Notices. Request for Comment

42,254 words·~192 min read·/register/2007/03/21/07-1291

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

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* Economic Performance in the Commercial Stone Crab and Lobster Fisheries in Florida. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* None. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 58. *Number of Respondents:* 58. *Average Hours per Response:* One hour. *Needs and Uses:* The objective of the proposed collection is to gather data with which to establish socio-economic baselines in the commercial stone crab and lobster fisheries, assess the financial and economic performance of the industry, and develop economic models to evaluate future management proposals. Data will be collected from stone crab fishermen that land in counties along the west coast of Florida and from lobster/stone crab fishermen that land in the Miami River area. The data collection will occur between May and October 2007 when the stone crab fishery is closed. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* One-time only. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,

(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,

(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Fax number

(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: March 14, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-5093 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). *Title:* Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award and Examiner Applications. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0693-0006. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 7,800. *Number of Respondents:* 900 (Awards 100; Examiners 800). *Average Hours per Response:* Award applications, 74 hrs; and Board of Examiners applications, 30 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* Public Law 100-107, the Malcolm Baldrige Quality Improvement Act of 1987 established an annual U.S. National Quality Award. The Secretary of Commerce leads and NIST develops and manages the Award with the cooperation with the private sector. The purposes of the Award are to promote quality awareness, recognize the quality achievements of U.S. companies, and to share successful quality strategies and practices. The law explicitly states that “An organization may qualify for an award only if it permits a rigorous evaluation of the way in which its business and other operations have contributed to improvements in quality.” The failure to collect the information required of the Award and Examiner applicants would make it impossible to evaluate the applications and grant the Awards, and violate our statutory responsibilities. *Affected Public:* Business or organizations and public and private for-profit and not-for-profit and education institutions may apply for the Award. Individuals with expertise in the business, education, health care, and/or non-profit fields are eligible to apply to be Members of the Board of Examiners. *Frequency:* Annually. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *OMB Desk Officer:* Jasmeet Seehra,

(202)395-3123. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,

(202)395-5167, or *Jasmeet_K._Seehra@omb.eop.gov* ). Dated: March 15, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-5095 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-888] Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 12, 2006, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables and certain parts thereof (ironing tables) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). *See Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 53655, (September 12, 2006) (Preliminary Results). This review covers three producer/exporters:

(1)Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Since Hardware);

(2)Forever Holdings Ltd. (Forever Holdings); and

(3)Foshan Shunde Yongjian Houseware & Hardware Co., Ltd. (Foshan Shunde). The period of review

(POR)is February 3, 2004, through July 31, 2005. We have made changes to certain surrogate values based on our analysis of the record, including factual information obtained since the preliminary results. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. We are also rescinding this review with respect to Shunde Yongjian Houseware Co., Ltd. (Shunde Yongjian). *See* “Final Results of Review” section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 21, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristina Horgan or Bobby Wong, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-8173 or

(202)482-0409, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background We published the preliminary results of the third administrative review on September 12, 2006 in the **Federal Register** . *See Preliminary Results* . Since the Preliminary Results the following events have occurred: On August 31, 2006, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to Foshan Shunde to inquire about its relationship with Shunde Yongjian. On September 14, 2006, we received the supplemental questionnaire response from Foshan Shunde, and an addendum to that response on September 15, 2006. On September 20, 2006, we extended the time limit for submitting further information to value the factors of production until October 16, 2006. On October 16, 2006, we received a surrogate value submission from Home Products International Inc. (petitioner). From November 13 through 16, 2006, the Department conducted a verification of Since Hardware's sales and factors of production information at Since Hardware's facilities in Guangzhou, Guangdong, PRC. *See* Memorandum to the File from James Doyle, Director, Office 9, and Carrie Blozy, Program Manager, Office 9, regarding *Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co. Ltd. in the First Antidumping Administrative Review of Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables People's Republic of China* (January 22, 2007) (Since Hardware Verification Report). From January 9 through 12, 2007, the Department conducted a verification of Foshan Shunde's sales and factors of production information at Foshan Shunde's facilities in Foshan, Guangdong, PRC. *See* Memorandum to the File from Kristina Horgan, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, and Bobby Wong, Case Analyst, Office 9, regarding *Verification of the Sales & Factors Responses of Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Review of Floor-Standing Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China* (January 22, 2007) (Foshan Shunde Verification Report). We invited parties to comment on our *Preliminary Results* . On January 24, 2007, Since Hardware requested a one-day extension of the deadline to submit case briefs, and on January 25, 2007, the Department granted that request. We received case briefs from petitioner, Since Hardware, Forever Holdings, and Foshan Shunde on January 30, 2007. On February 2, 2007, we requested comments on the Department's revised expected non-market economy

(NME)wage rate. We received rebuttal briefs from petitioner, Since Hardware, and Forever Holdings on February 5, 2007. 1 1 Since Hardware commented on the newly posted NME wage rate in its case brief, while Forever Holdings commented on the calculation of the NME wage rate in both its case brief and rebuttal brief. Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order For purposes of this order, the product covered consists of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables, assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain parts thereof. The subject tables are designed and used principally for the hand ironing or pressing of garments or other articles of fabric. The subject tables have full-height leg assemblies that support the ironing surface at an appropriate (often adjustable) height above the floor. The subject tables are produced in a variety of leg finishes, such as painted, plated, or matte, and they are available with various features, including iron rests, linen racks, and others. The subject ironing tables may be sold with or without a pad and/or cover. All types and configurations of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables are covered by this review. Furthermore, this order specifically covers imports of ironing tables, assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain parts thereof. For purposes of this order, the term “unassembled” ironing table means a product requiring the attachment of the leg assembly to the top or the attachment of an included feature such as an iron rest or linen rack. The term “complete” ironing table means product sold as a ready-to-use ensemble consisting of the metal-top table and a pad and cover, with or without additional features, *e.g.* iron rest or linen rack. The term “incomplete” ironing table means product shipped or sold as a “bare board” *i.e.* , a metal-top table only, without the pad and cover with or without additional features, *e.g.* iron rest or linen rack. The major parts or components of ironing tables that are intended to be covered by this order under the term “certain parts thereof” consist of the metal top component (with or without assembled supports and slides) and/or the leg components, whether or not attached together as a leg assembly. The order covers separately shipped metal top components and leg components, without regard to whether the respective quantities would yield an exact quantity of assembled ironing tables. Ironing tables without legs (such as models that mount on walls or over doors) are not floor-standing and are specifically excluded. Additionally, tabletop or countertop models with short legs that do not exceed 12 inches in length (and which may or may not collapse or retract) are specifically excluded. The subject ironing tables were previously classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 9403.20.0010. Effective July 1, 2003, the subject ironing tables are classified under new HTSUS subheading 9403.20.0011. The subject metal top and leg components are classified under HTSUS subheading 9403.90.8040. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)purposes, the Department's written description of the scope remains dispositive. Separate Rates Since Hardware, Forever Holdings, and Foshan Shunde requested separate, company-specific antidumping duty rates. In the *Preliminary Results* , we found that Since Hardware, Forever Holdings, and Foshan Shunde all met the criteria for the application of a separate antidumping duty rate. *See Preliminary Results* , 71 FR at 53656- 53658. The Department did not receive comments on this issue prior to these final results. Moreover, we have not received any information since the *Preliminary Results* with respect to Since Hardware, Forever Holdings, and Foshan Shunde that would warrant reconsideration of our separate-rates determinations with respect to these companies. Therefore, we have assigned individual dumping margins to Since Hardware, Forever Holdings, and Foshan Shunde for this review period. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the briefs are addressed in the Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding *Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results in the First Administrative Review of Floor-standing, Metal-top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China* (March 12, 2007) (Issues and Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised, all of which are in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in the briefs and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the Department of Commerce. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Partial Rescission of Administrative Review In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department issued a notice of intent to rescind this administrative review with respect to Shunde Yongjian. We stated in the *Preliminary Results* that if we determined not to collapse Foshan Shunde and Shunde Yongjian, and if we found that Foshan Shunde is not the successor in interest to Shunde Yongjian, we would rescind the review with respect to Shunde Yongjian because the company had no entries of subject merchandise during the POR. *See Preliminary Results* , 71 FR at 53656. Based on our analysis of information and comments received from interested parties on this issue, as discussed in depth in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 8, the Department has determined that Foshan Shunde and Shunde Yongjian should not be collapsed and that Foshan Shunde is not the successor-in-interest to Shunde Yongjian. Therefore, the Department is rescinding this administrative review with respect to Shunde Yongjian, but will continue to calculate a separate rate for Foshan Shunde. See “Separate Rates” section above. Changes since the Preliminary Results Based on the comments received from the interested parties and findings at verification, we have made the following company-specific changes to Since Hardware's margin calculation: 1) The Department will add a freight factor to Since Hardware's calculated normal value to account for the freight distance between its factory and leased processing facilities. *See* Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 6 and Since Hardware Verification Report at 2. 1) The Department will include brokerage and handling expenses, which Since Hardware incurred from a non-market economy

(NME)supplier, on all of its imports of material inputs. *See* Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 6 and Since Hardware Verification Report at 2 and 20. Additionally, based on the comments received from the interested parties, we have made the following company-specific changes to Forever Holdings' margin calculation: 1) The Department has changed the source used to value welding wire from the surrogate value for welding rod to the surrogate value for welding wire. *See* Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 12. 2) The Department has valued accelerant using the surrogate value for sodium nitrite instead of the surrogate value used in the *Preliminary Results* . *See* Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 12. Based on the comments received from the interested parties and findings at verification, we have made the following company-specific changes to Foshan Shunde's margin calculation: 1) The Department has recalculated Foshan Shunde's water factor of production, based on verification findings. *See* Foshan Shunde Verification Report at 2 and Memorandum to the File through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Kristina Horgan, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding Foshan Shunde Yongjian Houseware & Hardware Co., Ltd. (Foshan Shunde) Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results of Review (March 12, 2007) (Foshan Shunde Analysis Memo) at 2. 2) The Department has not used Foshan Shunde's reported plug input in the normal value calculation, based on verification findings. *See* Foshan Shunde Verification Report at 2 and Foshan Shunde Analysis Memo at 2. 3) The Department has also added Foshan Shunde's by-product to the normal value calculation, instead of subtracting it as was done in the *Preliminary Results* . *See* Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 10, and Foshan Shunde Analysis Memo at 3. For the final results, we also revised our calculation of surrogate financial ratios for factory overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses, and profit, to use the 2005 annual report from Infiniti Modules Pvt. Ltd. (Infiniti Modules), and used these ratios in our margin calculations. *See* Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comments 1 and 2. We also used the revised NME wage rate, as posted on the Department's website on February 2, 2007. *See* Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 3. Finally, we revised the surrogate value for hot rolled steel for the final results. *See* Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 5. Final Results of Review We determine that the following antidumping duty margins exist: Exporter Margin (percent) Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. 0.51% Foshan Shunde Yongjian Houseware & Hardware Co., Ltd. 2.37% Forever Holdings Ltd. 10.18% For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-average margin for each company, see the respective company's analysis memorandum for the final results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on ironing tables from the PRC, dated March 12, 2007. Public versions of these memoranda are on file in the CRU. Assessment Rates Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for ironing tables from the PRC via *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)for the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established in these final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or *de minimis, i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that company);

(2)for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period;

(3)for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 157.68 percent; and

(4)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Interested Parties This notice also serves as the final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order

(APO)of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO. This administrative review and this notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 12, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I General Issues *Comment 1:* Appropriate Source for Financial Ratios Surrogate Values *Comment 2:* Classification of Labor in Financial Ratios *Comment 3:* NME Wage Rate *Comment 4:* Zeroing *Comment 5:* Appropriate Surrogate Value for Hot-Rolled Steel Company-Specific Issues Since Hardware-Related Issues *Comment 6:* Market Economy Purchases *Comment 7:* By-Product Offset Foshan Shunde-Related Issues *Comment 8:* Rescission of Shunde Yongjian and Foshan Shunde *Comment 9:* Calculating a Margin for Foshan Shunde *Comment 10:* By-Product Clerical Error Forever Holdings-Related Issues *Comment 11:* Rescission of Forever Holdings *Comment 12:* Clerical Errors in Surrogate Values [FR Doc. E7-5170 Filed 3-20-02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-552-801] Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Second Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 11, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”). *See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 53387 (September 11, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the *Preliminary Results* and conducted verification of one respondent, QVD Food Company, Ltd. (“QVD”). Based upon our analysis of the comments and information received, we made changes to the dumping margin calculations for the final results. *See Memorandum to the File from Julia Hancock, Senior Case Analyst, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager; Analysis for the Final Results of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: QVD Food Company* , (March 12, 2007) (“ *QVD Final Analysis Memo* ”.) EFFECTIVE DATE: March 21, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Hancock, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1394. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History The *Preliminary Results* for this administrative review were published on September 11, 2006. Since the *Preliminary Results* , the following events have occurred: On September 18, 2006, QVD requested an extension to submit publicly available information to be used in valuing surrogate factors of production for the final results. On September 22, 2006, the Department extended the deadline for the submission of publicly available information for the final results to November 20, 2006. On November 15, 2006, the Catfish Farmers of America and individual processors, (“Petitioners”), requested an extension to submit publicly available information to be used in valuing surrogate factors of production. On November 17, 2006, the Department extended the deadline for the submission of publicly available information for the final results to January 4, 2007. On January 3, 2007, QVD requested an extension to submit publicly available information to be used in valuing surrogate factors of production for the final results. On January 3, 2007, the Department issued a letter to QVD rejecting its extension request. On January 4, 2007, QVD and Petitioners submitted publicly available information for the final results. On January 16, 2007, Petitioners and QVD submitted rebuttal comments on the January 4, 2007, submissions on publicly available information for the final results. On January 19, 2007, Petitioners submitted a letter requesting that the Department reject QVD's January 16, 2007, rebuttal comments because they contained new factual information. On January 22, 2007, QVD submitted a letter in response to Petitioners' January 19, 2007, letter. On January 26, 2007, the Department rejected QVD's January 16, 2007, rebuttal comments as new factual information and requested that QVD resubmit its rebuttal comments without this information. On January 29, 2007, QVD resubmitted its January 16, 2007, rebuttal comments without the new factual information. Verification On November 1, 2006, the Department issued verification outlines for QVD and QVD Dong Thap Food Co., Ltd. (“Dong Thap”), for the on-site verifications scheduled for November 27 through 29, 2006, and December 7 and 8, 2006. Additionally, on November 7, 2006 the Department issued verification outlines for QVD Choi Moi Farming Cooperative (“Choi Moi”) and Thuan An Seafood Co., Ltd. (“Thuan An”), for the on-site verifications scheduled for November 30, 2006 to December 6, 2006. On November 21, 2006, Petitioners submitted pre-verification comments. On December 20, 2006, the Department issued verification outlines for QVD USA LLC (“QVD USA”) and Beaver Street Fisheries, Inc. (“BSF”), for the on-site verifications scheduled for January 11 through 16, 2007. On January 9, 2007, Petitioners submitted pre-verification comments on QVD USA and BSF. On January 29, 2007, the Department issued the verification report of QVD, Dong Thap, Choi Moi, and Thuan An. Additionally, on January 30, 2007, the Department issued the verification report of QVD USA and BSF. On February 6, 2007, QVD submitted comments on the Department's January 29, 2007, verification report. On March 9, 2007, the Department placed copies of the QVD, Dong Thap, Choi Moi, Thuan An, QVD USA, and BSF verification exhibits on the record. Case Briefs and Rebuttal Briefs On September 22, 2006, the Department extended the deadline for the submission of case briefs and rebuttal briefs. On November 17, 2006, the Department further extended the deadline for case briefs and rebuttal briefs. On February 1, 2007, Petitioners submitted a letter to the Department requesting an extension of the deadline for the submission of case briefs and rebuttal briefs. On February 1, 2007, the Department again extended the deadline for case briefs and rebuttal briefs. On February 2 and 6, 2007, Valley Fresh, Inc., QVD, and Petitioners submitted case briefs. On February 6, 2007, the Department requested comments on the revised FY 2004 non-market economy (“NME”) wage rates, to be submitted with the rebuttal briefs. Additionally, on February 12, 2007, the Department extended the deadline for interested parties to submit rebuttal briefs. On February 13, 2007, the Department confirmed that no interested party would be submitting comments regarding QVD's February 6, 2007, letter, regarding the attachment contained in the Department's January 29, 2007, verification report. On February 13, 2007, the Department again extended the deadline for interested parties to submit rebuttal briefs. On February 14, 2007, QVD and Petitioners submitted rebuttal briefs, which also contained comments on the Department's FY 2004 revised wage rates. On March 9, 2007, the Department rejected Valley Fresh's March 5, 2007, submission as untimely, factual information. Hearing On October 11, 2006, Petitioners submitted a request for a public hearing. On February 6, 2007, Petitioners submitted a request for a portion of the hearing to be closed. On February 15, 2007, the Department issued a letter to interested parties regarding the schedule of the hearing. Additionally, on February 16, 2007, the Department issued two letters regarding the schedule and the logistics of the hearing. On February 16, 2007, Petitioners withdrew their October 11, 2006, and February 6, 2007, requests for a public and closed hearing. On February 21, 2007, the Department issued a letter to interested parties cancelling the hearing. Extension of the Final Results On November 24, 2006, the Department extended the time limit for completion of the final results of the instant administrative review. *See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 71 FR 67849 (November 24, 2006). QVD On September 6, 2006, QVD submitted comments alleging that there were clerical errors in the *Preliminary Results* . On September 8, 2006, Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments in response to QVD's September 6, 2006, letter. On September 11, 2006, QVD submitted rebuttal comments in response to Petitioners' September 8, 2006, rebuttal comments. Additionally, on September 11, 2006, the Department issued a letter to QVD regarding QVD's allegation of clerical errors in the *Preliminary Results* . On September 18, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to QVD. On September 29, 2006, QVD requested an extension to respond to the Department's supplemental questionnaire. Additionally, on September 29, 2006, the Department extended the deadline for QVD to respond to the supplemental questionnaire to October 19, 2006. On October 17, 2006, QVD submitted a second extension request to respond to the Department's supplemental questionnaire. On October 17, 2006, the Department extended the deadline for QVD to respond to its supplemental questionnaire to October 23, 2006. On October 23, 2006, the Department received QVD's supplemental questionnaire response. On November 3, 2006, Petitioners submitted comments to the Department regarding QVD's October 23, 2006, supplemental questionnaire response. On November 8, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to QVD. On November 14, 2006, the Department issued a letter to QVD requesting that QVD make certain information public information. On November 15, 2006, QVD submitted an extension request for responding to the Department's November 8, 2006, supplemental questionnaire. Additionally, on November 16, 2006, QVD submitted a letter stating that it does not consent to the public release of certain information. On November 17, 2006, the Department issued the verification outline to QVD. On November 21, 2006, QVD submitted a response to the Department's November 8, 2006, supplemental questionnaire. On January 4, 2007, QVD submitted a letter to the Department supplementing its October 23, 2006, supplemental questionnaire response. On January 16, 2007, QVD submitted pre-verification corrections. On February 1, 2007, the Department issued a letter to QVD requesting that QVD submit QVD's U.S. sales and factors of production (“FOPs”) databases with the corrections from verification. On February 7, 2007, QVD submitted a revised version of its U.S. sales and FOPs databases. Scope Of The Order The product covered by this order is frozen fish fillets, including regular, shank, and strip fillets and portions thereof, whether or not breaded or marinated, of the species *Pangasius Bocourti* , *Pangasius Hypophthalmus* (also known as *Pangasius Pangasius* ), and *Pangasius Micronemus* . Frozen fish fillets are lengthwise cuts of whole fish. The fillet products covered by the scope include boneless fillets with the belly flap intact (“regular” fillets), boneless fillets with the belly flap removed (“shank” fillets), boneless shank fillets cut into strips (“fillet strips/finger”), which include fillets cut into strips, chunks, blocks, skewers, or any other shape. Specifically excluded from the scope are frozen whole fish (whether or not dressed), frozen steaks, and frozen belly-flap nuggets. Frozen whole dressed fish are deheaded, skinned, and eviscerated. Steaks are bone-in, cross-section cuts of dressed fish. Nuggets are the belly-flaps. The subject merchandise will be hereinafter referred to as frozen “basa” and “tra” fillets, which are the Vietnamese common names for these species of fish. These products are classifiable under tariff article codes 1604.19.4000 1 , 1604.19.5000 2 , 0305.59.4000 3 , 0304.29.6033 4 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species Pangasius including basa and tra) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). 5 This order covers all frozen fish fillets meeting the above specification, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. 1 *See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Third Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number* , (March 1, 2007). This HTS went into effect on March 1, 2007. 2 *See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Third Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number* , (March 1, 2007). This HTS went into effect on March 1, 2007. 3 *See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Second Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number* , (February 2, 2007). This HTS went into effect on February 1, 2007. 4 *See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number* , (January 30, 2007). This HTS went into effect on February 1, 2007. 5 Until July 1, 2004, these products were classifiable under tariff article codes 0304.20.60.30 (Frozen Catfish Fillets), 0304.20.60.96 (Frozen Fish Fillets, NESOI), 0304.20.60.43 (Frozen Freshwater Fish Fillets) and 0304.20.60.57 (Frozen Sole Fillets) of the HTSUS. Until February 1, 2007, these products were classifiable under tariff article code 0304.20.60.33 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species *Pangasius* including basa and tra) of the HTSUS. Analysis Of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (“ *Final Decision Memo* ”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in this administrative review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a copy of the *Final Decision Memo* can be accessed directly on our Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy and electronic version of the *Final Decision Memo* are identical in content. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the of the Tariff Act, as Amended (“the Act”), we conducted verification of the information submitted by QVD, its affiliated Vietnamese companies, Choi Moi and Dong Thap, its Vietnamese toller, Thuan An, and its affiliated U.S. importer, QVD USA and other U.S. importer, BSF, for use in our final results. *See Memorandum to the File, through, Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from, Julia Hancock, Senior Case Analyst, and Javier Barrientos, Financial Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Subject: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, RE: Verification of Sales and Factors of Production for Vietnam Companies* , (January 29, 2007) (“ *Vietnam Verification Report* ”); *Memorandum to the File, through, Alex Villanueva, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from, Julia Hancock, Senior Case Analyst, and Irene Gorelik, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Subject: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, RE: Verification of Sales of U.S. Companies* , (January 30, 2007) (“ *U.S. Verification Report* ”). For all companies, we used standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as original source documents provided by the Respondents. Changes Since The Preliminary Results Based on a review of the record as well as comments received from parties regarding our *Preliminary Results* , we have made revisions to the margin calculation for QVD for the final results. The following changes are addressed in the *Final Decision Memo* :

(1)a recalculation of QVD's weighted-average database addressed in Comment 13,

(2)the use of Choi Moi and Company H's FOPs for calculation of NV addressed in Comment 1,

(3)the use of only QVD USA's CEP sales to the first unaffiliated customer addressed in Comment 3,

(4)the application of partial adverse facts available to Choi Moi's unreported harvest labor addressed in Comment 3,

(5)the calculation of QVD's cash deposit and assessment rates on a per-unit basis in Comment 6,

(6)changes to the following surrogate values: surrogate financial ratios, fish waste, labor, and ice addressed in Comments 9 and 10, and

(7)changes to QVD's margin program language addressed in Comments 8 and 11. *See QVDFinal Analysis Memo* . *See also Memorandum from Julia Hancock, Senior Case Analyst, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9 and James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, to The File, Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”): Surrogate Values for the Final Results* , dated March 12, 2006 (“ *Final Factors Memo* ”). Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party:

(A)withholds information that has been requested by the Department;

(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and

(e)of the Act;

(C)significantly impedes a determination under the antidumping statute; or

(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Furthemore, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of that party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994). An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on the record. *See* section 776(b) of the Act. Cataco In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department assigned total AFA to Cataco. The Department did not receive any comments regarding the Department application of total AFA to Cataco. Therefore, for the final results, we continue to apply AFA to Cataco. However, the Department did receive comments on the calculation of Cataco's cash deposit and assessment rates addressed in Comment 5 of the *Final Decision Memo* , Cataco's cash deposit and assessment rates remain unchanged for these final results. Vietnam-Wide Entity In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department assigned total AFA to the Vietnam-Wide Entity, including Can Tho Animal Fishery Products Processing Export Enterprise (“Cafatex”), Mekong Fish Company (“Mekonimex”), Nam Viet Company, Ltd. (“Navico”), Phan Quan Trading Co., Ltd. (“Phan Quan”), An Giang Agriculture Technology Service Company (“ANTESCO”), Anhaco, Binh Dinh Import Export Company (“Binh Dinh”), Vinh Long Import-Export Company (“Vinh Long”), and An Giang Agriculture and Foods Import-Export Company (“Afiex”). The Department did not receive any comments regarding the Vietnam-Wide Entity. Therefore, for the final results, we continue to apply AFA to the Vietnam-Wide Entity and continue to treat Cafatex, Mekonimex, Navico, Phan Quan, Afiex, ANTESCO, Anhaco, Binh Ding, and Vinh Long as part of the Vietnam-Wide Entity. Final Results Of Review The weighted-average dumping margins for the POR are as follows: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) QVD 21.23 Cataco 80.88 Vietnam-Wide Entity 6 63.88 6 The Vietnam-wide Entity includes Cafatex, Mekonimex, Navico, Phan Quan, Afiex, ANTESCO, Anhaco, Binh Ding, and Vinh Long. Assessment The Department will determine, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). We have calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on a per-unit basis. Specifically, we divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal value and export price or constructed export price) for each importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise sold to that importer during the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment amount. In this and future reviews, we will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit (i.e., per-kilogram) rates by the weight in kilograms of each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to the CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this administrative review. 7 In our *Preliminary Results* , for those respondents who reported an entered value, we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales of each applicable importer to calculate an *ad valorem* assessment rate. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)the cash deposit rate for each of the reviewed companies that received a separate rate in this review will be the rate listed in the final results of review (except that if the rate for a particular company is *de minimis* , *i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that company);

(2)for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4)the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters (including Cafatex, Mekonimex, Navico, Phan Quan or Afiex) will be the Vietnam-wide rate of 63.88 percent, as explained in the *Final Decision Memo* . These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Reimbursement Of Duties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this administrative review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: March 12, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I - Decision Memorandum Issues For The Final Results: *Comment 1:* Affiliation Issues A. Company H B. Choi Moi C. Company A2, Company B, and Company K D. QVD USA/BSF and Constructed Export Price (“CEP”) Sales *Comment 2:* Total Adverse Facts Available A. CEP Sales B. Choi Moi C. Thuan An D. Dong Thap E. CONNUM-Specific Factors of Production (“FOPS”) *Comment 3:* Partial AFA for FOPs A. Choi Moi's FOPs B. Thuan An's FOPs C. Company H's Fish Waste D. CONNUM-Specific FOPs E. Factor X *Comment 4:* Valley Fresh *Comment 5:* Reimbursement *Comment 6:* Cash Deposit and Assessement *Comment 7:* Corrections to U.S. Sales A. Entered Value B. International Freight C. U.S. Inland Freight from Warehouse *Comment 8:* Surrogate Values A. Fish Waste B. Whole Fish C. Ice D. Wage Rates *Comment 9:* Surrogate Financial Ratios A. Bionic Seafoods B. Calculation of Ratios *Comment 10:* Clerical Errors in Margin Calculation A. Conversion of Water B. Assessment Rate: Importer of Record vs. Customer Code C. Exchange Rates D. Containerization *Comment 11:* CEP Verification Report *Comment 12:* Denominator and Numerator of FOPs A. Choi Moi's Denominator B. Thuan An and Dong Thap's Numerator C. Thuan An's Denominator D. Dong Thap's Numerator and Denominator *Comment 13:* Thuan An's Financial Statements *Comment 14:* Gross Weight vs. Net Weight *Comment 15:* New Factual Information *Comment 16:* Clarification of Vietnam Verification Report [FR Doc. E7-5178 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economy Countries: Surrogate Country Selection and Separate Rates AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Request for Comment. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) requests public comment on two aspects of its non-market economy (“NME”) methodology in antidumping proceedings. First, the Department seeks comment on certain aspects of the methodology by which it selects an economically comparable surrogate market economy country for the NME country under investigation or review. Second, the Department is requesting comment on the methodology under which individual NME exporters can demonstrate independence from government control of their export activities and thereby qualify for separate rate status. DATES: Comments must be submitted by thirty days from the publication of this notice. ADDRESSES: Written comments (original and six copies) should be sent to David Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Central Records Unit, Room 1870, Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th Street NW, Washington, DC, 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence Norton, Economist, or Anthony Hill, Senior International Economist, Office of Policy, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC, 20230, 202-482-1579 or 202-482-1843, respectively. Issue One: Surrogate Country Selection Background In antidumping proceedings involving NME countries, the Department calculates normal value by valuing the NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, using prices from a market economy that is at a comparable level of economic development and that is also a significant producer of comparable merchandise. The Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), provides broad discretion in the selection of surrogate market economy countries to value NME factors of production. In particular, section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act reads: ...the valuation of the factors of production shall be based on the best available information regarding the values of such factors in a market economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the administering authority. Section 773(c)(4) of the Act adds: The administering authority, in valuing factors of production under paragraph (1), shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market economy countries that are A. at a level of economic development comparable to that of the nonmarket economy country, and B. a significant producer of comparable merchandise. The Act does not provide a definition of “comparable level of economic development,” “comparable merchandise,” or “significant producer.” However, the Department's regulations do provide guidelines for comparing levels of economic development. 19 CFR 351.408(b) reads: *Economic Comparability* . In determining whether a country is at a level of economic development comparable to the nonmarket economy country under section 773(c)(2)(B) or section 773(c)(4)(A) of the Act, the Secretary will place primary emphasis on per capita GDP as the measure of economic comparability. Finally, the Department provided further guidance on economic comparability in a 2004 Policy Bulletin, establishing a sequential procedure for selecting a surrogate country, with economic comparability being the first factor considered. Import Administration Policy Bulletin 04.1 states 1 : 1 The full text of the policy bulletin can be found at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04-1.html. First, early in a proceeding, the Operations team sends the Office of Policy (“OP”) a written request for a list of potential surrogate countries. In response, OP provides a list of potential surrogate countries that are at a comparable level of economic development to the NME country. OP determines economic comparability on the basis of per capita gross national income, as reported in the most current annual issue of the World Development Report (The World Bank). The surrogate countries on the list are not ranked and should be considered equivalent in terms of economic comparability. Both the team's written request and OP's response should be made available to interested parties by being placed on the record of the proceeding. As noted above, in each proceeding, the Department generates a list of potential surrogate countries. In constructing this list, the Department orders the per capita gross national income (“GNI”) figures as reported in the latest available published edition of the World Bank's *World Development Report* , disregarding countries designated as NMEs during the period of review. 2 From among the remaining group of countries, the Department selects approximately five with similar levels of economic development to the NME that have offered, in the Department's experience, the statistical sources and breadth of information that might make them suitable surrogate countries in the specific proceeding. The Department places this list on the record and invites comment from the interested parties, who may suggest that the Department consider other economically comparable surrogate countries. However, absent comment from parties, the Department normally will determine, from among the countries on this list, which country produces merchandise comparable to the subject merchandise in significant quantities and offers adequate data upon which to base the review. 2 The Department now uses per capita GNI, rather than per capita GDP, because while the two measures are very similar, per capita GNI is reported across almost all countries by an authoritative source (the World Bank), and because the Department believes that the per capita GNI represents the single best measure of a country's level of total income and thus level of economic development. The process of selecting an appropriate surrogate country for the NME is a crucial element of an NME antidumping proceeding, particularly since the regulations direct the Department to normally value all of the NME factors of production with data from the primary surrogate country. *See* 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2). Because of the importance of finding a suitable surrogate country, the Department does not consider a country's level of economic comparability in isolation, but considers whether the potential surrogate country is a significant producer of comparable merchandise and offers the data necessary to conduct the proceeding. See Policy Bulletin 04.01. Accordingly, as the footnotes to the Policy Bulletin cited above clarify, the statute and regulations do not restrict the Department's analysis simply to a review of per capita GNI, as such an analysis would unreasonably limit the Department from choosing the most appropriate surrogate country. As the footnotes state, the Department “excludes countries that are technically presumed to be market economies, but which in OP's judgment are unsuitable sources for factor values” and “current practice reflects in large part that the statute does not require the Department to use a surrogate country that is at a level of economic development most comparable to the NME country.” Indeed, the Department often disregards certain countries that it deems to be unsuitable sources for factor values based on factors other than per capita GNI. For example, using the current 2005 GNI data, the closest country to Vietnam's level of economic development (at $620 per capita) is Sudan, with $640 per capita. Sudan, however, with its ongoing internal conflicts, would be unlikely to offer adequate data on which to base the dumping calculation, so the Department turns instead to other countries as potential surrogates. Request for Comment The selection of an appropriate surrogate country is, in large part, necessarily a case-specific issue, since the range of available data and production of comparable merchandise vary with the product under investigation or review. The specific question of economic comparability does remain largely constant from case to case, however, and it is on this aspect of the surrogate country selection process that the Department is now requesting comment. Specifically, the Department seeks comment on

(1)how, given the requirement to base the determination on per capita income, the Department should determine which countries are economically comparable to a given NME country, and

(2)whether and on what basis the Department should disregard certain economically comparable countries as lacking data suitable for valuing the factors of production. Regarding the first question, on how the Department determines economic comparability, the Department uses per capita income to measure comparability, but even if a country is the most economically comparable to the NME, this does not mean that the Department is obliged to use that country as the primary surrogate. Often, there is a range of countries from which the Department could select the most appropriate potential surrogate based on their relative production of comparable merchandise, and on data considerations. *See, e.g.* , Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen to Howard Smith *Antidumping Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries* (January 22, 2007). The Department is now soliciting comment on the extent to which, if any, there are limitations as to this range. For example, at what point should differences in per capita GNI of a potential surrogate and the NME be “too large” for the two to be considered “economically comparable? Furthermore, should the Department develop a standard for deciding which countries to include on the initial list of potential surrogate countries? What could be an appropriate standard for determining which countries are likely to offer the necessary data for conducting an antidumping proceeding? As noted above, interested parties will continue to have the opportunity to suggest the use of economically comparable countries that do not appear on the initial list of potential surrogates. Nevertheless, the Department first examines (absent any submission from parties) this initial list of countries to determine whether any of the included countries are appropriate surrogate countries. Accordingly, the Department welcomes comment on how this list should be constructed. Should this list be comprehensive (which may require that the Department and interested parties examine the extent of production of comparable merchandise in every economically comparable country), or could the list be limited in some way? Is there a broad measure of countries' data quality (for example, the availability, reliability, and accuracy of import statistics) that the Department could use to determine at the outset of the proceeding a subset of the economically comparable countries for consideration as a primary surrogate? Should the Department consider whatever countries remain after applying these data screens, or should the Department ensure that the final list includes a balance of countries both above and below the NME's per capita income? Issue Two: Separate Rates In Nme Antidumping Proceedings Background In an NME antidumping proceeding, the Department presumes that all companies within the country are subject to governmental control and should be assigned a single antidumping duty rate unless an exporter demonstrates the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* governmental control over its export activities through a “separate rates” test. See *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles from the People's Republic of China* , 61 FR 19026, 19027 (April 30, 1996). The Department's separate rates test is not concerned, in general, with macroeconomic border-type controls ( *e.g.* , export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices), particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent the dumping of merchandise in the United States. Rather, the test focuses on controls over the decision-making process on export-related investment, pricing, and output decisions at the individual firm level. See *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine* , 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997); *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997); and * Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Honey from the People's Republic of China * , 60 FR 14725, 14727 (March 20, 1995). To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control in its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity under a test arising from the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as modified in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585, 22587 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Under this test, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if an exporter can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* governmental control over its export activities. See *Silicon Carbide* and *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China* , 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). In order to request and qualify for a separate rate, it is the Department's practice that a company must have exported subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation or review, and it must provide information responsive to the following considerations: 1. Absence of *De Jure* Control: The Department considers the following *de jure* criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate:

(1)an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;

(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and

(3)any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 2. Absence of *De Facto* Control: Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to *de facto* governmental control over its export activities:

(1)whether the export prices are set by, or subject to the approval of, a governmental authority;

(2)whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements;

(3)whether the respondent has autonomy from the central, provincial, or local governments in making decisions regarding the selection of its management; and

(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. The Department last invited public comment on its separate rates methodology in a process that culminated in April 2005, when it announced a change in practice in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 17233) and posted a concurrent Policy Bulletin on the Import Administration website (Import Administration Policy Bulletin 05.1, available at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf* ). Prior to that, the Department published three notices in the **Federal Register** soliciting comment on its separate rates practice (69 FR 24119, 69 FR 56188, and 69 FR 77722). The Department was prompted to request public comment on this issue because of the large and increasing numbers of requests for separate rates status the Department had received in recent years, which led to two concerns. The first is that it proved increasingly difficult to evaluate the large number of separate rate requests made by respondents. The second concern was whether the implementation of the separate rates test could be improved to more effectively determine whether respondents act, *de facto* , independently of the government in their export activities. Taking into account comments submitted by the public, the Department adopted an application process for evaluating separate rate requests by non-investigated firms. This application process, which in subsequent cases was extended from initial investigations to administrative reviews, streamlined the process of evaluating separate rates requests but did not alter the threshold of eligibility for a separate rate, which remained an absence of *de jure* and *de facto* government control over a firm's export activities. Despite the introduction of the application process for evaluating requests for separate rates status, however, the administrative burden on the Department of evaluating separate rates requests continued to increase. As a result, the Department began to employ a separate rates “certification” process in certain recent reviews involving numerous potential respondents, in which firms that had already obtained a separate rate in a previous segment were able to submit a certification form in lieu of the full application. *See Notice of Initiation of Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China* 71 FR 11394, (March 7, 2006), and *Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the People's Republic of China* 71 FR 17813, (April 7, 2006). Request for Comment The Department is now requesting public comment on the separate rates test as a whole and how its implementation could be further improved. As noted above, while the Department has revised its administration of the separate rates test over the past ten years, it has not modified the test itself during this time. The Department has also received comments from certain parties alleging that testing firms for independence over their export activities is no longer necessary in light of economic reforms that have occurred in particular NME countries. The Department is therefore issuing this notice to invite comments concerning whether alternatives to its current separate rates test should be considered, *i.e.* , on whether a reconsideration of the test as outlined in *Sparklers* and *Silicon Carbide* is warranted. The Department is also interested in comments on whether the Department should consider revisions in the implementation of the current test, particularly on the proper balance between efficiency and enforcement in the implementation of the separates rates test, *i.e.* , on whether the Department can reduce the administrative burden on both the Department and on interested parties in operationalizing the test. In providing comment, however, the Department requests that parties address the real possibility that streamlining the test might impact the enforcement goal of the test, that only firms operating independently of government control over their export activities become eligible for an individually calculated rate. Submission of Comments Persons wishing to comment should file a signed original and six copies of each set of comments by the date specified above. The Department will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered, if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured. The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. The Department will return such comments and materials to the persons submitting the comments and will not consider them in the development of any changes to its practice. The Department requires that comments be submitted in written form. The Department recommends submission of comments in electronic form to accompany the required paper copies. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted either by e-mail to the webmaster below, or on CD-ROM, as comments submitted on diskettes are likely to be damaged by postal radiation treatment. Comments received in electronic form will be made available to the public in Portable Document Format

(PDF)on the Internet at the Import Administration website at the following address: *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/* . Any questions concerning file formatting, document conversion, access on the Internet, or other electronic filing issues should be addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import Administration Webmaster, at

(202)482-0866, email address: *webmaster-support@ita.doc.gov* . Dated: March 9, 2007. David Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-5169 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Survey of Information Habits and Preferences of Millennial Scientists ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before May 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Terrie Wheeler, Assistant Chief, Information Services Division, at

(301)975-3772, *terrie.wheeler@nist.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract This study will determine how the next generation of scientists, frequently referred to as the Millennial Generation, will seek scientific information in their research. This generation was born between 1982 and 2000. Having grown up with information technology, general studies show this population has technological preferences for receiving and integrating content, and this study is to learn if this extends to the scientific content among young scientists. It will identify most useful (and most desired) devices and formats, so that the Information Services Division can plan to serve the next generation of scientists. The findings will impact how digital scientific content is harvested, identified using metadata, stored, accessed, and disseminated. The project will identify young scientists' preferences for content format and ease of assimilation into current processes. Specifically the project aims to learn:

(1)Which library resources and information services are most valuable and why, and

(2)what scientific library resources do not exist that could, or are not yet robust enough to be valuable. Further the study aims to learn:

(3)In what specific ways are commercial Internet tools both successful and unsuccessful in helping find answers,

(4)which platforms and devices are most helpful and why, and

(5)which technologies help support collaboration with peers. The project plans to use Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship

(SURF)students who work at the National Institute of Standards and Technology every summer as the test population. The survey is voluntary, and all information gathered will be carefully safeguarded. II. Method of Collection The study will use an electronic survey form. SURF students will have the URL sent to them in an e-mail message so they may take the survey on any computer with a Web browser if they choose. III. Data *OMB Number:* None. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Students enrolled in the NIST SURF program for 2007. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 100. *Estimated Time per Response:* 20 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 33. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $0. IV. Request for Comments *Comments are invited on:*

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: March 14, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-5097 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; West Coast Community Economic Data Collection AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before May 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Philip Watson,

(206)947-3107 or *philip.watson@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)proposes to collect information pertaining to the economic utilization of marine resources by communities on the West Coast, in order to improve fishery management; satisfy NMFS' legal mandates under Executive Order 12866, Title 8 of the Magnuson Steven Fishery Conservation and Management Act (U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* ), as amended in 2007; and quantify achievement of the performance measures in the NMFS Strategic Operating Plans. The data collected will enable researchers to determine the degree of dependence of these communities on marine resource based activities and will inform policy makers as to the likely economic impacts of fishery and marine regulations on these communities. Economic data for selected U.S. coastal communities will be collected for each of the following groups of operations:

(1)Locally operated businesses;

(2)resident households; and

(3)visitors. In general, local businesses will be asked questions concerning their sources of revenue, location and levels of expenditures, ownership, dependence on the fisheries and other marine resources, and fishery employment. Households will be asked questions concerning their sources of income, the location of expenditures made, and their dependence on fishing and other marine resources. Visitors will be asked questions concerning region of residence, expenditures made while visiting, and reasons for visiting. The data collection efforts will be coordinated to reduce the additional burden for those who own multiple businesses. Participation in these data collections will be voluntary. The data will be used to construct a regional economic simulation model to analyze fishery management alternatives and to investigate the degree of economic dependence on marine resources in the respective communities. II. Method of Collection Data will be collected via in-person interviews, telephone interviews and/or mail questionnaire. III. Data *OMB Number:* None. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 2,400. *Estimated Time per Response:* 1 hour per survey of businesses; 30 minutes per survey of households; and 15 minutes per survey of individual visitors. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 998. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $0. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: March 15, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-5094 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 031507A] Endangered Species; File No. 1599 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Inwater Research Group, Inc (Michael J. Bresette-Responsible Party), 4160 NE Hyline Dr, Jensen Beach, FL, 34957, has applied in due form for a permit to take green ( *Chelonia mydas* ), loggerhead ( *Caretta caretta* ), hawksbill ( *Eretmochelys imbricata* ), and Kemp's ridley ( *Lepidochelys kempii* ) sea turtles for purposes of scientific research. DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before April 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: The application and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone

(301)713-2289; fax

(301)427-2521; and Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; phone

(727)824-5312; fax

(727)824-5309. Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: File No. 1599. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Swails or Patrick Opay, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226). The purpose of the proposed research is to continue long term monitoring of sea turtles foraging in the Key West National Wildlife Refuge and surrounding waters. The applicant would net or hand capture up to 200 green, 200 loggerhead, 50 hawksbill, and 10 Kemp's ridley sea turtles per year. The turtles would be measured, weighed, flipper and Passive Integrated Transponder tagged, blood and tissue sampled, marked with paint, and released. A subset of green turtles would be lavaged and satellite tagged. The permit would be valid for five years. Dated: March 15, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-5174 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 022007C] Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Rocket Launches at Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of issuance of a Letter of Authorization. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, and implementing regulations, notification is hereby given that a 1-year letter of authorization

(LOA)has been issued to the 30th Space Wing, U.S. Air Force, to take four species of seals and sea lions incidental to rocket and missile launches on Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), California. DATES: Effective March 17, 2007, through March 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: The LOA and supporting documentation are available for review by writing to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation, and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225 or by telephoning one of the contacts listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Documents cited in this notice may be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address and at the Southwest Regional Office, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolie Harrison or Candace Nachman, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,

(301)713-2289, or Monica DeAngelis, NMFS,

(562)980-3232. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) directs the National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and regulations are issued. Under the MMPA, the term “taking” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill marine mammals. Authorization may be granted for periods up to 5 years if NMFS finds, after notification and opportunity for public comment, that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses. In addition, NMFS must prescribe regulations that include permissible methods of taking and other means effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species and its habitat and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. The regulations must include requirements for monitoring and reporting of such taking. Regulations governing the taking of Pacific harbor seals ( *Phoca vitulina richardsi* ), northern elephant seals ( *Mirounga angustirostris* ), California sea lions ( *Zalophus californianus* ), and northern fur seals ( *Callorhinus ursinus* ), by harassment, incidental to missile and rocket launches, aircraft flight test operations, and helicopter operations at VAFB, were issued on February 6, 2004 (69 FR 5720), and remain in effect until February 6, 2009. For detailed information on this action, please refer to that document. These regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the incidental take of marine mammals during missile and rocket launches at VAFB. This LOA is effective from March 17, 2007 through March 16, 2008 and authorizes the incidental take of the four marine mammal species listed above that may result from the launching of up to 30 space and missile vehicles and up to 20 rockets annually from VAFB, as well as from aircraft and helicopter operations. Harbor seals haul-out on several sites on VAFB, and harbor seals, California sea lions, elephant seals, and northern fur seals are found on various haul-out sites and rookeries on San Miguel Island (SMI). Currently, five space launch vehicle programs use VAFB to launch satellites into polar orbit: Atlas IIAS, Delta II, Minotaur, Taurus, and Titan (II and IV). Also a variety of small missiles, several types of interceptor and target vehicles, and fixed-wing aircrafts are launched from VAFB. The activities under these regulations create two types of noise: continuous (but short-duration) noise, due mostly to combustion effects of aircraft and launch vehicles, and impulsive noise, due to sonic boom effects. Launch operations are the major source of noise on the marine environment from VAFB. The operation of launch vehicle engines produces significant sound levels. The noise generated by VAFB activities will result in the incidental harassment of pinnipeds, both behaviorally and in terms of physiological (auditory) impacts. The noise and visual disturbances from space launch vehicle and missile launches and aircraft and helicopter operations may cause the animals to move towards or enter the water. Take of pinnipeds will be minimized through implementation of the following mitigation measures:

(1)all aircraft and helicopter flight paths must maintain a minimum distance of 1,000 ft (305 m) from recognized seal haul-outs and rookeries;

(2)missile and rocket launches must, whenever possible, not be conducted during the harbor seal pupping season of March through June;

(3)VAFB must avoid, whenever possible, launches which are predicted to produce a sonic boom on the Northern Channel Islands during harbor seal, elephant seal, and California sea lion pupping seasons, March through June; and 4) monitoring methods will be reviewed by NMFS if post-launch surveys determine that an injurious or lethal take of a marine mammal occurred. VAFB will also use monitoring surveys, audio-recording equipment, and time-lapse video to monitor the animals before, during, and after rocket launches, and to measure sound levels generated by the launches. Reports will be submitted to NMFS after each LOA expires, and a final report will be submitted before the rule expires. Summary of Request NMFS received a request for a LOA pursuant to the aforementioned regulations that would authorize, for a period not to exceed 1 year, take of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to rocket and missile launches at VAFB. Summary of Activity and Monitoring Under the Current LOA In compliance with the 2006 LOA, VAFB submitted an annual report on the rocket launches at VAFB. A summary of that report (SRS Technologies, 2007) follows. A total of five space vehicle launches and five launches of other vehicle types were conducted at VAFB between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2006. The dates, locations, and monitoring required for the launches are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1. Summary of space vehicle launches and monitoring that occurred at VAFB in 2006. Vehicle Date Time Launch Site Monitoring Conducted Minotaur COSMIC 14-Apr 18:40 SLC-8 South VAFB Delta II CLOUDSAT & CALIPSO 28-Apr 3:02 SLC-2 North VAFB and SMI Delta IV NROL-22 27-Jun 20:33 SLC-6 South VAFB and SMI Delta IV DMSP-17 4-Nov 5:53 SLC-6 South VAFB Delta II NROL-21 14-Dec 13:00 SLC-2 SMI Table 2. Summary of other launches and monitoring that occurred at VAFB in 2006. Vehicle Date Time Launch Site Monitored Minuteman III SERV-3 16-Feb 0:01 LF-10 No Minuteman III GT 190-GM 7-Apr 6:00 LF-26 Yes Minuteman III GT 191-GM 14-Jun 1:22 LF-04 Yes Minuteman III GT 192-GT 20-Jul 3:14 LF-09 No Ground based Interceptor FTG-02 1-Sep 10:39 LF-23 No Two of the Minuteman III and the one Ground Based Interceptor launches occurred outside of the harbor seal pupping season, and a sonic boom of greater than 1 lb/ft2

(psf)was not predicted to occur at SMI as a result of the launch; therefore, no biological monitoring was required or conducted. With the exception of the Delta IV NROL-22 and Delta IV DMSP-17, acoustic measurements of all of the vehicles launched in 2006 had previously been taken and were not required or conducted again. VAFB also conducted 578 helicopter flights and 13,644 airfield operations in 2006. There were no observed effects to pinnipeds from these activities. Also, no sea lion pups were born on VAFB in 2006. Minotaur COSMIC Although no sonic boom greater than 1 psf was predicted at SMI, the Minotaur COSMIC vehicle was launched during the harbor seal pupping season; therefore, monitoring was required at VAFB. Monitoring surveys at First Ledge and Flat Iron Rock haul-out sites in the days surrounding the launch revealed between 28 and 149 adult and juvenile seals and between nine and 29 pups. Between 11 and 76 seals and five to 29 pups were found at the Amphitheatre, Brokeback, and Weaner Cove haul-out and pupping sites in the days just preceding and following the launch. The highest numbers of seals and pups were seen on April 15, the day after the launch. A video recording during the launch showed 23 of the 24 harbor seals present at the First Ledge haul-out site entering the water at the time of the launch. The remaining seal stopped just short of entering the water. No seals were seen returning to the beach within 13 minutes of the launch, at which point darkness occurred. A harbor seal pup was found “fresh dead” 18 hours post-launch at the First Ledge haul-out site. This is discussed in further detail below. Delta II CLOUDSAT & CALIPSO The Delta II CLOUDSAT & CALIPSO rocket was launched during harbor seal pupping season, and a sonic boom of greater than 1 psf was predicted to reach SMI, so monitoring was required at both SMI and VAFB. At the Spur Road haul-out site on north VAFB, a maximum of 47 seals were seen during pre-launch surveys, and a maximum of 27 were seen in the days immediately following the launch. No pups were seen in the days surrounding the launch. No video recording was made because of the early hour of the launch. Point Bennett and Otter Harbor haul-out sites were monitored on SMI on the days surrounding the launch. Approximately 250 California sea lions and 100 northern elephant seals were seen. No sonic boom was heard by the monitors or registered on the acoustic monitoring equipment. There was no evidence of injury, mortality, or abnormal behavior in any harbor seals at VAFB or the monitored pinnipeds on SMI as a result of this launch. Delta IV NROL-22 The Delta IV NROL-22 was launched during harbor seal pupping season, and a sonic boom of greater than 1 psf was expected to reach SMI; therefore, monitoring was required at both SMI and VAFB. Diurnal observations were conducted at Flat Iron Rock on south VAFB between 23 and 29 June. Pre-launch counts recorded a maximum of 263 seals and no dependent pups, and post-launch counts found a maximum of 243 seals and no dependent pups. A follow-up survey on 7 July recorded between 127 and 205 seals. Video recording during the launch was not possible because it was too dark. Monitors also surveyed Glass Float Beach on SMI from 25 through 29 June. A sonic boom was heard. All of the sea lions raised their heads. Thirty percent entered the water; 40 percent moved rapidly to the waterline but did not enter; and the remaining 30 percent stood alert and gradually moved toward the wave slopes. All harbor seals present immediately entered the water and swam away. There was no evidence of injury or mortality to any pinnipeds monitored on VAFB or SMI as a result of this launch. Due to an equipment malfunction during the calibration period, the amplitude of the sonic boom could not be determined. Additional measurements for this vehicle will be taken in the future. Delta IV DMSP-17 Though no sonic boom greater than 1 psf was predicted at SMI, and the launch occurred outside of the harbor seal pupping season, monitoring was still required for the Delta IV DMSP-17 launch, as per the implementing regulations (69 FR 5720, February 6, 2004). According to the regulations, acoustic and biological monitoring is required for the first three launches of the Delta IV vehicle. Diurnal observations were made at Flat Iron Rock on south VAFB. Pre-launch counts indicate a daily maximum of seals ranging between 26 and 87 seals and between 11 and 68 seals post-launch. No dependent pups were seen in the days surrounding the launch. As the launch occurred in the pre-dawn hours, no video recording was taken. It is unknown if any seals were present at the time of the launch; however, the high level of the tide indicates that it is unlikely. The 1-hour average sound level during the hour of the Delta IV launch was 69.1 decibels (dB), approximately 17 dB above the average background noise levels at this site. Two juvenile harbor seals (approximately seven months old) were captured for hearing tests using auditory brainstem response

(ABR)technique just prior to the Delta IV DMSP-17 launch under Scientific Research Permit No. 859-1680. They were held for a total of 2 days, and were ABR tested prior to and then again after the launch. Each seal was fitted with a plastic numbered tag in the hind flipper and a VHF radio transmitter immediately prior to release. There was no evidence indicating that the launch noise from the Delta IV caused a loss in hearing acuity. There was no evidence of injury, mortality, or abnormal behavior in any of the monitored harbor seals at VAFB as a result of this launch. Delta II NROL-21 No monitoring was conducted on VAFB for the Delta II NROL-21 launch since it occurred outside of the harbor seal pupping season. However, biological and acoustic monitoring were conducted on SMI. Survey counts found 521 sea lions and 75 northern elephant seals. No sonic boom was heard or recorded. There was no evidence of injury, mortality, or abnormal behavior of any monitored pinnipeds on SMI as a result of this launch. Minuteman III Two of the Minuteman III launches (7 April and 14 June) occurred during the harbor seal pupping season, so monitoring was required at VAFB. Between seven and 16 seals and one dependent pup were seen in the days surrounding the April 7 launch at Lion's Head haul-out site. Between five and 11 seals and one weaned pup were seen at the same site in the days surrounding the June 14 launch. Video recordings were not possible during the time of either launch due to darkness. However, it is unlikely that any seals were present since the launches occurred during high tide. There was likely only a small, temporary effect on hearing, if any. Harbor Seal Pup Mortality One dead harbor seal pup was observed at First Ledge on VAFB on April 15, approximately 18 hours post-launch of the Minotaur COSMIC rocket. The pup appeared to be “fresh dead” when first observed at 1430 PDT. VAFB monitors were unable to determine if the death was related to the launch. The area where the pup was found has a lot of ledges and caves, making it difficult to see all areas at the site. It is possible the pup washed up dead on the beach, but there is no way to know for certain. The animal did not show any signs of being orphaned. Gulls were already pecking at the carcass when it was discovered, so there was no way to assess the injuries. Also, approaching the animal would have disturbed other mother/pup pairs on the beach. Additional conditions have been added to the 2007 LOA relating to serious injury and mortality. No take by serious injury or mortality is authorized in the LOA. VAFB is required to immediately contact staff at the NMFS Office of Protected Resources, Permits, Conservation, and Education Division, as well as staff at the Southwest Regional Office, NMFS if a dead pinniped is found during the monitoring period following a launch. In addition, the National Stranding Network must be notified immediately so that personnel can retrieve the carcass for examination, whenever possible. Every attempt will be made to collect a dead pinniped carcass discovered within 48 hours following a launch provided that the collection does not result in the disturbance (flushing) of other animals from the site. Any carcasses collected will be transferred to the Long Marine Laboratory in Santa Cruz, California for complete necropsy. Authorization The U.S. Air Force complied with the requirements of the 2006 LOA, and NMFS has determined that the marine mammal take resulting from the 2006 launches is within that analyzed in and anticipated by the associated regulations. Accordingly, NMFS has issued a LOA to the 30th Space Wing, U.S. Air Force authorizing the take by harassment of marine mammals incidental to missile and rocket launches at VAFB. Issuance of this LOA is based on findings described in the preamble to the final rule (67 FR 5720, February 6, 2004) and supported by information contained in VAFB's 2006 annual report that the activities described under this LOA will result in the take of small numbers of marine mammals, will have a negligible impact on marine mammal stocks, and will not have an unmitigable impact on the availability of the affected marine mammal stocks for subsistence uses. Dated: March 13, 2007. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-5072 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 031607A] Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory entities will hold public meetings. DATES: The Council and its advisory entities will meet April 2-6, 2007. The Council meeting will begin on Monday, April 2, at 2 p.m., reconvening each day through Friday. All meetings are open to the public, except a closed session will be held from 2 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Monday, April 2 to address litigation and personnel matters. The Council will meet as late as necessary each day to complete its scheduled business. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Seattle Marriott Hotel, 3201 South 176th Street, Seattle, WA 98188; telephone:

(206)241-2000. *Council address* : Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Donald O. McIsaac, Executive Director; telephone:

(503)820-2280. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following items are on the Council agenda, but not necessarily in this order: A. Call to Order 1. Opening Remarks and Introductions 2. Roll Call 3. Executive Director's Report 4. Approve Agenda B. Enforcement Issues 1. U. S. Coast Guard Annual Fishery Enforcement Report C. Administrative Matters 1. Future Council Meeting Agenda Planning 2. Magnuson-Stevens Act Reauthorization Implementation 3. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes 4. Appointments to Advisory Bodies, Standing Committees, and Other Forums, Including any Necessary Changes to Council Operating Procedures 5. Ecosystem Fishery Management Plan 6. Legislative Matters 7. Council Three-Meeting Outlook, Draft June 2007 Council Meeting Agenda, and Workload Priorities D. Open Public Comments on Non-Agenda Items E. Groundfish Management 1. NMFS Report 2. Consideration of 2007 Inseason Adjustments 3. Amendment 15: American Fisheries Act Issues 4. Final Action on 2007 Inseason Adjustments F. Habitat Current Habitat Issues G. Salmon Management 1. NMFS Recovery Plan for Klamath River Coho 2. Tentative Adoption of 2007 Ocean Salmon Management Measures for Analysis 3. Methodology Review Process and Preliminary Topic Selection for 2007 4. Clarify Council Direction for 2007 Ocean Salmon Management Measures (if Needed) 5. Final Action on 2007 Ocean Salmon Management Measures 6. Clarify Final Action on 2007 Ocean Salmon Management Measures (if Needed) H. Pacific Halibut Management Incidental Catch Regulations for the Salmon Troll and Fixed Gear Sablefish Fisheries I. Marine Protected Areas Review of Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory Council Report J. Highly Migratory Species Management 1. NMFS Report 2. Albacore Fishing Effort Characterization 3. Longline Fishery Experimental Fishery Permit 4. Yellowfin Tuna Overfishing 5. Council Operating Procedure for Coordination with Regional Fishery Management Organizations 6. Initial Guidance for Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Meeting SCHEDULE OF ANCILLARY MEETINGS Monday, April 2, 2007 Council Secretariat 8 a.m. Groundfish Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Groundfish Management Team 8 a.m. Salmon Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Salmon Technical Team 8 a.m. Scientific and Statistical Committee 8 a.m. Habitat Committee 9 a.m. Legislative Committee 9:30 a.m. Methodology Evaluation Workgroup 1 p.m. Enforcement Consultants 4:30 p.m. Tribal Policy Group As necessary. Tribal and Washington Technical Group As necessary. Washington State Delegation As necessary. Tuesday, April 3, 2007 Council Secretariat 7 a.m. California State Delegation 7 a.m. Oregon State Delegation 7 a.m. Enforcement Consultants 8 a.m. Groundfish Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Groundfish Management Team 8 a.m. Salmon Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Salmon Technical Team 8 a.m. Scientific and Statistical Committee 8 a.m. Tribal Policy Group As necessary. Tribal and Washington Technical Group As necessary. Washington State Delegation As necessary. Wednesday, April 4, 2007 Council Secretariat 7 a.m. California State Delegation 7 a.m. Oregon State Delegation 7 a.m. Enforcement Consultants 8 a.m. Groundfish Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Groundfish Management Team 8 a.m. Salmon Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Salmon Technical Team 8 a.m. Highly Migratory Species Advisory Subpanel 1 p.m. Highly Migratory Species Management Team 1 p.m. Enforcement Consultants As necessary. Tribal Policy Group As necessary. Tribal and Washington Technical Group As necessary. Washington State Delegation As necessary. Thursday, April 5, 2007 Council Secretariat 7 a.m. California State Delegation 7 a.m. Oregon State Delegation 7 a.m. Enforcement Consultants 8 a.m. Groundfish Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Groundfish Management Team 8 a.m. Highly Migratory Species Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Highly Migratory Species Management Team 8 a.m. Salmon Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Salmon Technical Team 8 a.m. Enforcement Consultants As necessary. Tribal Policy Group As necessary. Tribal and Washington Technical Group As necessary. Washington State Delegation As necessary. Friday, April 6, 2007 Council Secretariat 7 a.m. California State Delegation 7 a.m. Oregon State Delegation 7 a.m. Enforcement Consultants 8 a.m. Salmon Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Salmon Technical Team 8 a.m. Tribal Policy Group As necessary. Tribal and Washington Technical Group As necessary. Washington State Delegation As necessary. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at

(503)820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: March 16, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-5145 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 020907C] Marine Mammals; Scientific Research Permit Applications AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of applications; extension of comment period. SUMMARY: On February 15, 2007, the NMFS announced receipt of seven applications for permits to conduct research on free-ranging threatened and endangered Steller sea lions ( *Eumetopias jubatus* ) in California, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska; five applications for permits to conduct research on free-ranging northern fur seals ( *Callorhinus ursinus* ) in Alaska; and one application for an amendment to a permit for activities with captive Steller sea lions in Alaska. Written comments were due by April 2, 2007. NMFS has decided to allow additional time for submission of public comments on this action. DATES: The public comment period for this action has been extended from April 2 to April 30, 2007. Written comments must be received or postmarked by April 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments or requests for a public hearing on these applications should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on the particular request(s) would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at

(301)427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov* . Include the appropriate File Number(s) in the subject line of the e-mail comment as a document identifier. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tammy Adams, Amy Sloan, Kate Swails, or Jaclyn Daly, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 15, 2007 (72 FR 7420) NMFS announced receipt of the following applications for permits: 782-1889, 358-1888, 881-1893, 881-1890, 434-1892, 1049-1886, 1034-1887, 715-1883, 715-1884, 715-1885, 1118-1881, 1119-1882, and 881-1745. Summaries of the specific permit applications can be found in the February 15, 2007, **Federal Register** notice and are not repeated here. Specific permit applications are available upon request from the locations provided in the February 15, 2007, **Federal Register** notice and at *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/review.htm.* Dated: March 15, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-5173 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* *United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).* *Title:* Electronic Response to Office Action and Preliminary Amendment Forms. *Form Number(s):* PTO Forms 1930, 1957, 1966. *Agency Approval Number:* 0651-0050. *Type of Request:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Burden:* 25,653 hours annually. *Number of Respondents:* 150,900 responses per year. *Avg. Hours per Response:* The time needed to respond to the request for reconsideration form is estimated to be 10 minutes (0.17 hours). This includes time to gather the necessary information, create the documents, and submit the completed request. *Needs and Uses:* This collection is being submitted as a proposed addition in support of a notice of proposed rulemaking, “Changes in the Requirements for Filing Requests for Reconsideration of Final Office Action in Trademark Cases” (RIN 0651-AC05). The USPTO proposes to amend 37 CFR 2.64 to require a request for reconsideration of an examining attorney's final refusal or requirement to be filed through the Trademark Electronic Application System

(TEAS)within three months of the mailing date of the final action. This rulemaking would add an additional requirement to this collection, a Request for Reconsideration after Final Action (Form 1930). The amendment to 37 CFR 2.64 would streamline and promote efficiency in the process once a final action has issued in an application for Trademark registration. By setting a three-month period in which to file a request for reconsideration of the final action, and by requiring that the request be filed through TEAS, the proposed amendment would facilitate the likely disposition of an applicant's request for reconsideration prior to the six-month deadline for filing an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

(TTAB)or petition to the Director on the same final action. This practice may eliminate the need for some appeals or petitions, and reduces the need for remands and transfers of applications on appeal. The proposed earlier deadline and mandatory TEAS filing facilitate the likely disposition of the request for reconsideration prior to the deadline to petition or appeal. A grant of reconsideration within this timeframe will obviate the need for an applicant to file an appeal or petition, thus also saving the applicant the filing fee for an appeal or petition. A denial of reconsideration within this timeframe will obviate the need for a case on appeal to be remanded and transferred between the TTAB and the examining attorney. Under either scenario, the timeframe in the proposed rule promotes more efficient and prompt handling of the case, and achieves benefits both for the applicant and the USPTO. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,

(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: Susan.Fawcett@uspto.gov.* Include “0651-0050 copy request” in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:* 571-273-0112, marked to the attention of Susan Brown. • *Mail:* Susan K. Brown, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Architecture, Engineering and Technical Services, Data Architecture and Services Division, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before April 20, 2007 to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Dated: March 15, 2007. Susan K. Brown, Records Officer, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Architecture, Engineering and Technical Services, Data Architecture and Services Division. [FR Doc. E7-5137 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Final Procedures for Considering Requests Under the Commercial Availability Provision of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement March 15, 2007. AGENCY: Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA). ACTION: Summary and response to comments concerning the CAFTA-DR commercial availability interim procedures; notice of final procedures. SUMMARY: This notice summarizes the comments received concerning the Interim Procedures and provides responses to those comments. **See Interim Procedures for Considering Requests Under the Commercial Availability Provision to the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement** , 71 FR 9315 (February 23, 2006). EFFECTIVE DATE: The date of entry into force of the Dominican-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Stetson, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,

(202)482-3400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Section 203(o)(4) of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (“CAFTA-DR”); the Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”), accompanying the CAFTA-DR, at 16-20. **Comments and Responses Concerning the Interim Procedures** On February 21, 2006, the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (“CITA”) issued a **Federal Register** notice advising interested parties of Interim Procedures that CITA would follow in implementing certain provisions of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (“CAFTA-DR Implementation Act”), namely the procedures for modification of the list of fabrics, yarns or fibers not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the countries that are Parties to the CAFTA-DR Agreement (“CAFTA-DR” or “Agreement”), as set out in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR. CITA has reviewed and considered all submitted comments, and below is a summary of and response to those comments. **Standards For Submissions:** One commentator noted that the interim procedures did not provide a factual standard for determining the substitutability of other products for the product subject to the commercial availability request. **See, e.g.** , sections 4(b)(4) and 6(b)(2)(iv) of the Interim Procedures. CITA has not adopted this suggestion. A wide range of products may be the subject of a commercial availability request. As each commercial availability request is evaluated on the basis of the facts contained therein, it would be impracticable to set forth a uniform standard for substitutability; rather, CITA will examine each request and any subsequent responses on a case-by-case basis. The same commentator suggested that an offer made in response to a request must contain an explicit commitment by the potential CAFTA-DR supplier to immediately deliver the product in question or one determined to be substitutable. CITA has not adopted this suggestion. Section 203(o)(4)(C) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act sets forth the standard that the subject product be delivered “in a timely manner.” What is “timely” in any given situation can only be determined on a case-by-case basis. One commentator asked that CITA clarify that in addition to accepting responses that object to a request, CITA will also accept submissions in support of a request. Section 203(o)(4)(C)(iii)(II) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act provides for a determination as to whether any “interested entity has objected to the request.” Section 6 of the Interim Procedures required that an objection to the request contain an offer to supply, and that both offers to supply and rebuttal submissions provide information to substantiate the claims contained in the respective submissions. This requirement is maintained in section 6 of the Final Procedures. Thus, CITA will not consider submissions in support of a request in making commercial availability determinations. **Removal From Annex 3.25 List:** One commentator noted that the procedures should contain an explicit statement that all products already approved under Trade Preference Programs (Caribbean Basin Trade partnership Act (“CBTPA”), African Growth and Opportunity Act (“AGOA”), and the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (“ATPDEA”) and added to the list in Annex 3.25 of CAFTA-DR cannot be removed from Annex 3.25. A different commentator asked that CITA confirm that products added to the list in Annex 3.25 since the date that the CAFTA-DR was signed cannot be removed from that list. Article 3.25.5(a) of the CAFTA-DR and section 203(o)(4)(E)(I) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act provide that fabrics, yarns, or fibers added to the list in Annex 3.25 since the date the CAFTA-DR was signed are subject to removal. Section 9 of Final Procedures accurately reflects these statutory requirements. **Public Notice:** One commentator asserted that the procedures' reliance on Internet notification and electronic mail (“email”) correspondence will result in delays or failures to distribute the information fully, especially for small companies relying on outside consultants. Moreover, the commentator stated that forbearing the use of a **Federal Register** notification results in greater risk for parties to be uninformed of developments in these proceedings. Another commentator alleges that as these procedures are a federal administrative process, publication in the **Federal Register** is required so that all parties may be assured of notification. Given the abbreviated timeline for these proceedings, Internet and email communications provide more timely notification than publication in the **Federal Register** and allow all parties equal opportunity for notification. This is particularly relevant for parties outside of the United States. Further, given the abbreviated timeline for such proceedings, Internet and email communications provide interested entities with more time to allocate to reviewing information and providing submissions than **Federal Register** publication would allow. Moreover, although a notice published in the **Federal Register** does constitute “public notice,” it is not the only means by which to notify the public. CITA has widely publicized that any interested party may receive its email notifications and that all public documents will be posted on its website. This system provides broad access and accessibility to interested parties inside and outside of the United States. Another commentator noted that CITA's requirement to submit hard copies of submissions via express courier is too inflexible, and requests that CITA accept hand-delivered submissions accompanied by an appropriate receipt that allows confirmation of delivery. CITA has not adopted this suggestion. In light of the abbreviated timeline for such proceedings, delivery by express courier permits tracking of submissions and avoids the possibility of documents being lost or misplaced. One commentator asked that CITA accept submissions of electronic information in PDF format. CITA has adopted this suggestion and clarified this point in the Final Procedures. Other commentators asked that CITA advise interested parties of all deadlines, extensions, availability of samples for public inspection, and the posting of responses on the website in its email notifications. Additional commentators requested that the procedures clarify that information on determinations, including “Deemed Approvals” and removal of restrictions will be provided through email notifications, website postings, and publication in the **Federal Register** . CITA has adopted this suggestion and clarified these points in its Final Procedures. **Contents of Requests and Responses:** A commentator suggested that requests should include “offers to buy,” as responses are required to contain “offers to supply,” to prevent speculative and spurious requests by potential buyers. CITA has not adopted this suggestion. CITA has no authority to obligate or compel requesters to purchase products, and therefore, cannot require requesters to include an “offer to buy.” However, should a subject or substitutable product be available from a CAFTA-DR supplier, articles containing such products from third-country sources would not qualify for preferential trade benefits. Another commentator suggested that denials, approvals in restricted quantities, or removals contain contact information of the potential CAFTA-DR supplier(s) of the subject product(s). This information would already be contained in any response with an offer to supply or rebuttal submission. Moreover, as this information is posted on the Internet, there is no need to duplicate such information in CITA's determination notice. The same commentators suggested that responses with an offer to supply should contain a sample of the petitioned or allegedly substitutable product. CITA is not adopting this suggestion. CITA notes that given the abbreviated timeline to conduct these proceedings and depending on the nature of the requested product, it may not be possible for an interested entity to provide a sample in all situations. Samples may be submitted with requests or offers to supply, but this is not required. CITA notes that in the event that the 14-day extension is invoked, interested entities are provided with additional time to provide a sample product to substantiate their claims should they choose to do so. A commentator asked that CITA allow discretion regarding treatment of business confidential information in special circumstances, such as when a potential supplier wants to keep its name confidential for fear of retaliation. CITA has not adopted this suggestion. In order to conduct this procedure in an open and fair manner, CITA finds it is necessary for all participants to know:

(1)the names of potential suppliers that have been contacted by petitioners, and

(2)those interested entities who object to the request. However, specific proprietary information may be treated as business confidential information. **See** section 3 of the Final Procedures. **Restricted Quantities:** One commentator was strongly opposed to an automatic review of restricted quantities in a CITA determination, alleging that such reviews would burden parties and CITA with unnecessary processes. Moreover, this commentator claims that the automatic review is not required by the legislation. Section 203(o)(4)(C)(vi) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act provides that the restriction may be eliminated not later than six months after the product is added to the list in Annex 3.25 of the Agreement in a restricted quantity. Therefore, CITA may review current circumstances to determine whether eliminating the restricted quantity is warranted. This section of the Final Procedures has been revised to provide clarity. See section 8(c)(3) of the Final Procedures. One commentator asked that CITA specify how it will determine a given quantity in determinations that involve restricted quantities. In the course of the proceeding, based on the information submitted , CITA will specify an amount that can be provided by the CAFTA-DR supplier(s). CITA will provide additional explanation in a Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQ”) document that will be made available on its website. Another commentator requests that in section 8(c)(2) of the Interim Procedures, regarding approvals in unrestricted quantities, the language be modified to read, “... if CITA determines that no CAFTA-DR supplier(s) or manufacturer(s) could fulfill any amount of the request.” CITA has determined to remove this sentence all together, as it is redundant to the previous sentence. The same commentator asked that CITA consider eliminating a quantity restriction only upon receipt of a request from an interested entity. CITA has not adopted this suggestion. Section 203(o)(4)(C)(vi) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act does not require that a request be submitted to CITA, but only that CITA may remove the restriction within six months after the product is added to the Annex 3.25 list in a restricted quantity. A commentator asked that CITA clarify that approvals in restricted quantities take effect 30 days after the official receipt of the request. CITA is required to make a determination, whether a denial, approval in an unrestricted quantity, or an approval in a restricted quantity, within the 30 U.S. business-day deadline, with the caveat that CITA may extend the deadline for an additional 14 U.S. business days should additional information be required. See Section 8(c) of the Interim and Final Procedures. Another commentator asked that CITA specify that the effective date of the elimination of a restriction will be six months after the date of publication of the notice. CITA has not adopted this suggestion. CITA notes that section 203(o)(4)(C)(vi) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act does not specify the effective date for removal of the restricted quantity should CITA make such a determination. CITA would publish in the **Federal Register** any modification to products on the Annex 3.25 list, such as removal of a restriction, which in effect adds a product to the Annex 3.25 list in an unrestricted quantity. CITA notes that section 203(o)(4)(C)(v) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act specifies that the effective date for adding products to the Annex 3.25 list in an unrestricted or restricted quantity is the date of publication in the **Federal Register** . A commentator asked that CITA clarify that a review to determine whether to remove restricted quantities can take place later than six months after adding the product in a restricted quantity to the Annex 3.25 list. CITA has not adopted this suggestion. The procedure in section 8(c)(3)(ii) of the Final Procedures implements Section 203(o)(4)(C)(vi) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act which provides only for a review not later than six months after the product is added to the Annex 3.25 list in a restricted quantity. **Changed Circumstances:** Several commentators requested that CITA clarify a discrepancy in the timeframes provided for reconsideration of determinations in sections 8(c)(6) and 9(a) of the interim procedures. Another commenter requested that CITA strike section 8(c)(6). In section 8(c)(6) of the Interim Procedures, CITA proposed to allow for proceedings based upon changed circumstances. Several commentators expressed that CITA does not possess statutory authority to conduct changed circumstances proceedings. The Final Procedures clarify when it is appropriate for the agency to conduct a proceeding based upon changed circumstances. It is CITA's intention at this time to exercise its inherent authority to reconsider, and/or subsequently amend, commercial availability determinations that may have been procured by, **e.g.** , error, fraud, or similar faults. **See, e.g., Elkem Metals, et al. v. United States** , 26 C.I.T. 234, 239, 193 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1319-20

(2002)(“It is indeed the general rule that administrative agencies in general...have the inherent authority to institute reconsideration proceedings so as to `vindicate the integrity of the administrative process.'”); **Belville Min. Co. v. U.S.** , 999 F.2d 989, 997 (6th Cir. 1993) (“Even where there is no express reconsideration authority for an agency...the general rule is that an agency has inherent authority to reconsider its decision, provided that reconsideration occurs within a reasonable time after the first decision.”)(citations and internal quotations omitted)); **Bookman v. United States** , 197 Ct. Cl. 108, 453 F.2d 1263, 1265

(1972)(explaining the general rule that “every tribunal, judicial or administrative, has some power to correct its own errors or otherwise modify its judgment, decree, or order” and that “[courts] will sustain the reconsidered decision of an agency, as long as the administrative action is conducted within a short and reasonable time”) (citations and internal quotations omitted)); **Gilmore Steel Corp. v. U.S.** , 7 C.I.T. 219, 223, 585 F. Supp. 670, 674

(1984)(holding that the International Trade Administration had the authority to correct a manifest error that “taints the proceeding”); **Gun South, Inc. v. Brady** , 877 F.2d 858, 862 (11th Cir. 1989) (concluding that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms “must necessarily retain the power to correct the erroneous approval of firearms import applications” despite the absence of express statutory authority). Therefore, the proposed changed circumstances provision was not based on statutory changes made by the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act, but rather relied on the longstanding inherent authority that CITA has always possessed. **See** cases cited **supra** . Further, neither the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act nor case precedent prohibits the proposed proceeding. In the interest of fairness and transparency, however, it seems appropriate to clarify the agency's inherent authority to address such faults in the conduct of the proceeding. In the Final Procedures, CITA has deleted section 8(c)(6) and provided a clarification in the “Background” section. **Deadlines:** Several commentators noted that the deadlines set forth by the procedures do not allow for extensions for responses with offers to supply or rebuttal comments. The procedures do allow for CITA to extend the time limit for responses with offers to supply and rebuttal comments. However, even if an extension is provided, CITA is required to meet the statutory deadline for making a determination. See sections 6 and 7of the Final Procedures; see also, e.g., section 203(o)(4)(C)(iv) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act. Another commentator suggested that CITA begin the timeline for the proceeding from the date of publication of the commercial availability request rather than the date of its official receipt by CITA, which would allow for two additional days for submitting responses with offers to supply. CITA has not adopted this suggestion, as CITA needs sufficient time to review the completeness of commercial availability requests before notifying interested parties that a commercial availability request has been submitted and accepted. At the same time, the statute requires that the determination be made within a certain time period from the date of submission. Therefore, in order for CITA to make a commercial availability determination within the statutorily prescribed deadlines, CITA needs the two days in question to review the completeness of the commercial availability request before notifying interested parties that a request has been submitted and accepted. **See** section 203(o)(4)(C)(iv) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act. Another commentator suggested that when CITA seeks to meet with interested entities during an extended review period, the meeting should include all sides of the issue and be open to the public. Should CITA convene a meeting between the requester and interested entities providing offers to supply, such meetings will be public and conducted in an open manner. A commentator explained that the procedures should state that CITA may determine to extend the 30-day deadline for an additional 14 days to obtain additional information. Section 8 of the Final Procedures explains that CITA is permitted to extend the 30 U.S. business-day deadline for an additional 14 U.S. business days. This same section of the procedures clearly explains the purpose of the 14 U.S. business day extension. See also section 203(o)(4)(c)(iv) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act. Another commentator asked that CITA add in section 8(c)(3)(i) of the Interim Procedures the phrase, “or not more than 44 U.S. business days where extension is provided...” CITA has adopted this suggestion in its Final Procedures. A commentator requested that CITA clarify that if CITA provides an extension for submitting responses with offers to supply, CITA's determinations will still meet the statutory deadline. CITA has adopted this suggestion in its Final Procedures. One commentator asked that CITA acknowledge that in “emergency circumstances” CITA could make a decision prior to its 30 U.S. business-day deadline. CITA has not adopted this suggestion. CITA is required to make a determination “within” 30 U.S. business days of receipt of a commercial availability request, unless an extension is provided. See section 203(o)(4)(C)(iv) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act. Moreover, each proceeding must allow all interested entities sufficient time to respond with offers to supply and provide rebuttal comments in the course of the proceeding. **Deemed Approval:** One commentator objected to the provision regarding “Deemed Approval,” noting that such requirements set a negative precedent for future procedures. CITA has not adopted this suggestion. Section 203(o)(4)(D) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act provides expressly for the “Deemed Approval” procedure. Another commentator asked that the “Deemed Approval” provision apply to all determinations in these proceedings, not only to commercial availability requests to add a given product to Annex 3.25. Section 203(o)(4)(D) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act provides that the “Deemed Approval” process only applies to commercial availability requests and not to requests to remove or restrict. **Interested Entities:** One commentator claimed that CITA inadvertently limited participation in commercial availability proceedings by using the term “interested entities” to identify who may request to be included on the email notification list. The Final Procedures clarify that any interested party can be included on the mass email notification list. Another commentator asked that CITA clarify that trade associations are an “interested entity.” CITA has not adopted this suggestion. The term “interested entity” is defined in section 203(o)(4)(B)(i) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act, and this definition does not include trade associations. However, trade associations can participate in the process as an interested party. A commentator noted that the language of the procedures differs from the Agreement and the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act, using the standard for determining whether to add a product to the Annex 3.25 list as “are not available” instead of “are available” in the CAFTA-DR countries. The language of the procedures is consistent with both the Agreement and the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act. One commentator asked that CITA clarify that non-essential character components are eligible for determinations. The CAFTA-DR Implementation Act provides for determinations whether “fabrics, yarns, or fibers” are to be added to the list in Annex 3.25 of the Agreement. See section 203(o)(4)(A). Further, Section Notes 2, 3, and 4 to Section XI of Annex 4.1 of the Agreement provides for how the list of fabrics, yarns, and fibers in Annex 3.25 is taken into account in applying the Agreement's rules of origin. Nothing in the commercial availability process alters the rules of origin contained in the Agreement. Several commentators asked that CITA elaborate on several of the provisions included in the procedures, including “Deemed Approval,” approvals with restricted quantities, the contents of commercial availability requests, responses with offers to supply, and rebuttal comments. CITA has adopted this suggestion and will provide further explanations in a FAQ document to be made available on its website. Another commentator asked that CITA review its procedures after one year to determine if any modifications are necessary. The Final Procedures provide that the procedures may be modified at any time to address concerns that may arise. CITA notes that these are administrative procedures rather than regulations, and can be modified as needed. Final Procedures This notice also sets forth the final procedures the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (“CITA”) will follow in implementing certain provisions of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (“CAFTA-DR Implementation Act”). Section 203(o)(4) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act establishes procedures for the President to modify the list of fabrics, yarns, or fibers not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the countries that are Parties to the CAFTA-DR, as set out in Annex 3.25 of the Agreement. The President has delegated to CITA the authority to determine whether a fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in CAFTA-DR countries and has directed CITA to establish procedures that govern the submission of a request and provide the opportunity for interested entities to submit comments and supporting evidence in any such determination pursuant to the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act. This notice hereby gives notice to interested parties of the procedures CITA will follow in considering such requests. Background: The CAFTA-DR provides a list in Annex 3.25 of the Agreement for fabrics, yarns, and fibers that the Parties to the Agreement have determined are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner from suppliers in the United States or other CAFTA-DR countries. A textile and apparel good containing fabrics, yarns, or fibers that is included in Annex 3.25 of the Agreement may be treated as if it is an originating good for purposes of the specific rules of origin in Annex 4.1 of the Agreement, regardless of the actual origin of those inputs, provided that all other fabrics, yarns, or fibers of the component that determines the classification of the good meet the specific rules of origin in Annex 4.1 of the Agreement. The CAFTA-DR Implementation Act provides that the President will establish procedures governing the submission of requests and may determine whether additional fabrics, yarns, or fibers are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the United States or the other CAFTA-DR countries. In addition, the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act establishes that the President may remove a fabric, yarn, or fiber from the list, if it has been added to the list in an unrestricted quantity pursuant to section 203(o), if he determines that the fabric, yarn, or fiber has become available in commercial quantities in a timely manner. The SAA provides that the President will delegate to CITA his authority under section 203(o)(4) of the Agreement (“Commercial Availability Provision”), to establish procedures for modifying the list of fabrics, yarns, or fibers not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner for Agreement countries, as set out in Annex 3.25 of the Agreement. These procedures are not subject to the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) (Administrative Procedures Act). These procedures may be modified in the future to address concerns that may arise as CITA gains experience in implementing them. CITA possesses inherent authority to reconsider, and/or subsequently amend, commercial availability determinations that may have been procured by error, fraud, or similar faults. Should CITA undertake to review a determination under such circumstances, CITA will provide notice to the public, through the email and website notification processes described in the Final Procedures, and provide opportunity for interested entities to submit comments and information for CITA's consideration. **Procedures for Considering Requests** **1. Introduction** The intent of the CAFTA-DR Commercial Availability Procedures is to foster the use of U.S. and CAFTA-DR products by implementing procedures that allow products to be placed on or removed from a product list, on a timely basis, and in a manner that is consistent with normal business practice. To this end, these procedures are intended to facilitate the transmission, on a timely basis, of order requests and offers to supply such requests; have the market indicate the availability of the supply of products that are the subject of requests; make available promptly, to interested entities and parties, information regarding the requests for products and offers to supply received; ensure wide participation by interested entities and parties; provide careful scrutiny of information provided to substantiate order requests and response to supply offers; and provide timely public dissemination of information used by CITA in making commercial availability determinations. **2. Definitions** *(a) Commercial Availability Request.* A “Commercial Availability Request” is a submission from an interested entity requesting that CITA place a good on the list in Annex 3.25 because that fiber, yarn, or fabric is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner from a supplier in the CAFTA-DR countries. *(b) Interested Entity.* An “interested entity” means a government that is a Party to the Agreement, other than the United States; a potential or actual purchaser of a textile or apparel good; or a potential or actual supplier of a textile or apparel good. CITA recognizes that a legal or other representative may act on behalf of an `interested entity.' See section 203(o)(4)(B)(i) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act. *(c) Interested Party.* An “interested party” means any interested person that requests to be included on the email notification list for Commercial Availability proceedings. Any interested person may become an interested party by contacting CITA. See Office of Textile and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, website for details at *http://web.ita.doc.gov/tacgi/CABroadcast.nsf/Document?Openform* or send an email to *OTEXACAFTA@ita.doc.gov* . *(d) Official Receipt.* The “official receipt” is CITA's email confirmation that it has received both the email version and the original submission signed by the interested entity delivered via express courier. *(e) Request.* A “request” refers to the Commercial Availability Request. *(f) Request to Remove or Restrict.* A “request to remove or restrict” is a submission from an interested entity, made no sooner than six months after a product has been added to the Annex 3.25 list in an unrestricted quantity pursuant to Section 203(o) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act, requesting that CITA either remove a product or that a quantity restriction be introduced. *(g) Requestor.* The “requestor” refers to the interested entity that files a request, either a Commercial Availability Request or a Request to Remove or Restrict, under the CAFTA-DR Commercial Availability provision, for CITA's consideration. *(h) CAFTA-DR Supplier.* A “CAFTA-DR supplier” is a potential or actual supplier of a textile or apparel good in the territory of any Party. *(i) Response with an Offer.* A “response with an offer” is a submission from an interested entity to CITA providing its objection to the request or asserting its ability to supply the subject product by providing an offer to supply the subject product described in the request. *(j) Rebuttal Comment.* A “rebuttal comment” is a submission from an interested entity providing information in response to evidence or arguments raised in a response with an offer submission. Rebuttal comments must be limited to evidence and arguments provided in a response with an offer submission. *(k) Fiber, Yarn, or Fabric.* The term “fiber, yarn, or fabric” means a single product or a range of products, which meet the same specifications provided in a submission, and which may be only part of a Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) provision. *(l) U.S. Business Day.* A “U.S. business-day” is any calendar day other than a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday. See section 203(o)(4)(B)(i) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act. **3. Submissions for Participation the CAFTA-DR Commercial Availability Proceeding.** *(a) Filing a Submission.* All submissions for a CAFTA-DR Commercial Availability proceeding (e.g., Commercial Availability Request, Response with an Offer, Rebuttal Comments, and Request to Remove or Restrict) must be in English. If any attachments are in a language other than English, then a translation must be provided. Each submission must be submitted to the U.S. Department of Commerce's Office of Textiles and Apparel (“OTEXA”) in two forms, electronic mail and original signed submission.

(1)An electronic mail (“email”) version of the submission must be either in PDF, Word, or Word-Perfect format and must contain an adequate public summary of any business confidential information and the due diligence certification, sent to **OTEXA_CAFTA@ita.doc.gov** . The “email” version of the submission will be posted for public review on OTEXA's CAFTA-DR Commercial Availability website at http:otexa.ita.doc.gov. No business proprietary information should be submitted in the “email” version of any document.

(2)The original signed submission must be received via express courier to—Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Room H3100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Any business confidential information upon which an interested entity wishes to rely must be included in the original signed submission only. Except for the inclusion of business confidential information, the two versions of a submission should be identical.

(3)Brackets must be placed around all business confidential information contained in submissions. Documents containing business confidential information must have a bolded heading stating “Confidential Version.” Attachments considered business confidential information must have a heading stating “Business Confidential Information.” Documents, including those submitted via “email,” provided for public release, must have a bolded heading stating “Public Version” and all the business confidential information must be deleted and substituted with asterisks.

(4)Generally, details, such as quantities and lead times for providing the subject product, can be treated as business confidential information. However, the names of suppliers who were contacted, what was asked generally about the capability to manufacture the subject product, and the responses thereto should be included in public versions, which will be made available to the public. *(b) Due Diligence Certification.* An interested entity must file a certification of due diligence as described in subsection (b)(1) with each submission, both email and original signed versions, containing factual information. If the interested entity has legal counsel or other representative, the legal counsel or other representative must file a certification of due diligence as described in subsection (b)(2) with each submission, both email and original signed versions, containing factual information. Accurate representations of material facts submitted to CITA for the CAFTA-DR Commercial Availability proceeding are vital to the integrity of this process and are necessary for CITA's effective administration of the statutory scheme. Each submission containing factual information for CITA's consideration must be accompanied by the appropriate certification regarding the accuracy of the factual information. Any submission that lacks the applicable certifications will be considered an incomplete submission that CITA will reject and return to the submitter. CITA may verify any factual information submitted by interested entities in a CAFTA-DR Commercial Availability proceeding.

(1)For the person responsible for presentation of the factual information: I, (name and title), currently employed by (interested entity), certify that

(1)I have read the attached submission, and

(2)the information contained in this submission is, to the best of my knowledge, complete and accurate.

(2)For the person's legal counsel or other representative:I, (name), of (law or other firm), counsel or representative to (interested entity), certify that

(1)I have read the attached submission, and

(2)based on the information made available to me by (person), I have no reason to believe that this submission contains any material misrepresentation or omission of fact. *(c) Official Receipt.* A submission will be considered officially submitted to CITA only when both the email version and the original signed submission have been received by CITA. For request submissions, CITA will confirm to the requestor that both versions of the request submission were received through an email confirmation. CITA's email confirmation shall be considered the “official receipt” of the request submission, and also begins the statutory 30 U.S. business-day process for CITA consideration of requests. CITA will confirm official receipt of response and rebuttal submissions by posting the response or rebuttal on the dedicated website at *http://web.ita.doc.gov/tacgi/CaftaReqTrack.nsf* . **4. Submitting a Request for Consideration in a Commercial Availability Proceeding.** *(a) Commercial Availability Request.* An interested entity may submit a Commercial Availability request to CITA alleging that a fiber, yarn, or fabric is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner from a producer in the CAFTA-DR countries. *(b) Contents of a Commercial Availability Request.* *(1) Detailed Product Information.* The Commercial Availability request must provide a detailed description of the product subject to the request, including, if applicable, fiber content, construction, yarn size, and finishing processes; and the classification of the product under the HTSUS. All measurements in the entire submission must be stated in metric units, or if the English count system is used in any part, then a conversion to metric units must be provided. *(2) Quantity.* The Commercial Availability request must provide the specific quantity of the product needed by the requestor, in standard units of quantity for production of the subject product in the CAFTA-DR countries. *3) Due Diligence.* The Commercial Availability request must provide a complete description of the due diligence undertaken by the requestor to determine the subject product's availability in the CAFTA-DR countries. Due diligence for the requestor means it has made reasonable efforts to obtain the subject product from CAFTA-DR suppliers. The requestor must provide the names and addresses of suppliers contacted, who was specifically contacted, the exact request that was made, the dates of those contacts, whether a sample of the subject product was provided for review, and the exact response given for the supplier's inability to supply the subject product under the same conditions as contained in the Commercial Availability request submitted to CITA, in addition to any other information the requestor believes is relevant. The requestor must submit copies or notes of relevant correspondence, both inquiries and responses, with these suppliers. Relevant correspondence includes notes of telephone conversations. Specific details of correspondence with suppliers, such as quantities and lead times for providing the subject product, can be treated as business confidential information. However, the names of CAFTA-DR suppliers who were contacted, what was asked generally about the capability to manufacture the subject product, and the responses thereto should be available for public review to ensure proper public participation in the process. “Lead times” refers to supplying the subject product within normal business time frames for the subject product once an order is received. Specific delivery dates are not necessary. Required delivery dates that fall within the time needed to complete the Commercial Availability determination process are not acceptable. *(4) Substitutable Products.* The Commercial Availability request must provide information on whether the requester believes that other products supplied by the CAFTA-DR supplier are not substitutable in commercial quantities in a timely manner for the product(s) that is

(are)the subject of the request for purposes of the intended use. Clearly describe the unique characteristics of the subject product that distinguishes it from other similar or potentially substitutable products. Describe why such characteristics are required for the purposes of the end-use of the product and cannot be substituted by another product available from a CAFTA-DR supplier. *(5) Additional Information.* The Commercial Availability request may provide any additional evidence or information believed to be relevant for CITA to determine whether a fiber, yarn, or fabric is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner from a producer in the CAFTA-DR countries. **5. Consideration and Acceptance of a Request.** In considering whether to accept a request, CITA will consider and determine whether it provides all the required information specified in sections 3 and 4 of these procedures. CITA will determine whether to accept the request for consideration and investigation not later than two U.S. business days after the official receipt of a request. *(a) Request Rejected.* If CITA determines that the request does not contain the required information, the requestor will be notified promptly by email that the request has not been accepted and the reasons for the rejection. A request may be resubmitted with additional information for the subject product and CITA will reevaluate it as a new request. *(b) Request Accepted.* If CITA determines that the request contains the required information, CITA will notify interested parties by email that a request has been accepted and filed and will assign a File Number. CITA will post the accepted request on its website for public notice. The email notification and the website posting will indicate the calendar date deadlines for submitting offers to supply and submitting rebuttal responses. **6. Submitting a Response with an Offer in a Commercial Availability Proceeding.** Respondents must meet the requirements outlined in 3 of these procedures. General comments in support of or opposition to a commercial availability request do not meet the requirements of a Response with an Offer. A Due Diligence Certification must accompany a Response with an Offer. *(a) Response With an Offer Submission.* An interested entity may file a response submission to a request CITA accepted advising CITA of its objection to the request and its ability to supply the subject product by providing an offer to supply the subject product as described in the request. An interested entity will have 10 U.S. business days after official receipt of a request to respond to a request. If good cause is shown, CITA may extend this deadline, but CITA will still meet the statutory deadline for making a determination. *(b) Contents of a Response with an Offer.* *(1) File Number.* The Response with an Offer needs to reference the CITA File Number assigned to the particular Commercial Availability Request being addressed. *(2) Quantity.* The Response with an Offer must supply the quantity of the requested subject product that the CAFTA-DR supplier, is capable of currently supplying, in standard units of quantity. All measurements must be in metric units. If the English count system is used in any part, then a conversion to metric units must be provided. *(3) Production Capability.* The Response with an Offer must report the quantity, in metric units, that the CAFTA-DR supplier produced of the subject product, or a substitutable product, in the preceding 24-month period.

(i)For products that have experienced cyclical demand or are not currently produced, the CAFTA-DR supplier should indicate the quantity that has been supplied or offered commercially in the past, with an explanation of the reasons it is not currently produced or offered.

(ii)If the requestor has requested a new style, weight, or other variation that is new to the market or new to the respondent, then the CAFTA-DR supplier(s) should provide detailed information on its current ability to make the subject product.

(iii)If the CAFTA-DR supplier(s) are making a new product that has not yet been offered to the market, but could meet the requirements of the subject product, then the CAFTA-DR supplier(s) need(s) to provide detailed information regarding the product and their ability to meet a request.

(iv)*Substitutable Products.* The Response with an Offer may provide, if relevant, the basis for the responder's belief that other products that are supplied by the CAFTA-DR supplier in commercial quantities in a timely manner are substitutable for the product(s) that are the subject of the request for purposes of the intended use. *(4) Due Diligence.* The Response with an Offer must provide a complete description of the due diligence undertaken by the CAFTA-DR supplier to substantiate the ability to supply the subject product.

(i)In the case of new variations of a product, the CAFTA-DR supplier must substantiate the ability to manufacture the subject product. The CAFTA-DR supplier must provide sufficient detail of the manufacturing capabilities of the facility that will supply the subject product, in addition to any other information the supplier believes is relevant.

(ii)If some operations, such as finishing, will be completed by other entities, the name of the facility and contact information must be provided.

(5)Location of the CAFTA-DR supplier. The Response with an Offer must provide the name, address, phone number, and email address of a contact person at the facility claimed to be able to supply the subject product. **7. Submitting Rebuttal Comments.** Rebuttal Comments must meet the requirements outlined in 3 of these procedures. General comments in support of or opposition to a Request or a Response with an Offer do not meet the requirements of a Rebuttal Comment. A *Due Diligence Certification* must accompany a Rebuttal Comment. *(a) * Rebuttal Comments. Any interested entity may submit a Rebuttal Comment to a Response with an Offer submission. An interested entity must submit its Rebuttal Comment not later than 4 U.S. business-days after the deadline for Response with an Offer submission. If good cause is shown, CITA may extend the time limit, but CITA will still meet the statutory deadline for making a determination. *(b) * Contents of a Rebuttal Comment. The Rebuttal Comment may respond only to evidence or arguments raised in the Response with an Offer submission and must identify the Response with an Offer submission, evidence and/or arguments to which it is responding. The Rebuttal Comment needs to reference the CITA File Number assigned to the particular Commercial Availability Request being addressed. **8. Determination Process.**

(a)Not later than 30 U.S. business days after official receipt of a request (or not later than 44 U.S. business days where an extension is provided), CITA will notify interested entities by email and interested parties and the public by a posting on its website whether the subject product is available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the CAFTA-DR countries and whether an interested entity has objected to the request.

(b)CITA will notify the public of the determination by publication in the **Federal Register** when the determination results in a change to the Commercial Availability List in Annex 3.25 of the Agreement.

(c)* Types of Determinations.*

(1)**Denial.** A denial means that CITA has determined that the subject product is available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the CAFTA-DR countries. If a request is denied, notice of the denial will be posted on the CAFTA-DR Commercial Availability website at *http://web.ita.doc.gov/tacgi/CABroadcast.nsf/Document?Openform* .

(2)**Approval in Unrestricted Quantity.** An approval in unrestricted quantities means that CITA has determined that the subject product is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the CAFTA-DR countries or that no interested entity has objected to the request.

(i)If a request is approved without restriction, a notice will be published in the U.S. **Federal Register** not later than 30 U.S. business days (or not more than 44 U.S. business days where an extension is provided ) after the official receipt of a request, adding the subject product to the Commercial Availability List in Annex 3.25 of the Agreement.

(ii)The effective date of the determination is the date of publication of the notice in the U.S. **Federal Register** . **(3) Approval in a Restricted Quantity.**

(i)**Approval in a Restricted Quantity.** An Approval in a Restricted Quantity means that CITA has determined to add the subject product to the Commercial Availability List in Annex 3.25 of the Agreement with a specified restricted quantity. CITA may approve the request in a restricted quantity if CITA determines that a CAFTA-DR supplier(s) can partially fulfill the request for the subject product. The restricted quantity specifies the amount of the subject product that can be provided by a CAFTA-DR supplier(s).

(A)If a request is approved in a restricted quantity, a notice will be published in the **Federal Register** not later than 30 U.S. business days (or not more the 44 U.S. business days where an extension is provided ) after official receipt of the request, adding the subject product to the Commercial Availability List in Annex 3.25 of the Agreement with a specified restricted quantity. The restricted quantity specifies the amount of the subject product that can be provided by a CAFTA-DR supplier(s).

(B)The effective date of the determination will be the date of publication in the U.S. **Federal Register** .

(ii)**Elimination of a restricted quantity.** Not later than six months after adding a product to the Commercial Availability List in Annex 3.25 of the Agreement in a restricted quantity, CITA may eliminate the restriction if it determines that the subject product is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the CAFTA-DR countries.

(A)The determination that the subject product is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner will be based upon whether the restricted quantity has been provided by a CAFTA-DR supplier(s). CITA will solicit comments and information from the CAFTA-DR supplier(s) and the requester.

(B)If the CAFTA-DR supplier(s) are still capable of providing the restricted quantity, the restriction will remain.

(C)If the CAFTA-DR supplier(s) are unable to provide the restricted quantity, CITA will eliminate the restricted quantity. CITA will publish a notice in the U.S. **Federal Register** , and post on the website, that the restricted quantity is eliminated and the subject product is added to the Commercial Availability List in Annex 3.25 in an unrestricted quantity. The effective date of the determination will be the date of publication in the U.S. **Federal Register** . **(4) Insufficient Information to Determine.** CITA will extend its time period for consideration of the Commercial Availability Request by an additional 14 U.S. business days in the event that CITA determines, not later than 30 U.S. business days after official receipt of a Commercial Availability Request, that it has insufficient information to make a determination regarding the ability of a CAFTA-DR supplier to supply the subject products of the Commercial Availability Request based on the submitted information. CITA will normally determine that it does not have sufficient information to make a determination on a Commercial Availability Request when CITA finds there is inconsistency in material information contained in the Commercial Availability Request, one or more Offers to Supply the subject product, and/or the Rebuttal Comments. CITA will notify interested parties via email that it has extended the time period for CITA's consideration by 14 U.S. business-days. CITA also will announce the extension on the website.

(i)*Process during Extension Period* . During the extended time period, CITA will request that interested entities provide additional evidence to substantiate the information provided, and may initiate a meeting with interested entities. Should CITA elect to conduct a meeting, it will comply with requirements to conduct proceedings in an open manner. Such evidence may include inter alia product samples, lab tests, detailed descriptions of product facilities, and comparisons of product performance in the intended end-use of the subject product. Any samples, if requested, of fibers, yarns, or fabrics, that are provided to CITA will be made available for public inspection at the Office of Textiles and Apparel, Room 3110, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th St. and Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20230. All written submissions must follow instructions described in section 3 of these procedures. Samples should be identified with a cover sheet that describes the specifications of the sample and be identical to the specifications of the request.

(ii)CITA also will consider evidence in support of claims that CAFTA-DR supplier(s) can supply a substantially similar product to that specified in the request.

(iii)CITA will make a determination, not later than 44 U.S. business days after the official receipt of a Commercial Availability Request whether to Approve, Approve with Restriction, or Deny the Commercial Availability Request and will follow the notification process accordingly. **(5) Deemed Approval.** In the event that CITA does not make a determination in response to a Commercial Availability Request to add a product to Annex 3.25 of the Agreement within the statutory deadlines provided, not later than 45 U.S. business-days after the official receipt of the commercial availability request or not later than 60 U.S. business-days after the official receipt of the Commercial Availability Request that was determined to lack sufficient information pursuant to subsection (c)(4), the requested subject product shall be added to the Commercial Availability List in Annex 3.25 , in an unrestricted quantity, in accordance with the requirements of section 203(o)(4)(D) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act. CITA will notify the public of the Deemed Approval by publication in the U.S. **Federal Register** and posting on OTEXA's website. **9. Six Month Procedures:**

(a)* Request to Remove or Restrict.* No earlier than six months after a product has been added to the Commercial Availability List in Annex 3.25 in an unrestricted quantity pursuant to sections 203(o)(2) and

(4)of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act, an interested entity may submit a request to CITA requesting that a product be either removed or that a quantity restriction be introduced. *(b) Content of a Request to Remove or Restrict.* The Request to Remove or Restrict must provide the substantive information set forth in subsection 6(b) (Contents of a Response with an Offer) of these procedures. *(c) Procedures.*

(1)In considering whether to accept a Request to Remove or Restrict, CITA will follow procedures set forth in section 5 ( *Consideration and Acceptance of a Request* ) of these procedures.

(2)If CITA determines to accept the Request to Remove or Restrict, CITA and any responding interested entity shall follow applicable procedures and contents set forth in subsections 6(a) (Response Submission) and section 7 (Submitting Rebuttal Evidence) of these procedures.

(3)As set forth in subsections 8(a) and

(b)( *Determination Process* ) of these procedures, CITA will determine whether the subject product of the Request to Remove or Restrict is available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the DR-CAFTA countries not later than 30 U.S. business days after the official receipt of the request.

(i)If CITA determines that the product is available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the DR-CAFTA countries, e.g., that a CAFTA-DR supplier is capable to supply the entire subject product requested originally, then that product will be removed from the Commercial Availability List in Annex 3.25 of the Agreement.

(ii)If CITA determines that the product is available in restricted quantities in a timely manner in the CAFTA-DR countries, e.g., that a CAFTA-DR supplier is capable to supply part of the subject product requested originally then a restricted quantity will be introduced for that product.

(iii)If the Commercial Availability List changes as a result of CITA's determination for the Request to Remove or Restrict, CITA will notify interested parties by email of its determination and will publish a notice of its determination for the request to remove or restrict in the U.S. **Federal Register** .

(A)For removal, the notice will state that textile and apparel articles containing the subject product are not to be treated as originating in a CAFTA-DR country if the subject product is obtained from non- CAFTA-DR sources, effective for goods entered into the United States on or after six months (i.e., 180 calendar days) after the date of publication of the notice.

(B)For restriction, the notice will specify the restricted quantity for the subject product that is to be effective on or after six months (i.e., 180 calendar days) after the publication date of the notice. R. Matthew Priest, Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. [FR Doc. E7-5102 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; Overview Information; Centers for Independent Living; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year

(FY)2007 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number: 84.132A. *Dates: Applications Available: * March 21, 2007. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* April 20, 2007. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* June 19, 2007. *Eligible Applicants:* To be eligible to apply, an applicant must—

(a)Be a consumer-controlled, community-based, cross-disability, nonresidential, private nonprofit agency;

(b)Have the power and authority to—

(1)carry out the purpose of part C of title VII of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (the Act) and perform the functions listed in section 725(b) and

(c)of the Act and subparts F and G of 34 CFR part 366 within a community located within a State or in a bordering State; and

(2)Receive and administer—

(i)Funds under 34 CFR part 366;

(ii)Funds and contributions from private or public sources that may be used in support of a center for independent living (center); and

(iii)Funds from other public and private programs;

(c)Be able to plan, conduct, administer, and evaluate a center consistent with the standards and assurances in section 725(b) and

(c)of the Act and subparts F and G of 34 CFR part 366;

(d)Either—

(1)Not currently be receiving funds under part C of chapter 1 of title VII of the Act; or

(2)Propose the expansion of an existing center through the establishment of a separate and complete center (except that the governing board of the existing center may serve as the governing board of the new center) at a different geographical location;

(e)Propose to serve one or more of the geographic areas that are identified as unserved or underserved by the State and territories listed under *Estimated Numbers of Awards;* and

(f)Submit appropriate documentation demonstrating that the establishment of a new center is consistent with the design for establishing a statewide network of centers in the State plan of the State or territory whose geographic area or areas the applicant proposes to serve. *Estimated Available Funds:* $154,046. *Estimated Number of Awards:* 1, distributed in the following manner: States and territories Estimated available funds Estimated number of awards American Samoa $154,046 1 Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. *Project Period:* Up to 60 months. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of Program:* This program provides support for planning, conducting, administering, and evaluating centers that comply with the standards and assurances in section 725 of the Act, consistent with the design included in the State plan for establishing a statewide network of centers. *Program Authority:* 29 U.S.C. 796f-1. *Applicable Regulations:*

(a)The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, and 97.

(b)The regulations for this program in 34 CFR parts 364 and 366. Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian Tribes. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Discretionary grants. *Estimated Available Funds:* $154,046. *Estimated Number of Awards:* 1, distributed in the following manner: States and territories Estimated available funds Estimated number of awards American Samoa $154,046 1 Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. *Project Period:* Up to 60 months. III. Eligibility Information 1. *Eligible Applicants:* To be eligible to apply, an applicant must—

(a)Be a consumer-controlled, community-based, cross-disability, nonresidential, private nonprofit agency;

(b)Have the power and authority to—

(1)Carry out the purpose of part C of title VII of the Act and perform the functions listed in section 725(b) and

(c)of the Act and subparts F and G of 34 CFR part 366 within a community located within a State or in a bordering State; and

(2)Receive and administer—

(i)Funds under 34 CFR part 366;

(ii)Funds and contributions from private or public sources that may be used in support of a center; and

(iii)Funds from other public and private programs;

(c)Be able to plan, conduct, administer, and evaluate a center consistent with the standards and assurances in section 725(b) and

(c)of the Act and subparts F and G of 34 CFR part 366;

(d)Either—

(1)Not currently be receiving funds under part C of chapter 1 of title VII of the Act; or

(e)Propose to serve one or more of the geographic areas that are identified as unserved or underserved by the States and territories listed under *Estimated Number of Awards* ; and

(301)470-1244. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call (toll free): 1-877-576-7734. You may also contact ED Pubs at its Web site: *http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html* or you may contact ED Pubs at its e-mail address: *edpubs@inet.ed.gov.* If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.132A. Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5075, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone:

(202)245-7363. 2. *Content and Form of Application Submission:* Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition. 3. *Submission Dates and Times:* Applications Available: March 21, 2007. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* April 20, 2007. Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically or by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 6. *Other Submission Requirements* in this notice. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: June 19, 2007. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition. 5. *Funding Restrictions:* We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the *Applicable Regulations* section of this notice. 6. *Other Submission Requirements:* Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section. a. Electronic Submission of Applications. Applications for grants under the Centers for Independent Living program, CFDA Number 84.132A, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at *http://www.Grants.gov* Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us. We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement *and* submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under *Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.* You may access the electronic grant application for Centers for Independent Living program at *http://www.Grants.gov.* You must search for the downloadable application package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.132, not 84.132A). Please note the following: • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted, and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not consider your application if it is date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov. • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov at *http://e-Grants.ed.gov/help/GrantsgovSubmissionProcedures.pdf.* • To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all steps in the Grants.gov registration process ( *see http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp* ). These steps include

(1)registering your organization, a multi-part process that includes registration with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR);

(2)registering yourself as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and

(3)getting authorized as an AOR by your organization. Details on these steps are outlined in the Grants.gov 3-Step Registration Guide (see *http://www.grants.gov/section910/Grants.govRegistrationBrochure.pdf* ). You also must provide on your application the same D-U-N-S Number used with this registration. Please note that the registration process may take five or more business days to complete, and you must have completed all registration steps to allow you to submit successfully an application via Grants.gov. In addition you will need to update your CCR registration on an annual basis. This may take three or more business days to complete. • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format. • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. Please note that two of these forms—the SF 424 and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424—have replaced the ED 424 (Application for Federal Education Assistance). • You must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified in this paragraph or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice. • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by e-mail. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application). • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date. *Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System:* If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it. If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice. If you submit an application after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed elsewhere in this notice under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted. Note: The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system. *Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement:* You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because— • You do not have access to the Internet; or • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; *and* • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application. If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. Address and mail or fax your statement to: Thomas Kelley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5055, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800. FAX:

(202)245-7593. Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice. b. *Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.* If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address: *By mail through the U.S. Postal Service:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.132A), 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260. or *By mail through a commercial carrier:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Stop 4260, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.132A), 7100 Old Landover Road, Landover, MD 20785-1506. Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

(1)A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

(2)A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

(3)A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

(4)Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

(1)A private metered postmark.

(2)A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service. If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application. Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office. c. *Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.* If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.132A), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260. The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. *Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:* If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

(1)You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

(2)The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at

(202)245-6288. V. Application Review Information 1. *Selection Criteria:* The selection criteria for this competition are in 34 CFR 366.27. 2. *Review and Selection Process:* An additional factor we consider in selecting an application for an award is comments regarding the application, if any, by the State Independent Living Council in the State or territory in which the applicant is located. VI. Award Administration Information 1. *Award Notices:* If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN). We may also notify you informally. If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you. 2. *Administrative and National Policy Requirements:* We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the *Applicable Regulations* section of this notice. We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the *Applicable Regulations* section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant. 3. *Reporting:* At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as specified by the Secretary in 34 CFR 75.118. 4. *Performance Measures:* The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

(GPRA)directs Federal departments and agencies to improve the effectiveness of their programs by engaging in strategic planning, setting outcome-related goals for programs, and measuring program results against those goals. The goal of the Centers for Independent Living program is to promote and practice the independent living philosophy of consumer control of the center regarding decisionmaking, service delivery, management, and establishment of the policy and direction of the center; self-help and self-advocacy; development of peer relationships and peer role models; and the equal access of individuals with significant disabilities to society and to all services, programs, activities, resources, and facilities, whether public or private and regardless of the funding source. In order to measure the success of one component of meeting this goal, each grantee is required to track the number of individuals who leave nursing homes and other institutions for community-based housing due to independent living services provided by the center. In annual performance reports, centers are required to provide information on the number of individuals requesting this service and the number of individuals who successfully relocated from institutionalized to community-based living. VII. Agency Contact FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Kelley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 5055, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone:

(202)245-7404. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service

(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact person listed in this section. VIII. Other Information *Electronic Access to This Document:* You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format

(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at

(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Dated: March 16, 2007. John H. Hager, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E7-5166 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Representative Average Unit Costs of Energy AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In this notice, the Department of Energy

(DOE)is forecasting the representative average unit costs of five residential energy sources for the year 2007 pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The five sources are electricity, natural gas, No. 2 heating oil, propane, and kerosene. DATES: *Effective Date:* The representative average unit costs of energy contained in this notice will become effective April 20, 2007 and will remain in effect until further notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan D. Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121,

(202)586-0371, *bryan.berringer@ee.doe.gov.* Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, Forrestal Building, Mail Station GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103.

(202)586-7432, *Francine.pinto@hq.doe.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 323 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act

(Act)(42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) requires that DOE prescribe test procedures for the determination of the estimated annual operating costs or other measures of energy consumption for certain consumer products specified in the Act. (42 U.S.C. 6293) These test procedures are found in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part 430, subpart B. Section 323(b) of the Act requires that the estimated annual operating costs of a covered product be calculated from measurements of energy use in a representative average use cycle or period of use and from representative average unit costs of the energy needed to operate such product during such cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)) The section further requires that DOE provide information to manufacturers regarding the representative average unit costs of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(4)) This cost information should be used by manufacturers to meet their obligations under section 323(c) of the Act. Most notably, these costs are used to comply with Federal Trade Commission

(FTC)requirements for labeling. Manufacturers are required to use the revised DOE representative average unit costs when the FTC publishes new ranges of comparability for specific covered products, 16 CFR part 305. Interested parties can also find information covering the FTC labeling requirements at *http://www.ftc.gov/appliances.* DOE last published representative average unit costs of residential energy for use in the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles on February 27, 2006 (71 FR 9806). Effective April 20, 2007, the cost figures published on February 27, 2006, will be superseded by the cost figures set forth in this notice. DOE's Energy Information Administration

(EIA)has developed the 2007 representative average unit after-tax costs found in this notice. The representative average unit after-tax costs for electricity, natural gas, No. 2 heating oil, and propane are based on simulations used to produce the February, 2007, EIA *Short-Term Energy Outlook.* (EIA release the Outlook monthly.) The representative average unit after-tax costs for kerosene are derived from their prices relative to that of heating oil, based on 2001-2005 averages for these two fuels. The source for these price data is the January, 2007, *Monthly Energy Review* DOE/EIA-0035(2007/01). The *Short-Term Energy Outlook* and the *Monthly Energy Review* are available on the EIA Web site at *http://www.eia.doe.gov.* For more information on the two sources, contact the National Energy Information Center, Forrestal Building, Room 1F-048, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585,

(202)586-8800. The 2007 representative average unit costs under section 323(b)(4) of the Act are set forth in Table 1, and will become effective April 20, 2007. They will remain in effect until further notice. Issued in Washington, DC, on March 14, 2007. Alexander A. Karsner, Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Table 1.—Representative Average Unit Costs of Energy for Five Residential Energy Sources [2007] Type of energy Per million Btu 1 In commonly used terms As required by test procedure Electricity $31.21 10.65¢/kWh 2 3 $.1065/kWh Natural Gas 12.18 $1.218/therm 4 or $12.53/MCF 5 6 .00001218/Btu No. 2 Heating Oil 16.01 $2.22/gallon 7 .00001601/Btu Propane 20.47 $1.87/gallon 8 .00002047/Btu Kerosene 19.48 $2.63/gallon 9 .00001948/Btu Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, *Short-Term Energy Outlook* (February 2007) and *Monthly Energy Review* (January 2007). 1. Btu stands for British thermal units. 2. kWh stands for kilowatt hour. 3. 1 kWh = 3,412 Btu. 4. 1 therm = 100,000 Btu. Natural gas prices include taxes. 5. MCF stands for 1,000 cubic feet. 6. For the purposes of this table, one cubic foot of natural gas has an energy equivalence of 1,029 Btu. 7. For the purposes of this table, one gallon of No. 2 heating oil has an energy equivalence of 138,690 Btu. 8. For the purposes of this table, one gallon of liquid propane has an energy equivalence of 91,333 Btu. 9. For the purposes of this table, one gallon of kerosene has an energy equivalence of 135,000 Btu. [FR Doc. E7-5141 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. ER07-416-000; ER07-416-001] Geneva Roth Holding, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order March 15, 2007. Geneva Roth Holding, LLC

(GRH)filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff. The proposed market-based rate tariff provides for the sale of energy and capacity at market-based rates. GRH also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, GRH requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by GRH. On March 15, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development—West, granted the requests for blanket approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the **Federal Register** establishing a period of time for the filing of protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by GRH should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004). Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protest is April 16, 2007. Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above, GRH is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of GRH, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes. The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of GRH's issuances of securities or assumptions of liability. Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. Philis J. Posey, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-5123 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-343-000] Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff March 15, 2007. Take notice that on March 9, 2007, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets: Tenth Revised Sheet No. 135 Sixth Revised Sheet No. 136 Sixth Revised Sheet No. 138 Northern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed to each of its customers and interested state commissions. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. Philis J. Posey, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-5126 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER07-522-000] Old Trail Wind Farm, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order March 15, 2007. Old Trail Wind Farm, LLC (Old Trail) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule. The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of energy, capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. Old Trail also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, Old Trail requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Old Trail. On March 15, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development—West, granted the requests for blanket approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the **Federal Register** establishing a period of time for the filing of protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Old Trail should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004). Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protest is April 16, 2007. Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above, Old Trail is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Old Trail, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes. The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of Old Trail's issuance of securities or assumptions of liability. Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. Philis J. Posey, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-5124 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP07-99-000] Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization March 15, 2007. Take notice that on March 9, 2007, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star), 4700 Highway 56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, filed in Docket No. CP07-99-000, an application pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.208 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act

(NGA)as amended, to construct and operate approximately 14.5 miles of 20-inch diameter pipeline in Woods County, Oklahoma, under Southern Star's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-479-000, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to the public for inspection. Southern Star's proposed pipeline would serve as a new natural gas supply lateral (Waynoka Gas Supply Lateral) for Southern Star and its customers. The Waynoka Gas Supply Lateral would enable Southern Star to deliver processed gas originating from Anadarko Petroleum Corporation's (Anadarko) Waynoka Gas Processing Plant to an interconnection to be built on Southern Star's 26-inch diameter Straight Blackwell mainline in Woods County. Southern Star estimates that it would cost $11,200,000 to construct the proposed Waynoka Gas Supply Lateral. Any questions concerning this application may be directed to David N. Roberts, Manager of Regulatory Affairs, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., P.O. Box 20010, Owensboro, Kentucky 42304, or telephone 270-852-4654. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number filed to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERC *OnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or call toll-free at

(866)206-3676, or, for TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages intervenors to file electronically. Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA. Philis J. Posey, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-5122 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 March 15, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings. *Docket Numbers:* ER98-4652-004. *Applicants:* Boralex Stratton Energy, LP. *Description:* Boralex Stratton Energy, LP submits FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 03/12/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070314-0057. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 02, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER01-2568-004. *Applicants:* Boralex Ashland, LP. *Description:* Boralex Ashland, LP submits tariff sheets to FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 03/12/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070314-0058. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 02, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER01-2569-004. *Applicants:* Boralex Livermore Falls, LP. *Description:* Boralex Livermore Falls, LP submits Revised Original Sheet 1 to FERC Electric Tariff, Revised Original Volume 1 in compliance w/Designation of Electric Rate Schedule Sheets, Order 614. *Filed Date:* 03/12/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070314-0052. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 02, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER02-1175-003. *Applicants:* Boralex Fort Fairfield, LP. *Description:* Boralex Ft Fairfield, LP submits Revised Original Sheet 1 to FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Original Volume 1 in compliance w/Designation of Electric Rate Schedule Sheets, Order 614. *Filed Date:* 03/12/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070314-0053. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 02, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER02-2330-046. *Applicants:* New England Power Pool. *Description:* ISO New England, Inc. submits the eighteenth of the required Standard Market Design Status Report pursuant to the Commission's 9/20/02 Order. *Filed Date:* 03/12/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070314-0051. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 02, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-423-001. *Applicants:* South Carolina Electric & Gas Company. *Description:* South Carolina Electric & Gas Company submits its responses to FERC's 2/9/07 deficiency letter. *Filed Date:* 03/12/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070314-0059. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 02, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-606-000. *Applicants:* Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. *Description:* Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. submits the updated summary schedules for the Transmission and Local Facilities Agreement for the calendar year 2005 w/Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc. etc. *Filed Date:* 03/07/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070309-0559. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 28, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-615-000. *Applicants:* Southern California Edison Company. *Description:* Southern California Edison Company submits a Large Generator Interconnection Agreement among Walnut Creek Energy LLC and California Independent System Operator Corporation. *Filed Date:* 03/12/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070314-0079. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 02, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-616-000. *Applicants:* Carolina Power & Light Company. *Description:* Carolina Power & Light Co. dba Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. submits an amendment to Large Generator Interconnection Agreement to add Appendix N, a dynamic schedule arrangement etc., effective 2/13/07. *Filed Date:* 03/12/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070314-0080. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 02, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-617-000. *Applicants:* Carolina Power & Light Company. *Description:* Carolina Power & Light Co. dba Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. requests to amend its Large Generator Interconnection Agreement to add Appendix N etc., with an effective date of 2/13/07. *Filed Date:* 03/12/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070314-0081. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 02, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-618-000. *Applicants:* American Transmission Systems, Inc. *Description:* American Transmission Systems, Inc., acting on its own behalf as well as an agent for Ohio Edison Company submits a Construction Agreement, Open Access Transmission Tariff, Service Agreement 353, effective 2/9/07. *Filed Date:* 03/12/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070314-0060. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 02, 2007. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. Philis J. Posey, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-5129 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No.: P-2232-522] Duke Energy Carolinas LLC; Notice of Site Visits March 15, 2007. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application was filed with Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Type of Application:* New Major License. b. *Project No.:* P-2232-522. c. *Dates filed:* August 29, 2006. d. *Applicant:* Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC. e. *Name of Project:* Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project. f. *Locations:* The Catawba-Wateree Project is located on the Catawba River in Alexander, Burke, Caldwell, Catawba, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, McDowell, and Mecklenburg counties, North Carolina, and on the Catawba and Wateree Rivers in the counties of Chester, Fairfield, Kershaw, Lancaster, and York, South Carolina. There are no federal lands affected by this project. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r). h. *Applicant Contacts:* Jeffrey G. Lineberger, Catawba-Wateree Hydro Relicensing Manager; and E. Mark Oakley, Catawba-Wateree Relicensing Project Manager, Duke Energy, Mail Code EC12Y, P.O. Box 1006, Charlotte, NC 28201-1006. i. *FERC Contacts:* Sean Murphy at

(202)502-6145 or *sean.murphy@ferc.gov.* j. *Site Visit:* The Applicant and FERC staff will conduct a series of project site visits beginning at 8 a.m. on March 26, 27, 29, and 30, 2007. All interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited to attend. Anyone with questions about the site visits should contact the applicant. k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time. l. The existing Catawba-Wateree Project consists of eleven developments: 1. The Bridgewater development consists of the following existing facilities:

(1)The Catawba dam consisting of:

(a)A 1,650-foot-long, 125-foot-high earth embankment;

(b)a 305-foot-long, 120-foot-high concrete gravity ogee spillway; and

(c)a 850-foot-long, 125-foot-high earth embankment;

(2)the Paddy Creek dam consisting of: a 1,610-foot-long, 165-foot-high earth embankment;

(3)the Linville dam consisting of: a 1,325-foot-long, 160-foot-high earth embankment;

(4)a 430-foot-long uncontrolled low overflow weir spillway situated between Paddy Creek Dam and Linville Dam;

(5)a 6,754 acre reservoir formed by Catawba, Paddy Creek, and Linville with a normal water surface elevation of 1,200 feet above mean-sea-level (msl);

(6)a 900-foot-long concrete-lined intake tunnel;

(7)a powerhouse containing two vertical Francis-type turbines directly connected to two generators, each rated at 10,000 kilowatts (kW), for a total installed capacity of 20.0 megawatts (MW); and

(8)other appurtenances. 2. The Rhodhiss development consists of the following existing facilities:

(1)The Rhodhiss dam consisting of:

(a)A 119.58-foot-long concrete gravity bulkhead;

(b)a 800-foot-long, 72-foot-high concrete gravity ogee spillway;

(c)a 122.08-foot-long concrete gravity bulkhead with an additional 8-foot-high floodwall; and

(d)a 283.92-foot-long rolled fill earth embankment;

(2)a 2,724 acre reservoir with a normal water surface elevation of 995.1 feet above msl;

(4)a powerhouse integral to the dam, situated between the bulkhead on the left bank and the ogee spillway section, containing three vertical Francis-type turbines directly connected to three generators, two rated at 12,350 kW, one rated at 8,500 kW for a total installed capacity of 28.4 MW; and

(5)other appurtenances. 3. The Oxford development consists of the following existing facilities:

(1)The Oxford dam consisting of:

(a)A 74.75-foot-long soil nail wall;

(b)a 193-foot-long emergency spillway;

(c)a 550-foot-long gated concrete gravity spillway;

(d)a 112-foot-long embankment wall situated above the powerhouse; and

(e)a 429.25-foot-long earth embankment;

(2)a 4,072 acre reservoir with a normal water surface elevation of 935 feet above msl;

(4)a powerhouse integral to the dam, situated between the gated spillway and the earth embankment, containing two vertical Francis-type turbines directly connected to two generators, each rated at 18,000 kW for a total installed capacity of 35.7 MW; and

(5)other appurtenances. 4. The Lookout Shoals development consists of the following existing facilities:

(1)The Lookout Shoals dam consisting of:

(a)A 282.08-foot-long concrete gravity bulkhead section;

(b)a 933-foot-long uncontrolled concrete gravity ogee spillway;

(c)a 65-foot-long gravity bulkhead section; and

(d)a 1,287-foot-long, 88-foot-high earth embankment;

(2)a 1,155 acre reservoir with a normal water surface elevation of 838.1 feet above msl;

(3)a powerhouse integral to the dam, situated between the bulkhead on the left bank and the ogee spillway, containing three main vertical Francis-type turbines and two smaller vertical Francis-type turbines directly connected to five generators, three main generators rated at 8,970 kW, and two smaller rated at 450 kW for a total installed capacity of 25.7 MW; and

(4)other appurtenances. 5. The Cowans Ford development consists of the following existing facilities:

(1)The Cowans Ford dam consisting of:

(a)A 3,535-foot-long embankment;

(b)a 209.5-foot-long gravity bulkhead;

(c)a 465-foot-long concrete ogee spillway with eleven Taintor gates, each 35-feet-wide by 25-feet-high;

(d)a 276-foot-long bulkhead; and

(e)a 3,924-foot-long earth embankment;

(2)a 3,134-foot-long saddle dam (Hicks Crossroads);

(3)a 32,339 acre reservoir with a normal water surface elevation of 760 feet above msl;

(4)a powerhouse integral to the dam, situated between the spillway and the bulkhead near the right embankment, containing four vertical Kaplan-type turbines directly connected to four generators rated at 83,125 kW for a total installed capacity of 332.5 MW; and

(5)other appurtenances. 6. The Mountain Island development consists of the following existing facilities:

(1)The Mountain Island dam consisting of:

(a)A 997-foot-long, 97-foot-high uncontrolled concrete gravity ogee spillway;

(b)a 259-foot-long bulkhead on the left side of the powerhouse;

(c)a 200-foot-long bulkhead on the right side of the powerhouse;

(d)a 75-foot-long concrete core wall; and

(e)a 670-foot-long, 140- foot-high earth embankment;

(2)a 3,117 acre reservoir with a normal water surface elevation of 647.5 feet above msl;

(3)a powerhouse integral to the dam, situated between the two bulkheads, containing four vertical Francis-type turbines directly connected to four generators rated at 15,000 kW for a total installed capacity of 55.1 MW; and

(4)other appurtenances. 7. The Wylie development consists of the following existing facilities:

(1)The Wylie dam consisting of:

(a)A 234-foot-long bulkhead;

(b)a 790.92-foot-long ogee spillway section that contains 2 controlled sections with a total of eleven Stoney gates, each 45-feet-wide by 30-feet-high, separated by an uncontrolled section with no gates;

(c)a 400.92-foot-long bulkhead; and

(d)a 1,595-foot-long earth embankment;

(2)a 12,177 acre reservoir with a normal water surface elevation of 569.4 feet above msl;

(3)a powerhouse integral to the dam, situated between the bulkhead and the spillway near the left bank, containing four vertical Francis-type turbines directly connected to four generators rated at 18,000 kW for a total installed capacity of 69 MW; and

(4)other appurtenances. 8. The Fishing Creek development consists of the following existing facilities:

(1)The Fishing Creek dam consisting of:

(a)A 114-foot-long, 97-foot-high uncontrolled concrete ogee spillway;

(b)a 1,210-foot-long concrete gravity, ogee spillway with twenty-two Stoney gates, each 45-feet-wide by 25-feet-high; and

(c)a 214-foot-long concrete gravity bulkhead structure;

(2)a 3,431 acre reservoir with a normal water surface elevation of 417.2 feet above msl;

(3)a powerhouse integral to the dam, situated between the gated spillway and the bulkhead structure near the right bank, containing five vertical Francis-type turbines directly connected to five generators two rated at 10,530 kW and three rated at 9,450 kW for a total installed capacity of 48.1 MW; and

(4)other appurtenances. 9. The Great Falls-Dearborn development consists of the following existing facilities:

(1)The Great Falls diversion dam consisting of a 1,559-foot-long concrete section;

(2)the Dearborn dam consisting of:

(a)A 160-foot-long, 103-foot-high concrete embankment;

(b)a 150-foot-long, 103-foot-high intake and bulkhead section; and

(c)a 75-foot-long, 103-foot-high bulkhead section;

(3)the Great Falls dam consisting of:

(a)a 675-foot-long 103-foot-high concrete embankment situated in front of the Great Falls powerhouse (and joined to the Dearborn dam embankment); and

(b)a 250-foot-long intake section (within the embankment);

(4)the Great Falls bypassed spillway and headworks section consisting of:

(a)a 446.7-foot-long short concrete bypassed reach uncontrolled spillway with a gated trashway (main spillway);

(b)a 583.5-foot-long concrete headworks uncontrolled spillway with 4-foot-high flashboards (canal spillway); and

(c)a 262-foot-long concrete headworks section situated perpendicular to the main spillway and the canal spillway, containing ten opening, each 16-feet-wide;

(5)a 353 acre reservoir with a normal water surface elevation of 355.8 feet above msl;

(6)two powerhouses separated by a retaining wall, consisting of:

(a)Great Falls powerhouse: containing eight horizontal Francis-type turbines directly connected to eight generators rated at 3,000 kW for an installed capacity of 24.0 MW, and

(b)Dearborn powerhouse: containing three vertical Francis-type turbines directly connected to three generators rated at 15,000 kW for an installed capacity of 42.0 MW, for a total installed capacity of 66.0 MW; and

(7)other appurtenances. 10. The Rocky Creek-Cedar Creek development consists of the following existing facilities:

(1)A U-shaped concrete gravity overflow spillway with

(a)A 130-foot-long section (on the east side) that forms a forebay canal to the Cedar Creek powerhouse and contains two Stoney gate, each 45-feet-wide by 25-feet-high;

(b)a 1,025-foot-long, 69-foot-high concrete gravity overflow spillway; and

(c)a 213-foot-long section (on the west side) that forms the upper end of the forebay canal for the Rocky Creek powerhouse;

(2)a 450-foot-long concrete gravity bulkhead section that completes the lower end of the Rocky Creek forebay canal;

(3)a 748 acre reservoir with a normal water surface elevation of 284.4 feet above msl;

(4)two powerhouses consisting of:

(a)Cedar Creek powerhouse (on the east): containing three vertical Francis-type turbines directly connected to three generators, one rated at 15,000 kW, and two rated at 18,000 kW for an installed capacity of 43.0 MW; and

(b)Rocky Creek powerhouse (on the west): containing eight horizontal twin-runner Francis-type turbines directly connected to eight generators, six rated at 3,000 kW and two rated at 4,500 kW for an installed capacity of 25.8 MW, for a total installed capacity of 68.8 MW; and

(5)other appurtenances. 11. The Wateree development consists of the following existing facilities:

(1)The Wateree dam consisting of:

(a)A 1,450 foot-long uncontrolled concrete gravity ogee spillway; and

(b)a 1,370-foot-long earth embankment;

(2)a 13,025 acre reservoir with a normal water surface elevation of 225.5 feet above msl;

(3)a powerhouse integral to the dam, situated between the spillway and the earth embankment, containing five vertical Francis-type turbines directly connected to five generators, two rated at 17,100 kW and three rated at 18,050 kW for a total installed capacity of 82.0 MW; and

(4)other appurtenances. m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. You may also register online at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp* to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. n. Scoping Process: The Commission intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)on the project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The EIS will consider both site-specific and cumulative environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. Scoping Meetings FERC staff has previously noticed a series of scoping meetings, one agency scoping meeting and three public meetings. The agency scoping meeting, Wednesday March 28, 2007, in Rock Hill NC, will focus on resource agency and non-governmental organization

(NGO)concerns. The public scoping meetings on March 26, 27, 28, and 29, 2007 will provide a means for public input. All interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited to attend one or more of the meetings, and to assist the staff in identifying the scope of the environmental issues that should be analyzed in the EIS. Copies of the SD1 outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the EIS were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of the SD1 will be available at the scoping meeting or may be viewed on the Web at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Site Visits All site visits are scheduled to start at 8 a.m. sharp. Contact the applicant for directions. Monday, March 26, 2007. *Meeting Location:* The Bridgewater Development Powerhouse. *Reservoirs scheduled to visit:* Lake James, Lake Rhodhiss and one location on Lake Hickory. Tuesday, March 27, 2007. *Meeting Location:* The Oxford Development Powerhouse. *Reservoirs scheduled to visit:* Lake Hickory, Lookout Shoals Lake, and Lake Norman. Thursday, March 28, 2007. *Meeting Location:* Fishing Creek Development Powerhouse. *Reservoirs scheduled to visit:* Greatfalls Reservoir and Lake Wateree. Friday, March 29, 2007. *Meeting Location:* Fishing Creek Development Powerhouse. *Reservoirs scheduled to visit:* Fishing Creek Lake and Lake Wylie. Objectives At the site visits, the staff will be concentrating on viewing project aspects that are difficult to understand without viewing the area, or have been raised as significant issues. Procedures People attending the site visits need to supply their own transportation (carpooling is recommended), wear clothes suitable for being outside in the elements, wear closed toed shoes, bring or be prepared to buy lunch as a meal will not be provided. Please note that the distances are long and time is short, if you are late for the start time you risk being left behind. Philis J. Posey, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-5125 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Filing Guidelines for CPA Certification Statements, Annual Stockholders Reports, FERC-730 and FERC-61 March 15, 2007. CPA Certification Statements, Docket No. ZZ07-1-000 ; Annual Stockholders Reports, Docket No. ZZ07-2-000; FERC-730 Reports of Transmission Investment Activity; Docket No. ZZ07-3-000; FERC-61 Narrative Description of Service Company Functions; Docket No. HC07-7-000. Take notice that the Commission is issuing electronic filing guidelines for submission of:

(1)CPA Certification Statements for FERC Form Nos. 1, 1-F, 2, and 2-A filed pursuant to 18 CFR 41.10-41.12 and 18 CFR 158.10-158.12. These Certification Statements will be filed under Docket No. ZZ07-1-000.

(2)Annual Stockholders Reports filed in conjunction with FERC Form Nos. 1, 2, 2-A and 6. These Reports will all be filed under Docket No. ZZ07-2-000.

(3)FERC-730, Reports of Transmission Investment Activity, filed pursuant to 18 CFR 35.35(h). These Reports will all be filed under Docket No. ZZ07-3-000.

(4)FERC-61, Narrative Description of Service Company Functions, filed pursuant to 18 CFR 366.23(a)(2). These Narrative Descriptions will all be filed under Docket HC07-7-000. The electronic filing guidelines are attached to this notice and will available on the Commission's Web site at: *http://www.ferc.gov/help/how-to.asp.* Philis J. Posey, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-5127 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0861; FRL-8115-1] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Compliance Requirement for Child-Resistant Packaging; EPA ICR No. 0616.09, OMB Control No. 2070-0052 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* .), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection Request

(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR, entitled: “Compliance Requirement for Child-Resistant Packaging” and identified by EPA ICR No. 0616.09 and OMB Control No. 2070-0052, is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2007. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0861, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket telephone number is

(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0861. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Hogue, Field and External Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-9072; fax number:

(703)305-5884; e-mail address: *hogue.joe@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. What Information is EPA Particularly Interested in? Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it 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 estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used. 3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. 4. 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 submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection. II. What Should I Consider when I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES . 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and **Federal Register** citation. III. What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does this Action Apply to? *Affected entities* : Entities potentially affected by this action are registrants of pesticide products under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code for respondents under this ICR is 325320 (pesticides and other agricultural chemical manufacturing). *Title* : Compliance Requirement for Child-Resistant Packaging. *ICR numbers* : EPA ICR No. 0616.09, OMB Control No. 2070-0052. *ICR status* : This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on August 31, 2007. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract* : This information collection program is designed to provide EPA with assurances that the packaging of pesticide products sold and distributed to the general public in the United States meets standards set forth by the Agency pursuant to FIFRA, and is thereby protective of children. Registrants must certify to the Agency that the packaging or device meets these standards. There are no forms associated with this information collection activity. *Burden statement* : The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 4.9 hours per response. EPA estimates that 703 responses will be received per year for a total annual burden of 3,473 hours, at a cost of $193,567. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal Agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The ICR provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is only briefly summarized here: *Estimated total number of potential respondents* : 703 per year. *Frequency of response* : On occasion. *Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent* : One. *Estimated total annual burden hours* : 3,473 hours. *Estimated total annual costs* : $193,567. This cost is entirely from the burden hours. No costs are expected for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs. IV. Are There Changes in the Estimates from the Last Approval? There is no change in the number of respondents (703 per year) projected to participate in the program over the next three years. However, the total burden hours per respondent for compliance with the child-resistant packaging

(CRP)requirements increased from 3 hours to 4.9 hours at a total cost of about $275 per response. The estimated annual burden under the last ICR approval was 2,109 hours. Under this ICR renewal, the annual burden is estimated to be 3,473 hours. The increased burden of 1,364 hours represents an adjustment to the burden estimate. V. What is the Next Step in the Process for this ICR? EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another **Federal Register** notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . List of Subjects Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: March 12, 2007. James B. Gulliford, Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. [FR Doc. E7-4925 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8290-2] Agency Information Collection Activities OMB Responses AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This document announces the Office of Management and Budget's

(OMB)responses to Agency Clearance requests, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et. seq* ). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Auby

(202)566-1672, or e-mail at *auby.susan@epa.gov* and please refer to the appropriate EPA Information Collection Request

(ICR)Number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB Responses to Agency Clearance Requests OMB Approvals EPA ICR No. 1788.08; NESHAP for Oil and Natural Gas Production (Final Rule); in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HH; was approved 02/27/2007; OMB Number 2060-0417; expires 02/28/2010. EPA ICR No. 2050.03; NESHAP for Taconite Iron Ore Processing (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR; was approved 02/21/2007; OMB Number 2060-0538; expires 02/28/2010. EPA ICR No. 0029.09; NPDES Modification and Variance Requests; in 40 CFR 122.62-64, 40 CFR 122.21(m)(1-2 & 4-6), 40 CFR 122.21(n)(1 & 3), 40 CFR 122.41(l)(1, 3, 8), 40 CFR 501.15(b)(8, 12), 40 CFR 122.24(l)(2, 8), 40 CFR 122.42(a)(1-2), 40 122.47(b)(4), 40 CFR 122.41(h), 40 CFR 124.53-124.54, 40 CFR 501.15(c)(2), 40 CFR 125.30, and 40 CFR 122.29(b); was approved 02/21/2007; OMB number 2040-0068; expires 02/28/2010. EPA ICR No. 1803.05; Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program; in 40 CFR part 35, subpart L; was approved 02/21/2007; OMB Number 2040-0185; expires 02/28/2010. EPA ICR No. 0168.09; NPDES and Sewage Sludge Management State Programs; in 40 CFR 122, 40 CFR 123.21-123.24, 40 CFR 123.26-123.29, 40 CFR 123.43-123.45 40 CFR 123.62-123.64, 40 CFR 124.53-124.54, 40 CFR 125, 40 CFR 501, 40 CFR 123.68(e), 40 CFR 123.68(e)(5), 40 CFR 123.41(a), 40 CFR 501.21, 40 CFR 501.34, 40 CFR 501.11, 40 CFR 501.16, 40 CFR 123.26(b)(2)&(3), 40 CFR 124.53-124.54, 40 CFR 123.43-123.44, 40 CFR 501.14; was approved 02/21/2007; OMB Number 2040-0057; expires 02/28/2010. EPA ICR No. 1772.04; Information Collection Activities Associated with EPA's ENERGY STAR Program in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors (Renewal); was approved 02/26/07; OMB Number 2060-0347; expires 02/28/2010. EPA ICR No. 0783.52; Cold Temperature Hydrocarbon Emissions Standards For Light-Duty Vehicles, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles (Final Rule); in 40 CFR part 85, subparts R, S, T, V, W, and Y; 40 CFR part 86, subparts B, E, F, G, H, J, K, L, O, P, R, and S; and 40 CFR part 600, subparts A, B, D, and F; was approved 02/26/2007; OMB Number 2060-0014; expires 11/30/2008. EPA ICR No. 1696.05; Fuels and Fuel Additives: Health-Effects Research Protocols (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 79, subpart F; was approved 02/08/2007; OMB Number 2060-0297; expires 02/28/2010. EPA ICR No. 1665.07; Confidentiality Rules (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 2, subparts A, B; was approved 02/14/2007; OMB Number 2020-0003; expires 02/28/2010. EPA ICR No. 2046.03; NESHAP for Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkai Plants (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIIII; was approved 02/13/2007; OMB Number 2060-0542; expires 02/28/2010. EPA ICR No. 2062.03; NESHAP for Site Remediation (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGGG; was approved 02/13/2007; OMB Number 2060-0534; expires 02/28/2010. EPA ICR No. 2231.01; Information Collection Request for Contaminant Occurrence Data in Support of EPA's Second Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; was approved 02/21/2007; OMB Number 2040-0275; expires 02/28/2010. EPA ICR No. 0220.10; Clean Water Act Section 404 State-Assumed Programs; in 40 CFR 233.10-14, 40 CFR 233.20-21, 40 CFR 233.30, 40 CFR 233.50, 40 CFR 233.52; was approved 02/21/2007; OMB Number 2040-0168; expires 02/28/2010. EPA ICR No. 2060.02; Cooling Water Intake Structures Phase II Existing Facility (Final Rule); in 40 CFR 122.21(d)(2), 40 CFR 122.21(r)(2,3,5), 40 CFR 122.21(r)(2)(i-iii), 40 CFR 122.21(r)(3)(i-v), 40 CFR 122.21(r)(5)(i-ii), 40 CFR 125.94-125.98; was approved 02/20/2007; OMB Number 2040-0257; expires 05/31/2007. EPA ICR No. 2228.02; Reformulated Gasoline Commingling Provisions (Renewal); in 40 CFR 80.78; was approved 03/06/2007; OMB Number 2060-0587; expires 03/31/2010. EPA ICR No. 1060.14; NSPS for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa; was approved 03/06/2007; OMB Number 2060-0038; expires 03/31/2010. EPA ICR No. 1381.08; Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices; in 40 CFR 258.10-258.16, 40 CFR 258.20-258.23; 40 CFR 258.28 and 258.29; was approved 3/7/2007; OMB Number 2050-0122; expires 03/31/2010. EPA ICR No. 2223.01; Residential and Commercial Awareness and Use of Rodenticides in Southern California Urban Ecosystems; was approved 02/08/2007; OMB Number 2080-0077; expires 02/28/2010. Comment Filed EPA ICR No. 1189.18; F019 Listing Amendment (Proposed Rule); OMB filed comment on 02/26/2007. Dated: March 13, 2007. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E7-5160 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8289-8] Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to State Operating Permit for Public Service Company, Fort Saint Vrain Station AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of final action. SUMMARY: This document announces that the EPA Administrator has responded to a citizen petition asking EPA to object to an operating permit issued by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Specifically, the Administrator has partially granted and partially denied the August 6, 2005 petition, submitted by Jeremy Nichols (Petitioner), to object to the July 1, 2005 operating permit issued to Public Service Company, Fort Saint Vrain Station (Ft. St. Vrain). Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (Act), Petitioners may seek judicial review of those portions of the petitions which EPA denied in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit. Any petition for review shall be filed within 60 days from the date this notice appears in the **Federal Register** , pursuant to section 307 of the Act. ADDRESSES: You may review copies of the final order, the petition, and other supporting information at the EPA Region 8 Office, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the copies of the final order, the petition, and other supporting information. You may view the hard copies Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. If you wish to examine these documents, you should make an appointment at least 24 hours before visiting day. Additionally, the final order for Public Service Company, Fort Saint Vrain Station is available electronically at: *http://www.epa.gov/region7/programs/artd/air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/fort_st_vrain_decision2005.pdf* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Law, Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance, EPA, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,

(303)312-7015, *law.donald@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Act affords EPA a 45-day period to review, and object to as appropriate, a Title V operating permit proposed by State permitting authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator, within 60 days after the expiration of this review period, to object to a Title V operating permit if EPA has not done so. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the State, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after this period. On August 6, 2005, the EPA received a petition from Jeremy Nichols requesting that EPA object to the issuance of the Title V operating permit to the Public Service Company, Fort Saint Vrain Station for the following reasons:

(I)The operating permit fails to require appropriate best available control technology for NO X emissions;

(II)the operating permit fails to ensure compliance with NO X concentration limits and/or fails to adopt enforceable limits;

(III)the operating permit fails to subject T004 in simple cycle mode to Compliance Assurance Monitoring

(CAM)requirements for NO X emissions;

(IV)the operating permit fails to require opacity monitoring;

(V)the operating permit sets unenforceable CO emission limits and/or fails to ensure compliance with CO limits; and

(VI)concerns on eight specific permit conditions. On February 5, 2007, the Administrator issued an order partially granting and partially denying the petition. The order explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion to partially grant and partially deny the petition for objection. Dated: February 28, 2007. Kerrigan G. Clough, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. E7-5163 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0152; FRL-8117-4] Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petitions for the Exemption from Tolerances for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide petitions proposing the establishment or modification of regulations for the exemption from tolerances for the residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID)number and the pesticide petition number

(PP)of interest, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to the assigned docket ID number and the pesticide petition number of interest. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The person listed at the end of the pesticide petition summary of interest. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed at the end of the pesticide petition summary of interest. B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(1993)Ltd., 3 Habossem St., P.O. Box 153, Ashdod 77101, Israel, (petition submitted by RegWest Company, LLC, 30856 Rocky Road, Greeley, CO 80631-9375), proposes to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the microbial pesticide, *Bacillus firmus* strain l-1582, in or on all food commodities. Because this petition is a request for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without numerical limitations, no analytical method is required. Contact: Shanaz Bacchus, telephone number:

(703)308-8097; e-mail address: *bacchus.shanaz@epa.gov* . Amendments to Existing Exemptions from Tolerance 1. *PP 6E7118* . (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0158). Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers University, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540 on behalf of the Arizona Cotton Research and Protection Council, 3721 East Weir Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85040-2933, proposes to amend the exemptions from tolerances in 40 CFR 180.1206 for residues of the microbial pesticide *Aspergillus flavus* AF36, in or on the food commodities pistachio. Because this petition is a request for a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without numerical limitations, no analytical method is required. The temporary exemption from tolerance will expire with the expiration of the EUP (EPA Registration Number 71693-EUP-R) on pistachio. Contact: Shanaz Bacchus, telephone number:

(703)308-8097; e-mail address: *bacchus.shanaz@epa.gov* . 2. *PP 6F7121* . (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0160). The Acta Group, 1203 Nineteenth St., NW., Suite 300, Washington D.C. 20036-2401 on behalf of Circle One Global, Inc., P.O. Box 28, Shellman, GA 39886-0028, proposes to amend the exemptions from tolerances in 40 CFR 180.1254 for residues of the microbial pesticide *Aspergillus flavus* NRRL 21882, in or on the food commodity corn. Because this petition is a request for a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without numerical limitations, no analytical method is required. The temporary exemption from tolerance will expire with the expiration of the EUP (EPA Registration Number 75624-EUP-E) on corn. Contact: Shanaz Bacchus, telephone number:

(703)308-8097; e-mail address: *bacchus.shanaz@epa.gov* . List of Subjects Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: March 8, 2007. Janet L. Andersen, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E7-4933 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0144; FRL-8118-1] Experimental Use Permit; Receipt of Application AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of an application 524-EUP-R from Monsanto Company requesting an experimental use permit

(EUP)for the insect-protected soybean MON 87701. The Agency has determined that the application may be of regional and national significance. Therefore, in accordance with 40 CFR 172.11(a), the Agency is soliciting comments on this application. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0144 by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0144. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mika J. Hunter, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-0041; e-mail address: *hunter.mika@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those persons interested in agricultural biotechnology or those who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background Monsanto Company has developed an insect-protected soybean, MON 87701, that produces the Cry1Ac protein to provide protection from feeding damage from certain lepidopteran pests. The 524-EUP-R application is for 56.0 acres of MON 87701 for the 2007 growing season. This insect-protected soybean product has a limited fit in the United States since only a small portion of the United States soybean production acres are significantly and consistently affected by the target lepidopteran pests. The purpose of growing MON 87701 in the United States is to evaluate and further develop the product in support of a planned commercialization in South America. A total of five trial protocols will be conducted, including: Agronomic yield trials, breeding and observation nursery trials, regulatory trials, efficacy trials, and product development trials. States involved include: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. III. What Action is the Agency Taking? Following the review of the Monsanto Company application and any comments and data received in response to this notice, EPA will decide whether to issue or deny the EUP request for this EUP program, and if issued, the conditions under which it is to be conducted. Any issuance of an EUP will be announced in the **Federal Register** . IV. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? The Agency's authority for taking this action is under FIFRA section 5. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Experimental use permits. Dated: March 8, 2007. Janet L. Andersen, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E7-5027 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0040; FRL-8112-3] Pesticides; Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Disposal Instructions on Non-Antimicrobial Residential/Household Use Pesticide Product Labels AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The Agency is announcing the availability of a Pesticide Registration Notice (PR Notice) entitled “Disposal Instructions on Non-Antimicrobial Residential/Household Use Pesticide Product Labels.” PR Notices are issued by the Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)to inform pesticide registrants and other interested persons about important policies, procedures, and registration related decisions, and serve to provide guidance to pesticide registrants and OPP personnel. This particular PR Notice provides guidance to the registrant concerning the updating and revision of PR Notice 2001-6 to clarify that the use of a toll free number in the disposal instructions on non-antimicrobial residential/household use pesticide product labels is optional. If registrants choose to change or remove a toll free number from the disposal instructions on their label, this notice provides guidance on making such changes. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Downing, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-9071; fax number:

(703)308-7026; e-mail address: *downing.jim@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general; however this action may be of particular interest to those persons who are responsible for registration and reregistration of pesticide products. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the information in this notice, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. *Docket.* EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0040. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is

(703)305-5805. 2. *Electronic access* . You may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . II. What Guidance Does this PR Notice Provide? This PR Notice provides guidance to the registrant updating and revising PR Notice 2001-6 to clarify that the use of a toll free number in the disposal instructions on non-antimicrobial residential/household use pesticide product labels is optional. If registrants choose to change or remove a toll free number from the disposal instructions on their label, this notice provides guidance on making such changes. This notice supersedes PR Notice 2001-6 in its entirety and PR Notices 83-3 and 84-1 in part . This notice provides guidance for the development of disposal instructions for non-antimicrobial, residential/household use pesticide product labels. EPA is providing instructions that direct consumers to call their local authorities for specific disposal instructions in order to provide state and local governments greater latitude in carrying out their responsibilities for product disposal and waste management programs. This notice is directed to registrants of non-antimicrobial, residential/household use products. Registrants using the revised disposal statements provided in this notice may add the disposal statements to their labels by notification or they may make the changes with non-notification, according to PR Notice 98-10. The Agency expects that registrants of existing products will begin to revise their labels accordingly. All affected product labels were expected to have disposal statements according to issued guidance by October 1, 2003. The statements in this notice are not intended for non-residential/non-household use (e.g., agricultural, commercial, or industrial use) pesticide products where users generally have access to established recycling and/or disposal procedures and programs. III. Do PR Notices Contain Binding Requirements? The PR Notice discussed in this notice is intended to provide guidance to EPA personnel and decision makers and to pesticide registrants. While the requirements in the statutes and Agency regulations are binding on EPA and the applicants, this PR Notice is not binding on either EPA or pesticide registrants, and EPA may depart from the guidance where circumstances warrant and without prior notice. Likewise, pesticide registrants may assert that the guidance is not appropriate generally or not applicable to a specific pesticide or situation. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests. Dated: March 2, 2007. James Jones, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. 07-1291 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 23

Traces to 23 documents

CFR