Proposed Rules. Notice of data availability and reopening of comment period

11,023 words·~50 min read·/register/2007/02/09/07-582

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

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket No. EE-RM/STD-01-350] RIN 1904-AA78 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Furnaces and Boilers AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of data availability and reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: A notice of proposed rulemaking

(NOPR)to amend the current minimum energy conservation standards for residential furnaces and boilers was published in the **Federal Register** on October 6, 2006. 71 FR 59204. On October 30, 2006, the Department of Energy

(DOE)held a public meeting for interested parties to provide comments and discuss relevant issues. At the public meeting, DOE indicated it would respond to two particular questions that stakeholders raised regarding DOE's NOPR estimates for potential energy savings associated with regional standards for non-weatherized gas furnaces in Northern regions, and regarding new installation costs for oil-fired furnaces. This notice both addresses the stakeholders questions and reopens the comment period to provide an opportunity for public review and comment on DOE's response to each question. DATES: DOE will accept comments until February 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding the proposed rule no later than the date provided in the DATES section. Any comments submitted must include the docket number EE-RM/STD-01-350 and/or Regulatory Information Number

(RIN)1904-AA78. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods: 1. *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail:* *ResidentialFBNOPRComments@ee.doe.gov* . Include the docket number EE-RM/STD-01-350 and/or RIN 1904-AA78 in the subject line of the message. 3. *Mail:* Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please submit one signed original paper copy. 4. *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Room 1J-018, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585. *Telephone:*

(202)586-2945. Please submit one signed original paper copy. Electronic comments must be submitted in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Portable Document Format (PDF), or text (ASCII) file format. Avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Copies of public comments may be examined in the Resource Room of the Appliance Standards Office of the Building Technologies Program, Room 1J-018 in the Forrestal Building at the U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at the above telephone number for additional information about visiting the Resource Room. Please note: the DOE's Freedom of Information Reading Room (formerly Room 1E-190 at the Forrestal Building) is no longer servicing rulemakings. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121,

(202)586-7892, *E-mail:* *Mohammed.Khan@ee.doe.gov;* or Francine Pinto, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, Forrestal Building, Mailstop GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585,

(202)586-7432, *E-mail* : *Francine.Pinto@ee.doe.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. Discussion A. Regional Analysis B. Installation Cost Differences I. Background Part B of Title III of EPCA authorizes DOE to establish energy conservation standards for various consumer products including those residential furnaces and boilers for which DOE determines that energy conservation standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)) Pursuant to EPCA, DOE published a NOPR on October 6, 2006, to amend the energy conservation standards for residential furnaces and boilers. 71 FR 59204. Thereafter, DOE held a public meeting on October 30, 2006, to address the proposed rule (hereafter referred to as the October 2006 public meeting). At the October 2006 public meeting, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and the Appliance Standards Awareness Project

(ASAP)questioned DOE's estimates of the energy savings that would likely result from regional standards for non-weatherized gas furnaces in Northern regions (cold states). (ASAP and ACEEE, No. 107.6 at pp. 153-159) 1 In addition, ACEEE requested further clarification of new installation cost increases applied in the proposed rule for oil-fired furnaces that were rated between 82 percent and 83 percent for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE). (ACEEE, No. 107.6 at p. 121) Today's notice of data availability and extension of the comment period addresses both the estimates of energy savings from regional energy conservation standards for non-weatherized gas furnaces and the cost increases associated with the installation of new oil-fired furnaces. In addition, it provides an opportunity for stakeholders to review and comment on DOE's revised estimates. 1 A notation in the form “ASAP and ACEEE, No. 107.6 at pp. 153-159,” identifies a comment in the transcript of the Public Meeting on Standards for Furnaces and Boilers held in Washington, DC, 10/30/2006, which is document number 107.6 in the docket of this rulemaking. This particular notation refers to a comment

(1)by the American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy (ACEEE) and the Applicance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP),

(2)in the document number 107.6 in the docket of this rulemaking (maintained in the Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program), and

(3)appearing on pages 153-159 of document number 107.6. II. Discussion A. Regional Analysis During the October 2006 public meeting, ACEEE and ASAP questioned DOE's estimates of the energy savings that would likely result from regional standards for non-weatherized gas furnaces in cold states. The estimates in the NOPR indicated that the energy savings would likely be much lower where the regions were defined using 6000 Heating Degree Days (HDD), compared to those where the regions were defined using 5000 HDD (as listed in Table VI.1.—Non-Regulatory Alternatives To Standards, 71 FR 59253). The results presented in the NOPR for the Northern (cold states) and Southern (warm states) regions (using either the 5000 or 6000 HDD threshold) (as listed in Table VI.1.—Non-Regulatory Alternatives To Standards, 71 FR 59253) were generated by the national impact analysis

(NIA)spreadsheet, which utilizes inputs generated by life-cycle cost spreadsheets constructed to separately analyze each region. DOE performed the NIA on the basis of the nine U.S. Census Bureau (cartographic) divisions, plus four large states (New York, California, Texas, and Florida), rather than on a state-by-state basis (as explained in section 10.5 of the NOPR Technical Support Document (TSD)). Based on condensing gas furnace sales data expressed as a percentage of total gas furnace sales, as provided by the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association (GAMA), DOE was able to derive the base case for analyzing the potential impacts of regional energy conservation standards. Then, DOE applied the state-level GAMA data to the nine U.S. Census Bureau divisions, assuming that condensing gas furnaces were installed in households solely on the basis of climate (i.e., high HDDs). In other words, within each U.S. Census Bureau division, DOE assumed that condensing gas furnaces were used primarily by households that experienced high HDDs. Thus, in the analysis, DOE assigned condensing gas furnaces to 90.4 percent of households with greater than 6000 HDD. It was this assumption that led to the relatively small energy savings estimated to result from a condensing level standard for states or regions with more than 6000 HDD (on average), and the relatively large increment of energy savings estimated to result from the same standard when applied to all states or regions with more than 5000 HDD (on average). 71 FR 59253. Upon further examination, DOE found that its assumption, that the existing (and future) market for condensing gas furnaces (absent a standard) was likely to be concentrated in the coldest states or regions, was not consistent with the state-by-state sales data provided by GAMA. Consequently, DOE is considering alternative analyses that would reflect a distribution of condensing gas furnaces which is more consistent with the GAMA sales data. Reliance on an alternative analysis that addresses the distribution of condensing gas furnaces will primarily impact the regulatory impact analysis. However, DOE does not anticipate that changes to the distribution of condensing gas furnaces relied upon in the NOPR analysis, will impact the determination of the appropriate energy conservation standards levels. In view of the above, Table 1 below provides the results of one possible alternative analysis under consideration by DOE. Table 1.—Non-Regulatory Alternatives to Standards Policy alternatives Energy savings (quads) Net present value (billion $) 7% discount rate 3% discount rate Regional Performance Standards for NWGF * * *: Cold States (≥5000 HDD) (TSL 4) 1.83 0.88 6.43 Warm States (<5000 HDD) (TSL 2) 0.004 0.01 0.03 Regional Performance Standards for NWGF * * *: Cold States (≥6000 HDD) (TSL 4) 1.32 0.72 4.90 Warm States (<6000 HDD) (TSL 2) 0.005 0.01 0.05 The alternative assumptions for the state or regional distribution of condensing furnaces in the base case are likely to have some effect on other facets of DOE's analysis, but none of these other effects are likely to be significant. While this alternative analysis of the possible impacts of regional standards does not have any significant effects on DOE's assessment of the benefits and burdens associated with the trial standards levels for national standards, it could affect stakeholder assessments of possible alternatives to a national standard. For this reason, DOE concluded that it should present the alternative results for stakeholder consideration and comment. B. Installation Cost Differences At the October 2006 public meeting, ACEEE requested further clarification of the new installation cost increases applied in the NOPR analysis for oil-fired furnaces rated between 82 percent and 83 percent AFUE. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 107.6 at p. 121) In the Advance Notice of Public Rulemaking (ANOPR), DOE calculated the installation costs for oil-fired furnaces by assuming that upgraded Category III venting systems would be needed to prevent corrosion in 100 percent of the installations rated 84 percent AFUE and above (as explained in section 6.5.5 in the ANOPR TSD). DOE presented these installation costs at the ANOPR public meeting and received the following comments from ACEEE and GAMA. GAMA commented that Brookhaven National Lab

(BNL)had done an extensive amount of work on oil venting and that DOE should ask BNL for its information as a data resource for oil-fired furnace venting systems. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 59.8 at p. 112.) ACEEE commented that there are oil-fired boilers rated 86 percent AFUE and oil furnaces rated 84 percent AFUE that have significant market share. ACEEE recommended that DOE reexamine the application of Category III vents at efficiency levels rated below 84 percent AFUE, determine at which efficiency level Category III vents are required 100 percent of the time, and apply some type of phase-in of the venting systems, rather than a single-step function as DOE had done in the ANOPR analysis. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 59.8 at p. 113.) In response to the comments both from GAMA and ACEEE, DOE further examined oil-fired furnace venting systems and consulted with BNL on furnace installation requirements. BNL indicated that some fraction of the installations rated at 83 percent AFUE may require Category III venting systems. As a result of its consultations with BNL, DOE revised its venting-model assumptions, which characterized the rate of required Category III venting systems, from using a step function to a more linear, “phase-in” function, which assigns a Category III-requirement rate of 25 percent for oil-fired furnaces rated at 83 percent AFUE, and gradually increases the percentage of installations using Category III venting systems for oil-fired furnaces rated above 83 percent AFUE. DOE's approach is further detailed and explained in section 6.5.6 of the NOPR TSD for oil-fired furnaces. DOE used a per-installation cost adder for Category III venting systems that does not change with the AFUE level of oil-fired furnaces. It is the change in the assumed frequency of installations requiring Category III venting systems which results in the cost differences. Table 2, below, compares the DOE's ANOPR and NOPR assumptions about the fraction of the oil furnaces that require Category III venting systems at certain efficiency levels: Table 2.—Fraction of the Oil Furnaces Requiring Category III Venting Systems Efficiency level ANOPR (percent) NOPR (percent) 82% and below 0 0 83% 0 25 84% 100 50 85% 100 75 86% and above 100 100 DOE welcomes comment on its assumptions for use of Category III venting systems for oil-fired furnaces. Issued in Washington, DC, on February 2, 2007. Alexander A. Karsner, Assistant Secretary Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. [FR Doc. E7-2167 Filed 2-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 10 CFR Part 431 [Docket Number: EE-RM/STD-00-550] RIN 1904-AB08 Energy Conservation Program for Commercial Equipment: Distribution Transformers Energy Conservation Standards AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of data availability and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(DOE)issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NOPR)for liquid-immersed and medium-voltage, dry-type distribution transformers under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). In response to this notice, stakeholders commented that DOE's standard may prevent or render impractical the replacement of distribution transformers in certain space-constrained (e.g., vault) installations. Some stakeholders suggested that DOE's analysis of the benefits and burdens of the proposed standard should take into consideration the potential impacts of replacing transformers in space-constrained vaults. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), DOE factored weight-dependent installation costs in the analysis, but did not specifically address potential costs related to transformers installed in vaults. In today's notice, DOE requests comment on inclusion of potential costs related to size constraints of transformers installed in vaults. DOE also is considering an additional option for the final efficiency levels for liquid-immersed distribution transformers and by this notice invites public comment on this additional option. DATES: DOE will accept written comments, data, and information in response to this notice, but no later than March 12, 2007. See section VI, “Public Participation,” of this notice for details. ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted must identify the Notice of Data Availability for Distribution Transformers Energy Conservation Standards, and provide the docket number EE-RM/STD-00-550 and/or Regulatory Information Number

(RIN)1904-AB08. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods: 1. *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail* : *TransformerNOPRComment@ee.doe.gov* . Include the docket number EE-RM/STD-00-550 and/or RIN 1904-AB08 in the subject line of the message. 3. *Mail:* Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please submit one signed original paper copy. 4. *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Room 1J-018, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. *Telephone:*

(202)586-2945. Please submit one signed original paper copy. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section VI. of this document (Public Participation). *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, visit the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1J-018 (Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program), 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC,

(202)586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at the above telephone number for additional information regarding visiting the Resource Room. Please note: DOE's Freedom of Information Reading Room (formerly Room 1E-190 at the Forrestal Building) is no longer housing rulemaking materials. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Antonio Bouza, Project Manager, Energy Conservation Standards for Distribution Transformers, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121,

(202)586-4563, *e-mail* : *Antonio.Bouza@ee.doe.gov.* Francine Pinto, Esq. or Chris Calamita, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, Mailstop GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585,

(202)586-7432, *e-mail:* *Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov.* or *Christopher.Calamita@hq.doe.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction II. Transformer Size Issues A. DOE's Treatment of Size Issues in the NOPR Analysis B. Summary of Comments on Size Issues for Vault Transformers C. Size Constraints in DOE's NOPR Analysis III. DOE's Proposed Revisions to Estimating Size Burdens A. Vault Transformer Subgroup Analysis B. Addressing Size Constraints for Vault Transformers C. Potential Approaches for Estimating the Cost Impacts of Satisfying Constraints Without Vault Modifications D. Potential Approaches for Estimating the Cost Impacts of Satisfying Constraints With Vault Modifications IV. Summary of Size Issue V. Consideration of Final Efficiency Levels VI. Public Participation A. Submission of Comments B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment I. Introduction Part C of Title III of EPCA authorizes DOE to establish energy conservation standards for distributions transformers for which DOE determines that energy conservation standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6317(a).) Pursuant to EPCA, DOE published a NOPR for liquid-immersed and medium-voltage, dry-type distribution transformers on August 4, 2006. 71 FR 44356. Together with the NOPR, DOE published a technical support document

(TSD)that details each analysis DOE conducted for the rulemaking, providing specific information on its methodology and results. These documents are available at the following DOE Web site: *http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/distribution_transformers.html.* DOE subsequently held a public meeting on September 27, 2006, and invited comments from stakeholders until October 18, 2006. Some stakeholders commented that DOE had not properly considered potentially significant economic impacts of the minimum efficiency standard on space-constrained vault transformer installations. Vault transformers are distribution transformers that are used in underground distribution networks, where the transformers are installed below ground level. Often found in urban areas, these transformers are installed inside a concrete vault that is open at the top, which can be very expensive to replace or expand. As transformers are manufactured to be more energy efficient, they tend to increase in size. For this reason, stakeholders expressed concern that DOE's mandatory standard may not allow for practical replacement of transformers in certain existing space constrained installations. In the analysis for the NOPR, DOE considered potential weight-dependent costs for installation, but DOE did not factor potential space-constraint costs of vault transformers in its analysis. DOE acknowledges the concern with space-constrained installations, and in this notice outlines for stakeholder comment analytical approaches that take into consideration potential costs related to distribution transformers installed in vaults. This notice presents analytical approaches DOE is considering for addressing stakeholder concern on the space-constrained vault transformer issue. DOE invites stakeholders to comment on these approaches, or to propose alternatives to DOE. II. Transformer Size Issues A. DOE's Treatment of Size Issues in the NOPR Analysis In the life-cycle cost

(LCC)spreadsheets DOE published with the NOPR, DOE provided external dimensions and weight information for each of the distribution transformer designs it considered in its analysis. For distribution transformers, size is very closely correlated with weight, and DOE developed weight-dependent installation costs for transformers using scaling relationships developed from RS Means installation cost data (see TSD, Chapter 7). Although DOE's LCC spreadsheets contained external dimensional information for each transformer in the design database, DOE's NOPR did not report transformer size as a function of trial standard level (TSL). For today's notice, DOE calculated the volumes of those transformers selected by the LCC spreadsheets, as a function of TSL, for the two design lines

(DLs)for which transformer vault constraints are most likely to be an issue: DL4 and DL5. 1 Tables II.1 and II.2 provide the average volume distributions for DL4 and DL5, respectively. For these tables, DOE sorted the transformers from the smallest to the largest volume for the distribution of transformers purchased at each standard level. DOE then calculated the minimum volume, the maximum volume, and the transformer volume at the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles. These distributions illustrate the degree to which average transformer volumes of selected designs in the NOPR LCC analysis varied by TSL. 1 DL4 includes 15-500 kilovolt-ampere

(kVA)liquid-immersed, three-phase transformers, and is represented in the LCC analysis by a 150 kVA transformer. DL5 includes 750-2500 kVA liquid-immersed, three-phase transformers, and is represented in the LCC analysis by a 1500 kVA transformer. Table II.1.—Transformer Volume in Cubic Feet, NOPR LCC Results for Design Line 4 (150 kVA) Design line 4 Base case TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 Minimum 61.11 63.89 66.55 66.41 66.41 80.24 87.50 10th percentile 62.50 66.41 69.01 69.01 69.01 80.24 87.50 25th percentile 64.93 67.71 69.36 70.54 70.54 80.24 87.50 50th percentile 69.01 71.61 75.14 75.87 75.87 81.60 87.50 75th percentile 75.87 76.16 78.88 81.60 81.60 86.11 88.89 90th percentile 81.94 81.94 81.94 85.68 85.68 87.04 88.89 Maximum 90.28 90.28 91.67 91.67 91.67 91.67 90.74 Table II.2.—Transformer Volume in Cubic Feet, NOPR LCC Results for Design Line 5 (1500 kVA) Design line 5 Base case TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 Minimum 202.22 223.81 222.96 229.93 233.41 247.35 247.35 10th percentile 215.91 227.99 233.41 233.41 236.90 250.83 250.83 25th percentile 226.45 233.41 236.90 233.41 236.90 257.80 257.80 50th percentile 236.90 236.90 240.38 240.38 240.38 257.80 257.80 75th percentile 240.38 240.38 241.03 243.87 247.35 257.80 257.80 90th percentile 250.83 250.83 250.83 250.83 250.83 257.80 257.80 Maximum 261.28 261.28 261.28 261.28 261.28 257.80 257.80 Relative to the base case for DL4, the increase in volume of the smallest transformer (i.e., “minimum”) is nine percent or less for TSL4 and lower, while the largest transformer (i.e., “maximum”) has an increase in volume relative to the base case of two percent or less for TSL4 and lower. Relative to the base case for DL5, the increase in volume of the smallest transformer is 16 percent or less for TSL4 and lower, while the largest transformer has no increase in volume. B. Summary of Comments on Size Issues for Vault Transformers DOE received comments on both size and weight issues from stakeholders during both the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) and NOPR phases of the rulemaking. In the NOPR, DOE requested comment on “whether the Department should include space occupancy costs in the cost of transformers as a means of accounting for space constraints.” 71 FR 44407. In response to this request, commenters provided feedback both during the public meeting and in their written comments. HVOLT commented that it endorsed the concept of using space occupancy costs in the evaluation of the impacts of space-constrained utility transformers. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 108.6 at p. 129) The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) recommended that DOE calculate what “the average cost of a vault modification is times the percentage of applications that will trigger.” (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 108.6 at p. 130) The Edison Electric Institute

(EEI)commented that space occupancy costs should be included but that such costs may be difficult to estimate and may range from 10 percent of the cost of a transformer to 100 percent of the transformer cost. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 108.6 at p. 129-130) In written comments after the NOPR public meeting, ACEEE commented that vault transformer costs should be treated using methods similar to the methods DOE used for distribution transformer pole costs in the NOPR analysis. (ACEEE, No. 127 at p. 6) EEI, in its written comments, emphasized the importance of the potential costs for vault transformers since this effect could create serious service reliability issues for some utilities. (EEI, No. 137 at p. 3) In its comments and submissions in response to the ANOPR, EEI provided limited data on potential costs that could be applicable to vault transformers. (EEI, No. 63 at pp. 20-62) In its submission, EEI provided a survey in which it asked its members, as well as members of the American Public Power Association

(APPA)and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), the following question: “For currently existing pad-mount units in urban areas that need to be replaced, what kind of impact would a 10%, 25%, or 50% size increase have on the installed costs?” EEI received nine responses from its members, eight responses from APPA members, and one response from an NRECA member. EEI packaged all these responses and provided them to the DOE as one comment. Of these responses, a few were directly relevant to vault transformers, with most responses noting some impact but not quantifying the size of the impacts. EEI member #6 commented that “Should the transformer pad or vault lid require replacement in order to fit the larger transformer, then additional costs ranging from $500 to $1,500 will apply.” (EEI, No. 63 at p. 36) At the high end of cost estimates, APPA member #5 commented that “size would be an issue if we had to change out units to larger. Cost per location can cost approx. $15k.” (EEI, No. 63 at p. 42) Other EEI, APPA, or NRECA members did not provide specific estimates for relocation, vault replacement, or vault modification costs for vault transformers. C. Size Constraints in DOE's NOPR Analysis While DOE did include size-dependent installation costs for distribution transformers in its analysis (see NOPR TSD, Chapter 7), it did not include the additional space-constraint costs that may be borne by vault transformers. Since stakeholders presented this issue as a substantial concern in their comments on the NOPR, and since DOE agrees that it did not include these costs in the NOPR analysis, DOE intends to consider these costs in its analysis for the final rule. III. DOE's Proposed Revisions to Estimating Size Burdens A. Vault Transformer Subgroup Analysis In response to the stakeholder comments summarized above, DOE intends to conduct a subgroup sensitivity analysis of vault transformers to estimate space-constraint costs for the final rule. This issue is primarily of concern for liquid-immersed, three-phase distribution transformers, as this type of transformer is most often used in vault applications. Therefore DOE intends to conduct its sensitivity analysis on its two design lines that represent three-phase liquid-immersed distribution transformers, DL4 and DL5. Information provided by Howard Industries suggests that less than 0.5 percent of transformers are used in submersible or vault applications. (Howard Industries, No. 143 at p.5) Taking that estimate of 0.5 percent of all liquid-immersed transformers are vault transformers, and assuming they are all large, three-phase units such as those in DL5, the percentage of vault transformers could account for a sizeable portion of total DL5 sales—perhaps as high as 25 percent. If the estimate of 0.5 percent of all liquid-immersed shipments were instead assumed to all be smaller three-phase transformers (i.e., DL4), the fraction of DL4 transformers affected by such space constraints is likely to be less than a few percent. Stakeholders are invited to comment on the proportion of distribution transformers sold that are installed in underground vaults, particularly with respect to the liquid-immersed, three-phase design lines, DL4 and DL5. B. Addressing Size Constraints for Vault Transformers DOE recognizes that, where vault dimensional constraints are an issue, transformer customers have several options available to them, including: 1. Rewinding or refurbishing the existing transformer, 2. Purchasing a lower-kVA transformer and subjecting it to higher loading (or re-routing part of the load served), 3. Purchasing a transformer—constructed of higher-performing core steel and/or other materials—that is standards-compliant without being significantly larger (with added cost), 4. Rebuilding or expanding the existing vault, or 5. Petitioning DOE for waiver from energy conservation standard requirements. DOE expects that the first two options, if available, would be cheaper than purchasing a new transformer. DOE therefore proposes to focus its analysis of the LCC impacts from dimensionally constrained vault transformers on the third and fourth options as part of an LCC subgroup analysis published with the final rule. C. Potential Approaches for Estimating the Cost Impacts of Satisfying Constraints Without Vault Modifications Considering option 3 from the above list, DOE could estimate the cost of purchasing a transformer of the same size, but constructed of higher-performing materials, such as better grades of core steel or copper conductor, by performing a size-constrained LCC calculation for both DL4 and DL5. In this calculation, DOE could assume the standards-compliant transformer in the LCC calculation was constrained at certain sizes, e.g., at the 25th and 50th percentiles of the distribution transformer volumes in the base case. As a function of standard level, DOE could then run the LCC spreadsheets and calculate the LCC of the space-constrained transformers (at prescribed dimensional percentiles), and compare those values to the LCC from the unconstrained transformer analysis. The difference in LCC between the two cases would quantify the impact of satisfying the space constraint with better materials as a function of efficiency level for that subgroup of dimensionally constrained vault transformers. D. Potential Approaches for Estimating the Cost Impacts of Satisfying Constraints With Vault Modifications Considering option 4 from the above list, DOE could add an additional size-dependent installation cost to the transformers included in the LCC subgroup analysis for vault transformers to account for a relatively high underground vault-space cost. DOE invites additional stakeholder input or data on what would be reasonable fixed and variable costs (e.g., per cubic foot) for DL4 and DL5. For this option, DOE would apply the vault replacement costs (with both a fixed and variable cost) when a transformer exceeds the median volume of the transformers in the base case. Given a review of cost estimation data for utility vault reconstruction, the Department currently estimates a fixed cost for vault replacement of $1740 per vault and a variable cost of $26 per cubic foot of transformer. Vault replacement may be required for the higher TSLs (TSL5 and above for both DL4 and DL5). In its standard LCC calculation, DOE based transformer selection on the manufacturer selling price. For this calculation, however, DOE proposes to assume that the customer choice of transformer design is based on total installed cost because customers are likely to be conscious of space constraint costs. IV. Summary of Size Issue DOE intends to consider space-constrained vault transformers as part of the LCC subgroup analysis for the final rule. DOE seeks comment from stakeholders on the proportion of distribution transformers sold which are installed in underground vaults, particularly with respect to the liquid-immersed, three-phase design lines, DL4 and DL5. In this notice, DOE outlines different approaches as to how it might account for those additional installation costs. DOE requests that stakeholders review these approaches and provide comment on the methodology and inputs. DOE intends to use the same LCC spreadsheet tools for estimating LCC impacts on vault transformers, with minor modifications, as it used to analyze the other LCC subgroups in the NOPR (see NOPR TSD, Chapter 11). V. Consideration of Final Efficiency Levels DOE notes that in the NOPR, the proposed final standard for liquid-immersed distribution transformers was based on the efficiency levels presented in TSL 2. 71 FR 44407. While the proposed standard was based on TSL 2, DOE-evaluated efficiency levels associated with a series of TSLs. Analysis of the other TSLs indicated that some of the efficiency levels set forth in TSL 3 and TSL 4 may be justifiable for specific liquid-immersed distribution transformer designs and capacities. (See Table IV.4 in 71 FR 44378 and Tables EA.3 through EA.10 in pages EA.6 through EA.13 of the Environmental Assessment Report published with the NOPR TSD) Referencing this analysis, some commenters suggested that DOE establish a final standard that incorporates higher efficiency levels from other TSLs, which preliminarily appeared to comply with the requirements of EPCA. Based on the comments received to date, DOE is inclined to consider a final standard that is based on efficiency levels from TSL 2 and/or 3 for three-phase, liquid-immersed, distribution transformers and efficiency levels from TSL 2, 3, and/or 4 for single-phase liquid-immersed, distribution transformers. Today's notice provides stakeholders an opportunity to comment on this potential consideration. VI. Public Participation A. Submission of Comments DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice no later than the date provided at the beginning of this notice. Comments, data, and information submitted to the Department's e-mail address for this rulemaking should be provided in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format. Stakeholders should avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption, and wherever possible, comments should include the electronic signature of the author. Absent an electronic signature, comments submitted electronically must be followed and authenticated by submitting a signed original paper document to the address provided at the beginning of this notice. Comments, data, and information submitted to the Department via mail or hand delivery/courier should include one signed original paper copy. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two copies: One copy of the document including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination. Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include:

(1)A description of the items;

(2)whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry;

(3)whether the information is generally known or available from public sources;

(4)whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality;

(5)an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure;

(6)a date after which such information might no longer be considered confidential; and

(7)why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest. B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning:

(1)The proportion of distribution transformers sold that are installed in underground vaults, particularly with respect to the liquid-immersed, three-phase design lines, DL4 and DL5,

(2)The assumption that typical space-constrained vault transformers will be restricted to a volume that is approximately the median size of baseline transformers, and

(3)The approaches proposed in this notice to account for LCC impacts on space-constrained vault transformers, including the methodology and inputs.

(4)The possibility of having a liquid-immersed standard level that is based on efficiency levels from TSL 2 and/or 3 for three-phase and TSL 2, 3, and/or 4 for single-phase. Issued in Washington, DC, on February 2, 2007. Alexander A. Karsner Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. [FR Doc. E7-2168 Filed 2-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-115403-05] RIN 1545-BF94 Section 181—Deduction for Qualified Film and Television Production Costs AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross reference to temporary regulation. SUMMARY: In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** , the IRS is issuing temporary regulations under section 181 of the Internal Revenue Code relating to deductions for costs of producing qualified film and television productions. These temporary regulations reflect changes to the law made by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 and the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005, and affect taxpayers that produce films and television productions within the United States. This action is necessary to provide guidance for the application of section 181. The text of the temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. This document also provides notice of a public hearing on these proposed regulations. DATES: Written comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by April 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-115403-05), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-115403-05), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically, via the IRS Internet site at *www.irs.gov/regs* or via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.Regulations.gov/* (IRS REG-115403-05). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the regulations, Bernard P. Harvey,

(202)622-3110; concerning submissions and to request a hearing, Kelly Banks,

(202)622-7180 (not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paperwork Reduction Act The collections of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Comments on the collections of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, SE:W:CAR:MP:T:T:SP, Washington, DC 20224. Comments on the collection of information should be received by May 10, 2007. Comments are specifically requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Internal Revenue Service, including whether the information will have practical utility; The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collection of information; How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced; How the burden of complying with the proposed collection of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of service to provide information. The collection of information in this proposed regulation is in § 1.181-2T(c). This information is required to verify that the production cost of the film or television production for which the deduction under section 181 of the Internal Revenue Code is claimed does not exceed the statutory production cost limit, that at least 75 percent of the compensation from the production is compensation for services performed in the United States, that production costs deducted under section 181(a)(2)(B) are sustantially incurred in the specific areas designated in section 181(a)(2)(B), and that, in situations in which more than one taxpayer is claiming a deduction for a single production, the total deduction for the production does not exceed the statutory limit. The collection of information is mandatory. The likely recordkeepers are business or other for-profit institutions, and small businesses or organizations. *Estimated total annual recordkeeping burden:* 1,500 hours. The estimated annual burden per recordkeeper varies from 2 to 4 hours, depending on individual circumstances, with an estimated average of 3 hours. *Estimated number of recordkeepers:* 500. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. Background The temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** contain amendments to 26 CFR part 1 to provide regulations under section 181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code). Section 181 was added to the Code by section 244 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Public Law No. 108-357 (118 Stat. 1418) (Oct. 22, 2004), and was modified by section 403(e) of the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005, Public Law No. 109-135 (119 Stat. 2577) (Dec. 21, 2005). Explanation of Provisions The temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** amend the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) to add regulations under section 181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code). The text of the temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains these proposed regulations. Special Analyses It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) and

(d)of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. It is hereby certified that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulations impose a collection of information on small entities in order to demonstrate eligibilty for tax benefits under the statute, and this collection of information will require recordkeeping. This collection of information is discussed elsewhere in this preamble. However, the recordkeeping required by this collection of information does not differ significantly from the recordkeeping that a taxpayer must perform in order to determine whether the taxpayer is eligible to claim a deduction under the statute. Consequently, the economic impact on small entities resulting from the recordkeeping required under this regulation is de minimis. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. We request comment on the accuracy of this certification. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this regulation has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. Comments and Requests for a Public Hearing Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written comments (a signed original and eight

(8)copies) or electronically generated comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and Treasury Department generally request comments on the clarity of the proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing may be scheduled if requested in writing by a person who timely submits comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the hearing will be published in the **Federal Register** . Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is Bernard P. Harvey, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 2.** Sections 1.181-0 through 1.181-6 are added as follows: § 1.181-0 Table of contents. [The text of this proposed section is the same as the text of § 1.181-0T published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** .] § 1.181-1 Deduction for qualified film and television production costs. [The text of this proposed section is the same as the text of § 1.181-1T published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** .] § 1.181-2 Election. [The text of this proposed section is the same as the text of § 1.181-2T published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** .] § 1.181-3 Qualified film or television production. [The text of this proposed section is the same as the text of § 1.181-3T published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** .] § 1.181-4 Special rules. [The text of this proposed section is the same as the text of § 1.181-4T published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** .] § 1.181-5 Examples. [The text of this proposed section is the same as the text of § 1.181-5T published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** .] § 1.181-6 Effective date. [The text of this proposed section is the same as the text of § 1.181-6T published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** .] Kevin M. Brown, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E7-2153 Filed 2-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7706] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations

(BFEs)and proposed BFEs modifications for the communities listed below. The BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). DATES: The comment period is ninety

(90)days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in each community. ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472

(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA)proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. National Environmental Policy Act This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. Regulatory Flexibility Act As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Regulatory Classification This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. Executive Order 13132, Federalism This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation * Elevation in feet

(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet

(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Effective Modified Communities affected Cleveland County, Oklahoma, and Incorporated Areas Dave Blue Creek North Approximately 100 feet downstream of State Highway 9 None +1120 City of Norman. Approximately 3000 feet upstream from State Highway 9 None +1131 East Rock Creek Approximately 500 feet downstream from 36th Ave None +1118 City of Norman. Approximately 4500 feet upstream from 36th Ave None +1139 Stream B Approximately 1000 feet upstream from confluence with North Fork River *1143 +1142 City of Moore. Approximately 1900 feet upstream from SE 19th St None +1165 Tributary 0 of Canadian River Tributary 1 Confluence with Canadian Tributary 1 *1178 +1179 City of Moore. Approximately 700 feet upstream from North Nottingham Way None +1290 City of Oklahoma City. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Moore Maps are available for inspection at 301 North Broadway, Moore, OK 73160. Send comments to The Honorable Glenn Lewis, Mayor, City of Moore, 301 North Broadway, Moore, OK 73160. City of Norman Maps are available for inspection at 201 South Jones, Norman, OK 73068. Send comments to The Honorable Harold Haralson, Mayor, City of Norman, 210 West Gray, Norman, OK 73069. City of Oklahoma City Maps are available for inspection at 420 West Main, Suite 700, Oklahoma City, OK 73102. Send comments to The Honorable Mick Cornett, Mayor, City of Oklahoma City, 200 North Walker, Street 3rd Floor, Oklahoma City, OK 73102. York County, South Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Sugar Creek At the confluence with the CatawbaRiver *493 +487 York County (Unincorporated Areas). At the Railroad Bridge at the York County, SC and Mecklenburg County, NC county line *536 +538 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES York County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 6 South Congress Street, York, SC 29745. Send comments to Alfred W. Greene, County Manager, York County, P.O. Box 66, York, SC 29745. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, “Flood Insurance.”) David I. Maurstad, Director, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E7-2146 Filed 2-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P 72 27 Friday, February 9, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request February 5, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;

(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling

(1)Youth enrollment totals by delivery mode;

(2)youth enrollment totals by type of 4-H activity;

(3)youth enrollment totals by school grade;

(4)youth enrollment totals by gender;

(5)youth enrollment totals by place of residence;

(6)adult volunteer totals;

(7)youth volunteer totals; and

(8)youth enrollment totals by race and ethnicity. Without the information it would be impossible to justify federal funding for the 4-H program. *Description of Respondents:* State, Local or Tribal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 56. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 56. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-2147 Filed 2-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request February 5, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;

(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Forest Service *Title:* Operating Plans. *Omb Control Number:* 0596-0086. *Summary of Collection:* The National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 472a (14)(c)

(Act)requires timber sale operating plans on timber sales that exceed 2 years in length. The regulations at 36 CFR 223.32 have a similar requirement. The operating plans are collected within 60 days of award of timber sale contracts and annually thereafter until harvest is complete. Timber sale purchasers may submit the required information in the form of a chart or letter using surface mail, electronic mail, or via facsimile. The information is based on the timber sale purchaser's business plan. *Need and Use of the Information:* Forest Service

(FS)will collect information to determine eligibility for additional contract time. There is no prescribed format for the collection of the information. FS officials may have contractors submit operating plans on form FS-2400-67 or in a format chosen by the contractor. In addition, the information is used to plan the agency timber sale contract administration workload and to meet other contract obligations. The information collected includes planned periods and methods of anticipated major activities, including, road construction, timber harvesting, and completion of other contract requirements. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; Individuals or households. *Number of Respondents:* 2,500. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 15,200. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-2148 Filed 2-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request February 6, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;

(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service *Title:* Untreated Oranges, Tangerines, and Grapefruit from Mexico Transiting the United States to Foreign Countries. *OMB Control Number:* 0579-0303. *Summary Of Collection:* Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, or movement of plants and plant pests to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. The Code of Federal Regulations, § 352.30 addresses the movement into or through the United States of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico that transit the United States en route to foreign countries. This information collection amends the regulations to allow untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Medico to be moved overland by truck or rail to Corpus Christi and Houston, Texas for export to another country by water. *Need And Use Of The Information:* The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is taking action to provide additional protection against the possible introduction of fruit flies via untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico that transit the United States. Untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico transiting the United States for export to another country must be shipped in sealed, refrigerated container and insect-proof packaging. A transportation and exportation permit must be issued by an inspector for shipments of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico. Without the information, APHIS would not be able to allow the movement of untreated citrus to transit the United States to foreign countries. *Description Of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; Individual or households. *Number Of Respondents:* 400. *Frequency Of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 200. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-2193 Filed 2-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2006-0042] Notice of Request for a New Information Collection (Job Applicant Medical Information) AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)regulations, this notice announces the Food Safety and Inspection Service's

(FSIS)intention to request approval for a new information collection regarding the medical history and status of certain job applicants. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before April 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this notice. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: • *Mail, including floppy disks or CD-ROM's, and hand- or courier-delivered items:* Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 300 12th Street, SW., Room 102 Cotton Annex, Washington, DC 20250. • *Electronic mail: fsis.regulationscomments@fsis.usda.gov.* • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* This Web site provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Go to *http://www.regulation.gov* and in the “Search for Open Regulations” box, select “Food Safety and Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click on “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select FDMS Docket Number FSIS-calendar year-docket number to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. All submissions received by mail or electronic mail must include the Agency name and docket number. All comments submitted in response to this document, as well as research and background information used by FSIS in developing this document, will be available for public inspection in the FSIS Docket Room at the address listed above between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments will also be posted on the Agency's Web site at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/regulations_directives_&_notices/index.asp* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact John O'Connell, Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 300 12th Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20250-3700,

(202)720-0345. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Job Applicant Medical Information. *OMB Number:* 0583-xxxx. *Type of Request:* New information collection. *Abstract:* FSIS has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary as specified in the Federal Meat Inspection Act

(FMIA)(21 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* ), the Poultry Products Inspection Act

(PPIA)(21 U.S.C. 451, *et seq.* ), and the Egg Products Inspection Act

(EPIA)(21 U.S.C. 1031, *et seq.* ). These statutes provide that FSIS is to protect the public by verifying that meat, poultry, and egg products are safe, wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged. FSIS is requesting a new information collection addressing paperwork and recordkeeping requirements regarding the medical history and status of certain FSIS job applicants. Under 5 CFR 339, FSIS is requesting to collect the medical information of applicants to certain positions in the Agency to assist FSIS in making a determination of their medical fitness for duty. Applicants for certain positions in FSIS are to complete, and have their physician/medical examiner complete, FSIS Forms Certificate of Medical Examination and Report of Medical History. FSIS has made the following estimates based upon an information collection assessment: *Estimate of Burden:* FSIS estimates that it will take respondents an average of 165 minutes to complete and submit both of these forms to FSIS. *Respondents:* FSIS job applicants and physicians/medical examiners. *Estimated No. of Respondents:* 2,400. *Estimated No. of Annual Responses per Respondent:* 2 (each form once). *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 4,500 hours. Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from John O'Connell, Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 300 12th Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20250-3700,

(202)720-5627,(202)720-0345. *Comments are invited on:*

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS' functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of FSIS' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and,

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to both John O'Connell, Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, at the address provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Additional Public Notification Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that the public and in particular minorities, women, and persons with disabilities, are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations/2007_Notices_Index/index.asp* . FSIS also will make copies of this **Federal Register** publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, **Federal Register** notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The update is communicated via Listserv, a free e-mail subscription service consisting of industry, trade, and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, scientific professionals, and other individuals who have requested to be included. The update also is available on the FSIS web page. Through Listserv and the web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an e-mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/news_and_events/email_subscription/* . Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their account. Done at Washington, DC, on: February 6, 2007. Bryce Quick, Acting Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-2194 Filed 2-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Eastern Washington Cascades Provincial Advisory Committee and the Yakima Provincial Advisory Committee AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Eastern Washington Cascades Provincial Advisory Committee and the Yakima Provincial Advisory Committee will meet on Friday, February 23, 2007 at the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forest Headquarters office, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, WA. This meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and continue until 4 p.m. During this meeting Provincial Advisory Committee members will discuss Roadless Area considerations and potential Wilderness recommendations in conjunction with Forest Plan Revision for the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. All Eastern Washington Cascades and Yakima Province Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions regarding this meeting to Paul Hart, Designated Federal Official, USDA, Wenatchee National Forest, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, Washington 98801, 509-644-9200. Dated: February 5, 2007. Paul Hart, Designated Federal Official, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. [FR Doc. 07-582 Filed 2-8-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 16

Traces to 16 documents

U.S. Code