. This indicates that adult seals and pups can move away from seismic activities, particularly since the seismic equipment does not remain in any specific area for a prolonged time. Given those considerations, combined with the small proportion of the population potentially disturbed by the proposed activity, impacts are expected to be negligible for the ringed, bearded, and spotted seal populations. The seismic surveys would only introduce acoustic energy into the water column and no objects would be released into the environment. In addition, the total footprint of the proposed seismic survey area covers approximately 16 km 2 (6.2 mi 2 ), which represents only a small fraction of the Beaufort Sea pinniped habitat. Sea-ice surface rehabilitation is often immediate, occurring during the first episode of snow and wind that follows passage of the equipment over the ice. There is a relative lack of knowledge about the potential impacts of seismic energy on marine fish and invertebrates. Available data suggest that there may be physical impacts on eggs and on larval, juvenile, and adult stages of fish at very close range (within meters) to seismic energy source. Considering typical source levels associated with seismic arrays, close proximity to the source would result in exposure to very high energy levels. Where eggs and larval stages are not able to escape such exposures, juvenile and adult fish most likely would avoid them. In the cases of eggs and larvae, it is likely that the numbers adversely affected by such exposure would be very small in relation to natural mortality. Studies on fish confined in cages that were exposed under intense sound for extended period showed physical or physiological impacts (Scholik and Yan, 2001; 2002; McCauley *et al.* , 2003; Smith *et al.* , 2004). While limited data on seismic surveys regarding physiological effects on fish indicate that impacts are short-term and are most apparent after exposure at very close range (McCauley *et al.* , 2000a; 2000b; Dalen *et al.* , 1996), other studies have demonstrated that seismic guns had little effect on the day-to-day behavior of marine fish and invertebrates (Knudsen *et al.* , 1992; Wardle et al., 2001). It is more likely that fish will swim away upon hearing the seismic impulses (Engas *et al.* , 1996). Limited studies on physiological effects on marine invertebrates showed that no significant adverse effects from seismic energy were detected for Squid and cuttlefish (McCauley * et al.* , 2000) or in snow crabs (Christian *et al.* , 2003). Based on the foregoing discussion, NMFS finds preliminarily that the proposed seismic surveys would not cause any permanent impact on the physical habitats and marine mammal prey species in the proposed project area. Number of Marine Mammals Expected to Be Taken NMFS estimates that up to 28 ringed seals and much fewer bearded and spotted seals could be taken by Level B harassment as a result of the proposed on-ice geophysical R&D program. The estimate take number is based on consideration of the number of ringed seals that might be disturbed within the 16 km 2 proposed project area, calculated from the adjusted ringed seal density of 1.73 seal per km 2 (Kelly and Quakenbush, 1990). This number represents less than 0.1 percent of the total ringed seal population (estimated at 18,000) for the Beaufort Sea (Angliss and Outlaw, 2005). Due to the unavailability of reliable bearded and spotted seals densities within the proposed project area, NMFS is unable to estimate take numbers for these two species. However, it is expected much fewer bearded and spotted seals would subject to takes by Level B harassment since their occurrence is much lower within the proposed project area, especially during spring (Moulton and Lawson, 2002; Treacy, 2002a; 2002b; Bengtson et al., 2005). Consequently, the levels of take of these 2 pinniped species by Level B harassment within the proposed project area would represent only small fractions of the total population sizes of these species in Beaufort Sea. In addition, NMFS expected that the actual take of Level B harassment by the proposed geophysical program would be much lower with the implementation of the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures discussed below. Therefore, NMFS believes that any potential impacts to ringed, bearded, and spotted seals to the proposed on-ice geophysical seismic program would be insignificant, and would be limited to distant and transient exposure. Potential Effects on Subsistence Residents of the village of Nuiqsut are the primary subsistence users in the activity area. The subsistence harvest during winter and spring is primarily ringed seals, but during the open-water period both ringed and bearded seals are taken. Nuiqsut hunters may hunt year round; however, most of the harvest has been in open water instead of the more difficult hunting of seals at holes and lairs (McLaren, 1958; Nelson, 1969). Subsistence patterns may be reflected through the harvest data collected in 1992, when Nuiqsut hunters harvested 22 of 24 ringed seals and all 16 bearded seals during the open water season from July to October (Fuller and George, 1997). Harvest data for 1994 and 1995 show 17 of 23 ringed seals were taken from June to August, while there was no record of bearded seals being harvested during these years (Brower and Opie, 1997). Only a small number of ringed seals was harvested during the winter to early spring period, which corresponds to the time of the proposed on-ice seismic operations. Based on harvest patterns and other factors, on-ice seismic operations in the activity area are not expected to have an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses of ringed and bearded seals because:
(1)Operations would end before the spring ice breakup, after which subsistence hunters harvest most of their seals.
(2)The area where seismic operations would be conducted is small compared to the large Beaufort Sea subsistence hunting area associated with the extremely wide distribution of ringed seals. In order to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on the species and the subsistence use of ringed seals, SOI has notified and provided the affected subsistence community with a draft plan of cooperation. SOI held community meeting with the affected Beaufort Sea communities in mid-October 2006 and will hold meetings again in early 2007 to discuss proposed activities and to resolve potential conflicts regarding any aspects of either the operation or the plan of cooperation. Mitigation and Monitoring The following mitigation and monitoring measures are proposed for the subject on-ice seismic surveys. All activities will be conducted as far as practicable from any observed ringed seal lair and no energy source will be placed over a seal lair. SOI will employee trained seal lair sniffing dogs to locate seal structures under snow (subnivean) before the seismic program begins. The recommended prospective area for the proposed project will be surveys for the subnivean seal structures using 3 trained dogs running together. Transects will be spaced 250 m (820 ft) apart and oriented 90° to the prevailing wind direction. The search tracks of the dogs will be recorded by GPS units on the dogs and the tracks will be downloaded daily. Subnivean structures located will be probed by steel rod to check if each is open (active), or frozen (abandoned). Structures will be categorized by size, structure and odor to ascertain whether the structure is a birth lair, resting lair, resting lair of rutting male seals, or a breathing hole. Locations of seal structures will be marked and monitored and adjustment to the seismic operation will be made to avoid the lairs. Seismic sources for the program will be recorded into 5 sensor groups: analog surface receivers, digital surface receivers, hydrophones in the water column, and 3 different types of 4-component ocean bottom sensors on the seafloor. Each source will be recorded into the 5 receiver groups. Water column monitoring of sound levels will be most directly accomplished by monitoring sound levels from the hydrophones. Density of receivers is very high, with spacing of 5 m (16.4 ft), so a detailed characterization of the sound levels can be accomplished. A range of receiver offsets will be available up to the maximum program offset of 4,000 m (13,123 ft). Additionally, the surface and ocean bottom censors can be used as supplemental information in the determination of source levels and propagation distances for the experiment. NMFS and SOI are proposing a 500 m (1,640 ft) exclusion zone around all located active subnivean seal structures, which no seismic or impact surveys will be conducted. During active seismic and impact source testing an on-ice 500 m (1,640 ft) safety zone will be established. The size of the safety zone shall then be adjusted to match the 190 dB rms re: 1 microPa isopleth based on seismic source monitoring. On ice monitoring must be conducted by a trained, NMFS-approved marine mammal observer
(MMO)for entry by any marine mammal. No seismic or impact surveys will be conducted if a marine mammal is observed entering the monitored safety zone. To further reduce the potential impacts to marine mammals, SOI will implement soft-start (ramp-up) procedure when starting operations of the airgun or impact sources. Airgun and impact sources will be initiated at 50 percent of its full level and slowly (not more than 6 dB per 5 minutes) increase their power to full capacity. Reporting An annual report must be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of completing the year's activities.The report must contain detail description of the any marine mammal, by species, number, age class, and sex if possible, that is sighted in the vicinity of the proposed project area; whether the animal is harassment; and the context of behavior change due to Level B harassment. Endangered Species Act
(ESA)NMFS has determined that no species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA will be affected by issuing an incidental harassment authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA to SOI for the proposed on-ice seismic survey. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)The information provided in the Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment
(EA)on the *Arctic Ocean Outer Continental Shelf Seismic Surveys - 2006* prepared by the Mineral Management Service
(MMS)in June 2006 led NMFS to conclude that implementation of either the preferred alternative or other alternatives identified in the EA would not have a significant impact on the human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement was not prepared. The proposed action discussed in this document is not substantially different from the 2006 actions, and a reference search has indicated that no significant new scientific information or analyses have been developed in the past several years that would warrant new NEPA documentation. Preliminary Conclusions The anticipated impact of the proposed on-ice seismic program on the species or stock of ringed, bearded, and spotted seals is expected to be negligible for the following reasons:
(1)The proposed activity would only occur in a small area which supports a small proportion (<0.1 percent) of the ringed seal populations in the Beaufort Sea. The numbers of bearded and spotted seals within the proposed project area is expected to be even lower than that of ringed seals.
(2)The following mitigation and monitoring procedures will be implemented:
(a)using trained seal lair sniffing dogs to conduct pre-operational survey and monitoring of ringed seal lairs and breathing holes within the proposed action area;
(b)conducting activities as far away from any observed seal structures as possible;
(c)establishing safety zone based on isopleth of 190 dB rms re: 1 microPa and (d); monitoring safety zones during operations of airgun and impact sources by a trained MMO, and soft-start (ramp-up) procedure when initiating airgun. As a result, NMFS believes the effects of on-ice geophysical R&D program are expected to be limited to short-term and localized behavioral changes involving relatively small numbers of ringed seals, and may also potentially affect any bearded and spotted seals in the vicinity. NMFS has preliminarily determined, based on information in the application and supporting documents, that these changes in behavior will have no more than a negligible impact on the affected pinniped species and populations within the proposed action area. Also, the potential effects of the proposed on-ice geophysical project during 2007 will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses of these species. Proposed Authorization NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to SOI for conducting on-ice geophysical R&D program in the U.S. Beaufort Sea, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed activity would result in the harassment of small numbers of ringed seals, and potentially any bearded and spotted seals in the vicinity; would have no more than a negligible impact on the affected pinniped species and stocks; and would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of seals for subsistence uses. Dated: January 31, 2007. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-1875 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Draft Framework for Developing the National System of Marine Protected Areas AGENCY: National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Extension of Public Comment Period on the Draft Framework for Developing the National System of Marine Protected Areas. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce published a notice in the **Federal Register** on September 22, 2006 (71 FR 55432) announcing a 145-day public comment period on the Draft Framework for Developing the National System of Marine Protected Areas (Draft Framework). Copies of the Draft Framework can be requested via the contact information below or downloaded from *http://www.mpa.gov* . The deadline for public comment on the draft Framework is hereby extended. DATES: The extended deadline for public comment on the draft Framework is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on February 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Joseph Uravitch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Protected Areas Center, 1305 East West Highway, N/ORM, Silver Spring, MD 20910. *Fax:*
(301)713-3110. *E-mail: mpa.comments@noaa.gov* . Comments will be accepted in written form by mail, e-mail, or fax. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Refer to the **Federal Register** notice of September 22, 2006, or contact Jonathan Kelsey at
(301)563-1130, or via e-mail at *mpa.comments@noaa.gov* . Dated: January 31, 2007. David M. Kennedy, Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. [FR Doc. E7-1896 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Legal Processes 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 April 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: Susan.Fawcett* @uspto.gov. Include “0651-0046 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 Shirley Hassan, Office of General Law, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-3000; or by e-mail at *Shirley.Hassan@uspto.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The purpose of this collection is to cover information requirements related to civil actions and claims involving current and former employees of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The rules for these legal processes may be found under 37 CFR Part 104, which outlines procedures for service of process, demands for employee testimony and production of documents in legal proceedings, reports of unauthorized testimony, employee indemnification, and filing claims against the USPTO under the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. 2672) and the corresponding Department of Justice regulations (28 CFR Part 14). The public may also petition the USPTO Office of General Counsel under 37 CFR 104.3 to waive or suspend these rules in extraordinary cases. The procedures under 37 CFR Part 104 ensure that service of process intended for current and former employees of the USPTO is handled properly. The USPTO will only accept service of process for an employee acting in an official capacity. This collection is necessary so that respondents or their representatives can serve a summons or complaint on the USPTO, demand employee testimony and documents related to a legal proceeding, or file a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Respondents may also petition the USPTO to waive or suspend these rules for legal processes. This collection is also necessary so that current and former USPTO employees may properly forward service and demands to the Office of General Counsel, report unauthorized testimony, and request indemnification. The USPTO covers current employees as respondents under this information collection even though their responses do not require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. In those instances where both current and former employees may respond to the USPTO, the agency estimates that the number of respondents will be small. There are no forms provided by the USPTO for this collection. For filing claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the public may use Standard Form 95 “Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death,” which is provided by the Department of Justice and approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under OMB Control Number 1105-0008. II. Method of Collection By mail or hand delivery to the USPTO. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0651-0046. *Form Number(s):* None. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; businesses or other for-profits; not-for-profit institutions; and the Federal Government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 176 responses per year. *Estimated Time Per Response:* The USPTO estimates that it will take the public from 5 minutes (0.08 hours) to 1 hour to gather the necessary information, prepare the appropriate documents, and submit the information required for this collection. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours:* 31 hours per year. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden:* $9,189 per year. The USPTO expects that the information in this collection will be prepared by attorneys and former employees, except for the requests for employee indemnification, which generally come from professional and supervisory staff. Since many of the former employees affected by this collection are attorneys, the attorney rate will be used for former employees as well. Using the professional rate of $304 per hour for associate attorneys in private firms, the USPTO estimates that the respondent cost burden for attorneys and former employees submitting the information in this collection will be $9,120 per year. Using the estimate of $69 per hour for professional and supervisory staff, the USPTO expects that the respondent cost burden for submitting requests for employee indemnification will be $69 per year. Therefore, the respondent cost burden for this collection will be $9,189 per year. Item Estimated time for response Estimated annual responses Estimated annual burden hours Petition to Waive Rules 30 minutes 7 4 Service of Process 5 minutes 130 10 Forwarding Service 10 minutes 7 1 Employee Testimony and Production of Documents in Legal Proceedings 30 minutes 18 9 Forwarding Demands 10 minutes 7 1 Report of Unauthorized Testimony 30 minutes 1 1 Report of Possible Indemnification Cases 30 minutes 3 2 Employee Indemnification 30 minutes 1 1 Tort Claims 1 hour 2 2 Total 76 31 *Estimated Total Annual Non-hour Respondent Cost Burden:* $2,013 per year. There are no capital start-up, maintenance, or recordkeeping costs associated with this information collection. However, this collection does have annual (non-hour) costs in the form of filing fees and postage costs. This collection has filing fees associated with the petition to waive or suspend the legal process rules under 37 CFR 104.3. The filing fee for this petition is $130, and the USPTO estimates that approximately seven petitions will be filed per year for a total filing cost of $910. There are no other filing fees associated with this information collection. 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 for a mailed submission, other than a Service of Process, will be 52 cents and that up to 46 of these submissions will be mailed to the USPTO per year, for a postage cost of $24. The USPTO estimates that the average postage for a Service of Process will be $8.30 and that up to 130 of these submissions will be mailed to the USPTO per year, for a postage cost of $1,079. The total estimated postage cost for this collection is $1,103 per year. The total non-hour respondent cost burden for this collection in the form of filing fees and postage costs is $2,013 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 30, 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. E7-1871 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Notice of Open Meeting AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs); DoD. SUMMARY: In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of Public Law 92-463, The Federal Advisory Committee Act, announcement is made of the following meeting: *Name of Committee:* DoD Task Force on Mental Health, a Subcommittee of the Defense Health Board. *Dates:* February 26, 2007 (Morning—Open Session), February 27, 2007 (Afternoon—Open Session). *Times:* 0800-1215 hours (26 February) 1530-1730 hours (27 February). *Location:* DoubleTree Hotel, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. *Agenda:* The purpose of the meeting is to obtain, review, and evaluate information related to the Mental Health Task Force's congressionally-directed task of assessing the efficacy of mental health services provided to members of the Armed Forces by the Department of Defense. The Task Force members will receive briefings on topics related to mental health concerns among military service members and mental health care delivery. The Task Force will hold a “Town Hall Meeting” session to hear concerns from the Washington, DC Metro Area Active Duty Military, National Guard and Reserve, and Veterans communities. The Task Force will also meet in administrative session to consider administrative matters. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colonel Roger Gibson, Executive Secretary, Defense Health Board, Skyline One, 5205 Leesburg Pike, Suite 810, Falls Church, VA 22041,
(703)681-3279, ext. 123. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The morning session on February 26, and the afternoon session on February 27, 2007 will be open to the public in accordance with Section 552b(b) of Title 5, U.S.C., specifically subparagraph
(1)thereof and Title 5, U.S.C., appendix 1, subsection 10(d). Open sessions of the meeting will be limited by space accommodations. Any interested person may attend, and submit matters to the Board's point of contact for consideration by the Board. All comments must be received no later than 5 business days prior to the Board meeting. Dated: January 30, 2007. C.R. Choate, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 07-500 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 6
Traces to 6 documents
CFR
5 references not yet in our index
- 50 CFR 216.103
- Pub. L. 104-13
- 37 CFR 104
- 28 CFR 14
- Pub. L. 92-463
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
Cite50 CFR 216.103
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-13
Cite37 CFR 104
Cite28 CFR 14
Pub. L.Pub. L. 92-463
Cites 11Cited by 0 across 0 sources