Notices. Notice

21,654 words·~98 min read·/register/2007/03/06/07-1062·

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

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5117-N-22] Notice of Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMB; Allocation of Operating Subsidies Under the Operating Fund Formula: Data Collection (Subsidy and Grant Information System (SAGIS) Automated Collections) AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal. Public Housing Agencies

(202)708-2374. This is not a toll-free number. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Deitzer or from HUD's Web site at *http://www5.hud.gov:63001/po/i/icbts/collectionsearch.cfm.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to:

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

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. This notice also lists the following information: *Title of Proposal:* Allocation of Operating Subsidies under the Operating Fund Formula: Data Collection (Subsidy and Grant Information System (SAGIS) automated collections). *OMB Approval Number:* 2577-0029. *Form Numbers:* HUD-52722, HUD-52723 and HUD-53087. *Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use:* Public Housing Agencies

(PHAs)use this information in budget submissions which are reviewed and approved by HUD field offices as the basis for obligating operating subsidies. This information is necessary to calculate the eligibility for operating subsidies under the Operating Fund Program regulation, as amended. The Operating Fund Program is designed to provide the amount of operating subsidy that would be needed for well-managed PHAs. *Frequency of Submission:* Annually. Number of respondents Annual responses × Hours per response = Burden hours Reporting Burden 3,141 5 0.7 11,723 *Total Estimated Burden Hours:* 11,723. *Status:* Revision of a currently approved collection. Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended. Dated: February 28, 2007. Lillian L. Deitzer, Departmental Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-3805 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-4889-N-09] Statutorily Mandated Designation of Difficult Development Areas and Qualified Census Tracts for Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986: Revision of Definition of Effective Date AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice revises the definition of “effective date” in a notice published in the **Federal Register** on September 28, 2006, designating “Difficult Development Areas”

(DDAs)and “Qualified Census Tracts”

(QCTs)for purposes of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) under section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code) (26 U.S.C. 42). HUD is responsible for designating DDAs and QCTs annually. The September 28, 2006, notice provided a definition of “effective date” that is revised by this notice to define “multiphase” LIHTC projects and to specify how such projects are to be treated when DDA or QCT designations change between phases. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on how areas are designated, on geographic definitions, and on the new provisions for multiphase projects, contact Michael K. Hollar, Economist, Economic Development and Public Finance Division, Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-6000, telephone

(202)402-5878, or send an e-mail to *Michael_K._Hollar@hud.gov.* For specific legal questions pertaining to Section 42, contact Branch 5, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel, Passthroughs and Special Industries, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, telephone

(202)622-3040. For questions about the “HUB Zones” program, contact Michael P. McHale, Assistant Administrator for Procurement Policy, Office of Government Contracting, Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Suite 8800, Washington, DC 20416, telephone

(202)205-8885, fax

(202)205-7167, or send an e-mail to *hubzone@sba.gov* . A text telephone is available for persons with hearing or speech impairments at

(202)708-9300. (These are not toll-free telephone numbers.) Additional copies of this notice are available through HUD User at

(800)245-2691 for a small fee to cover duplication and mailing costs. *Copies Available Electronically:* This notice and additional information about DDAs and QCTs are available electronically on the Internet at *http://www.huduser.org/datasets/qct.html.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Document This notice revises the definition of “effective date” in a notice published in the **Federal Register** on September 28, 2006 (71 FR 57234). That notice designated DDAs and QCTs for purposes of the LIHTC, as governed by section 42 of the Code (Section 42). HUD is responsible for designating DDAs and QCTs annually, and, at this time, is revising the definition of “effective date” provided in the September 28, 2006, notice (see 71 FR 57238) to define “multiphase” LIHTC projects and specify how such projects are to be treated when DDA or QCT designations change between phases. In addition, this notice clarifies what is meant by “certified in writing” for purposes of demonstrating compliance with effective dates for DDA and QCT designations. This notice does not change the designations of DDAs and QCTs in the September 28, 2006, notice. Background The U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and its Internal Revenue Service

(IRS)are authorized to interpret and enforce the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code), including the LIHTC found at Section 42 of the Code. The requirement for HUD to designate DDAs and QCTs is found in Section 42(d)(5)(C) of the Code. State and local LIHTC-allocating agencies are responsible for allocating LIHTC to eligible projects according to approved Qualified Allocation Plans (QAPs). Most LIHTC-allocating agencies include in their QAPs a limitation on the amount of LIHTC that may be awarded to a particular applicant, project, and/or location in any year. When applicants plan LIHTC-financed developments that would require amounts of LIHTC in excess of the individual allocation limits defined in the applicable QAP (or in smaller states, that are larger than the annual per capital credit allocation authority), they are forced to divide their developments, and their LIHTC applications, into phases over 2 or more years in order to obtain all the tax credits needed to complete the project. If such developments are located in DDAs or QCTs, there is a possibility that the location of the development may lose its DDA/QCT status after the first phase has been allocated LIHTC, but before subsequent phases have received their allocation or applied for LIHTC. As the financing for developments in these situations is generally predicated on the additional LIHTC available because of the developments' location in DDAs/QCTs, the subsequent phases may become infeasible. HUD's intent in revising designations of DDAs and QCTs is to direct scarce public resources, in the form of additional LIHTC subsidy, to projects in those locations with the greatest need for this additional subsidy as defined by statute. However, HUD does not intend for these changes in designations to ultimately prevent the development of affordable housing, particularly in cases where developments have been required to be done in phases by LIHTC-allocating agency limits on annual allocation amounts to individual applicants. HUD, therefore, is establishing in this notice a definition of “multiphase projects” and specifying how effective dates in its notices designating DDAs and QCTs are to be applied to such projects. In addition, HUD is clarifying what is meant by “certified in writing” for purposes of demonstrating compliance with effective dates for DDA and QCT designations. Definition of “Multiphase Projects” and Applicability of Effective Date For purposes of this notice, a “multiphase project” is defined as a set of buildings to be constructed or rehabilitated under the rules of the LIHTC and meeting the following criteria as certified in writing by the applicable LIHTC-allocating agency:

(1)In the first application for tax credit, the applicant must include an indication of the multiphase nature of the project ( *i.e.* , the applicant's intent to make future applications for LIHTC because of QAP limitations, or agency allocation authority ceilings, for buildings located on a site, as defined below). For purposes of applications made in calendar year 2007 only, the preceding sentence will be met if an applicant who previously submitted a complete application for an earlier phase of a multiphase project (when such earlier phase was in a QCT or DDA), but failed to properly identify all phases of the multiphase project in the earlier application, submits a complete application for the present phase of the same project and all phases of the project occur on a contiguous parcel of land;

(2)At the time credits are allocated to the first phase of the project, there must be common control (ownership, leasehold, or option to buy or lease) of all land where the buildings shall be constructed or rehabilitated (the site);

(3)The aggregate amount of LIHTC applied for on behalf of, or that would eventually be allocated to, the buildings on the site exceeds the one-year limitation on credits per applicant, as defined in the QAP of the LIHTC-allocating agency, or the annual per capita credit authority of the LIHTC-allocating agency, and is the reason the applicant must request multiple allocations over 2 or more years; and

(4)All applications for LIHTC for buildings on the site are made in immediately consecutive years. In the case of a multiphase project, the applicable DDA or QCT status of the site of the project for all phases of the project is that which was applicable when the project received its first allocation of LIHTC, as certified in writing by the LIHTC-allocating agency. For purposes of Section 42(h)(4)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code, the applicable DDA or QCT status of the site of the project for all phases of the project is that which was applicable when the building(s) in the first phase were placed in service or when the bonds were issued as certified in writing by the LIHTC-allocating agency. For purposes of demonstrating that the effective date provisions in HUD DDA and QCT notices are met, “certified in writing” means that the LIHTC-allocating agency has provided a signed letter to the applicant stating that the LIHTC-allocating agency has found that the applicant meets the conditions set forth in HUD's notice. Under this definition and application of effective date, a multiphase project located in a DDA or QCT when the first allocation of credit is made would be treated as if in a DDA or QCT throughout all phases of the project even if the DDA or QCT designation were subsequently changed. Under clause one of the definition, the applicant's first application notice must include the multiphase nature of the project. If the applicant failed to identify all phases of the multiphase development in the first application, then solely for purposes of applications made in 2007, a project that otherwise meets clauses 2 through 4 will qualify if all phases of the development occur on a contiguous parcel of land. Applications made by a different applicant after the DDA or QCT status of the site has been removed would not be eligible even if the applicants had obtained control of part of a site that would otherwise be eligible under the definition. Under clause 2 of the definition of a multiphase project, any buildings on land where control was obtained after the allocation of credit to the first phase of the project would not be eligible for treatment as in a DDA or QCT. Under clause 3 of the definition, if a project is built in phases to accommodate the capacity of the developer or some other reason, and not because the aggregate amount of credit required to fund the development exceeds annual limitations specified in the QAP (or the annual per capita credit authority of the LIHTC-allocating agency), the project is not eligible for continued treatment as in a DDA or QCT. Under clause 4, if an intervening year passes between application phases, the subsequent phase(s) of the project is

(are)not eligible for continued treatment as in a DDA or QCT. Revisions to the September 28, 2006, Notice The section entitled “Effective Date” of the notice designating DDAs and QCTs for 2007 published in the **Federal Register** on September 28, 2006 (71 FR 57234), is hereby revised to read as follows: For DDAs designated by reason of being in areas determined by the President to warrant individual or individual and public assistance from the federal government under the Stafford Act by reason of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Wilma (the GO Zone Designation), the designation is effective:

(1)For housing credit dollar amounts allocated and buildings placed in service during the period beginning on January 1, 2006, and ending on December 31, 2008; or

(2)for purposes of Section 42(h)(4)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code, for buildings placed in service during the period beginning on January 1, 2006, and ending on December 31, 2008, but only with respect to bonds issued after December 31, 2005. The 2007 lists of QCTs and the 2007 lists of DDAs that are not part of the GO *Zone Designation are effective:*

(1)For allocations of credit after December 31, 2006; or

(2)for purposes of Section 42(h)(4)(B) of the Code, if the bonds are issued and the building is placed in service after December 31, 2006. If an area is not on a subsequent list of DDAs or QCTs, the 2007 lists are effective for the area if:

(1)The allocation of credit to an applicant is made no later than the end of the 365-day period after the submission to the credit-allocating agency of a complete application by the applicant, and the submission is made before the effective date of the subsequent lists; or

(2)for purposes of Section 42(h)(4)(B) of the Code, if:

(a)The bonds are issued or the building is placed in service no later than the end of the 365-day period after the applicant submits a complete application to the bond-issuing agency, and

(b)the submission is made before the effective date of the subsequent lists, provided that both the issuance of the bonds and the placement in service of the building occur after the application is submitted. An application is deemed to be submitted on the date it is filed if the application is determined to be complete as certified in writing by the credit-allocating or bond-issuing agency. A “complete application” means that no more than *de minimis* clarification of the application is required for the agency to make a decision about the allocation of tax credits or issuance of bonds requested in the application. In the case of a “multiphase project,” the DDA or QCT status of the site of the project that applies for all phases of the project is that which applied when the project received its first allocation of LIHTC as certified in writing by the LIHTC-allocating agency. For purposes of Section 42(h)(4)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code, the DDA or QCT status of the site of the project that applies for all phases of the project is that which applied when the first of the following occurred as certified in writing by the LIHTC-allocating agency:

(a)The building(s) in the first phase were placed in service or

(b)the bonds were issued. For purposes of this notice, a “multiphase project” is defined as a set of buildings to be constructed or rehabilitated under the rules of the LIHTC and meeting the following criteria as certified in writing by the applicable LIHTC-allocating agency:

(QAP)limitations, or agency allocation authority ceilings, for buildings located on a site as defined below). For purposes of applications made in 2007 only, the preceding sentence will be met if an applicant who previously submitted a complete application for an earlier phase of a multiphase project (when such earlier phase was in a QCT or DDA), but failed to properly identify all phases of the multiphase project in the earlier application, submits a complete application for a present phase of the same project and all phases of the project occur on a contiguous parcel of land;

(3)The aggregate amount of LIHTC applied for on behalf of, or that would eventually be allocated to, the buildings on the site exceeds the one-year limitation on credits per applicant as defined in the QAP of the LIHTC-allocating agency, or the annual per capita credit authority of the LIHTC allocating agency, and is the reason the applicant must request multiple allocations over 2 or more years; and

(4)All applications for LIHTC for buildings on the site are made in immediately consecutive years. For purposes of demonstrating compliance with the effective date provisions of this notice, “certified in writing” means that the LIHTC-allocating agency has provided a signed letter to the applicant stating that the LIHTC-allocating agency has found that the applicant meets the conditions set forth in this notice. The designations of QCTs under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code published on December 12, 2002 (67 FR 76451) for the U.S. Virgin Islands, and on December 19, 2003 (68 FR 70982) for American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, remain in effect. Members of the public are hereby reminded that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, or the Secretary's designee, has sole legal authority to designate DDAs and QCTs by publishing lists of geographic entities as defined by, in the case of DDAs, the several states and the governments of the insular areas of the United States and, in the case of QCTs, by the Census Bureau; and to establish the effective dates of these lists. The Secretary of the Treasury, through the IRS thereof, has sole legal authority to interpret, and to determine and enforce compliance with, the Internal Revenue Code and associated regulations including **Federal Register** notices published by HUD for purposes of designating DDAs and QCTs. Representations made by any other entity as to the content of HUD notices designating DDAs and QCTs that do not precisely match the language published by HUD should not be relied upon by taxpayers in determining what actions are necessary to comply with HUD notices. In addition, the section entitled “Interpretive Examples of Effective Date” of the notice designating DDAs and QCTs for 2007 published on September 28, 2006 (71 FR 57234) is hereby amended with the addition of the following (in each case the description applied to a DDA is equally applicable to a QCT): (Case G) Project G is a multiphase project located in a 2006 regular DDA that is NOT a designated regular DDA in 2007. The first phase of Project G received an allocation of credits in 2006 pursuant to an application filed March 15, 2006. An application for tax credits for the second phase Project G is filed with the allocating agency by the same entity on March 15, 2007. The second phase of Project G is located on a contiguous site controlled by the applicant at the time credits were allocated to the first phase. Credits are allocated to the second phase of Project G on October 30, 2007. The aggregate amount of credits allocated to the two phases of Project G exceeds the amount of credits that may be allocated to an applicant in one year under the allocating agency's QAP and is the reason that the application contains multiple phases. The second phase of Project G is therefore eligible for the increase in basis accorded a project in a 2006 regular DDA because it meets all of the conditions to be a part of a multiphase project.(Case H) Project H is a multiphase project located in a 2006 regular DDA that is NOT a designated regular DDA in 2007. The first phase of Project H received an allocation of credits in 2006 pursuant to an application filed March 15, 2006. An application for tax credits for the second phase Project H is filed with the allocating agency by the same entity on March 15, 2008. The second phase of Project H is located on a site that was not controlled by the applicant at the time credits were allocated to the first phase. Credits are allocated to the second phase of Project H on October 30, 2008. The aggregate amount of credits allocated to the two phases of Project H exceeds the amount of credits that may be allocated to an applicant in one year under the allocating agency's QAP. The second phase of Project H is therefore NOT eligible for the increase in basis accorded a project in a 2006 regular DDA because it does not meet all of the conditions for a multiphase project as defined in this notice. Project H is not on land controlled by the applicant at the time credits were allocated to the first phase. Also, the application for credits for the second phase of Project H was not made in the year immediately following the first phase application year. Findings and Certifications Environmental Impact In accordance with 40 CFR 1508.4 of the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality and 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6) of HUD's regulations, the policies and procedures contained in this notice provide for the establishment of fiscal requirements or procedures that do not constitute a development decision affecting the physical condition of specific project areas or building sites and, therefore, are categorically excluded from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, except for extraordinary circumstances, and no Finding of No Significant Impact is required. Federalism Impact Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any policy document that has federalism implications if the document either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or the document preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the executive order. This notice merely modifies the content of a previous notice designating DDAs and QCTs as required under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, for the use by political subdivisions of the states in allocating the LIHTC. As a result, this notice is not subject to review under the order. Dated: March 1, 2007. Darlene F. Williams, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Development and Research. [FR Doc. E7-3894 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Revisions to a Currently Approved Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior. ACTION: Notice of renewal of a currently approved collection (OMB No. 1006-0023). SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Bureau of Reclamation (we, our, or us) intends to submit a request for renewal (with revisions) of an existing approved information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): Forms to Determine Compliance by Certain Landholders, 43 CFR part 426, OMB Control Number: 1006-0023. As a result of the regulatory requirements to ensure compliance with Federal reclamation law and assessment of the appropriate water rate [43 CFR 426.6(b)(2) and 43 CFR 426.9(b)], a new “Religious or Charitable Organization Identification Sheet” (Form 7-2578) has been developed for approval as part of this information collection. We request your comments on the proposed Reclamation Reform Act of 1982

(RRA)forms and specific aspects of the information collection. DATES: Your written comments must be received on or before May 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send written comments to the Bureau of Reclamation, Attention: 84-53000, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, CO 80225-0007. You may request copies of the proposed forms by writing to the above address or by contacting Stephanie McPhee at:

(303)445-2897. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie McPhee at:

(303)445-2897. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Forms to Determine Compliance by Certain Landholders, 43 CFR part 426. The former title of this information collection was “Limited Recipient Identification Sheet, Trust Information Sheet, Public Entity Information Sheet for Acreage Limitation, 43 CFR part 426.” Because of the addition of the proposed new form to this information collection as described below, we have changed the title of this information collection to “Forms to Determine Compliance by Certain Landholders, 43 CFR part 426.” This title change will allow us to capture the purpose of the forms in this information collection without listing lengthy form names. *Abstract:* *Identification of limited recipients* —Some entities that receive Reclamation irrigation water may believe that they are under the RRA forms submittal threshold and, consequently, may not submit the appropriate RRA form(s). However, some of these entities may in fact have a different RRA forms submittal threshold than what they believe it to be due to the number of natural persons benefiting from each entity and the location of the land held by each entity. In addition, some entities that are exempt from the requirement to submit RRA forms due to the size of their landholdings (directly and indirectly owned and leased land) may in fact be receiving Reclamation irrigation water for which the full-cost rate must be paid because the start of Reclamation irrigation water deliveries occurred after October 1, 1981 [43 CFR 426.6(b)(2)]. The information obtained through completion of the Limited Recipient Identification Sheet (Form 7-2536) allows us to establish entities' compliance with Federal reclamation law. The Limited Recipient Identification Sheet is disbursed at our discretion. The proposed revisions to the Limited Recipient Identification Sheet will be included starting in the 2008 water year, and are designed to facilitate ease of completion. *Trust review* —We are required to review and approve all trusts [43 CFR 426.7(b)(2)] in order to ensure trusts meet the regulatory criteria specified in 43 CFR 426.7. Land held in trust generally will be attributed to the beneficiaries of the trust rather than the trustee if the criteria are met. When we become aware of trusts with a relatively small landholding (40 acres or less), we may extend to those trusts the option to complete and submit for our review the Trust Information Sheet (Form 7-2537) instead of actual trust documents. If we find nothing on the completed Trust Information Sheet that would warrant the further investigation of a particular trust, that trustee will not be burdened with submitting trust documents to us for in-depth review. The Trust Information Sheet is disbursed at our discretion. The proposed revisions to the Trust Information Sheet will be included starting in the 2008 water year, and are designed to facilitate ease of completion. *Acreage limitation provisions applicable to public entities* —Land farmed by a public entity can be considered exempt from the application of the acreage limitation provisions provided the public entity meets certain criteria pertaining to the revenue generated through the entity's farming activities (43 CFR 426.10 and the Act of July 7, 1970, Pub. L. 91-310). We are required to ascertain whether or not public entities that receive Reclamation irrigation water meet such revenue criteria regardless of how much land the public entities hold (directly or indirectly own or lease) [43 CFR 426.10(a)]. In order to minimize the burden on public entities, standard RRA forms are submitted by a public entity only when the public entity holds more than 40 acres subject to the acreage limitation provisions westwide, which makes it difficult to apply the revenue criteria as required to those public entities that hold less than 40 acres. When we become aware of such public entities, we may extend to those public entities the option to complete and submit for our review the Public Entity Information Sheet (Form 7-2565), which allows us to establish compliance with Federal reclamation law for those public entities that hold 40 acres or less and thus do not submit a standard RRA form because they are below the RRA forms submittal threshold. In addition, for those public entities that do not meet the exemption criteria, we must determine the proper rate to charge for Reclamation irrigation water deliveries. The Public Entity Information Sheet is disbursed at our discretion. The proposed revisions to the Public Entity Information Sheet will be effective starting in the 2008 water year and are designed to facilitate ease of completion. *Acreage limitation provisions applicable to religious or charitable organizations* ( *new form* )—Some religious or charitable organizations that receive Reclamation irrigation water may believe that they are under the RRA forms submittal threshold and, consequently, may not submit the appropriate RRA form(s). However, some of these organizations may in fact have a different RRA forms submittal threshold than what they believe it to be depending on whether these organizations meet all of the required criteria for full special application of the acreage limitations provisions to religious or charitable organizations [43 CFR 426.9(b)]. In addition, some organizations that

(1)do not meet the criteria to be treated as a religious or charitable organization under the acreage limitation provisions, and

(2)are exempt from the requirement to submit RRA forms due to the size of their landholdings (directly and indirectly owned and leased land), may in fact be receiving Reclamation irrigation water for which the full-cost rate must be paid because the start of Reclamation irrigation water deliveries occurred after October 1, 1981 [43 CFR 426.6(b)(2)]. A new “Religious or Charitable Organization Identification Sheet” (Form 7-2578) has been developed for approval as part of this information collection, and will allow us to establish certain religious or charitable organizations' compliance with Federal reclamation law. Reclamation anticipates a very minimal increase in burden hours resulting from the addition of this form because of the very limited type of landholders that can use this form. The Religious or Charitable Organization Identification Sheet is disbursed at our discretion and will be effective starting in the 2008 water year. *Frequency:* Generally, these forms will be submitted once per identified entity, trust, public entity, or religious or charitable organization. Each year, we expect new responses in accordance with the following numbers. *Respondents:* Entity landholders, trusts, public entities, and religious or charitable organizations identified by Reclamation that are subject to the acreage limitation provisions of Federal reclamation law. *Estimated Total Number of Respondents:* 500. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1.0. *Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses:* 500. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 72 hours. *Estimate of Burden for Each Form:* Form No. Burden estimate per form (in minutes) Number of respondents Annual number of responses Annual burden on respondents (in hours) Limited Recipient Identification Sheet 5 175 175 15 Trust Information Sheet 5 150 150 13 Public Entity Information Sheet 15 100 100 25 Religious or Charitable Identification Sheet 15 75 75 19 Totals 500 500 Comments *Comments are invited on:*

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

(b)the accuracy of our burden estimate for the proposed collection of information;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. We will summarize all comments received regarding this notice. We will publish that summary in the **Federal Register** when the information collection request is submitted to OMB for review and approval. Before including your address, telephone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Dated: January 29, 2007. Roseann Gonzales, Director, Office of Program and Policy Services, Denver Office. [FR Doc. E7-3844 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Agency Information Collection; Proposed Revisions to a Currently Approved Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior. ACTION: Notice of renewal of a currently approved collection (OMB No. 1006-0005). SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Bureau of Reclamation (we, our, or us) intends to submit a request for renewal (with revisions) of an existing approved information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): Individual Landholder's and Farm Operator's Certification and Reporting Forms for Acreage Limitation, 43 CFR part 426 and 43 CFR part 428, OMB Control Number: 1006-0005. This information collection is required under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (RRA), Acreage Limitation Rules and Regulations, 43 CFR part 426, and Information Requirements for Certain Farm Operations In Excess of 960 Acres and the Eligibility of Certain Formerly Excess Land, 43 CFR part 428. We request your comments on the revised RRA forms and specific aspects of the information collection. DATES: Your written comments must be received on or before May 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send written comments to the Bureau of Reclamation, Attention: 84-53000, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, CO 80225-0007. You may request copies of the proposed revised forms by writing to the above address or by contacting Stephanie McPhee at:

(303)445-2897. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie McPhee at:

(303)445-2897. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Individual Landholder's and Farm Operator's Certification and Reporting Forms for Acreage Limitation, 43 CFR part 426 and 43 CFR part 428. *Abstract:* This information collection requires certain landholders (direct or indirect landowners or lessees) and farm operators to complete forms demonstrating their compliance with the acreage limitation provisions of Federal reclamation law. These forms are submitted to districts who use the information to establish each landholder's status with respect to landownership limitations, full-cost pricing thresholds, lease requirements, and other provisions of Federal reclamation law. In addition, forms are submitted by certain farm operators to provide information concerning the services they provide and the nature of their farm operating arrangements. All landholders whose entire westwide landholdings total 40 acres or less are exempt from the requirement to submit RRA forms. Landholders who are “qualified recipients” have RRA forms submittal thresholds of 80 acres or 240 acres depending on the district's RRA forms submittal threshold category where the land is held. Only farm operators who provide multiple services to more than 960 acres held in trusts or by legal entities are required to submit forms. *Changes to the RRA forms and the instructions to those forms.* We made a few editorial changes to the currently approved RRA forms and the instructions to those forms that are designed to assist the respondents by increasing their understanding of the forms, clarifying the instructions for use when completing the forms, and clarifying the information that is required to be submitted to the districts with the forms. The proposed revisions to the RRA forms will be included starting in the 2008 water year. *Frequency:* Annually. *Respondents:* Landholders and farm operators of certain lands in our projects, whose landholdings exceed specified RRA forms submittal thresholds. *Estimated Total Number of Respondents:* 17,358. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1.02. *Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses:* 17,706. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 13,085 hours. *Estimate of Burden for Each Form:* Form No. Burden estimate per form (in minutes) Number of respondents Annual number of responses Annual burden on respondents (in hours) Form 7-2180 60 4,686 4,780 4,780 Form 7-2180EZ 45 483 493 370 Form 7-2181 78 1,369 1,396 1,815 Form 7-2184 45 36 37 28 Form 7-2190 60 1,841 1,878 1,878 Form 7-2190EZ 45 109 111 83 Form 7-2191 78 879 897 1,166 Form 7-2194 45 4 4 3 Form 7-21PE 75 166 169 211 Form 7-21PE-IND 12 5 5 1 Form 7-21TRUST 60 1,002 1,022 1,022 Form 7-21VERIFY 12 6,175 6,299 1,260 Form 7-21FC 30 243 248 124 Form 7-21XS 30 164 167 84 Form 7-21FARMOP 78 196 200 260 Totals 17,358 17,706 13,085 Comments *Comments are invited on:*

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

(b)the accuracy of our burden estimate for the proposed collection of information;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. We will summarize all comments received regarding this notice. We will publish that summary in the **Federal Register** when the information collection request is submitted to OMB for review and approval. Before including your address, telephone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Dated: January 29, 2007. Roseann Gonzales, Director, Office of Program and Policy Services, Denver Office. [FR Doc. E7-3845 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Agency Information Collection; Proposed Revisions to a Currently Approved Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior. ACTION: Notice of renewal of a currently approved collection (OMB No. 1006-0006). SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Bureau of Reclamation (we, our, or us) intends to submit a request for renewal (with revisions) of an existing approved information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): Certification Summary Form, Reporting Summary Form for Acreage Limitation, 43 CFR part 426 and 43 CFR part 428, OMB Control Number: 1006-0006. This information collection is required under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (RRA), Acreage Limitation Rules and Regulations, 43 CFR part 426, and Information Requirements for Certain Farm Operations In Excess of 960 Acres and the Eligibility of Certain Formerly Excess Land, 43 CFR part 428. We request your comments on the revised RRA forms and specific aspects of the information collection. DATES: Your written comments must be received on or before May 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send written comments to the Bureau of Reclamation, Attention: 84-53000, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, CO 80225-0007. You may request copies of the proposed revised forms by writing to the above address or by contacting Stephanie McPhee at:

(303)445-2897. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie McPhee at:

(303)445-2897. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Certification Summary Form, Reporting Summary Form for Acreage Limitation, 43 CFR part 426 and 43 CFR part 428. *Abstract:* These forms are to be used by district offices to summarize individual landholder (direct or indirect landowner or lessee) and farm operator certification and reporting forms as required by the RRA, 43 CFR part 426, and 43 CFR part 428. This information allows us to establish water user compliance with Federal reclamation law. *Changes to the RRA forms and the instructions to those forms.* The changes made to the current Form 7-21SUMM-C, Form 7-21SUMM-R, and the corresponding instructions clarify the completion instructions for these forms (for example, adding verbiage to clarify when requested acreages are to be provided on a westwide or district-specific basis). Other changes to the forms and the corresponding instructions are editorial in nature and are designed to assist the respondents by increasing their understanding of the forms, and clarifying the instructions for use when completing the forms. The proposed revisions to the RRA forms will be effective in the 2008 water year. *Frequency:* Annually. *Respondents:* Contracting entities that are subject to the acreage limitation provisions of Federal reclamation law. *Estimated Total Number of Respondents:* 225. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1.25. *Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses:* 281. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 11,240 hours. *Estimate of Burden for Each Form:* Form No. Burden estimate per form (in hours) Number of respondents Annual number of responses Annual burden on respondents (in hours) 7-21SUMM-C and associated tabulation sheets 40 188 235 9,400 7-21SUMM-R and associated tabulation sheets 40 37 46 1,840 Totals 225 281 11,240 Comments *Comments are invited on:*

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

(b)The accuracy of our burden estimate for the proposed collection of information;

(c)Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. We will summarize all comments received regarding this notice. We will publish that summary in the **Federal Register** when the information collection request is submitted to OMB for review and approval. Before including your address, telephone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Dated: January 29, 2007. Roseann Gonzales, Director, Office of Program and Policy Services, Denver Office. [FR Doc. E7-3847 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration By Notice dated October 11, 2006, and published in the **Federal Register** on October 18, 2006, (71 FR 61511), Varian, Inc., Lake Forest, 25200 Commercentre Drive, Lake Forest, California 92630-8810, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration

(DEA)to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule II: Drug Schedule Phencyclidine

(7471)II 1-Piperidinocyclohexane-carbonitrile

(8603)II Benzoylecgonine

(9180)II The company plans to manufacture small quantities of the listed controlled substances for use in diagnostic products. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Varian, Inc., Lake Forest to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Varian, Inc., Lake Forest to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: February 26, 2007. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E7-3919 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration ATF Fitness Products, Inc.; Denial of Application On February 6, 2006, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to ATF Fitness Products, Inc. (Respondent) of Oakmont, Pa. The Show Cause Order proposed to deny Respondent's pending application for registration as a distributor of the list I chemical ephedrine, on the ground that its registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Show Cause Order at 1. The Show Cause order alleged that ephedrine is a precursor chemical that is “commonly diverted” for use in the manufacture of methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance *Id.* The Show Cause Order specifically alleged that Respondent was proposing to distribute combination ephedrine products to gyms, fitness shops, and dietary supplement dealers, and that only a very small amount of the legitimate commerce in these products occurs in such smaller retail establishments. *Id.* at 2. The Show Cause Order alleged that many smaller or non-traditional retailers of combination ephedrine products “purchase inordinate amounts of these products and become conduits for the diversion of listed chemical[s] into illicit drug manufacturing.” *Id.* Relatedly, the Show Cause Order alleged that “[t]here is no legitimate therapeutic market for this type of product” at the type of stores Respondent “propose[s] to supply,” and that Respondent would be “fueling the diversion of precursor chemicals into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine.” *Id.* at 3. The Show Cause Order also alleged that in conducting verifications of Respondent's proposed customers, DEA investigators were unable to determine whether some of the proposed customers intended to buy ephedrine products from it. *Id.* at 2. Finally, the Show Cause Order alleged that in October 2004, the Food and Drug Administration conducted an inspection of Respondent. *Id.* at 2. The Show Cause Order alleged that during the inspection, FDA investigators found quantities of ephedra, a banned product. The Show Cause Order, which also informed Respondent of its right to a hearing, was served by certified mail, return receipt requested. On February 13, 2006, Respondent received the Show Cause Order as evidenced by the signed return receipt card. Since that time, neither Respondent, nor anyone purporting to represent it, has responded. Because

(1)more than thirty days have passed since Respondent's receipt of the Show Cause Order, and

(2)no request for a hearing has been received, I conclude that Respondent has waived its right to a hearing. *See* 21 CFR 1309.53(c). I therefore enter this final order without a hearing based on relevant material found in the investigative file and make the following findings. Findings Ephedrine is a list I chemical that, while having a therapeutic use, is easily extracted from lawful products and used in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine, a schedule II controlled substances. *See* 21 U.S.C. 802(34); 21 CFR 1308.12(d). As noted in numerous DEA orders, methamphetamine is an extremely potent and addictive central nervous system stimulant. *See T. Young Associates, Inc.,* 71 FR 60567 (2006). The illegal manufacture and abuse of methamphetamine pose a grave threat to this country. Methamphetamine abuse has destroyed numerous lives and families and has ravaged communities. Moreover, because of the toxic nature of the chemicals used in producing the drug, illicit methamphetamine laboratories cause serious environmental harms. *Id.* Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation which is located at 140 Pennsylvania Avenue, Oakmont, Pa. Respondent's founder and president is Mr. James Vercellotti. Respondent previously held a DEA Certificate of Registration to distribute list I chemicals. The registration, however, expired on June 30, 2001. On September 5, 2001, two DEA Diversion Investigators

(DIs)conducted a regulatory investigation at Respondent's Oakmont facility. On that date, Respondent's chief financial officer told the DIs that Respondent had submitted a renewal application. During the visit, William Charlesworth, Respondent's vice president, informed the DIs that Respondent had previously purchased bulk ephedrine powder and manufactured a combination ephedrine product, Sci-Fit Ephedrine HCL, for Asthma Relief. Respondent's officials further maintained that they were under the assumption that their distributor's registration authorized them to engage in manufacturing. The DIs subsequently advised an official of Respondent that while a manufacturer's registration authorizes its holder to distribute, a distributor's registration does not authorize its holder to manufacture. On September 8, 2001, Mr. Charlesworth telephoned one of the DIs and informed him that Respondent was withdrawing its renewal application in part because list I products comprised less than one percent of its sales. Respondent subsequently submitted a letter to DEA withdrawing its application. On May 5, 2004, Respondent submitted a new application for a registration to distribute ephedrine. On September 28, 2004, two DIs returned to Respondent's facility to conduct a pre-registration investigation and met again with its president. Respondent's president told the DIs that it was a wholesale distributor of over-the-counter fitness products including food supplements and that it had customers nationwide including GNC, a chain of nutritional supplement retailers, and Walgreens, a chain of pharmacies. Respondent's president also told the DIs that the firm had been in business for fourteen years and that it expected that list I products would provide less than two percent of its sales. Respondent provided the DIs with a list of fifty potential list I customers. Subsequently, a DI contacted ten of Respondent's customers. Seven of the stores stated that they did not plan to purchase ephedrine products; only two of the stores indicated that they would purchase the products from Respondent. Respondent's president further stated that it would require its List I customers to provide complete identification information prior to selling the products to them and that its sales manager would verify the existence of each business and its need for the products. Following the on-site inspection, DEA was notified that the Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)had conducted an inspection of Respondent's facility. During the inspection, FDA found that Respondent had in its possession approximately $13,500 worth of products, which either contained MaHuang Extract, a source of ephedrine alkaloids, or claimed to when they did not. Eight months earlier, FDA had issued a final rule banning these products on the ground that they are adulterated and present an unreasonable risk of illness or injury under section 402(f)(1)(A) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDA Act), 21 U.S.C. 342(f)(1)(A). *See* 69 FR 6788 (2004). The FDA's ban became effective on April 12, 2004. According to the FDA, Respondent's officials asserted that they intended to export the product. Respondent's officials could not, however, provide the documentation required to demonstrate its compliance with section 801(e)(1) of the FDA Act, 21 U.S.C. 381(e)(1). FDA officials also concluded that some of the products were mislabeled in violation of federal law because they claimed to contain ingredients that were not actually present. On February 25, 2005, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania filed a complaint for forfeiture of the products and U.S. Marshals seized them. Subsequently, the FDA found that Respondent had in its possession another product (Lipodrene), which also contained ephedrine alkaloids. On January 12, 2006, the U.S. Attorney's Office filed an additional complaint which sought the forfeiture of these products. U.S. Marshalls seized these products, which were valued at approximately $ 16,000. Discussion Under 21 U.S.C. 823(h), an applicant to distribute List I chemicals is entitled to be registered unless the registration would be “inconsistent with the public interest.” In making this determination, Congress directed that I consider the following factors:

(1)Maintenance by the applicant of effective controls against diversion of listed chemicals into other than legitimate channels;

(2)Compliance by the applicant with applicable Federal, State, and local law;

(3)Any prior conviction record of the applicant under Federal or State laws relating to controlled substances or to chemicals controlled under Federal or State law;

(4)Any past experience of the applicant in the manufacture and distribution of chemicals; and

(5)Such other factors as are relevant to and consistent with the public health and safety. *Id.* “These factors are considered in the disjunctive.” *Joy's Ideas* , 70 FR 33195, 33197 (2005). I may rely on any one or a combination of factors, and may give each factor the weight I deem appropriate in determining whether an application for registration should be denied. *See,* *e.g., David M. Starr* , 71 FR 39367 (2006); *Energy Outlet* , 64 FR 14269 (1999). Moreover, I am “not required to make findings as to all of the factors.” *Hoxie* v. *DEA* , 419 F.3d 477, 482 (6th Cir. 2005); *Morall* v. *DEA* , 412 F.3d 165, 173-74 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Here, I conclude that an analysis of each factor is unnecessary and that Respondent's application should be denied based on Factor Two, its record of non-compliance with applicable laws. As recognized in numerous final orders, the illicit manufacture and abuse of methamphetamine have had pernicious effects on families and communities throughout the nation. Preventing the diversion of list I chemicals into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine is of critical importance in protecting the public from the devastation wreaked by this drug. While the investigative file in this case contains no evidence establishing the risk of diversion by establishments such as those which Respondent proposed to distribute its products to, the firm's record of non-compliance with other federal laws does not inspire confidence in its willingness to faithfully obey DEA regulations. Here, the investigative file establishes two separate instances in which Respondent violated the FDA Act. Moreover, FDA found these violations well after the rule banning ephedrine alkaloids went into effect. In section 303(h) of the CSA, Congress broadly directed that the Attorney General consider “compliance by the applicant with applicable Federal, State, and local law,” 21 U.S.C. 823(h)(2), in determining whether to grant a list I distributor's registration. In contrast to the provision applicable to a practitioner's registration, Congress did not limit the subject matter of the laws that are properly considered in determining whether an applicant's compliance record supports granting it a registration. *Cf. id.* § 823(f)(4) (directing consideration of a practitioner's “[c]ompliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances”). Moreover, Respondent's apparent willingness to sell products which have been banned (as evidenced by the fact that banned products were found not once, but twice at its facility) and/or its inability to properly document its compliance with the FDA act (with respect to its assertion that it intended to export the products found in the first incident), are sufficiently probative of the manner in which it would likely fulfill its obligations as a registrant under the Controlled Substances Act. 1 I thus conclude that granting it a registration would “be inconsistent with the public interest.” *Id.* § 823(h). 1 The CSA imposes extensive recordkeeping requirements on List I chemical distributors. See 21 CFR Pt. 1310. Order Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(h), and 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I order that the application of Respondent ATF Fitness Products, Inc., for a DEA Certificate of Registration as a distributor of list I chemicals be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective April 5, 2007. Dated: February 23, 2007. Michele M. Leonhart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-3856 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Georgia Convenience Wholesale, Inc.; Denial of Application On February 6, 2006, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Georgia Convenience Wholesale, Inc., (Respondent) of Doraville, Georgia. The Show Cause Order proposed to deny Respondent's pending application for a Certificate of Registration to distribute list I chemicals on the ground that its registration “would be inconsistent with the public interest.” Show Cause Order at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(h)). The Show Cause Order specifically alleged that on April 19, 2005, Respondent applied for a registration to distribute list I chemicals including pseudoephedrine, ephedrine and phenylpropanolamine (PPA), and that these products “are commonly used to illegally manufacture methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance.” Show Cause Order at 1-2. The Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent was proposing to distribute these products to convenience stores, and that “law enforcement officials have observed that an overwhelming proportion of precursors found at illicit methamphetamine sites have involved non-traditional pseudoephedrine and ephedrine brands sold through convenience stores.” *Id.* at 2. The Show Cause Order also alleged that as non-traditional products “become more tightly regulated, even traditional products are subject to diversion.” *Id.* The Show Cause Order further alleged that during a pre-registration investigation, Respondent's owner/operator was not aware that PPA had been withdrawn from the over-the-counter market. *Id.* Relatedly, the Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent had also sought registration for other list I chemicals even though these chemicals “were not ingredients in any over-the-counter drug product.” *Id.* Finally, the Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent “does not have adequate experience or familiarity with products and the sales potentials in the industry to carry out the responsibilities of a registrant and prevent the diversion of listed chemical precursors into illicit activities.” *Id.* at 3. On or about February 24, 2006, the Show Cause Order, which also notified Respondent of its right to request a hearing, was served by certified mail, return receipt requested, as evidenced by the signed return receipt card. Since that time, neither Respondent, nor anyone purporting to represent it, has responded. Because

(1)more than thirty days have passed since service of the Show Cause Order, and

(2)no request for a hearing has been received, I conclude that Respondent has waived its right to a hearing. *See* 21 CFR 1309.53(c). I therefore enter this final order without a hearing based on relevant material contained in the investigative file and make the following findings. Findings Respondent is a Georgia corporation which is located at 4030 Pleasantdale Road, Doraville, Georgia. Respondent is a wholesale distributor of general merchandise to convenience stores, gas stations, candy stores, dollar stores, party stores, and liquor stores in the Atlanta, Georgia metropolitan area. Respondent has been in business since May 2005. On April 19, 2005, Respondent's president, Mr. Mohammad S. Yaqoob, applied for a DEA Certificate of Registration to distribute list I chemicals. Specifically, Respondent applied to distribute ephedrine, methylephedrine, n-methlypseudoephedrine, norpseudoephedrine, phenylpropanolamine (PPA), and pseudoephedrine. As explained in numerous DEA final orders, both pseudoephedrine and ephedrine currently have therapeutic uses. *See, e.g., Tri-County Bait Distributors* , 71 FR 52160, 52161 (2006). 1 Both chemicals are, however, regulated under the Controlled Substances Act because they are precursor chemicals which are easily extracted from non-prescription products and used in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance. *See* 21 U.S.C. § 802(34); 21 CFR 1308.12(d). 1 The FDA is, however, currently proposing to remove combination ephedrine-guaifenesin products from its over-the-counter

(OTC)drug monograph and to declare them not safe and effective for OTC use. See 70 FR 40232 (2005). Methamphetamine is a powerful and highly addictive central nervous system stimulant. *See, e.g., Tri-County Bait Distributors* , 71 FR at 52161. The illegal manufacture and abuse of methamphetamine pose a grave threat to this country. Methamphetamine abuse has destroyed numerous lives and families and ravaged communities. Moreover, because of the toxic nature of the chemicals which are used to make the drug, the illegal manufacture of methamphetamine causes serious environmental harms. *Id.* On June 9, 2005, two DEA Diversion Investigators

(DIs)went to Respondent's proposed registered location to conduct a pre-registration investigation. The DIs met with Mr. Yaqoob, who informed the investigators that he had purchased the business on May 1, 2005. The DIs also met with Mr. Omar, Respondent's Vice-President. Both Mr. Yaqoob and Mr. Omar told the DIs that each had previously owned a gas station and had sold list I chemical products. Mr. Yaqoob informed the DIs that Respondent's list I customers would be convenience stores and gas stations. Numerous DEA orders have found that these establishments are non-traditional (or gray market) retailers of list I chemical products. *See, e.g., T. Young Associates, Inc.* , 71 FR 60567, 60568 (2006). Mr. Yaqoob also provided the DIs with a list of the list I chemical products Respondent intended to distribute. The list was comprised entirely of traditional cold and sinus medicines that contain pseudoephedrine. When one of the DIs asked Mr. Yaqoob why he had originally requested authorization to handle other list I chemicals, Mr. Yaqoob stated that he had not known exactly which drug codes were needed to handle pseudoephedrine so he asked for the additional codes. Mr. Yaqoob, however, had submitted a letter, which is dated prior to the onsite inspection, withdrawing Respondent's request to handle PPA, methylephedrine, n-methlypseudoephedrine, and norpseudoephedrine. The investigation determined that Respondent's business is located in a large brick building which has an alarm system with motion detectors, glass break strips, and metal contact strips, and is monitored by a security company. Moreover, the doors were equipped with metal cross bars and dead bolt locks. Finally, the list I products were to be stored in a separate room (which was to remain locked at all times) and not in the warehouse. Furthermore, Respondent appeared to have adequate procedures for handling the list I products, as well as for identifying and verifying new customers. Discussion Under 21 U.S.C. 823(h), an applicant to distribute list I chemicals is entitled to be registered unless the registration would be “inconsistent with the public interest.” In making this determination, Congress directed that I consider the following factors:

(1)Maintenance by the applicant of effective controls against diversion of listed chemicals into other than legitimate channels;

(2)Compliance by the applicant with applicable Federal, State, and local law;

(3)Any prior conviction record of the applicant under Federal or State laws relating to controlled substances or to chemicals controlled under Federal or State law;

(4)Any past experience of the applicant in the manufacture and distribution of chemicals; and

(5)Such other factors as are relevant to and consistent with the public health and safety. *Id.* “These factors are considered in the disjunctive.” *Joy's Ideas* , 70 FR 33195, 33197 (2005). I may rely on any one or a combination of factors, and may give each factor the weight I deem appropriate in determining whether an application for registration should be denied. *See* , *e.g.* , *David M. Starr* , 71 FR 39367 (2006); *Energy Outlet* , 64 FR 14269 (1999). Moreover, I am “not required to make findings as to all of the factors.” *Hoxie* v. *DEA* , 419 F.3d 477, 482 (6th Cir. 2005); *Morall* v. *DEA* , 412 F.3d 165, 173-74 (D.C. Cir. 2005). In this case, I acknowledge that factors one, two, and three would not bar Respondent's registration. I find dispositive, however, that Respondent lacks relevant experience in the wholesale distribution of list I chemicals (factor four) and that it intends to distribute list I chemicals to the gray market (factor five), a market in which the risk of diversion is substantial. Consistent with DEA precedents, I hold that Respondent's registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Factor One—The Maintenance of Effective Controls Against Diversion This investigative file does not establish that Respondent would fail to maintain adequate procedures to protect against diversion. Moreover, the file establishes that Respondent would provide adequate security of list I chemical products to protect them from theft. Thus, this factor does not support a finding that Respondent's registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Factors Two and Three—Compliance With Applicable Laws and the Applicant's Prior Record of Relevant Criminal Convictions There is no evidence that Respondent is not in compliance with applicable Federal, State, or local laws. Relatedly, there is no evidence that Respondent, or any person affiliated with it, has ever been convicted of a crime under either Federal or State laws relating to controlled substances or listed chemicals. I thus conclude that neither factor supports a finding that Respondent's registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Factor Four—The Applicant's Past Experience in the Distribution of Listed Chemicals DEA precedent establishes that “an applicant's lack of experience in distributing list I chemicals creates a greater risk of diversion and thus weighs heavily against the granting of an application.” *Tri-County Bait Distributors* , 71 FR at 52163. According to the investigative file, Respondent's president and vice-president previously owned gas stations at which they sold list I chemical products. But as I explained in *Tri-County Bait Distributors* , merely engaging in the retail sale of these products is not sufficient to establish that an applicant has experience which is relevant to fulfilling the regulatory obligations of a wholesaler of these products. *Id.* Distributors of list I chemicals are subject to a comprehensive and complex regulatory scheme. *See* 21 CFR parts 1309 and 1310. Moreover, prior to the enactment of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005, retail distributors of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine were generally exempt from recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 2 2 Effective September 30, 2006, retail distributors are now required to maintain a logbook which records the name and address of each purchaser of ephedrine or a pseudoephedrine product containing more than 60 mg. of the chemical, the date and time of the sale, the product name and the quantity sold. Accordingly, for an applicant's (or its key employee's) experience to be relevant, the key employee must have been actively involved in the fulfillment of a registrant's regulatory obligations as a wholesale distributor and demonstrate adequate knowledge of the applicant's proposed products. 3 Because neither of Respondent's key employees has such experience, I conclude that this factor supports a finding that granting it a registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. 3 Respondent initially sought registration for additional chemicals beyond pseudoephedrine and ephedrine even though it intended only to carry products containing pseudoephedrine. According to the documentary evidence, Respondent withdrew its request to be registered for these chemicals before the inspection. Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent's initial request to be registered for the additional chemicals does not support a finding that it lacks adequate product knowledge. Factor Five—Other Factors That Are Relevant to and Consistent With Public Health and Safety Numerous DEA orders recognize that convenience stores and gas-stations constitute the non-traditional retail market for legitimate consumers of products containing pseudoephedrine and ephedrine. *See* , *e.g.* , *Tri-County Bait Distributors* , 71 FR at 52161; *D & S Sales* , 71 FR 37607, 37609 (2006); *Branex, Inc.* , 69 FR 8682, 8690-92 (2004). DEA orders also establish that the sale of list I chemical products by non-traditional retailers is an area of particular concern in preventing diversion of these products into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine. * See, e.g.* , *Joey Enterprises* , 70 FR 76866, 76867 (2005). As *Joey Enterprises* explains, “[w]hile there are no specific prohibitions under the Controlled Substances Act regarding the sale of listed chemical products to [gas stations and convenience stores], DEA has nevertheless found that [these entities] constitute sources for the diversion of listed chemical products.” *Id. See also TNT Distributors* , 70 FR 12729, 12730

(2003)(noting “over 20 different seizure of [gray market distributor's] pseudoephedrine product at clandestine sites,” and that in eight-month period, distributor's product “was seized at clandestine laboratories in eight states, with over 2 million dosage units seized in Oklahoma alone.”); *MDI Pharmaceuticals* , 68 FR 4233, 4236

(2005)(noting “heightened risk of diversion” should application be granted). Under DEA precedents, an applicant's proposal to sell into the non-traditional market weighs heavily against the granting of a registration under factor five. So too here. Because of the methamphetamine epidemic's devastating impact on communities and families throughout the country, DEA has repeatedly denied an application when an applicant proposed to sell into the non-traditional market and analysis of one of the other statutory factors supports the conclusion that granting the application would create an unacceptable risk of diversion. Thus, in *Xtreme Enterprises* , 67 FR 76195, 76197 (2002), my predecessor denied an application observing that the respondent's “lack of a criminal record, compliance with the law and willingness to upgrade her security system are far outweighed by her lack of experience with selling list I chemicals and the fact that she intends to sell ephedrine almost exclusively in the gray market.” I have repeatedly adhered to this reasoning in denying applications to distribute list I chemicals to the non-traditional market. See, *e.g.* , Jay Enterprises, 70 FR at 24621; *Prachi Enterprises,* 69 FR 69407, 69409 (2004). Here, Respondent's key persons have no experience in the wholesale distribution of list I chemical products and yet the firm intends to distribute these products to non-traditional retailers, a market in which the risk of diversion is substantial. *See Taby Enterprises of Osceola, Inc.* , 71 FR 71557, 71559 (2006). Given these findings, I hold that granting Respondent's application would be “inconsistent with the public interest.” 21 U.S.C. 823(h). Order Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(h), and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I order that the application of Georgia Convenience Wholesale, Inc., for a DEA Certificate of Registration as a distributor of list I chemicals be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective April 5, 2007. Dated: February 23, 2007. Michele M. Leonhart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-3839 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration MK Distributing, Inc.; Denial of Application On May 25, 2005, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to MK Distributing (Respondent) of Arvada, Colorado. The Show Cause Order proposed to deny Respondent's pending application for a DEA Certificate of Registration as a distributor of list I chemicals, on the ground that its registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. *See* Show Cause Order at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(h)). More specifically, the Show Cause Order alleged that on November 18, 2003, Respondent's owner, Frederick H. Gates, had applied for a registration to distribute ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, which are precursor chemicals used in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine. *Id.* at 1-2. The Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent's customer base “is comprised primarily of gas stations, convenience stores, and independent grocers,” and that these establishments are “sources for the diversion of listed chemical products.” *Id.* at 2. The Show Cause Order further alleged that on April 1, 2003, Mr. Gates had purchased Respondent and that between that date and October 2003, Respondent had distributed 18,351 bottles and 3,720 packets of combination ephedrine (25 mg) products under the DEA registration of its previous owner. *Id.* at 2-3. The Show Cause Order alleged that Mr. Gates' use of the previous owner's registration violated DEA regulations that prohibit the assignment or transfer of a registration without the written consent of the Administrator. *Id.* at 3 (citing 21 CFR 1309.63). The Show Cause Order also alleged that between May and October 2003, Respondent sold 1,056 bottles and 672 packets of ephedrine to the Barn Store, a small independent grocer, and that these sales were “far in excess of legitimate demand for these products.” *Id.* Relatedly, the Show Cause Order alleged that during the same period, Respondent sold 849 bottles and 312 packets of ephedrine products to a combination gas station/convenience store, and that these sales were also “far in excess of legitimate demand for these products.” *Id.* The Show Cause Order thus concluded by alleging that all of Respondent's customers are part of the non-traditional market for list I chemical products, that its sale of these products “is inconsistent with the known legitimate market and * * * end-user demand for [these] products,” and that granting its application “would likely lead to increased diversion of list I chemicals.” *Id.* at 4. On June 6, 2005, the Show Cause Order, which also notified Respondent of its right to request a hearing, was served by certified mail, return receipt requested, as evidenced by the signed return receipt card. Since that time, neither Respondent, nor anyone purporting to represent it, has responded. Because

(1)more than thirty days have passed since service of the Show Cause Order, and

(OTC)drug monograph and to declare them not safe and effective for OTC use. *See* 70 FR 40232 (2005). Methamphetamine is a powerful and addictive central nervous system stimulant. *See Gregg Brothers Wholesale Co.,* 71 FR 59830 (2006). The illegal manufacture and abuse of methamphetamine pose a grave threat to this country. Methamphetamine abuse has destroyed numerous lives and families and ravaged communities. Moreover, because of the toxic nature of the chemicals used to make the drug, its manufacture causes serious environment harms. 2 * Id.* 2 According to the investigative file, in 2002, law enforcement agencies seized 452 illicit methamphetamine laboratories in Colorado. In numerous cases, DEA has shown through expert testimony that only a small percentage of pseudoephedrine sales occur at gas stations and convenience stores and that these stores constitute a non-traditional market for the legitimate commerce in these products. *See, e.g., T. Young Associates, Inc.,* 71 FR 60567, 60568 (2006); *D & S Sales,* 71 FR 37607, 37608-09 (2006); *Branex, Inc.,* 69 FR 8682, 8690-92 (2004). DEA has further established that the monthly expected sales of combination ephedrine products by non-traditional retailers such as convenience stores and gas stations to meet legitimate demand, *i.e.* , the purchase of the products for their medically approved use as a bronchodilator to treat asthma, is between $0 and $25, with an average of $12.58. *See, e.g., T. Young Associates, Inc.,* 71 FR at 60567 n.2 & 60568 (2006); *Tri-County Bait Distributors,* 71 FR 52160, 52161-62 (2006); *D & S Sales,* 71 FR 37607, 37608-09 (2006). DEA has also shown that a monthly retail sale of $60 to meet legitimate consumer demand for ephedrine products “would occur about once in a million times in random sampling.” *T. Young,* 71 FR at 60568 (int. quotations and citations omitted). Findings Pertinent to Respondent Respondent is a Colorado corporation which is located at 6150 W. 55th Avenue, Arvada, Colorado. On November 18, 2003, Respondent's owner, Mr. Frederick H. Gates, submitted an application for a registration to distribute the list I chemicals ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. Respondent is a wholesaler of pornographic magazines, DVDs, videos, toys and novelty items in the Colorado Springs area. Respondent's customer base is largely comprised of non-traditional retailers of list I chemical products. *See, e.g., T. Young Associates, Inc.,* 71 FR at 60568. Respondent was previously owned by Mike and Jane Kleppen, who incorporated the firm in November 2001; this entity held a DEA registration to distribute list I chemicals which was last renewed on December 9, 2002. According to the investigative file, on April 1, 2003, the Kleppens sold the business to either Mr. Gates or another firm owned by him. The Kleppens did not, however, surrender MK Distributing's DEA registration. Between April 1, 2003, and October 8, 2003, Respondent continued to distribute large quantities of combination ephedrine products using the registration issued to MK Distributing under its previous owners. On the latter date, two DEA Diversion Investigators

(DIs)went to MK Distributing's warehouse and met with Jane Kleppen. The DIs questioned Ms. Kleppen as whether the new owners had obtained a DEA registration. Ms. Kleppen advised the DIs that on April 1, 2003, MK Distributing had been purchased by a firm called “Pleasures,” and that the latter firm had not applied for a DEA registration because of its inability to obtain a tax identification number. The DIs informed Ms. Kleppen that the new company was not authorized to use the registration. One of the DIs then asked Ms. Kleppen to voluntarily surrender the DEA registration; Ms. Kleppen agreed and signed a voluntary surrender form. Ms. Kleppen then surrendered the list I products that were in Respondent's warehouse. Ms. Kleppen told the DIs that the original certificate of registration was at her residence and that there were additional list I products on Respondent's four delivery vans. Accordingly, the following day, the DIs returned to Respondent and obtained the original certificate from Ms. Kleppen. Ms. Kleppen then turned over to the DIs additional list I products, which were subsequently returned to the supplier. As stated above, on November 18, 2003, Mr. Gates (Respondent's new owner) applied for a registration. On July 1, 2004, the same two DIs returned to Respondent's warehouse to conduct a pre-registration investigation. During this visit, Mr. Gates told the DIs that he expected that list I products would be approximately ten percent of Respondent's total sales. When asked what ephedrine was used for, Mr. Gates told the DIs that it was used by truck drivers to stay alert, for weight loss, and methamphetamine. As part of the application process, Respondent was required to complete a questionnaire. On this questionnaire, Mr. Gates stated that “[t]he new owners of MK Distributing, LLC[,] have sold 18,351 bottles of Ephedrine 25 mg, and 3,720 packets of ephedrine 25 mg before DEA investigators * * * pulled” the registration. Mr. Gates also provided a list of the monthly purchases of list I products by Respondent's customers from May through October 2003. A representative sampling of this information shows that Respondent was selling massive amounts of combination ephedrine products to its gas station/convenience store customers. 3 Between May and September, Respondent sold 720 bottles (for a monthly average of 144) to the Kwik-Way Dublin, 960 bottles (for a monthly average of 192) to the Corner Store, and 654 bottles (for a monthly average of 130.8) to Lil T Foods. During the same period, Respondent sold 1147 bottles (for a monthly average of 229.4) to the Broken Wheel, 1200 bottles (for a monthly average of 240) to PHA, and 692 bottles (for a monthly average of 138.40) to Centron. Finally, Respondent sold 828 bottles (for a monthly average of 165.60) to R & S, 768 bottles (for a monthly average of 153.6) to the South Circle Station, and 993 bottles (for a monthly average of 198.6) to the Conoco Union gas station. 3 All of the data used in the sampling were for sixty-count bottles. Respondent also sold ephedrine packets to several of these entities. According to the investigative file, the DIs were told by an employee at one store that the retail price of the sixty-count bottles was $7.99. This figure is consistent with other information that DEA has obtained during investigations in Colorado. *See Wild West Wholesale,* 72 FR 4042, 4043

(2007)(finding that retail price was $5.99 for 48-count combination ephedrine product). At an average retail price of $7.99 per bottle, the monthly average sales of the above stores were: Kwik-Way Dublin, $1151; Corner Store, $1534; LiL T Foods, $1045; Broken Wheel, $1833; PHA, $1918; Centron, $1106; R & S, $1323; South Circle, $1227; and Conoco Union, $1587. 4 The average monthly sale for all of these stores was $1414. As explained above, through expert testimony, DEA has established that the monthly expected sales range of combination ephedrine products at a non-traditional retailer to meet legitimate consumer demand is between $0 and $25, with an average of $12.58; a monthly retail sale of $60 to meet legitimate consumer demand at a non-traditional retailer would occur about once in a million times in random sampling. 4 These figures were either rounded up or down to the nearest dollar. Because these sales so greatly exceed the monthly expected sales range to meet legitimate demand, I further find that most of Respondent's products were diverted into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine. Moreover, even if these stores sold Respondent's products at a lower retail price (such as the price found in *Wild West Wholesale* for a smaller quantity), I would still find that Respondent's sales were so excessive that its products were diverted. Discussion Under 21 U.S.C. 823(h), an applicant to distribute list I chemicals is entitled to be registered unless the registration would be “inconsistent with the public interest.” In making this determination, Congress directed that I consider the following factors:

(1)Maintenance by the applicant of effective controls against diversion of listed chemicals into other than legitimate channels;

(2)Compliance by the applicant with applicable Federal, State, and local law;

(3)Any prior conviction record of the applicant under Federal or State laws relating to controlled substances or to chemicals controlled under Federal or State law;

(4)Any past experience of the applicant in the manufacture and distribution of chemicals; and

(5)Such other factors as are relevant to and consistent with the public health and safety. *Id.* “These factors are considered in the disjunctive.” *Joy's Ideas,* 70 FR 33195, 33197 (2005). I may rely on any one or a combination of factors, and may give each factor the weight I deem appropriate in determining whether an application for registration should be denied. *See, e.g., David M. Starr,* 71 FR 39367 (2006); *Energy Outlet,* 64 FR 14269 (1999). Moreover, I am “not required to make findings as to all of the factors.” *Hoxie* v. *DEA,* 419 F.3d 477, 482 (6th Cir. 2005); *Morall* v. *DEA,* 412 F.3d 165, 173-74 (D.C. Cir. 2005). In this case, I conclude that an analysis of factors one, two, and three is not necessary. I hold that factors four (Respondent's experience) and five (Respondent's intent to distribute to the non-traditional market) conclusively establish that granting Respondent's application would be inconsistent with the public interest. Factors Four and Five—The Registrant's Past Experience in the Distribution of Chemicals and Other Factors Relevant To and Consistent With Public Health and Safety As found above, the illicit manufacture and abuse of methamphetamine have had pernicious effects on families and communities throughout the nation. Cutting off the supply source of methamphetamine traffickers is of critical importance in protecting the public from the devastation wreaked by this drug. While combination ephedrine products have a legitimate medical use as a bronchodilator to treat asthma, DEA orders have established that convenience stores and gas-stations constitute the non-traditional retail market for legitimate consumers of products containing ephedrine. *See, e.g., Tri-County Bait Distributors,* 71 FR at 52161; *D & S Sales,* 71 FR at 37609; *Branex, Inc.,* 69 FR at 8690-92. DEA has further found that there is a substantial risk of diversion of list I chemicals into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine when these products are sold by non-traditional retailers. *See, e.g., Joy's Ideas,* 70 FR at 33199 (finding that the risk of diversion was “real” and “substantial”); *Jay Enterprises, Inc.,* 70 FR 24620, 24621

(2005)(noting “heightened risk of diversion” should application be granted). DEA orders thus recognize that the sale of combination ephedrine (and pseudoephedrine) products by non-traditional retailers is an area of particular concern in preventing diversion of these products into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine. *See, e.g., Joey Enterprises, Inc.,* 70 FR 76866, 76867 (2005). As *Joey Enterprises* explains, “[w]hile there are no specific prohibitions under the Controlled Substances Act regarding the sale of listed chemical products to [gas stations and convenience stores], DEA has nevertheless found that [these entities] constitute sources for the diversion of listed chemical products.” *Id. See also TNT Distributors,* 70 FR 12729, 12730

(2005)(special agent testified that “80 to 90 percent of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine being used [in Tennessee] to manufacture methamphetamine was being obtained from convenience stores”). 5 Here, nearly all of Respondent's customers are convenience stores and gas stations, which are non-traditional retailers of list I chemical products; DEA has repeatedly found that these entities are conduits for the diversion of list I products into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine. 5 *See OTC Distribution Co.,* 68 FR 70538, 70541

(2003)(noting “over 20 different seizures of [gray market distributor's] pseudoephedrine product at clandestine sites,” and that in eight-month period distributor's product “was seized at clandestine laboratories in eight states, with over 2 million dosage units seized in Oklahoma alone.”); * MDI Pharmaceuticals,* 68 FR 4233, 4236

(2003)(finding that “pseudoephedrine products distributed by [gray market distributor] have been uncovered at numerous clandestine methamphetamine settings throughout the United States and/or discovered in the possession of individuals apparently involved in the illicit manufacturer of methamphetamine”). Relatedly, DEA has repeatedly revoked the registrations of list I chemical distributors who supplied the non-traditional market for selling quantities of products that clearly exceeded legitimate demand and were likely diverted into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine. *See T. Young Associates, Inc.,* 71 FR at 60572-73; *D & S Sales,* 71 FR at 37611-12; *Joy's sIdeas,* 70 FR at 33198-99; *Branex, Inc.,* 69 FR at 8693-96. Most significantly, the investigative file establishes that Respondent distributed combination ephedrine products in quantities that far exceeded legitimate consumer demand for these products as an asthma treatment. The representative sampling of Respondent's customers showed that the lowest average estimated monthly retail sale per store was $ 1045; four of the stores had average monthly retail sales of more than $ 1500. Moreover, the average estimated monthly sale for all stores in the sample was $ 1414. These figures grossly exceed the monthly expected sales range of $ 0 to $ 25 (with an average of $ 12.58) by convenience stores to meet legitimate demand for these products. *See T. Young,* 71 FR at 60568; *D & S Sales,* 71 FR at 37609. Indeed, as found above, a monthly retail sale of $ 60 of ephedrine products at a convenience store should “occur about once in a million times in random sampling.” *T. Young,* 71 FR at 60568. The $ 1414 average monthly retail sale for all nine stores is more than twenty-three times this amount. Moreover, this figure is an average for these stores over a five-month period. It is thus considerably more improbable than a one in a million probability that Respondent's products were being purchased to meet legitimate demand. I therefore conclude that the only plausible explanation for these extraordinary sales is that Respondent's products were being diverted into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine. *See T. Young,* 71 FR at 60572; *D & S Sales,* 71 FR at 37611 (finding diversion occurred “[g]iven the near impossibility that * * * sales were the result of legitimate demand”); *Joy's Ideas,* 70 FR at 33198 (finding diversion occurred in the absence of “a plausible explanation in the record for this deviation from the expected norm”). Moreover, because the purpose of the CSA's registration provisions is to protect the public interest, it is irrelevant whether Respondent knew that its products were being diverted. *T. Young,* 71 FR at 60572. “The diversion of list I chemicals into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine poses the same threat to public health and safety whether a registrant sell the products knowing they will be diverted, sells them with a reckless disregard for the diversion, or sells them being totally unaware that the products were being diverted.” *Id.* (citing *D & S Sales,* 71 FR at 37610-12, & *Joy's Ideas,* 70 FR at 33198). As I have previously noted (albeit in a revocation proceeding), the public interest standard does not require that the Government prove that a registrant acted with any particular *mens rea* in order to support a finding that diversion has occurred. *T. Young,* 71 FR at 60572. The same rule applies to an applicant who has previously engaged in the distribution of list I products. Accordingly, where, as here, substantial quantities of products have been diverted, adverse findings are warranted under factors four and five even if Respondent's owner was unaware that its products were being diverted. I therefore hold that granting Respondent's application would be inconsistent with the public interest. Order Accordingly, pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(h), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I order that the application of MK Distributing, Inc., for a DEA Certificate of Registration as a distributor of list I chemicals, be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective April 5, 2007. Dated: February 23, 2007. Michele M. Leonhart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-3857 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment Standards Administration Proposed Collection; Comment Request ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment Standards Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Notice of Law Enforcement Officer's Injury or Occupational Disease (CA-721) and Notice of Law Enforcement Officer's Death (CA-722). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before May 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Ms. Hazel M. Bell, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room S-3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone

(202)693-0418, fax

(202)693-1451, e-mail: *bell.hazel@dol.gov* . Please use only one method of transmission for comments (mail, fax, or e-mail). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

(OWCP)administers the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA). The Act provides that non-Federal law enforcement officers and/or their survivors injured or killed under certain circumstances are entitled to benefits of the Act to the same extent as employees in the Federal government. The Notice of Law Enforcement Officer's Injury or Occupational Disease (CA-721) and the Notice of Law Enforcement Officer's Death (CA-722) are the forms used by non-Federal law enforcement officers and their survivors to claim compensation under FECA. This information collection is currently approved for use through August 31, 2007. II. Review Focus The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and • 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, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. III. Current Actions The Department of Labor seeks the extension of approval to collect this information to determine eligibility for benefits. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Agency:* Employment Standards Administration. *Title:* Notice of Law Enforcement Officer's Injury or Occupational Disease (CA-721), Notice of Law Enforcement Officer's Death (CA-722). *OMB Number:* 1215-0116. *Agency Number:* CA-721 and CA-722. *Affected Public:* Individuals or Households; Business or other for-profit; State, Local or Tribal Government. *Total Respondents:* 30. *Total Annual Responses:* 30. *Average Time per Response:* 60 to 90 minutes. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 40. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* $0. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance):* $12.60. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Ruben Wiley, Chief, Branch of Management Review and Internal Control, Division of Financial Management, Office of Management, Administration and Planning, Employment Standards Administration. [FR Doc. E7-3865 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-CH-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment Standards Administration Proposed Collection; Comment Request ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment Standards Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Survivor's Form for Benefits (CM-912). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before May 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Ms. Hazel M. Bell, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room S-3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone

(202)693-0418, fax

(202)693-1451, e-mail *bell.hazel@dol.gov* . Please use only one method of transmission for comments (mail, fax, or e-mail). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background This collection of information is required to administer the benefit payment provisions of the Black Lung Act for survivors of deceased miners. Completion of this form constitutes the application for benefits by survivors and assists in determining the survivor's entitlement to benefits. Form CM-912 is authorized for use by the Black Lung Benefits Act 30 U.S.C. 901, et seq., 20 CFR 410.221 and CFR 725.304 and is used to gather information from a survivor of a miner to determine if the survivor is entitled to benefits. This information collection is currently approved for use through August 31, 2007. II. Review Focus The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and • 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, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. III. Current Actions The Department of Labor seeks the extension of approval to collect this information in order to gather information to determine eligibility for benefits of a survivor of a Black Lung Act beneficiary. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Agency:* Employment Standards Administration. *Title:* Survivor's Form for Benefits. *OMB Number:* 1215-0069. *Agency Number:* CM-912. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Total Respondents:* 2,000. *Total Annual Responses:* 2,000. *Average Time per Response:* 8 minutes. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 267. *Frequency:* One time. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* $0. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance):* $672.00. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Ruben Wiley, Chief, Branch of Management Review and Internal Control, Division of Financial Management, Office of Management, Administration and Planning, Employment Standards Administration. [FR Doc. E7-3866 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-CK-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment Standards Administration Proposed Collection; Comment Request ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment Standards Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act Forms (EE-1 English and EE-1 Spanish, EE-2 English and EE-2 Spanish, EE-3 English and EE-3 Spanish, EE-4 English and EE-4 Spanish, EE-7 English and EE-7 Spanish, EE-8, EE-9, EE-10, EE-12, EE-13, EE-20). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this Notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before May 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Ms. Hazel M. Bell, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room S-3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone

(202)693-0418, fax

(202)693-1451, e-mail *bell.hazel@dol.gov.* Please use only one method of transmission for comments (mail, fax, or e-mail). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION I. Background The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

(OWCP)is the primary agency responsible for the administration of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 as amended (EEOICPA or Act), 42 U.S.C. 7384 *et seq.* The Act provides for timely payment of compensation to covered employees and, where applicable, survivors of such employees, who sustained either “occupational illnesses” or “covered Illnesses” incurred in the performance of duty for the Department of Energy and certain of its contractors and subcontractors. The Act sets forth eligibility criteria for claimants for compensation under Part B and Part E of the Act, and outlines the various elements of compensation payable from the Fund established by the Act. The information collected is used to obtain demographic, factual and medical information needed to determine entitlement to benefits under the EEOICPA. Before benefits may be paid, the case files must contain medical and employment evidence showing the claimant's eligibility. The eight forms listed below are reporting requirements under the Act and are required to determine a claimant's eligibility for compensation and to receive benefits under the EEOICPA. The forms reporting requirements are: EE-1, Claim for Benefits Under Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act is used to file notice of claim under Part B and/or E of the EEOICPA, and is to be completed by the living current or former employee; EE-2, Claim for Survivor Benefits Under Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act is used by the survivor of a covered employee to file notice of claim under Part B and/or E of the EEOICPA; EE-3, Employment History for Claim Under Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act is used to gather factual information regarding the employee's work history; EE-4, Employment History Affidavit for Claim Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act is used to support the claimant's employment history by affidavit; EE-7, Medical Requirements Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act informs an employee, survivor or physician of the medical evidence needed to establish a diagnosis of a covered condition; EE-8, Letter to Claimant is sent with enclosure EN-8 to obtain information on the employees' smoking history when lung cancer due to radiation is claimed; EE-9, Letter to Claimant is sent with enclosure EN-9 to obtain information concerning the race or ethnicity of the employee when skin cancer is claimed; EE-10, Claim for Additional Wage-Loss and/or Impairment Under the EEOICPA is used by the covered Part E employee who has received an award for wage-loss and/or impairment due to “covered illness” to claim for subsequent calendar year of wage-loss and/or any additional impairment; EE-12, Letter to covered Part B and E employees receiving medical benefits, sent with enclosure EN-12 and is used to collect updated information about settlements or awards in litigation and state workers' compensation benefits that impact continuing entitlement; EE-13, Letter to state workers' compensation authorities, sent with enclosure EN-13 and is used to identify covered Part E employees receiving medical benefits who have also been awarded state workers' compensation for their covered illnesses; and EE-20, Letter to Claimant is sent with enclosure EN-20 to verify acceptance of payment on approved claims. This information collection is currently approved for use through August 31, 2007. II. Review Focus The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and • 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, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. III. Current Actions The Department of Labor seeks approval for the revision of this information collection in order to carry out its responsibility to determine a claimant's eligibility for compensation under the EEOICPA. *Type of Review:* Revision. *Agency:* Employment Standards Administration. *Title:* Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Act Forms (various). *OMB Number:* 1215-0197. *Agency Number:* EE-1 English and EE-1 Spanish, EE-2 English and EE-2 Spanish, EE-3 English and EE-3 Spanish, EE-4 English and EE-4 Spanish, EE-7 English and EE-7 Spanish, EE-8, EE-9, EE-10, EE-12, EE-13, EE-20. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit. *Total Respondents:* 78,587. *Total Responses:* 79,062. *Time per Response:* 5 minutes to 8 hours. *Frequency:* As needed. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 35,447. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* $0. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance):* $4,419. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Ruben Wiley, Chief, Branch of Management Review and Internal Control, Division of Financial Management, Office of Management, Administration and Planning, Employment Standards Administration. [FR Doc. E7-3867 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-CR-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [07-017] Notice of Information Collection Under OMB Review AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of information collection under OMB review. SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 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 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: All comments should be submitted within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Desk Officer for NASA; Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Room 10236; New Executive Office Building; Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Walter Kit, NASA PRA Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., JE000, Washington, DC 20546,

(202)358-1350, *Walter.Kit-1@hq.nasa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Information collection is required to evaluate bids and proposals from offerors to award contracts with an estimated value of more than $500,000 for required goods and services in support of NASA's mission. II. Method of Collection NASA collects this information electronically where feasible, but information may also be collected by mail or fax. III. Data *Title:* NASA acquisition process, bids and proposals for contracts with an estimated value more than $500,000. *OMB Number:* 2700-0085. *Type of Review:* Revision of currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; and State, Local or Tribal Government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1148. *Estimated Annual Responses:* 1148. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 600 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 688,800. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $0. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

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

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. Gary L. Cox, Deputy Chief Information Officer (Acting). [FR Doc. E7-3858 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [07-018] Notice of Information Collection Under OMB Review AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of information collection under OMB review. SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 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 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: All comments should be submitted within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Desk Officer for NASA; Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Room 10236; New Executive Office Building; Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Walter Kit, NASA PRA Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., JE000, Washington, DC 20546,

(202)358-1350, *Walter.Kit-1@hq.nasa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Information collection is required to effectively manage and administer contracts with an estimated value more than $500,000 for required goods and services in support of NASA's mission. II. Method of Collection NASA collects this information electronically where feasible, but information may also be collected by mail or fax. III. Data *Title:* NASA acquisition process, reports required for contracts with an estimated value more than $500,000. *OMB Number:* 2700-0089. *Type of review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; and State, local or Tribal government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,700. *Estimated Annual Responses:* 93,500. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 7 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 654,500. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $0. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

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

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. Gary L. Cox, Acting Deputy Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-3859 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [07-019] Notice of Information Collection Under OMB Review AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of information collection under OMB review. SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 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 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: All comments should be submitted within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Desk Officer for NASA; Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Room 10236; New Executive Office Building; Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Walter Kit, NASA PRA Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., JE000, Washington, DC 20546,

(202)358-1350, *Walter.Kit-1@hq.nasa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Information collection is required to evaluate bids and proposals from offerors to award Purchase Orders and to use bank cards for required goods and services with an estimated value less than $100,000 in support of NASA's mission. II. Method of Collection NASA collects this information electronically where feasible, but information may also be collected by mail or fax. III. Data *Title:* NASA acquisition process, Purchase Orders for goods and services with an estimated value less than $100,000. *OMB Number:* 2700-0086. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; and State, Local or Tribal Government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 137,086. *Estimated Annual Responses:* 137,086. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 0.25 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 43,245. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $0. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

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

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. Gary L. Cox, Deputy Chief Information Officer (Acting). [FR Doc. E7-3860 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [07-020] Notice of Information Collection Under OMB Review AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of information collection under OMB review. SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 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 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: All comments should be submitted within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Desk Officer for NASA; Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Room 10236; New Executive Office Building; Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Walter Kit, NASA PRA Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., JE000, Washington, DC 20546,

(202)358-1350, *Walter.Kit-1@hq.nasa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Information collection is required to evaluate bids and proposals from offerors to award contracts with an estimated value less than $500,000 for required goods and services in support of NASA's mission. II. Method of Collection NASA collects this information electronically where feasible, but information may also be collected by mail or fax. III. Data *Title:* NASA acquisition process, bids and proposals for contracts with an estimated value less than $500,000. *OMB Number:* 2700-0087. *Type of review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; and State, Local or Tribal Government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 3,772. *Estimated Annual Responses:* 3,772. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 325 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1,225,900. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $0. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

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

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. Gary L. Cox, Deputy Chief Information Officer (Acting). [FR Doc. E7-3861 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [07-021] Notice of Information Collection AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of information collection. SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 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 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: All comments should be submitted within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Desk Officer for NASA; Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Office of Management and Budget; Room 10236; New Executive Office Building; Washington, DC, 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Mr. Walter Kit, NASA PRA Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., JE000, Washington, DC 20546,

(202)358-1350, *Walter.Kit-1@nasa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Information is needed to guide implementation of GLOBE (Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment) based on feedback from participating teachers, students, and partners in order to help meet the Program’s goal of improving student achievement in mathematics and science. II. Method of Collection The GLOBE Partner survey is Web-based on-line instrument. The survey gathers data on all activities related to GLOBE implementation for the year prior to administration of the survey. III. Data *Title:* GLOBE Program Evaluation. *OMB Number:* 2700-0114. *Type of review:* Extension of currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Government; individuals or households; and not-for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 258. *Responses Per Respondent:* 1. *Annual Responses:* 258. *Hours Per Request:* 2. *Annual Burden Hours:* 516. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

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

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record. Gary L. Cox, Deputy Chief Information Officer (Acting). [FR Doc. E7-3862 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Inaccessible or Underground Power Cable Failures That Disable Accident Mitigation Systems or Cause Plant Transients AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of Issuance. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)has issued Generic Letter

(GL)2007-01 to all holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors, except those who have permanently ceased operation and have certified that fuel has been removed from the reactor vessel. The NRC is issuing this GL to:

(1)Inform licensees that the failure of certain power cables can affect the functionality of multiple accident mitigation systems or cause plant transients,

(2)Inform licensees that in the absence of adequate monitoring of cable insulation, equipment could fail abruptly during service, causing plant transients or disabling accident mitigation systems,

(3)Ask licensees to provide information on the monitoring of inaccessible or underground electrical cables, and Require that addressees submit a written response to the NRC in accordance with NRC regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 50.54(f). This **Federal Register** notice is available through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under Accession Number ML070470317. DATES: The GL was issued on February 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Not applicable. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberley Corp,

(301)415-1091 or by email kar1@nrc.gov or Matthew McConnell at

(301)415-1597 or e-mail mxm4@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NRC Generic Letter 2007-01 may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room

(PDR)at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html.* The ADAMS number for the GL is ML070360665. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if you have problems in accessing the documents in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room reference staff at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of February 2007. For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Theodore R. Quay, Acting Director, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-3854 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Notice of Meeting The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste

(ACNW)will hold its 177th meeting on March 20-22, 2007, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The schedule for this meeting is as follows: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 *11 a.m.-11:05 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACNW Chairman* (Open)—The ACNW Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of today's sessions. *11:05 a.m.-12 p.m.: Savannah River National Laboratory

(SRNL)Workshop on Cementitious Materials Used in Waste Determination Activities* (Open)—Professor Barry Scheetz from the Pennsylvania State University will brief the Committee on a SRNL-sponsored workshop that examined the use of cementitious materials in radioactive waste management applications. This workshop was held on December 12-14, 2006, in Aiken, South Carolina. *1 p.m.-2:30 p.m.: Stakeholder Views on Moderator Exclusion* (Open)—Representatives from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and H322 Consulting LLC will brief the Committee on their views on the moderator exclusion issue in transportation canisters for spent nuclear fuel. *2:45 p.m.-3:30 p.m.: Idaho National Laboratory

(INL)/ U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE)Views on Moderator Exclusion* (Open)—An INL/DOE representative will brief the Committee on an upcoming license application requesting NRC approval for the DOE Standardized Spent Nuclear Fuel Canister relying on the use of moderator exclusion. *3:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m.: Round Table Discussion on Moderator Exclusion* (Open)—ACNW Member Ruth Weiner will lead a follow up discussion with the previous presenters and representatives from NRC's Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation (SFST), on the technical and regulatory issues surrounding the moderator exclusion issue. *4:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m.: ACNW Meeting with NRC Commissioner Gregory B. Jaczko* (Open)—Commissioner Jaczko will address the Committee on current topics and issues of common interest. Wednesday, March 21, 2007 *8:30 a.m.-8:45 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACNW Chairman* (Open)—The ACNW Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of today's sessions. *8:35 a.m.-10 a.m.: Update by the U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE)on the Proposed Yucca Mountain Repository Design* (Open)—A Department representative will update the Committee on the status of DOE design activities for surface facilities for the proposed geologic repository. Briefing is also expected to examine repository design options for spent nuclear fuel handling in light of the TAD (transportation-aging-disposal) canister decision-making. *10:15 a.m.-12 p.m.: ACNW Action Plan for Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008* (Open)—The Committee will discuss and approve its Action Plan for Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008. *1 p.m.-2 p.m.: Briefing on Shieldalloy, New Jersey, Site Decommissioning Plan* (Open)—Staff from the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs

(FSME)will brief the Committee on the Decommissioning Plan for the Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation's complex decommissioning site. *2 p.m.-3 p.m.: Updated EPRI Response on Potential Igneous Event at Yucca Mountain* (Open)—NRC staff recently reviewed reports prepared by EPRI on magma interactions with the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. EPRI representatives will provide the Committee with their comments on the staff's review. *3:15 p.m.-5:30 p.m.: Miscellaneous* (Open)—The Committee will discuss matters related to the conduct of ACNW activities and specific issues that were not completed during previous meetings, as time and availability of information permit. Discussions may include content of future letters and scope of future Committee Meetings. Thursday, March 22, 2007 *8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACNW Chairman* (Open)—The Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of today's sessions. *8:35 a.m.-11:30 a.m.: ACNW White Paper on Volcanism* (Open)—Followup discussion from February working group meeting; general review of observations, revisions, and summary conclusions for the White Paper on Igneous Activity at Yucca Mountain. *12:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m.: Miscellaneous* (Open)—The Committee will discuss matters related to the conduct of ACNW activities and specific issues that were not completed during previous meetings, as time and availability of information permit. Discussions may include the ACNW Action Plan as well as future Committee Meetings. Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACNW meetings were published in the **Federal Register** on October 12, 2006 (71 FR 60196). In accordance with these procedures, oral or written statements may be presented by members of the public. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify Mr. Antonio F. Dias (Telephone 301-415-6805), between 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, as far in advance as practicable so that appropriate arrangements can be made to schedule the necessary time during the meeting for such statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during this meeting will be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the ACNW Chairman. Informatition regarding the time to be set aside for taking pictures may be obtained by contacting the ACNW office prior to the meeting. In view of the possibility that the schedule for ACNW meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should notify Mr. Dias as to their particular needs. Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted, therefore can be obtained by contacting Mr. Dias. ACNW meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room

(PDR)at *pdr@nrc.gov* , or by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from the Publicly Available Records System component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* or *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/* (ACRS & ACNW Mtg schedules/agendas). Video Teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACNW meetings. Those wishing to use this service for observing ACNW meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACNW Audiovisual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. ET, at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed. Dated: February 28, 2007. Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-3863 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Meeting on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste

(ACNW)will hold a Planning and Procedures meeting on March 20, 2007, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and

(6)to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of ACNW, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Tuesday, March 20, 2007—8:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m. The Committee will discuss proposed ACNW activities and related matters. The purpose of this meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Antonio F. Dias (Telephone: 301/415-6805) between 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m.

(ET)five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda. Dated: February 27, 2007. Antonio F. Dias, Acting Branch Chief, ACNW. [FR Doc. E7-3864 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Sunshine Act Federal Register Notice AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. DATE: Weeks of March 5, 12, 19, 26, April 2, 9, 2007. PLACE: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. STATUS: Public and Closed. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Week of March 5, 2007 Monday, March 5, 2007 1 p.m. Meeting with Department of Energy on New Reactor Issues (Public Meeting). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov.* Wednesday, March 7, 2007 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response

(NSIR)Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting). (Contact: Miriam Cohen, 301 415-0260.) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov.* 1 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed—Ex. 1 and 3). Thursday, March 8, 2007 9:55 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative) a. Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Early Site Permit for Clinton ESP) (Tentative). 10 a.m. Briefing on Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards

(NMSS)Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting). (Contact: Gene Peters, 301 415-5248.) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov.* 1 p.m. Briefing on Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

(NRR)Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting). (Contact: Reginald Mitchell, 301 415-1275.) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov.* Week of March 12, 2007—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of March 12, 2007. Week of March 19, 2007—Tentative Tuesday, March 20, 2007 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Office of Information Services

(OIS)Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting). (Contact: Edward Baker, 301 415-8700.) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov.* Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:55 p.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative). a. Consumers Energy Company, *et al.* (Palisades Nuclear Plant); License Transfer Application (Tentative). Week of March 26, 2007—Tentative Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:30 a.m. Discussion of Management Issues (Closed—Ex. 2). 1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed—Ex. 1, 3, & 9). Week of April 2, 2007—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of April 2, 2007. Week of April 9, 2007—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of April 9, 2007. *The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)—(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll,

(301)415-1662. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: *http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policy-making/schedule.html.* The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format ( *e.g.* , braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, Deborah Chan, at 301-415-7041, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at *DLC@nrc.gov.* Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to *dkw@nrc.gov.* Dated: March 1, 2007. R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 07-1062 Filed 3-2-07; 1:27 pm]

Connectionstraces to 17

Traces to 17 documents

U.S. Code