Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-04-10 · National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Final rule

28,430 words·~129 min read·/register/2007/04/10/07-1800·

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 061228342-7068-02; I.D. 122206A] RIN 0648-AT66 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; 2007-2009 Specifications AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: NMFS announces final specifications for the 2007-2009 fishing years for the Atlantic herring (herring) fishery.
The intent of this final rule is to conserve and manage the herring resource and provide for a sustainable fishery. DATES: Effective May 10, 2007, through December 31, 2009. ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting documents, including the Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA), and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment are available from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.
The EA/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at *http://www.nero.gov* . NMFS prepared a Final Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), a summary of which is contained in the Classification section of the preamble of this final rule. Copies of the FRFA and the Small Entity Compliance Guide are available from Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Eric Jay Dolin, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9259, e-mail at *eric.dolin@noaa.gov* , fax at 978-281-9135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Proposed 2007-2009 specifications were published on January 10, 2007 (72 FR 1206 ), with public comment accepted through February 9, 2007. These final specifications are unchanged from those that were proposed. A complete discussion of the development of the specifications appears in the preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here. 2007-2009 Final Initial Specifications The following specifications are established by this action:
Allowable biological catch (ABC), optimum yield (OY), domestic annual harvest (DAH), domestic annual processing (DAP), total foreign processing (JVPt), joint venture processing (JVP), internal waters processing (IWP), U.S. at-sea processing (USAP), border transfer (BT), total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF), and total allowable catch
(TAC)for each management area and subarea. Table 1. Specifications and Area TACs for the 2007-2009 Atlantic Herring Fishery Specification 2007 Allocation
(mt)2008-2009 Allocation
(mt)ABC 194,000 194,000 OY 145,000 145,000 DAH 145,000 145,000 DAP 141,000 141,000 JVPt 0 0 JVP 0 0 IWP 0 0 USAP 20,000 (Areas 2 and 3 only) 20,000 (Areas 2 and 3 only) BT 4,000 4,000 TALFF 0 0 Reserve 0 0 TAC - Area 1A 50,000 [48,500 fishery; 1,500 RSA] (January 1 - May 31, landings cannot exceed 5,000) 45,000 [43,650 fishery; 1,350 RSA] (January 1 - May 31, landings cannot exceed 5,000) TAC - Area 1B 10,000 [9,700 fishery; 300 RSA] 10,000 [9,700 fishery; 300 RSA] TAC - Area 2 30,000 [29,100 fishery; 900 RSA] (No Reserve) 30,000 [29,100 fishery; 900 RSA] (No Reserve) TAC - Area 3 55,000 [53,350 fishery; 1,650 RSA] 60,000 [58,200 fishery; 1,800 RSA] Research Set Aside 3 percent from each area TAC (2008 and 2009 FY only) 3 percent from each area TAC (2008 and 2009 FY only) Comments and Responses There were 460 comments received. Commenters included the American Pelagic Association; Cape Seafoods; Center for Oceanic Research and Education; Conservation Law Foundation; Garden State Seafood Association; Bumblebee Seafoods/Stinson Seafood; Maine Department of Marine Resources; Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Northern Pelagic Group, LLC; Ocean Conservancy; and 451 individuals and vessel owners. *Comment 1:* Three organizations and 448 individuals support the proposed rule, especially NMFS's decision to reduce the Area 1A TAC to 45,000 mt in 2008 and 2009. *Response:* This action is unchanged from the proposed rule. *Comment 2:* Two organizations and three vessel owners opposed the Council's recommendation to reduce the Area 1A TAC to 50,000 mt for 2007-2009, and strongly opposed NMFS's further reduction of the Area 1A TAC to 45,000 mt for 2008 and 2009. They argue that the Council's recommendation was unnecessarily restrictive, in light of the stock's status. They further argue that NMFS should not have relied on the Plan Development Team's (PDT's) risk assessment in making its decision to further reduce the Area 1A TAC to 45,000 mt because it was not peer-reviewed, and was overly conservative. They disagreed that the Councils' and NMFS's concern about the retrospective pattern in the stock assessment is an appropriate reason to reduce the Area 1A TAC. They argued that the 29,000-mt buffer between ABC and OY was intended to account for the retrospective pattern and that it is, therefore, scientifically inappropriate to further reduce the Area 1A TAC. The commenters argue that the Council's specifications document pointed out that trawl survey results are highly variable, and that no trends are apparent from the most recent years of the survey across all strata. The commenters state that encounter rates are increasing, rather than declining, and a broader size distribution is evident; and that both of these trends indicate a healthy resource. One organization stated that it is misleading for NMFS to state that there is considerable overlap between the inshore stock component and Area 1A. One organization supported the reduction of the Area 1A TAC to 50,000 mt, but not to 45,000 mt in 2008 and 2009. They argue that the retrospective pattern described by the Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee
(TRAC)applies to the stock as a whole, and not individual stock components, and that the 29,000-mt buffer between ABC and OY addresses the issue. They stated that the reduction in the Area 1A TAC to 45,000 mt and commensurate increase in the Area 3 TAC does not account for the retrospective pattern, because it maintains OY at the same level. They also argued that only the NMFS fall survey shows a decline in abundance and biomass, and the other surveys are either increasing or variable and stable. They noted that the PDT suggested that encounter rates may be a better indicator of stock status for herring, and that the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) fall surveys are not showing a decline in the encounter rates, and the Massachusetts inshore survey is showing an increase in encounter rates. One organization opposed the reduction of Area 1A TAC, but provided no additional rationale. One vessel owner argued that the industry was not allowed to participate in the Advisory Panel's decisionmaking during the specifications-setting process. *Response:* The herring stock is in good shape. However, both the Council and NMFS agree that, while the overall stock is healthy, there is a clear need to be precautionary with the inshore component of the stock. This is directly related to the establishment of the Area 1A TAC because, contrary to some comments, there is substantial overlap between the inshore stock component and Area 1A. The inshore component, at different times of year, is distributed throughout Areas 1A, 1B, and 2. Based on the stock mixing ratios employed in the specifications document (and in the FMP), it is reasonable to state that there is a considerable amount of overlap between the inshore stock component and Area 1A. The specifications document estimates that, in the summer, 50 percent of the catch from Area 1A comes from the inshore component. In the winter, 100 percent of the catch in Area 1A, and 20 percent of the catch in Area 2, is assumed to come from the inshore component of the resource. Removals from Area 1B are assumed to be composed of 30 percent of the inshore component at all times of the year. Several aspects of the specifications analyses provided a strong basis for NMFS to enact the Area 1A TACs specified in this action. Three elements in particular contributed to NMFS's determination that the 2008-2009 TACs should be set lower than recommended by the Council. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC)met in 2003 to consider the status of the herring stock and found, among other things, that “no severe declines in the stock complex should be expected by maintaining current levels of catches over the short-term; however, the current concentration of harvest in the inshore Gulf of Maine is of concern and may be excessive.” Thus, NMFS concluded that the issue is not whether there is a need for more caution when establishing the Area 1A TAC, but rather, how much caution is necessary. Both the Council and NMFS agreed that the available data and concerns warranted a significant reduction in the Area 1A TAC over the next 3 years. NMFS, however, concluded that the Council's proposal, to set the Area 1A TAC at 50,000 mt, did not go far enough to protect the stock in Area 1A. NMFS also concluded that the retrospective pattern in the stock assessment, which overestimates biomass and underestimates fishing mortality in the terminal year of the assessment, argues for caution. NMFS concluded that for the stock as a whole, the buffer of 29,000 mt between ABC (maximum OY) and OY specified in this action would help ensure that adequate spawning stock biomass
(SSB)is available to produce strong recruitment in the future. However, the retrospective pattern indicates that, as more data are collected and analyzed, the stock, including the inshore stock component, will be found to be not as robust as current data imply. Finally, the PDT's risk assessment provides a useful tool for evaluating TAC alternatives. The risk assessment is a tool that the Council asked the PDT to provide, and it was presented and debated by the PDT members, the Herring Advisory Panel (AP), and the Herring Committee, as well as the Council. According to the risk assessment, setting the Area 1A TAC at 45,000 mt for 2008-2009 will provide a slightly improved chance of producing exploitation rates that are more consistent with Fmsy for the stock component, within a range of realistic stock mixing ratios. Therefore, NMFS finds that the SSC advice, the retrospective pattern in the stock assessment, and the conclusions of the PDT's risk assessment combine to make a sound case for specifying the Area 1A TAC at 45,000 mt in fishing years 2008 and 2009. The commenters correctly characterize the variability of the trawl survey data and encounter rates. While NMFS acknowledges these points, it does not conclude that they overcome the concerns noted above. More specifically, although some of the encounter rates do not indicate a decline in stock status, they are just one of the indicators that the Council and NMFS needs to rely on in determining the appropriate levels for the various TACs. As mentioned above, taken together, the SSCs advice, the significant retrospective pattern in the stock assessment, and the PDT's risk assessment, even in the face of some positive or stable encounter rates, justify the precautionary approach being taken in this rule. NMFS does not share the commenters' concerns about the use of the PDT's risk assessment. PDTs are established by the Council specifically to offer technical advice that will assist in making sound fishery management decisions. The current process for obtaining the PDT's advice does not include an additional formal peer review of that advice. A certain amount of informal peer review is built into the PDT process by virtue of its membership and the debates that take place at PDT meetings, the Council's committee meetings, and Council meetings. An additional layer of informal peer review takes place within NMFS, when the specifications package, including the PDT's products, are reviewed by NMFS staff. The perception that the industry was not allowed to participate in the AP's deliberations is not accurate. Not only is the AP comprised of industry members, but all of its meetings were public meetings, for which public notice was provided. At those meetings a variety of industry members contributed their thoughts and ideas to the process, although not all of their suggestions were ultimately adopted. *Comment 3:* Two organizations argued that the reduction of the Area 1A TAC to 45,000 mt is not justified. They also argued that the PDT analysis was presented to the Council at the last minute and that participants in the fishery did not have adequate opportunity to review and comment on it. One commenter argued that the use of this new analysis appears contrary to the recent Congressional reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), which specifies in section 302(g) that, “The Secretary and each Council may establish a peer review process for that Council for scientific information used to advise the Council about the conservation and management of the fishery.” Finally, this commenter argued that the assumption in the specifications that the New Brunswick
(NB)weir fishery will catch 20,000 mt annually is an overestimate and, therefore, it serves to provide an additional level of caution in the specifications. *Response:* The justification for setting the Area 1A TAC at 45,000 mt and the concerns about the PDT's risk assessment are addressed in the response to Comment 2. NMFS notes that the Council process provided several opportunities for public comment, including comment on the risk assessment. The new Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement is not retroactively applicable to the process the Council followed to develop these herring specifications. The Council adopted the estimate that the NB weir fishery will land 20,000 mt annually after public debate. Though in recent years landings by this fishery have not attained 20,000 mt, the Council and NMFS concluded it is a reasonable estimate. Historical catches in the NB weir fishery were much higher than those in recent years, and exceeded 20,000 mt in many years prior to 1995. Landings of herring in the NB weir fishery average 22,475 mt for 1978-2005, despite the fact that the 2005 landings are currently estimated to have been about 13,000 mt. *Comment 4:* Five vessel owners pointed out that there is no stock assessment for the inshore component and, therefore, the target and threshold fishing mortality rates for the inshore stock component remain uncertain. Because of this, the owners argue that reducing the Area 1A TAC based on a concern that the Council's recommendations for 2008 and 2009 would be only marginally successful at producing an exploitation rate consistent with F <sup>msy</sup> is not justified, because the F <sup>msy</sup> for the inshore component remains uncertain. Furthermore, these owners pointed out that, although the TRAC assessment estimated that the inshore component of the stock represents 18 percent of the total stock biomass, the TRAC assessment does not provide guidance on the TAC allocations by management area or the mixing rates between stock components. The owners find the use of the 18 percent value to be problematic, and cast doubt on the usefulness of the PDT's risk assessment because it is not peer-reviewed. The risk assessment should not, they contend, be used as a justification for draconian cuts. *Response:* The commenters are correct that the stock assessment does not provide specific fishing mortality target and threshold rates for the inshore stock component or the specification of management area TACs. However, NMFS concluded that it is appropriate to use the risk assessment and the TRAC estimate that the inshore stock component represents 18 percent of the total biomass, for reasons outlined in detail in the response to Comment 2. The stock mixing ratios used in the risk assessment are, as the specifications document points out, supported by the best available scientific information. *Comment 5:* Five organizations argued that the proposed reallocation of 5,000 mt from Area 1A to Area 3 should, instead, be a reallocation of the same amount into a reserve for Area 2. The rationale offered is that a higher percentage of the Area 2 TAC has been taken in recent years than of the Area 3 TAC. The establishment of such a reserve would, the commenters argue, increase the amount of herring available to the Atlantic mackerel fishery, which has an incidental catch of herring. This would reduce the likelihood of a closure of the herring fishery in Area 2. The commenters believe that a herring closure would de facto close the mackerel fishery in that area because vessels would not fish in the area for mackerel if they could not also retain more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring. *Response:* There are two reasons for transferring the 5,000 mt from Area 1A to Area 3. First, since Area 3 fish are assumed to come entirely from the offshore component of the stock, the addition of 5,000 mt to that Area's TAC will not impact the status of the inshore component. Second, this reallocation will increase opportunities for the fleet to fish for herring in Area 3 and, therefore, support one of the FMP's goals, which is to provide for the orderly development of the offshore herring fishery. In contrast, because of mixing of the subcomponents of the stock, a shift of 5,000 mt from Area 1A to Area 2 would still allow the fishery to harvest from the inshore stock component. On a practical level, the Area 2 TAC has never been fully harvested. In 2006, roughly 22,000 mt of herring was landed from this area, while in the 4 prior years, landings from the area ranged from 11,000 mt to 16,000 mt. In light of this history, the 30,000 mt allocated to Area 2 would appear unlikely to constrain the mackerel fishery. The Council has the option of reviewing information relating to the herring stock and fishery in 2007 and revising the Area 2 TAC for 2008-2009, if warranted. *Comment 6:* Two organizations urged that a portion of the DAH be set-aside for use in value-added food grade products, and that such an allocation would be consistent with the allocation of 20,000 mt for USAP. These commenters also urged NMFS to establish three different fishing seasons within Area 1A, and to apportion the TAC among those seasons to extend the fishing season in Area 1A, achieve OY, and more effectively protect pre-spawning herring. *Response:* These suggestions would require amendment of the Herring FMP, which defines the allocations that must be recommended by the Council and enacted by NMFS, and are therefore outside the scope, purpose, and authority of this action. Such changes may be pursued through the Council process. *Comment 7:* Two organizations argued that the Council's decision to review the new survey data during 2007 and determine whether adjustments should be made to the specifications for the 2008 and 2009 fishing years was sufficiently precautionary and should be allowed to proceed. One organization believed that NMFS's revision of the allocations for 2008-2009 precluded the Council from conducting a review of the fishery during the 3-year specification period. *Response:* NMFS's decision to reduce the Area 1A TAC to 45,000 mt for the 2008 and 2009 fishing years has no bearing on the review process that the Council stated that it plans to conduct during 2007. That review is expected to take place, and the Council is at liberty to recommend changes to the specifications for 2008 and/or 2009 based on its review, if warranted. *Comment 8:* Five vessel owners supported the implementation of the status quo specifications for the herring fishery, which would set OY at 150,000 mt, the Area 1A TAC at 60,000 mt, and the Area 3 TAC at 50,000 mt. They argue that the recent landings levels of around 100,000 mt are sustainable. They note that the TRAC report supports this view, and that the PDT analysis indicates that all of the alternatives, including the status quo, are projected to result in removals of the inshore component that are less than the historical (1995-2006) removals within a reasonable range of stock mixing assumptions. *Response:* The commenters are correct in noting that the TRAC concluded that removals at current levels (around 100,000 mt per year for the past 15 years) are sustainable. They are also correct that the PDT's risk assessment indicated that setting the TACs at the status quo level was projected to result in removals from the inshore stock component that are less than historical removals for the period 1995-2005, during the winter (January-March; August-December). However, the PDT's risk assessment was not as clear cut for the summer period (April-July), where it showed that the status quo TACs would generate removals that would be at or below historical removals in about 50 percent of the possible scenarios. Both the Council's recommended TACs and the TACs established by this action would be more risk-averse than the status quo during the summer period, when a large amount of the Area 1A catch is taken. The commenters failed to note that there was a second part to the PDT's risk assessment, which evaluated the success of proposed TAC alternatives in achieving an exploitation rate that equates to F <sup>msy</sup> for the herring stock. As noted in the response to Comment 2, this aspect of the risk assessment was one of the reasons that both the Council and NMFS concluded that it was appropriate to make a significant reduction in the Area 1A TAC to reduce the risk of overfishing the inshore stock component. *Comment 9:* One organization argued that, based on the TRAC results and reasonable assumptions about stock component mixing rates, the Area 1A TAC should be set between 35,000-42,000 mt. Furthermore, this organization does not support the addition of 5,000 mt to the Area 3 TAC, and argues that, at most, the Area 3 TAC should be 55,000 mt. The commenter argues that, because the natural mortality rate used by the TRAC in its assessment model is not accurate and might significantly underestimate natural mortality, NMFS has not accurately estimated the amount of herring that can be safely removed from the ecosystem and that, as a result, NMFS should be more precautionary in setting the herring specifications. *Response:* The PDT stated that if it may be possible to apply a fishing mortality rate to an average biomass for the inshore stock component (assuming that it comprises 18 percent of total biomass), and estimate a TAC specifically for the inshore stock component. Using this approach would likely result in a TAC for the inshore stock component of about 35,000 mt - 42,000 mt. However, the PDT also stated that a TAC for the inshore stock component does not equate to a TAC for Area 1A, as fish from both the inshore and offshore component are caught in Areas 1A, 1B, and 2. Regarding the commenter's contention that the natural mortality rate used in the TRAC assessment is not accurate, the TRAC investigated values for natural mortality other than 0.2, but deemed that 0.2 was the appropriate value to use in the stock assessment. The peer-reviewed TRAC results constitute the best available scientific information on this point. NMFS notes that Fmsy for the stock was estimated at 0.31 by the TRAC. The analysis of the stockwide F associated with the specifications estimates F's of 0.18 in 2007; 0.197 in 2008, and 0.221 in 2009. NMFS concludes that these fishing mortality estimates are sufficiently precautionary. *Comment 10:* Five vessel owners argued that the perceived declines in the inshore component, based on the incorporation of recent data (2004 and 2005) from the NMFS trawl survey, appears to be a rush to judgment. They pointed out that, in 2006, herring fishermen reported very high inshore biomass and that, based on a personal communication with NEFSC staff, the fall 2006 survey results indicate a rebound to previous levels. *Response:* The PDT noted the impact that recent data has on overall trends for the inshore component; however it also placed that data within its proper context, stating that, “While data specific to the inshore component of the stock is limited and the Herring PDT cannot make a status determination based on bottom trawl indices alone, a change in the direction of the trend line is an important consideration.” The Council's 2007 review will consider any upated survey data and, if the results indicate a change in the apparent trend of recent years, then it could result in recommendations for TAC adjustments in 2008-2009. While NMFS took recent trawl survey information into account in taking this action, there were several factors that led NMFS to specify the Area 1A TAC at 45,000 mt for 2008-2009, as discussed in the response to Comment 2. *Comment 11:* Five vessel owners argued that the 10,000-15,000 mt reduction of the Area 1A TAC will have greater economic impacts than the revenue loss estimates of $136,350-204,500 per vessel for purse seine vessels. They contend that it is incorrect to assume that the reduced catch in Area 1A can be made up from Area 3. They explain that vessel size and weather make it difficult for their vessels to work offshore and make up for reduced landings from Area 1A. *Response:* The analysis of the economic impacts of the proposed TACs takes into account the same points made by the commenter. The specific per-vessel revenue impacts cited by the commenter are part of the analysis of revenue impacts on vessels that have harvested herring from Area 1A in the past, and are likely to qualify for the limited access permit established by Amendment 1. The analysis presumes that these vessels will continue to harvest the same proportion of the Area 1A TAC as in the past. The analysis notes that there are several things that could affect this assumption, notably that the reduced TAC may create an incentive for vessel owners to compete more aggressively for the reduced Area 1A TAC, thus altering the proportion of fish available to past participants. The analysis also notes that, while there are opportunities to harvest fish from other management areas to compensate for the reduction in Area 1A, this may not be possible for all vessels. It notes that there are a number of reasons it may not be possible for all vessels to fish in other areas, particularly offshore Areas 2 and 3, because the size of some vessels creates safety concerns, and because there are higher operating costs associated with longer trips, notably the costs associated with additional steaming time and associated fuel costs. *Comment 12:* One organization argued that, because of the mixing between offshore and inshore components during the spring, only the fall surveys should be considered as an indicator of the status of the inshore stock component. It also argued that a number of the survey results, as well as observed encounter rates, indicate that the health of the stock is not in decline. *Response:* Overall, the herring stock is in good shape, but for reasons outlined in the response to Comment 2 there are concerns about the inshore stock component that resulted in the reduction of the Area 1A TAC. Classification This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. A FRFA was prepared. The FRFA incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the signficant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. A copy of the analyses is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). A description of the reasons for this action, the objectives of this action, and the legal basis for this final rule is found in the preambles to the proposed rule and this final rule and is not repeated here. Statement of Need for this Action The purpose of this action is to establish specifications to conserve and manage the herring resource for the period 2007-2009, as required by the FMP. A Summary of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to the IRFA, a Summary of the Assessment of the Agency of Such Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes Made in the Proposed Rule as a Result of Such Comments NMFS received 460 comments on the proposed specifications. Only one comment was specific to the IRFA. Comment 12 outlines concerns expressed by five vessel owners that the analysis of the Area 1A TACs underestimated the economic impacts they would experience due to the reductions in the allocation for the area. NMFS' assessment of the issues raised by this comment is contained in the preamble and not repeated here. The comment did not result in any changes to the Area 1A TAC, which was reduced for biological reasons. Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply During the 2005 fishing year, 143 vessels landed herring, 33 of which averaged more than 2,000 lb ( 907 kg) of herring per trip. The Small Business Administration's size standard for small commercial fishing entities is $4 million in gross sales. Thus, all the entities participating in this fishery are considered small entities, as defined in section 601 of the RFA. Therefore, there are no disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements This action does not contain any new collection-of-information, reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent with the Stated Objective of Applicable Statutes, including a Statement of the Factual, Policy, and Legal Reasons for Selecting the Alternative Adopted in the Final Rule and Why Each of the Other Significant Alternatives to the Rule Considered by the Agency which Affect the Impact on Small Entities was Rejected The economic impacts of this action were assessed by the Council and NMFS in an analysis that compares the alternatives considered to the herring landings made in 2005, the most recent year for which complete data are available. From a fishery-wide perspective, these specifications are not expected to produce a negative economic impact to vessels prosecuting the fishery because it allows for landings levels that are significantly higher than the landings in recent years. The 2007-2009 specifications should allow for incremental growth in the industry, while appropriately addressing biological concerns. However, because of the allocation of the management area TACs, and the reduction in the Area 1A TAC in particular, these specifications could have a negative impact on various industry participants, despite the fact that overall landings levels could be higher than in recent years. The specification of OY and DAH is 145,000 mt for 2007-2009. While higher levels of OY were considered (150,000 mt and 170,000 mt) the OY of 145,000 mt will allow an annual increase of up to 51,610 mt in herring landings compared to the 93,390 mt landed in 2005. This will generate $10.4 million in revenues, based on an average price (in 2005) of $202/mt. Therefore, there are no negative economic impacts associated with the specification of OY in this action. Individual vessels could increase their revenues under the proposed 2007-2009 specifications, depending on the number of vessels participating in the fishery, which will become a limited access fishery with the implementation of Amendment 1 to the FMP on June 1, 2007. Several other specifications established by this action would also allow an increase in revenue to industry participants when compared to the 2005 landings. These include DAH and DAP, which are specified at 145,000 mt and 141,000 mt, respectively; USAP, which is specified at 20,000 mt; the Area 1B TAC, which is specified at 10,000 mt; the Area 2 TAC, which is specified at 30,000 mt; and the Area 3 TAC, which is specified at 55,000 mt in 2007 and 60,000 mt in 2008-2009. In each instance, there are no negative economic impacts associated with these specifications because they would allow industry participants to harvest and/or process more herring than in 2005. There are no potential economic impacts associated with the allocation for JVPt of zero, because it is unchanged from 2005. The only specification that could constrain the industry when compared to landings and revenue in 2005 is reduction of the Area 1A TAC to 50,000 mt in 2007, and 45,000 mt in 2008 and 2009. The impacts of these reductions were analyzed for the purse seine fleet, the single midwater trawl fleet, and the paired midwater trawl fleet. In 2005, the currently active purse seine fleet caught 27 percent of the Area 1A TAC. With a 10,000-15,000-mt reduction in the Area 1A TAC, if the proportion of the herring catch by the purse seine fleet remains the same and the decrease in the Area 1A TAC cannot be made up from fishing in other areas, there would be a 2,700-mt loss in catch under this action in 2007, and a 4,050-mt loss in catch in 2008 and 2009. Using the 2005 average price of herring of $202 per metric ton, this loss in catch would be worth $545,400 and $818,000, respectively, across the sector (there are four vessels in the currently active purse seine fleet). To make up for such a loss, these vessels would have to either increase their proportion of the herring catch in Area 1A relative to midwater trawlers, or move to other areas. There were no landings from Area 3 by these purse seine vessels in 2005, likely reflecting the fact that the vessels are too small to fish in these offshore areas. Moving offshore would also entail additional operating costs because the trips would be longer. The impact of the 10,000-15,000-mt decrease in the Area 1A TAC on the single midwater trawl fleet is difficult to predict, because the Purse Seine/Fixed Gear (PS/FG) only area established by Amendment 1 will eliminate single midwater trawl vessels from Area 1A during the most productive part of the Area 1A fishery (June through September). The establishment of a PS/FG only area might intensify the race to fish in Area 1A, as midwater trawl vessels (single and paired) may try to catch more fish from the area prior to the closure to trawling on June 1. If herring are plentiful in Area 1A during the spring (Area 1A catches increase in May, historically), the single midwater trawlers may be able to maintain their historical proportion of the Area 1A TAC. However, it is likely that purse seine vessels and midwater pair trawl vessels would also participate in the pre-June race in order to keep their landings on par with previous years. In addition, single midwater trawl vessels might convert to purse seine gear in order to fish in Area 1A in the summer. In 2005, the currently active single midwater trawl fleet caught 18 percent of the Area 1A TAC. If the proportion of the herring catch by the single midwater trawl fleet remains the same, and the decrease in the Area 1A TAC cannot be made up from fishing in other areas, there would be a 1,800-mt loss in catch under this action during 2007, and a 2,700-mt loss in catch in 2008 and 2009. Using the 2005 average price of herring of $202 per metric ton, this loss in catch would be worth $363,600 and $545,400, respectively, across the sector (there are four vessels that were active in Area 1A from 2003-2005 in the single midwater trawl fleet). To make up for such a loss, the single midwater trawl vessels would have to either increase their proportion of the herring catch in Area 1A relative to purse seine vessels, or move to other areas. Moving to offshore areas may be problematic for two of the four single midwater trawl vessels, since these two are relatively smaller vessels and landed herring only from Area 1A during 2003 through 2005. The other two vessels are somewhat larger and have Area 3 catch history, so their loss of Area 1A catch may be mitigated by their ability to fish in Area 3. If the single midwater trawl vessels make up their catch in Areas 2 and 3, the vessel operating cost will increase because the trips will be longer. With decreases in the Area 1A TAC of 10,000 mt to 15,000 mt under this action, the impact on the midwater pair trawl fleet could also be large. It is difficult to predict what the impact will be on the midwater pair trawl fleet, because these vessels will also be excluded from Area 1A for the period June-September due to the PS/FG only measure. In 2005, the currently active pair trawl fleet caught 55 percent of the Area 1A TAC. If the proportion of the herring catch by the pair trawl fleet remains the same and the decrease in the Area 1A TAC cannot be made up from fishing in other areas, there would be a 5,500-mt loss in catch under this action in 2007, and a 8,250-mt loss in 2008 and 2009. Using the 2005 average price of herring of $202 per metric ton, this catch is worth $1,111,000 and $1,666,500 respectively, across the sector (there are 12 vessels in the pair trawl fleet that were active from 2003-2005). To make up for such a loss, pair trawl vessels would have to either increase their proportion of the herring catch in Area 1A or move to other areas. All pair trawl vessels have Area 3 catch history, so their loss of Area 1A catch may be mitigated by their ability to fish in Area 3. If the pair trawl vessels make up their catch in Areas 2 and 3, the vessel operating cost will increase because the trips would be longer. The 10,000-mt to 15,000-mt reduction in TAC in Area 1A may cause participants using all 3 gear types to increase their fishing activity in Area 1B. The Area 1B TAC has not been reached every year, and only 60 percent was harvested in 2005. Since Area 1B is farther from shore than Area 1A, vessel operating costs would increase because trips would be longer. Harvesting in Area 1B will only provide limited relief for vessels impacted by the reduction in the Area 1A TAC since the TAC is limited to 10,000 mt. There were seven alternatives considered. Three of the alternatives would have set the Area 1A TAC at 60,000 mt. They were rejected because the biological concerns about the inshore herring stock component require a significant reduction in harvest within Area 1A. More specifically, NMFS concluded that the SSC's advice, the retrospective pattern in the stock assessment, and the conclusions of the PDT's risk assessment combine to make a sound case for being precautionary about protecting the inshore component and for specifying the Area 1A TAC at 45,000 mt. One alternative would have set the Area 1A TAC at 50,000 mt for all three years. This was rejected for the reasons cited above; namely, that the SSC's advice, the retrospective pattern in the stock assessment, and the conclusions of the PDT's risk assessment combine to make a sound case for being precautionary about protecting the inshore component and for specifying the Area 1A TAC at 45,000 mt. Two of the alternatives would have reduced the Area 1A TAC to 45,000 mt for all three years. These were rejected because NMFS believed that it is sufficient to achieve biological objectives to implement the 45,000 mt TAC for 2008-2009, and establish the 2007 TAC at 50,000 mt, consistent with action taken by the states under the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Interstate Fisheries Management Plan for Atlantic Sea Herring. The preferred alternative was selected because the SSC's advice, the retrospective pattern in the stock assessment, and the conclusions of the PDT's risk assessment combine to make a sound case for specifying the Area 1A TAC at 45,000 mt in fishing years 2008 and 2009. Small Entity Compliance Guide Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule, or group of related rules, for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a small entity compliance guide will be sent to all holders of permits issued for the herring fishery. In addition, copies of this final rule and guide (i.e., permit holder letter) are available from the Regional Administrator (see ADDRESSES ) and may be found at the following web site: *http://www.nero.noaa.gov* . Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: April 2, 2007. John Oliver, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-6648 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 68 Tuesday, April 10, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 1 [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0158] Animal Welfare; Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of petition and request for comments. SUMMARY: We are notifying the public of our receipt of a petition for rulemaking, and we are soliciting public comment on that petition. The petition, sponsored by The Hunte Corporation, requests that we replace the definition of Class “B” licensee in the Animal Welfare Act regulations with four new categories of licensees: Pet distributor, exhibitor animal distributor, laboratory animal distributor, and other distributor. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 11, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0158 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0158, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0158. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Jerry DePoyster, Senior Veterinary Medical Officer, Animal Care, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737-1234;
(301)734-7586. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Animal Welfare Act (the Act, 7 U.S.C. 2131 *et seq.* ) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate standards and other requirements governing the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, carriers, and intermediate handlers. The Secretary of Agriculture has delegated the responsibility of administering the Act to the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The regulations established under the Act are contained in title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations (9 CFR), chapter I, subchapter A, parts 1, 2, and 3. Part 1 defines various terms used in parts 2 and 3. In part 1, § 1.1 sets forth definitions for three classes of licensees: Class “A,” Class “B,” and Class “C.” Class “A” licensees are dealers whose business consists only of animals that are bred and raised on the premises and acquired for the sole purpose of maintaining or enhancing the breeding colony. Class “B” licensees are dealers whose business includes the purchase or resale of any animal. Class “B” licensees do not usually take actual physical possession or control of the animals or hold them in any facilities. Class “C” licensees are exhibitors whose business involves the showing or displaying of animals to the public. Class “C” licensees may buy and sell animals as a minor part of their business to maintain or add to their animal collection. APHIS has received a petition for rulemaking sponsored by The Hunte Corporation, a Class “B” licensee, requesting changes to the definition of Class “B” licensee contained in § 1.1 of the regulations. Specifically, the petition requests that we replace the definition of Class “B” licensee with four new categories of dealers: Pet distributor, exhibitor animal distributor, laboratory animal distributor, and other distributor. The petition is available for review on the Regulations.gov Web page and in our reading room (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov and for information on the location and hours of the reading room). Copies may also be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . We invite comments on the changes discussed in the petition. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131-2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7. Done in Washington, DC, this 4th day of April 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-6701 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-156420-06] RIN 1545-BG25 Anti-Avoidance and Anti-Loss Reimportation Rules Applicable Following a Loss on Disposition of Stock of Consolidated Subsidiaries AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations. SUMMARY: In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the ** Federal Register ** , the IRS is issuing temporary regulations under section 1502 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). The temporary regulations provide guidance to corporations filing consolidated returns. The temporary regulations apply an anti-avoidance rule and revise an anti-loss reimportation rule that applies after a disposition of stock of a subsidiary at a loss. The text of those regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. DATES: Written or electronic comments or a request for a public hearing must be received by July 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-156420-06), room 5203 Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-156420-06), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *www.regulations.gov* (IRS-REG-156420-06). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the proposed regulations, Theresa Abell
(202)622-7700 or Phoebe Bennett
(202)622-7770; concerning submission of comments and request for public hearing, Richard Hurst at *Richard.A.Hurst@irscounsel.treas.gov* or
(202)622-7180 (not toll free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Explanation of Provisions Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** amend the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) relating to section 1502. The temporary regulations provide guidance to corporations filing consolidated returns. The temporary regulations apply an anti-avoidance rule and revise an anti-loss reimportation rule that applies following a disposition of stock of a subsidiary at a loss. The text of those regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains the amendments. Special Analyses It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12666. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that these regulations primarily will affect affiliated groups of corporations that have elected to file consolidated returns, which tend to be larger entities. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. Comments and Requests for Public Hearing Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight
(8)copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and Treasury Department request comments on the clarity of the proposed rules and how they can be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the **Federal Register** . Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is Phoebe Bennett, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 is amended by adding an entry in numerical order to read as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 2.** Section 1.1502-32 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(D) and adding paragraph
(k)to read as follows: § 1.1502-32 Investment adjustments.
(b)* * *
(3)* * * (iii)* * *
(D)[The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.1502-32(b)(3)(iii)(D) is the same as the text of § 1.1502-32T(b)(3)(iii)(D) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].
(k)[The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.1502-32(k) is the same as the text of § 1.1502-32T(k) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. **Par. 3.** Section 1.1502-35 is amended by: 1. Revising paragraphs (g)(3) and (h). 2. Adding new paragraph (g)(6). 3. Revising paragraph (j). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 1.1502-35 Transfers of subsidiary stock and deconsolidations of subsidiaries.
(g)* * *
(3)[The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.1502-35(g)(3) is the same as the text of § 1.1502-35T(g)(3) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].
(6)[The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.1502-35(g)(6) is the same as the text of § 1.1502-35T(g)(6) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].
(h)[The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.1502-35(h) is the same as the text of § 1.1502-35T(h) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].
(j)[The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.1502-35(j) is the same as the text of § 1.1502-35T(j) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. Linda M. Kroening, Acting Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E7-6534 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P 72 68 Tuesday, April 10, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, is initiating a public rulemaking process to address the management of roadless areas on National Forest System
(NFS)lands within the State of Idaho. This rulemaking is the result of a petition submitted by Governor James Risch on behalf of the State of Idaho pursuant to 7 CFR § 1.28, reviewed and recommended by the Department's Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory Committee, and accepted by the Secretary. The State requests specific regulatory protections with certain management flexibility for the 9.3 million acres of affected NFS lands. The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact statement to analyze and disclose potential environmental consequences associated with this rulemaking. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by May 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent via e-mail to *IDcomments@fsroadless.org.* Written comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Roadless Area Conservation-Idaho, P.O. Box 162909, Sacramento, CA 95816-2909, or via facsimile to 916-456-6724. All comments, including names and addresses, when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at *http://roadless.fs.fed.us.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad Gilbert, Idaho Roadless Interdisciplinary Team Leader, 208-765-7438, *bjgilbert@fs.fed.us.* Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background As a leader in natural resource conservation, the Forest Service provides direction for the management and use of the Nation's forests, rangeland, and aquatic ecosystems. The Forest Service is charged to collaborate cooperatively with states and other interested parties regarding the use and management of the National Forest System (NFS). The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule) On January 12, 2001, the Department promulgated the Roadless Rule at 36 CFR 294 (66 FR 3244), which fundamentally changed the Forest Service's longstanding approach to management of inventoried roadless areas by establishing nationwide prohibitions that, with some exceptions, generally limited timber harvest, road construction, and road reconstruction within inventoried roadless areas on NFS lands. Prior to 2001, inventories of roadless areas were used primarily as tools for evaluating wilderness potential. Unless otherwise provided for by law, during forest planning the Forest Service generally evaluated each area's wilderness potential, made preliminary legislative recommendations, and assigned appropriate management area direction in land management plans. Land management plans were developed for each unit of the NFS through a public notice and comment process, building on years of scientific findings, analyses, and extensive public involvement. Following promulgation of the Roadless Rule, concerns were immediately expressed by states, Tribes and local communities. These concerns included the sufficiency and the accuracy of the information available for public review during the rulemaking process; the inclusion of an estimated 2.8 million acres of roaded lands in the inventoried roadless area land base; the denial of requests to lengthen the public review period; the denial of cooperating agency status requested by several Western States; the sufficiency of the range of alternatives considered in the rulemaking process; the need for flexibility and exceptions to allow for needed resource management activities; and the changes made in the final rule after the closure of the public comment period. Concerns were also expressed about applying one set of standards uniformly to every inventoried roadless area. The Roadless Rule became the subject of 10 lawsuits in Federal District Courts in Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, and the District of Columbia. In one of these lawsuits, the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting implementation of the Roadless Rule on May 10, 2001. The preliminary injunction was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on December 12, 2002. Secretary Veneman expressed the Department's commitment to conserving inventoried roadless area values in the NFS while acknowledging concerns raised by local communities, Tribes, and states regarding the Roadless Rule. In May 2001, the Secretary indicated that the Department would move forward with a responsible and balanced approach to re-examining the Roadless Rule. The Department was able to reach a settlement agreement with the State of Alaska leading to the adoption of a final rule on December 30, 2003, that withdrew the Tongass National Forest from the prohibitions of the Roadless Rule. However, on July 14, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming set aside the Roadless Rule and issued a nationwide, permanent injunction against its implementation. The ruling was appealed. The State Petitions Rule On May 13, 2005, the Department adopted a new rule (70 FR 25654), the State Petitions Rule, that established a process allowing Governors an opportunity to seek establishment of or adjustment to management requirements for NFS inventoried roadless areas within their states. The opportunity for submitting state petitions was available for 18 months. Under the State Petitions Rule, submission of a petition was strictly voluntary, and management of inventoried roadless areas was to be guided by individual land management plans until and unless these management requirements were changed through a state-specific rulemaking. At the same time, the Department established the Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory Committee in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. II) to assist the Secretary with the implementation of this rule. On July 12, 2005, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the appeal was moot after promulgation of the State Petitions Rule (see below). The Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal and vacated the district court decision in May 2005, the States of California, New Mexico, Washington, and Oregon, as well as a coalition of environmental groups, challenged the State Petitions Rule in the Northern District of California. On September 20, 2006, the District Court set aside the State Petitions Rule and reinstated the Roadless Rule. The California court's order triggered the State of Wyoming to seek reinstatement by the Wyoming District Court of the vacated 2003 injunction against the original Roadless Rule. The State of Wyoming also filed a new complaint, again challenging the Roadless Rule. State of Idaho Petition On June 23, 2005, the State of Idaho announced it would submit a petition pursuant to the State Petitions Rule, requesting specific regulatory protections and certain management flexibility for the 9.3 million acres of NFS inventoried roadless areas in Idaho. As part of that announcement, the State invited affected county commissioners to develop specific recommendations for the NFS inventoried roadless areas in their respective counties. Additionally, over 50 public meetings were held and the general public was encouraged to send individual comments directly to the Governor's office for consideration. Idaho's petition was submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture for consideration on September 20, 2006. When the State Petitions Rule was injoined, Idaho submitted a petition on October 5, 2006, under section 553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act and Department regulations at 7 CFR 1.28 which allow an interested person the opportunity to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule. The Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory Committee reviewed the Idaho petition on November 29 and 30, 2006, in Washington, DC. Governor James Risch, on behalf of the State of Idaho discussed his views on the scope and intent of the petition during the first day of the meeting. The Committee also heard comments from other State and Forest Service officials, and members of the public. On December 19, 2006, the Committee issued a unanimous consensus-based recommendation that the Secretary direct the Forest Service, with the State of Idaho as a cooperating agency, to proceed with rulemaking. On December 22, 2006, the Secretary accepted the petition based on the Advisory Committee's review and report and directed the Forest Service to initiate rulemaking. Estimated Dates The Draft environmental impact statement is expected September, 2007 and the final environmental impact statement is expected August, 2008. Purpose and Need for Action Following promulgation of the Roadless Rule, the State of Idaho was one of several states to express concerns about applying one set of standards regulating road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvest uniformly to every inventoried roadless area. The State undertook an extensive public comment process to assess the desired management objectives for each individual inventoried roadless area. This information was then used to construct the petition, including where and under what circumstances road construction and timber harvest should be prohibited in inventoried roadless areas. The State examined a management continuum that includes at one end, a restrictive approach emphasizing passive management and natural restoration approaches, and on the other end, a fairly unrestrictive approach emphasizing flexibility and active management. The petition, as presented by Governor Risch, requests that road construction and timber harvest be administered in accordance with five management themes applied to NFS inventoried roadless areas within the State of Idaho. While developing the petition, the State developed a set of guiding principles to evaluate the strength of submitted comments including: Current land management plan prescriptions, County/Tribal/Public comments, the wildland urban interface and forest health, consistency between National Forests within the State, and consistency between interstate National Forests. Although the State is seeking a rule with accompanying management themes that only directly administers timber harvest and road construction and/or reconstruction within NFS lands in Idaho, the State indicates that each theme would be an important consideration for the Forest Service's future management of inventoried roadless areas for activities and uses outside of the proposed regulations. The State has identified that the description of the themes is not intended to mandate or direct the Forest Service to propose or implement a proposed action; rather, the description of each theme is envisioned to function as a backdrop for future discussions between the Forest Service and the Governor's Roadless Rule Implementation Commission that was established by Idaho Executive Order 2006-43. The State also anticipates that the rulemaking will direct the Forest Service to develop a Memorandum of Understanding with the Implementation Commission outlining their relationship and responsibilities. Petitioned Action The Forest Service, in cooperation with the State of Idaho is initiating a public rulemaking process to address the management of roadless areas on National Forest System
(NFS)lands within the State of Idaho. The regulation sought would administer road construction and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas in accordance with five management themes and allow most appropriate uses in inventoried roadless areas to be decided through the forest planning process in accordance with the National Forest Management Act. The management themes are Wild Land Recreation (1.3 million acres), Primitive Areas (1.7 million acres), Backcountry/Restoration (5.5 million acres) General Forest Areas (0.5 million acres) and Areas of Cultural, Historical, and Tribal Significance (0.25 million acres). In Wild Land Recreation Areas, road construction and reconstruction would be prohibited. Timber harvest would be permitted in these areas only if the responsible official determines it is for personal or administrative use as defined at 36 CFR § 223; the areas show little evidence of historical or human use; natural processes are predominant; and people visiting these areas can find outstanding opportunities for recreation, including exploration, solitude, risk, and challenge. In Primitive Areas, road construction and reconstruction would be prohibited. Timber harvest would be permitted only if existing roads or aerial systems are used and the responsible official determines the harvest falls within exceptions consistent with those outlined in the Roadless Rule. These areas generally reflect the primitive character of the Wild Land Recreation theme, however, they fall short of the Forest Service's recommended wilderness suitability criteria. They are naturally appearing and are relatively undisturbed by human management activities. In Backcountry/Restoration Areas, roads may be constructed or reconstructed only if the responsible official determines the roads fall within exceptions consistent with those outlined in the Roadless Rule. Timber harvest will be permitted if the responsible official determines that it meets exceptions consistent with those outlined in the Roadless Rule. These areas may display increased evidence of management activities, however, they would generally retain their roadless character. Areas are to provide a variety of recreation opportunites, while also ensuring adequate flexibility to maintain forest health. In General Forest, Grassland and Rangeland Areas, road construction and timber harvest would be permitted after necessary environmental analysis is completed. Areas may display high levels of human use including roads, facilities, evidence of vegetative manipulation, and mineral exploration/extraction. Three areas of cultural, historic, and tribal significance (Pilot Knob, Mallard-Larkins Pioneer Area, and Lewis and Clark Trail) will be defined and managed similarly to areas designated under the Primative theme. The petition does not seek to address leasable and locatable minerals. The public sale of salable minerals would be prohibited in areas designated as Wild Land Recreation or Primitive. The petition does not seek to address recreation, grazing, or other multiple uses not expressly prohibited in Idaho inventoried roadless areas. Those management activities will be governed by existing land management planning, travel planning, and grazing allotment analysis processes. The petition does not affect current or future management status of existing roads or trails in Idaho inventoried roadless areas or the status of existing grazing allotments. The petition does not address whether or how the Roadless Rule or State Petitions Rule apply to the inventoried roadless acres in national forests and grasslands outside of Idaho. Possible Alternatives The NEPA implementing regulations require that an Environmental Impact Statement evaluate alternatives. Possible alternatives to be considered in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement include: • Promulgation of a rule pursuant to the Idaho petition. • Roadless management direction as set forth in the Roadless Rule. • Roadless management direction as set forth in current Land and Resource Management Plans. Additional alternatives may arise from public comments or new information. Lead and Cooperating Agencies State governments are important partners in management of the Nation's land and natural resources. States, particularly in the West, own and manage large tracts of land with tremendous social and biological value. State governments have frequently pioneered innovative land management programs and policies. State governments exert considerable influence over statewide economic development and private land use, both of which significantly affect natural resource management. In addition, state conservation agencies' relationships with others, including the general public offer additional opportunities for collaborative decisionmaking. Strong state and Federal cooperation regarding land management can facilitate long-term, community-oriented solutions. As part of its petition, the State of Idaho committed to participation as a cooperating agency in the preparation of any environmental analysis for this rulemaking. Responsible Official The Responsible Official is the Secretary, USDA or his designee. Nature of Decision To Be Made The Forest Service is initiating a public rulemaking process to address the management of roadless areas on National Forest System lands within the State of Idaho. This rulemaking is the result of a petition submitted by the State of Idaho pursuant to 7 CFR 1.28 and presented by Governor Risch on November 29, 2006. The State requests specific regulatory protections with certain management flexibility for the 9.3 million acres of affected land. Scoping Process This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping process in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations (40 CFR part 1500). As part of the scoping period, the Forest Service solicits public comment on the nature and scope of the environmental, social, and economic issues related to the rulemaking that should be analyzed in depth in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Comments collected during promulgation of the Roadless Rule and the extensive public involvement process used by the State to craft their petition will be heavily relied upon. The nature and scope of the analysis for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will focus on the land management direction sought in the petition, and the alternative to it. Because of the extensive amount of public comment that has already been received on the issue of protecting roadless areas in Idaho (see background above) no public meetings are planned for this scoping effort. However, public meetings will be held after the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and proposed rule have been issued, and the public has had a chance to take a careful look at the site-specific proposed rule, alternatives, and effects. Supplemental Addresses Additional information on how the State of Idaho petition was developed can be found in the State's petition at *http://gov.idaho.gov/roadless_petition.html.* Detailed maps of the management themes, Idaho's petition, a summary of the November 29 and 30, 2006 Advisory Committee meeting, the recommendation made by the Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory Committee to the Secretary, and the Secretary's letter to the Governor can be found at the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Web site: *http://roadless.fs.fed.us.* Comment Requested Reviewers should provide their comments during the comment period. Timely comments will enable the agency to analyze and respond to them at one time and to use them in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement, thus avoiding undue delay in the decisionmaking process. Furthermore, the more specific and substantive the comments, the better for reviewers and the agency alike. Reviewers have an obligation to “structure their participation in the National Environmental Policy Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewer's position and contentions.” *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 552 (1978). Dept. of Transportation* v. *Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 764 (2004).* Environmental concerns that could have been raised at the draft stage may therefore be forfeited if not raised until after completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Comments on the draft should be specific and should address the adequacy of the draft and the merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR 1503.3). Dated: March 30, 2007. Frederick Norbury, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System. [FR Doc. E7-6756 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service National Tree-marking Paint Committee Meeting AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The National Tree-marking Paint Committee will meet in Portland, Oregon on May 15-17, 2007. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss activities related to improvements in, concerns about, and the handling and use of tree-marking paint by personnel of the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management. DATES: The meeting will be May 15-17, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be at the Portland Marriott Downtown Waterfront, 1401 SW Naito Parkway, Portland, OR 97201. Persons who wish to file written comments before or after the meeting must send written comments to Dave Haston, Chairperson, National Tree-marking Paint Committee, Forest Service, USDA, San Dimas Technology and Development Center, 444 East Bonita Avenue, San Dimas, California 91773, or electronically to *dhaston@fs.fed.us.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Haston, Sr. Project Leader, San Dimas Technology and Development Center, Forest Service, USDA, 909-599-1267, extension 294 or *dhaston@fs.fed.us.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Tree-marking Paint Committee is comprised of representatives from the Forest Service national headquarters, each of the nine Forest Service Regions, the Forest Products Laboratory, the Forest Service San Dimas Technology and Development Center, and the Bureau of Land Management. The General Services Administration and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health are ad hoc members and provide technical advice to the committee. A field trip on May 15 is designed to supplement information related to tree-marking paint. This trip is open to any member of the public participating in the meeting on May 16-17. However, transportation is provided only for committee members. The main session of the meeting, May 16-17, is open to public attendance. Closed Sessions While certain segments of this meeting are open to the public, there will be two closed sessions during the meeting. The first closed session is on May 16 from approximately 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. This session is reserved for individual paint manufacturers to present products and information about tree-marking paint for consideration in future testing and use by the agency. Paint manufacturers also may provide comments on tree-marking paint specifications or other requirements. This portion of the meeting is open only to paint manufacturers, the Committee, and committee staff to ensure that trade secrets will not be disclosed to other paint manufacturers or to the public. Paint manufacturers wishing to make presentations to the Tree-marking Paint Committee during the closed session should contact the committee chairperson at the telephone number listed at FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in this notice. The second closed session is on May 17 from approximately 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. This session is for Steering Committee members only. Any person with special access needs should contact the Chairperson to arrange for accommodations. Space for individuals who are not members of the National Tree-marking Paint Committee is limited and will be available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis. Dated: April 3, 2007. Frederick Norbury, Associate Deputy Chief—NFS. [FR Doc. E7-6666 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service Marysville Irrigation Company Gravity Pressurized Irrigation Delivery System; Fremont County, ID AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact. SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines (40 CFR Part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Guidelines (7 CFR Part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the Marysville Irrigation Company, Gravity Pressurized, Irrigation Delivery System, Fremont County, Idaho. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Sims, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 9173 W. Barnes Dr., Suite C, Boise, Idaho 83709-1574, telephone
(208)378-5700. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Plan/Environmental Assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national adverse impacts affecting the quality of the human environment. As a result of these findings, Richard Sims, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement are not needed for this project. The Proposed Action consists of replacing an open ditch irrigation delivery system with buried plastic pipelines to distribute gravity pressurized irrigation water. The Proposed Action includes the construction and operation and maintenance of three plastic pipelines that provide for the delivery of gravity pressurized irrigation water to approximately 6,130 acres surrounding Marysville, Idaho, eliminating most of the need for pumping by electric motors. Approximately 1,000 acres would require booster pumps. Water would only be drawn from the pipe when irrigation is required, eliminating overflow to the Henry's Fork River. The Proposed Action would eliminate about 90% of the water seepage loss from the canals and the need for approximately 1,600 horsepower from electric pump motors while not adversely affecting the environment. The Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency. The basic data developed during the plan/environmental assessment is on file and may be reviewed by contacting Mr. Richard Sims. The FONSI has been sent to various Federal, State, and local agencies, and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the address stated above. No administrative action on the proposal will be initiated until 30 days after the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . Dated: April 3, 2007. Richard Sims, State Conservationist. [FR Doc. E7-6740 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service Notice of Meeting of the Agricultural Air Quality Task Force AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Air Quality Task Force (AAQTF) will meet to continue discussions on air quality issues relating to agriculture. DATES: The meeting will convene at 8 a.m. on Tuesday, May 8, 2007, through 12 p.m. on Thursday, May 10, 2007. A public comment period will be held on May 9, 2007. Individuals making oral presentations should register in person at the meeting site and must bring with them 50 copies of any materials they would like distributed. Written materials for AAQTF's consideration prior to the meeting, must be received by Ms. Michele Laur (address given below) no later than Monday, April 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency Islandia/Hyatt Mission Bay, 1441 Quivira Road, San Diego, California, 92109; telephone:
(619)224-1234. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Questions and comments should be directed to Michele Laur, Designated Federal Officer. Ms. Laur may be contacted at USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Post Office Box 2890, Room 6165-South, Washington, DC 20013; telephone:
(202)720-1858: e-mail: *Michele.Laur@wdc.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. Additional information concerning AAQTF may be found on the Internet at *http://www.airquality.nrcs.usda.gov/AAQTF/.* Draft Agenda of the May 8-10, 2007, Meeting of AAQTF Tuesday, May 8, Beginning at 8 a.m. A. *Welcome to San Diego, California* B. *Discussion of Subcommittee Action Plans and Activities* C. *Discussion of Biofuels and Other Environmental Issues* Wednesday, May 9 and Thursday, May 10 D. *Discussion of Subcommittee Action Plans and Activities* E. *Discussion of California Air Quality Issues* F. *Discussion of Ozone* G. *Discussion of Climate Change* H. *Next Meeting, Time and Place* I. *Public Comments* (Time will be reserved on May 9, 2007, in the afternoon to receive public comment. Individual presentations will be limited to 5 minutes). Procedural This meeting is open to the public. At the discretion of the Chair, members of the public may give oral presentations during the meeting. Those persons wishing to make oral presentations should register in person at the meeting site. Those wishing to distribute written materials at the meeting itself, in conjunction with spoken comments, must bring 50 copies of the materials with them. Written materials for distribution to AAQTF members prior to the meeting must be received by Ms. Michelle Laur no later than Monday, April 16, 2007. Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, please contact Ms. Laur. USDA prohibits discrimination in its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, sexual orientation, or disability. Additionally, discrimination on the basis of political beliefs and marital or family status is also prohibited by statutes enforced by USDA (not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact the USDA's Target Center at
(202)720-2000 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Signed in Washington, DC on March 30, 2007. Arlen L. Lancaster, Chief. [FR Doc. E7-6737 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Announcement of Funding Availability and Solicitation of Applications AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of Funding Availability and Solicitation of Applications. SUMMARY: The United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA)Rural Development administers rural utilities programs through the Rural Utilities Service. USDA Rural Development announces its Distance Learning and Telemedicine
(DLT)grant, combination loan-grant and loan program application windows for Fiscal Year
(FY)2007, and a new initiative within the combination loan-grant program for the conversion of medical recordkeeping systems to emerging electronic formats. In addition to announcing the application windows, the Agency announces the available funding, and the minimum and maximum amounts for DLT grants, combination loan-grants and loans applicable for the fiscal year. DATES: You may submit completed applications for grants on paper or electronically according to the following deadlines: • Paper copies must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight *no later* than June 11, 2007 to be eligible for FY 2007 grant funding. Late or incomplete applications will not be eligible for FY 2007 grant funding. • Electronic copies must be received by June 11, 2007 to be eligible for FY 2007 grant funding. Late or incomplete applications will not be eligible for FY 2007 grant funding. ADDRESSES: You may obtain copies of the FY 2007 application guides and materials for the DLT grant program at the DLT Web site: *http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/dlt/dlt.htm.* For your reference, you may also request last year's FY 2006 application guide and materials by contacting the DLT Program at
(202)720-0413. Submit completed paper applications for grants to the United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Telecommunications Program, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 2845, STOP 1550, Washington, DC 20250-1550. Applications should be marked “ *Attention:* Director, Advanced Services Division.” Submit electronic grant applications at *http://www.grants.gov* (Grants.gov), following the instructions you find on that Web site. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Director, Advanced Services Division, Telecommunications Program, USDA Rural Development, United States Department of Agriculture, *telephone:*
(202)720-0413, *fax:*
(202)720-1051. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Overview *Federal Agency:* Rural Utilities Service (RUS). *Funding Opportunity Title:* Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grants, Combination Loan-grants, and Loans. *Announcement Type:* Initial announcement. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number:* 10.855. *Dates:* You may submit completed applications for grants on paper or electronically according to the following deadlines: • Paper copies must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than June 11, 2007 to be eligible for FY 2007 grant funding. Late or incomplete applications are not eligible for FY 2007 grant funding. • Electronic copies must be received by June 11, 2007 to be eligible for FY 2007 grant funding. Late or incomplete applications are not eligible for FY 2007 grant funding. Items in Supplementary Information I. Funding Opportunity: Brief introduction to the DLT program. II. Minimum and Maximum Application Amounts: Projected Available Funding. III. Eligibility Information: Who is eligible, what kinds of projects are eligible, what criteria determine basic eligibility. IV. Application and Submission Information: Where to get application materials, what constitutes a completed application, how and where to submit applications, deadlines, items that are eligible. V. Application Review Information: Considerations and preferences, scoring criteria, review standards, selection information. VI. Award Administration Information: Award notice information, award recipient reporting requirements. VII. Agency Contacts: Web, phone, fax, e-mail, contact name. I. Funding Opportunity Distance learning and telemedicine loans and grants are specifically designed to provide access to education, training and health care resources for people in rural America. The Distance Learning and Telemedicine
(DLT)Program provides financial assistance to encourage and improve telemedicine services and distance learning services in rural areas through the use of telecommunications, computer networks, and related advanced technologies by students, teachers, medical professionals, and rural residents. Grants, which are awarded through a competitive process, may be used to fund telecommunications-enabled information, audio and video equipment and related advanced technologies which extend educational and medical applications into rural locations. Grants are made for projects where the benefit is primarily delivered to end users that are not at the same location as the source of the education or health care service. As in years past, the FY 2007 grant application guide has been changed to reflect recent changes in technology and application trends. Details of changes from the FY 2006 application guide are highlighted throughout this Notice and described in full in the FY 2007 application guide. All applicants must carefully review and *exactly* follow the FY 2007 application guide and sample materials when compiling a DLT grant application. Applications for loans and combination loan-grants are not competitively scored. In addition to the items listed for grants, loans and combination loan-grants may be used to fund projects where the benefit is primarily at the same location as the source of the service. Loans and combination loan-grants may also fund construction of necessary transmission facilities on a technology-neutral basis. Examples of such facilities include satellite uplinks, microwave towers and associated structures, T-1 lines, DS-3 lines, and other similar facilities. Loan funds may also be used to obtain mobile units and for some building construction. Please see 7 CFR part 1703, subparts D, E, F and G for specifics. II. Maximum and Minimum Amount of Applications; Projected Available Funding Under 7 CFR 1703.124, the Administrator has determined the maximum amount of an application for a grant in FY 2007 is $500,000 and the minimum amount of a grant is $50,000. The anticipated amount available to fund grant awards in FY 2007 is $15 million. The USDA Rural Development will make awards and execute documents appropriate to the project prior to any advance of funds to successful applicants. Combination loan-grants will be offered at a loan-to-grant ratio of 9:1, *i.e.* $9 in loan to $1 in grant. Under 7 CFR 1703.133, the maximum amount of an application for a combination loan-grant in FY 2007 is $20 million and the minimum amount of a combination loan-grant is $50,000. For this program, the Administrator has determined that $45,000,000 in loans, paired with $5,000,000 in grants, for a total of $50,000,000, will be available. For projects that are for electronic medical records systems, combination loan-grants will be offered at a special rate. The loan-to-grant ratio for the special ratio combination loan-grant program will be 4:1, *i.e.* $4 in loan to $1 in grant. Under 7 CFR 1703.133, the Administrator has determined that maximum amount of a special ratio combination loan-grant application is $1 million, and the minimum amount is $50,000. For this special ratio program, $20,000,000 in loans will be paired with $5,000,000 in grants, for a total available of $25,000,000. The Administrator has determined that $62,900,000 will be available for DLT loans. Under 7 CFR 1703.143, the maximum amount of an application for a loan in FY 2007 is $20 million and the minimum amount of a loan is $50,000. DLT grants, combination loan-grants and loans cannot be renewed. Award documents specify the term of each award. Applications to extend existing projects are welcomed (grant applications must be submitted during the application window) and will be evaluated as new applications. III. Eligibility Information A. Who is eligible for grants, combination loan-grants, and loans? (See 7 CFR 1703.103.) 1 *. Only entities legally organized as one of the following are eligible for DLT financial assistance:* a. An incorporated organization or partnership, b. An Indian tribe or tribal organization, as defined in 25 U.S.C. 450b
(b)and (c), c. A state or local unit of government, d. A consortium, as defined in 7 CFR 1703.102, or e. Other legal entity, including a private corporation organized on a for-profit or not-for-profit basis. 2. Individuals are not eligible for DLT program financial assistance directly. 3. Electric and telecommunications borrowers under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 950aaa *et seq.* ) are not eligible for grants or combination loan-grants, but are eligible for loans. B. What are the basic eligibility requirements for a project? 1. *Required matching contributions for grants:* See 7 CFR 1703.125(g) and the FY 2007 application guide for information on required matching contributions. a. Grant applicants must demonstrate matching contributions, in cash or in kind (new, non-depreciated items), of at least fifteen
(15)percent of the total amount of financial assistance requested. Matching contributions *must* be used for eligible purposes of DLT grant assistance (see 7 CFR 1703.121, paragraphs IV.G.1.b of this Notice and the FY 2007 application guide). b. Greater amounts of eligible matching contributions may increase an applicant's score (see 7 CFR 1703.126(b)(4), paragraph V.B.2.d of this notice, and the FY 2007 application guide). c. Applications that do not provide evidence of the required fifteen percent match which helps determine eligibility will be declared ineligible and returned. See paragraphs IV.G.1.c and V.B.2.d of this Notice, and the FY 2007 application guide for specific information on documentation of matching contributions. d. Applications that do not document all matching contributions are subject to budgetary adjustment by USDA Rural Development, which may culminate in rejection of an application as ineligible due to insufficient match. 3. The DLT loan, combination loan-grant and grant programs are designed to flow the benefits of distance learning and telemedicine to residents of rural America (see 7 CFR 1703.103(a)(2)). Therefore, in order to be eligible, applicants must: a. Operate a rural community facility; or b. Deliver distance learning or telemedicine services to entities that operate a rural community facility or to residents of rural areas, at rates calculated to ensure that the benefit of the financial assistance is passed through to such entities or to residents of rural areas. 4. Rurality. a. All projects proposed for DLT grant assistance must meet a minimum rurality threshold, to ensure that benefits from the projects flow to rural residents. The minimum eligibility score is 20 points. Please see Section IV of this notice, 7 CFR 1703.126(a)(2), and the FY 2007 application guide for an explanation of the rurality scoring and eligibility criterion. b. Each application must apply the following criteria to each of its end-user sites, and hubs that are also proposed as end-user sites, in order to determine a rurality score. The rurality score is the average of all end-user sites' rurality scores. Criterion Character Population DLT points Exceptionally Rural Area Area not within an Urbanized Area or Urban Cluster ≤ 5000 45 Rural Area Area in an Urban Cluster > 5000 and ≤ 10,000 30 Mid-Rural Area Area in an Urban Cluster >10,000 and ≤ 20,000 15 Urban Area Area in an Urbanized Area or Urban Cluster > 20,000 0 c. The rurality score is one of the competitive scoring criteria applied to grant applications. 4. Projects located in areas covered by the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) are not eligible for financial assistance from the DLT Program. Please see 7 CFR 1703.123(a)(11), 7 CFR 1703.132(a)(5), and 7 CFR 1703.142(b)(3). C. See Section IV of this Notice and the FY 2007 application guide for a discussion of the items that make up a complete application. For requirements of completed applications you may also refer to 7 CFR 1703.125 for grant applications, 7 CFR 1703.134 for combination loan-grant applications, and 7 CFR 1703.144 for loan applications. The FY 2007 application guide provides specific, detailed instructions for each item that constitutes a complete application. The Agency strongly emphasizes the importance of *including every required item* (as explained in the FY 2007 application guide) and strongly encourages applicants to follow the instructions *exactly,* using the examples and illustrations in the FY 2007 application guide. Applications which do not include all items that determine project eligibility and applicant eligibility by the application deadline will be returned as ineligible. Applications that do not include all items necessary for scoring will be scored as is. Please see the FY 2007 application guide for a full discussion of each required item and for samples and illustrations. IV. Application and Submission Information A. Where To Get Application Information FY 2007 application guides, copies of necessary forms and samples, and the DLT Program regulation are available from these sources: 1. The Internet: *http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/dlt/dlt.htm.* 2. The DLT Program for paper copies of these materials:
(202)720-0413. B. What's new for FY 2007? 1. For DLT Grants, USDA Rural Development clarifies end-user identification for portable and residential end-user projects such as ambulance and home health care applications. A simplified method of calculating rurality and National School Lunch Program
(NSLP)scores for these applications will eliminate the need for identification and scoring of every community an applicant serves. Past applications from these applicants have contained hundreds of pages of community identification and scoring supporting documents. This was burdensome for applicants and increased the possibility of end-user site inconsistency, a cause of ineligibility for some in the FY 2006 DLT grant program. 2. For DLT Combination loan grants, USDA Rural Development adds a special ratio combination loan-to-grant funding program to address the growing lag in implementation of electronic medical records systems in rural hospitals and healthcare networks. The new ratio is available only to projects whose entire cost is directly attributable to the conversion to or extension of an electronic medical records system. 3. The standard rate DLT Combination loan-grant program adopts a new funding ratio of $9 loan for each $1 grant, to simplify post-grant administration. 4. For DLT rurality scoring, a new measurement tool is used to improve accuracy and consistency of scoring. Rurality scoring is now referenced to the U.S. Census current Urbanized Area and Urban Cluster designations. This will prevent scoring anomalies caused by jurisdictional peculiarities of different states. C. What constitutes a completed application? 1. For DLT Grants: a. Detailed information on each item in the table in paragraph IV.C.1.f. of this Notice can be found in the sections of the DLT Program regulation listed in the table, and the DLT grant application guide. Applicants are strongly encouraged to read and apply both the regulation and the application guide.
(1)When the table refers to a narrative, it means a written statement, description or other written material prepared by the applicant, for which no form exists. USDA Rural Development recognizes that each project is unique and requests narratives to allow applicants to explain their request for financial assistance.
(2)When documentation is requested, it means letters, certifications, legal documents or other third-party documentation that provide evidence that the applicant meets the listed requirement. For example, to confirm Enterprise Zone
(EZ)designations, applicants use various types of documents, such as letters from appropriate government bodies and copies of appropriate USDA Web pages. Leveraging documentation sometimes includes letters of commitment from other funding sources. In-kind matches must be items essential to the project and documentation from the donor must demonstrate the relationship of each item to the project's function. Evidence of legal existence is sometimes proven by submitting articles of incorporation. None of the foregoing examples is intended to limit the types of documentation that may be submitted to fulfill a requirement. DLT Program regulations and the application guide provide specific guidance on each of the items in the table. b. The DLT application guide and ancillary materials provide all necessary forms and sample worksheets. c. While the table in paragraph IV.C.1.f of this Notice includes all items of a completed application, USDA Rural Development may ask for additional or clarifying information for applications which, as submitted by the deadline, appear to clearly demonstrate that they meet eligibility requirements. d. Submit the required application items in the order provided in the FY 2007 application guide. The FY 2007 application guide specifies the format and order of all required items. Applications that are not assembled and tabbed in the order specified prevent timely determination of eligibility. Given the high volume of program interest, incorrectly assembled applications will be returned as ineligible. e. *DUNS Number.* As required by the OMB, all applicants for grants must supply a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)number when applying. The Standard Form 424 (SF-424) contains a field for you to use when supplying your DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number costs nothing and requires a short telephone call to Dun and Bradstreet. Please see *http://www.grants.gov/RequestaDUNS* for more information on how to obtain a DUNS number or how to verify your organization's number. f. Compliance with other Federal statutes. The applicant must provide evidence of compliance with other federal statutes and regulations, including, but not limited to the following:
(i)7 CFR part 15, subpart A—Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs of the Department of Agriculture—Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
(ii)7 CFR part 3015—Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations.
(iii)7 CFR part 3017—Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Non-procurement).
(iv)7 CFR part 3018—New Restrictions on Lobbying.
(v)7 CFR part 3021—Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace g. Table of Required Elements of a Completed Grant Application. Application item REQUIRED items Grants (7 CFR 1703.125 and CFR 1703.126) Comment SF-424 (Application for Federal Assistance form) Yes *Completely* filled out. Executive Summary Yes Narrative. Objective Scoring Worksheet Yes RUS worksheet. Rural Calculation Table Yes RUS worksheet. National School Lunch Program Determination Yes RUS worksheet; must include source documentation. EZ/EC or Champion Communities designation Yes Documentation. Documented Need for Services/Benefits Derived from Services Yes Narrative & documentation, if necessary. Innovativeness of the Project Yes Narrative & documentation. Budget Yes Table or spreadsheet; Recommend using the RUS format. Leveraging Evidence and Funding Commitments from All Sources Yes RUS worksheet and source documentation. Financial Information/Sustainability Yes Narrative. System/Project Cost Effectiveness Yes Narrative & documentation. Telecommunications System Plan Yes Narrative & documentation; maps or diagrams, if appropriate. Proposed Scope of Work Yes Narrative or other appropriate format. Statement of Experience Yes Narrative 3-page, single-spaced limit. Consultation with the USDA State Director, Rural Development Yes Documentation. Application conforms with State Strategic Plan per USDA State Director, Rural Development, (if plan exists) Yes Documentation. Certifications Equal Opportunity and Nondiscrimination Yes Recommend using the RUS sample form. Architectural Barriers Yes Recommend using the RUS sample form. Flood Hazard Area Precautions Yes Recommend using the RUS sample form. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 Yes Recommend using the RUS sample form. Drug-Free Workplace Yes Recommend using the RUS sample form. Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions Yes Recommend using the RUS sample form. Lobbying for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative Agreements Yes Recommend using the RUS sample form. Non Duplication of Services Yes Recommend using the RUS sample form. Environmental Impact/Historic Preservation Certification Yes Recommend using the RUS sample form. Federal Obligations on Delinquent Debt Yes Recommend using the RUS sample form. Evidence of Legal Authority to Contract with the Government (documentation) Yes Recommend using the RUS sample form. Evidence of Legal Existence (documentation) Yes Recommend using the RUS sample form. Supplemental Information (if any) Optional Narrative, documentation or other appropriate format. 2. For combination loan-grant and loan applications: a. Detailed information on each item in the table in paragraph IV.C.2.f. of this Notice can be found in the sections of the DLT Program regulation listed in the table, and the DLT application guide. Applicants are strongly encouraged to read and apply both the regulation and the application guide.
(1)When the table refers to a narrative, it means a written statement, description or other written material prepared by the applicant, for which no form exists. USDA Rural Development recognizes that each project is unique and requests narratives to allow applicants to explain their request for financial assistance.
(2)When documentation is requested, it means letters, certifications, legal documents or other third party documentation that provide evidence that the applicant meets the listed requirement. For example, evidence of legal existence is sometimes proven by applicants who submit articles of incorporation. This example is not intended to limit the types of documentation that may be submitted to fulfill a requirement. DLT program regulations and the application guide provide specific guidance on each of the items in the table. b. The DLT application guide and ancillary materials provide all necessary forms and sample worksheets. c. While the table in paragraph IV.C.2.f. of this Notice includes all items of a completed application for each program, USDA Rural Development may ask for additional or clarifying information. d. Submit the required application items in the listed order. e. DUNS Number. As required by the OMB, all applicants for combination loan-grants must supply a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)number when applying. The Standard Form 424 (SF-424) contains a field for you to use when supplying your DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number costs nothing and requires a short telephone call to Dun and Bradstreet. Please see the DLT Web site or Grants.gov for more information on how to obtain a DUNS number or how to verify your organization's number. f. Table of required items in a combination loan-grant or loan application: Application item REQUIRED items Combination loan/grants (7 CFR 1703.134) Loans Completed SF-424 (Application for Federal Assistance form) Yes Yes. Executive Summary (narrative) Yes Yes. Rural Calculation Table Yes Yes. Budget (table or other appropriate format) Yes Yes. Financial Information/Sustainability (narrative) Yes Yes. Pro Forma Financial Data (documentation) Yes Yes. Ability to execute a note with maturity greater than 1 year (documentation) Yes Yes. Budget Yes Yes. Revenue/expense reports and balance sheet (documentation: table or other appropriate format Yes / 1 / Yes / 1 / . Balance sheet (table or other appropriate format) for a partnership, corporation, company, other entity; or consortia of such entities (documentation). Yes / 2 / Yes / 2 / . Property list (collateral/adequate security (documentation)) Yes Yes. Depreciation Schedule Yes Yes. Revenue source(s) for each hub and end-user site (documentation). Yes Yes. Economic analysis of rates—if applicant proposes to provide services for another entity Yes Yes. Telecommunications System Plan (narrative & documentation; maps or diagrams, if appropriate Yes Yes. Scope of Work (narrative or other appropriate format) Yes Yes. Statement of Experience (narrative 3-page, single-spaced limit. Yes Yes. Certifications: *Equal Opportunity and Nondiscrimination All Yes All Yes. *Architectural Barriers *Flood Hazard Area Precautions *Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970 *Drug Free Workplace *Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions *Lobbying for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative Agreements *Non-Duplication of Services *Environmental Impact/Historic Preservation Certification *Environmental Impact/Historic Preservation Questionnaire *Federal Obligations on Delinquent Debt Evidence of Legal Authority to Contract with the Government (documentation) Yes Yes. Evidence of Legal Existance (documentation). Yes Yes. Supplemental Information (if any) (narrative, documentation or other appropriate format.) Optional Optional. D. How many copies of an application are required? 1. Applications submitted on paper. a. Submit the original application and two
(2)copies to USDA Rural Development. b. Submit one
(1)additional copy to the state government single point of contact
(SPOC)(if one has been designated) at the same time as you submit the application to the Agency. See *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html* for an updated listing of State government single points of contact. 2. Electronically submitted applications. USDA Rural Development cannot accept loan applications electronically at this time. Only grants and combination loan-grants may be requested electronically. a. The additional paper copies are not necessary if you submit the application electronically through Grants.gov. b. Submit one
(1)copy to the state government single point of contact (if one has been designated) at the same time as you submit the application to the Agency. See *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html* for an updated listing of State government single points of contact. E. How and Where To Submit an Application Grant and combination loan-grant applications may be submitted on paper or electronically. 1. Submitting applications on paper. a. Address paper applications to the Telecommunications Program, USDA Rural Development, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 2845, STOP 1550, Washington, DC 20250-1550. Applications should be marked “ *Attention:* Director, Advanced Services Division.” b. Paper grant applications must show proof of mailing or shipping by the deadline consisting of one of the following:
(i)A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service
(USPS)postmark;
(ii)A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the USPS; or
(iii)A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier. c. Due to screening procedures at the Department of Agriculture, packages arriving via regular mail through the USPS are irradiated, which can damage the contents and delay delivery to the DLT Program. USDA Rural Development encourages applicants to consider the impact of this procedure in selecting their application delivery method. 2. Electronically submitted applications. a. Applications will not be accepted via fax or electronic mail. b. Electronic applications for grants and combination loan-grants will be accepted if submitted through the Federal government's Grants.gov initiative at *http://www.grants.gov.* c. How to use Grants.gov.
(i)Grants.gov contains full instructions on all required passwords, credentialing and software.
(ii)Central Contractor Registry. Submitting an application through Grants.gov requires that you list your organization in the Central Contractor Registry (CCR). Setting up a CCR listing takes up to five business days, so the Agency strongly recommends that you obtain your organization's DUNS number and CCR listing well in advance of the deadline specified in this notice.
(iii)Credentialing and authorization of applicants. Grants.gov will also require some credentialing and online authentication procedures. These procedures may take several business days to complete, further emphasizing the need for early action by applicants to complete the sign-up, credentialing and authorization procedures at Grants.gov before you submit an application at that Web site.
(iv)Some or all of the CCR and Grants.gov registration, credentialing and authorizations require updates. If you have previously registered at Grants.gov to submit applications electronically, please ensure that your registration, credentialing and authorizations are up to date well in advance of the grant application deadline. d. USDA Rural Development encourages applicants who wish to apply through Grants.gov to submit their applications in advance of the deadlines. e. If a system problem occurs or you have technical difficulties with an electronic application, please use the customer support resources available at the Grants.gov Web site. F. Deadlines 1. Paper grant applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than June 11, 2007 to be eligible for FY 2007 grant funding. Late applications, applications which do not include proof of mailing or shipping as described in paragraph IV.E.b., and incomplete applications are not eligible for FY 2007 grant funding. 2. Electronic grant applications must be received by June 11, 2007 to be eligible for FY 2007 funding. Late or incomplete applications will not be eligible for FY 2007 grant funding. G. *Intergovernmental Review* . The DLT grant program is subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” As stated in paragraph IV.D.1. of this Notice, a copy of a DLT grant application must be submitted to the state single point of contact if one has been designated. Please see *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html* to determine whether your state has a single point of contact. H. Funding Restrictions 1. Eligible purposes. a. For grants, end-user sites may receive financial assistance; hub sites (rural or non-rural) may also receive financial assistance if they are necessary to provide DLT services to end-user sites. Please see 7 CFR 1703.101(h). b. To fulfill the policy goals laid out for the DLT Program in 7 CFR 1703.101, the following table lists purposes for financial assistance and whether each purpose is generally considered to be eligible for the form of financial assistance. Please consult the FY 2007 application guide and the regulations (7 CFR 1703.102 for definitions, in combination with the portions of the regulation cited in the table) for detailed requirements for the items in the table. USDA Rural Development *strongly* recommends that applicants exclude ineligible items from the grant and match portions of grant application budgets. However, some items ineligible for funding or matching contributions may be vital to the project. USDA Rural Development encourages applicants to document those costs in the application's budget. Please see the FY 2007 application guide for a recommended budget format, and detailed budget compilation instructions. Grants Combination loan-grants Loans Lease or purchase of eligible DLT equipment and facilities Yes, equip. only Yes. Acquire instructional programming Yes Yes. Technical assistance, develop instructional programming, engineering or environmental studies Yes, up to 10% of the grant Yes, up to 10% of the financial assistance. Medical or education equipment or facilities necessary to the project Yes. Vehicles using distance learning or telemedicine technology to deliver services No Yes. Teacher-student links located at the same facility No Yes, if part of a broader DLT network that meets other eligible program purposes. Links between medical professionals located at the same facility No Yes, if part of a broader DLT network that meets other eligible program purposes Site development or building alteration No Yes, if the activity meets other program purposes. Land of building purchase No Yes, if the activity meets other program purposes. Building Construction No Yes, if the activity meets other program purposes. Acquiring telecommunications transmission facilities No Yes, if other telecommunications carriers will not install in a reasonable time period and at an economically viable cost to the project. Salaries, wages, benefits for medical or educational personnel No. Salaries or administrative expenses of applicant or project No. Recurring project costs or operating expenses No (equipment & facility leases are not recurring project costs) Yes, for the first two years after approval (equipment & facility leases are not recurring project costs). Equipment to be owned by the LEC or other telecommunications service provider, if the provider is the applicant No Yes. Duplicative distance learning or telemedicine services No. Any project that for its success, depends on additional DLT financial assistance or other financial assistance that is not assured No. Application Preparation Costs No. Other project costs not in regulation No Yes, for the first two years of operation. Cost of facilities providing distance learning broadcasting (amount) No Yes, financial assistance directly proportional to the distance learning portion of use. Reimburse applicants of others for costs incurred prior to USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT receipt of completed application No. c. *Discounts.* The DLT Program regulation has long stated that manufacturers' and service providers' discounts are not eligible matches. The Agency will not consider as eligible any proposed match from a vendor, manufacturer, or service provider whose products or services will be used in the DLT project as described in the application. In recent years, the Agency has noted a trend of vendors, manufacturers and other service providers offering their own products and services as in-kind matches for a project when their products or services will also be purchased with either grant or cash match funds for that project. Such activity is a discount and is therefore not an eligible match. Similarly, if a vendor, manufacturer or other service provider proposes a cash match (or any in-kind match) when their products or services will be purchased with grant or match funds, such activity is a discount and is not an eligible match. The Agency actively discourages such matching proposals and will adjust budgets as necessary to remove any such matches, which may reduce an application's score or result in the application's ineligibility due to insufficient match. d. For special ratio combination loan-grant applications, the only eligible purpose is for the conversion to electronic medical records systems, or for the extension of an existing electronic medical records system to a new rural location. 2. *Eligible Equipment & Facilities* . Please see 7 CFR 1703.102 for definitions of eligible equipment, eligible facilities and telecommunications transmission facilities as used in the table above. In addition, the FY 2007 application guide supplies a wealth of information and examples of eligible and ineligible items. 3. *Apportioning budget items* . Many DLT applications propose to use items for a blend of specific DLT project purposes and other purposes. USDA Rural Development will now fund such items, if the applicants attribute the proportion (by percentage of use) of the costs of each item to the project's DLT purpose or to other purposes to enable consideration for a grant of the portion of the item that is for DLT usage. See the FY 2007 application guide for detailed information on how to apportion use and apportioning illustrations. V. Application Review Information A. Special Considerations or Preferences 1. American Samoa, Guam, Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands applications are exempt from the matching requirement up to a match amount of $200,000 (see 48 U.S.C. 1469a; 91 Stat. 1164). 2. 7 CFR 1703.112 directs that USDA Rural Development Telecommunications Borrowers receive expedited consideration of a loan application or advance under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901-950aa, *et seq* .) if the loan funds in question are to be used in conjunction with a DLT grant, loan, or combination loan-grant (See 7 CFR 1737 for loans and 7 CFR 1744 for advances). B. Criteria 1. Grant application scoring criteria (total possible points: 235). See 7 CFR 1703.125 for the items that will be reviewed during scoring, and 7 CFR 1703.126 for scoring criteria. 2. Grant applications are scored competitively subject to the criteria listed below. a. Need for services proposed in the application, and the benefits that will be derived if the application receives a grant (up to 55 points).
(i)Up to 45 of the 55 possible points under this criterion are available to all applicants. Points are awarded based on the required narrative crafted by the applicant. USDA Rural Development encourages applicants to carefully read the cited portions of the Program regulation and the FY 2007 application guide for full discussions of this criterion.
(ii)Up to 10 of the possible 55 possible points are to recognize economic need not reflected in the project's National School Lunch Program
(NSLP)score, and can be earned only by applications whose overall NSLP eligibility is less than 50%. To be eligible to receive points under this, the application must include an affirmative request for consideration of the possible 10 points, and compelling documentation of reasons why the NSLP eligibility percentage does not represent the economic need of the proposed project beneficiaries. b. Rurality of the proposed service area (up to 45 points). c. Percentage of students eligible for the NSLP in the proposed service area (objectively demonstrates economic need of the area) (up to 35 points). d. Leveraging resources above the required matching level (up to 35 points). Please see paragraph III.B of this Notice for a brief explanation of matching contributions. e. Level of innovation demonstrated by the project (up to 15 points). f. System cost-effectiveness (up to 35 points). g. Project overlap with Empowerment Zone, Enterprise Communities or Champion Communities designations (up to 15 points). C. Grant Review Standards 1. In addition to the scoring criteria that rank applications against each other, USDA Rural Development evaluates grant applications for possible awards on the following items, according to 7 CFR 1703.127: a. Financial feasibility. b. Technical considerations. If the application contains flaws that would prevent the successful implementation, operation or sustainability of a project, USDA Rural Development will not award a grant. c. Other aspects of proposals that contain inadequacies that would undermine the ability of the project to comply with the policies of the DLT Program. 2. Applications which do not include all items that determine project eligibility and applicant eligibility by the application deadline will be returned as ineligible. Applications that do not include all items necessary for scoring will be scored as is. Please see the FY 2007 application guide for a full discussion of each required item and for samples and illustrations. The USDA Rural Development will not request missing items that affect the application's score. 3. The FY 2007 grant application guide specifies the format and order of all required items. Applications that are not assembled and tabbed in the order specified. Incorrectly assembled applications will be returned as ineligible. 4. Most DLT grant projects contain numerous project sites. USDA Rural Development requires that site information be consistent throughout an application. Sites must be referred to by the same designation throughout all parts of an application. USDA Rural Development has provided a site worksheet that requests the necessary information, and can be used as a guide by applicants. USDA Rural Development strongly recommends that applicants complete the site worksheet, listing all requested information for each site. Applications without consistent site information will be returned as ineligible. 5. DLT grant applications which have non-fixed end-user sites, such as ambulance and home health care services, are now scored using a simplified scoring method that finds the relative rurality of the applicant's service area. See the FY 2007 application guide for specific guidance on this method of scoring. When an application contains non-fixed sites, it must be scored using the non-fixed site scoring method. D. Selection Process 1. Grants. Applications are ranked by final score, and by application purpose (education or medical). USDA Rural Development selects applications based on those rankings, subject to the availability of funds. USDA Rural Development may allocate grant awards between medical and educational purposes, but is not required to do so. In addition, USDA Rural Development has the authority to limit the number of applications selected in any one state, or for one project, during a fiscal year. See 7 CFR 1703.127. 2. Combination loan-grants and loans. a. Combination loan-grant applications and loan applications are evaluated on the basis of technical, financial, economic and other criteria. b. USDA Rural Development evaluates applications' financial feasibility using the following information. Please see paragraph IV.C.2. of this Notice for the items that constitute a completed combination loan-grant or loan application. Also, see 7 CFR part 1703 subpart F for combination loan-grants and 7 CFR part 1703 subpart G for loans:
(1)Applicant's financial ability to complete the project;
(2)Project feasibility;
(3)Applicant's financial information;
(4)Project sustainability;
(5)Ability to repay the loan portion of a combination loan-grant, including revenue sources;
(6)Collateral for which the applicant has perfected a security interest; and
(7)Adequate security for a loan or the loan portion of a combination loan-grant.
(c)USDA Rural Development also evaluates the following project and application characteristics:
(1)Services to be provided by the project.
(2)Project cost.
(3)Project design.
(4)Rurality of the proposed service area. Please see paragraph III.B.4. of this Notice for information on determining rurality.
(5)Other characteristics. d. Selection process. Based on the review standards listed above and in the DLT Program regulation, USDA Rural Development will process successful combination loan-grant and loan applications on a first-in, first-out basis, dependent upon the availability of funds. Please see 7 CFR 1703.135 for combination loan-grant application processing and selection; and 7 CFR 1703.145 for loan application processing and selection. VI. Award Administration Information A. Award Notices USDA Rural Development generally notifies applicants whose projects are selected for awards by faxing an award letter. USDA Rural Development follows the award letter with an agreement that contains all the terms and conditions for the grant, combination loan-grant or loan. USDA Rural Development recognizes that each funded project is unique, and therefore may attach conditions to different projects' award documents. An applicant must execute and return the agreement, accompanied by any additional items required by the agreement, within the number of days shown in the selection notice letter. B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements The items listed in Section IV of this notice, and the DLT Program regulation, FY 2007 application guide and accompanying materials implement the appropriate administrative and national policy requirements. C. Reporting 1. *Performance reporting.* All recipients of DLT financial assistance must provide annual performance activity reports to USDA Rural Development until the project is complete and the funds are expended. A final performance report is also required; the final report may serve as the last annual report. The final report must include an evaluation of the success of the project in meeting DLT Program objectives. See 7 CFR 1703.107. 2. *Financial reporting.* All recipients of DLT financial assistance must provide an annual audit, beginning with the first year a portion of the financial assistance is expended. Audits are governed by United States Department of Agriculture audit regulations. Please see 7 CFR 1703.108. 3. *Record Keeping and Accounting* The loan, or grant contract will contain provisions relating to record keeping and accounting requirements. VII. Agency Contacts A. *Web site: http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/dlt/dlt.htm.* The DLT Web site maintains up-to-date resources and contact information for DLT programs. B. *Phone:* 202-720-0413. C. *Fax:* 202-720-1051. D. *E-mail: dltinfo@usda.gov.* E. *Main point of contact:* Orren E. Cameron III, Director, Advanced Services Division, Telecommunications Program, Rural Development, United States Department of Agriculture. Dated: March 13, 2007. James M. Andrew, Administrator, Rural Utilities Service. [FR Doc. E7-6544 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Announcement of Grant Application Deadlines and Funding Levels AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of funds availability. SUMMARY: The United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA)Rural Development administers loan and grant programs through the Rural Utilities Service. USDA Rural Development announces the Public Television Digital Transition Grant Program funding level and application window for fiscal year
(FY)2007. DATES: You may submit completed applications for grants on paper or electronically according to the following deadlines: • Paper copies must carry proof of shipping *no later* June 11, 2007 to be eligible for FY 2007 grant funding. Late applications are not eligible for FY 2007 grant funding. • Electronic copies must be received by June 11, 2007 to be eligible for FY 2007 grant funding. Late applications are not eligible for FY 2007[MPD1][MPD2] grant funding. ADDRESSES: You may obtain the application guide and materials for the Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program via the Internet at the following Web site: *http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/* . You may also request the application guide and materials from USDA Rural Development by contacting the appropriate individual listed in Section VII of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. • Submit completed paper applications for grants to the Telecommunications Program, United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 2844, STOP 1550, Washington, DC 20250-1550. Applications should be marked “Attention: Director, Advanced Services Division.” • Submit electronic grant applications to Grants.gov at the following web address: *http://www.grants.gov/* (Grants.gov), and follow the instructions you find on that Web site. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Orren E. Cameron III, Director, Advanced Services Division, Telecommunications Program, United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development, telephone:
(202)690-4493, fax:
(202)720-1051. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Overview *Federal Agency:* Rural Utilities Service (RUS). *Funding Opportunity Title:* Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program. *Announcement Type:* Initial announcement. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number:* 10.861. *Dates:* You may submit completed applications for grants on paper or electronically according to the following deadlines: • Paper copies must carry proof of shipping no later than June 11, 2007, to be eligible for FY 2007 grant funding. Late applications are not eligible for FY 2007 grant funding. • Electronic copies must be received by June 11, 2007, to be eligible for FY 2007 grant funding. Late applications are not eligible for FY 2007 grant funding. Items in Supplementary Information I. Funding Opportunity: Brief introduction to the Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program. II. Award Information: Available funds and maximum amounts. III. Eligibility Information: Who is eligible, what kinds of projects are eligible, what criteria determine basic eligibility. IV. Application and Submission Information: Where to get application materials, what constitutes a completed application, how and where to submit applications, deadlines, items that are eligible. V. Application Review Information: Considerations and preferences, scoring criteria, review standards, selection information. VI. Award Administration Information: Award notice information, award recipient reporting requirements. VII. Agency Contacts: Web, phone, fax, e-mail, contact name. I. Funding Opportunity As part of the nation's transition to digital television, the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC)requires all television broadcasters to begin broadcasting using digital signals, and to cease analog broadcasting, by February 17, 2009. This exciting step forward in broadcast television will bring more lifelike picture and sound, and more viewing choice, into urban and suburban homes across America. For rural households, however, the digital transition could bring the end of over-the-air public television service. These rural households are the focus of the USDA Rural Development Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program. As the nation's 355 public television stations have moved into this transition, the first priority has been to initiate digital broadcasting from their main transmitters. This was necessary in part to protect the broadcasters' FCC licenses, but it also has delivered the benefits of digital television to those within the new digital coverage areas. Some public television stations, especially those where funding of the transition has been limited, installed low-power transmitters which could not reach as far as the stations' analog broadcast coverage areas. The FCC allowed this in recognition of funding challenges, but it has had an unintended result. The apparent achievement of nearly industry-wide digital transmitter capability overstates public televisions' transition progress—and almost exclusively in terms of actual coverage of rural America. When those rural public television stations turn off their analog transmitters, their most distant rural viewers will not be able to receive the surviving digital transmitters' low-power signals. A similar situation exists for rural areas served by translators. Translators predominately serve rural areas and communities that are isolated from a station's main transmitter by great distance or barriers such as mountains that block terrestrial broadcast signals. Transition strategies for translators have not been as aggressive as those for main transmitters. Most applications to the Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program have sought assistance towards the goal of replicating analog coverage areas through transmitter and translator transitions, and in FY 2006 applications for power upgrades increased in number. The Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program can fund program management and creation equipment, but for reasons involving funding, many rural public television stations have not turned their attention to these needs. Some stations may not achieve full analog parity in program management and creation until after the February 2009 deadline. Continuation of reliable public television service to all current patrons understandably is still the focus for many broadcasters. It is important for public television stations to be able to tailor their programs and services (e.g., education services, public health, homeland security, and local culture) to the needs of their rural constituents. If public television programming is lost, many school systems may be left without educational programming they count on for curriculum compliance. This notice has been formatted to conform to a policy directive issued by the Office of Federal Financial Management
(OFFM)of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), published in the **Federal Register** on June 23, 2003, (68 FR 37370). This Notice does not change the Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program regulation (7 CFR part 1740). II. Award Information A. Available Funds 1. *General.* The Administrator has determined that the following amounts are available for grants in FY 2007 under 7 CFR 1740.1. 2. *Grants.* a. $4,950,000 is available for grants from FY 2007. Under 7 CFR 1740.2, the maximum amount for grants under this program is $1 million per applicant. b. Assistance instrument: Grant documents appropriate to the project will be executed with successful applicants prior to any advance of funds. B. Public Television Station Digital Transition grants cannot be renewed Award documents specify the term of each award, and due to uncertainties in regulatory approvals of digital television broadcast facilities, the Agency will extend the period during which grant funding is available upon request. III. Eligibility Information A. Who is eligible for grants? (See 7 CFR 1740.3.) 1. Public television stations which serve rural areas are eligible for Public Television Station Digital Transition Grants. A public television station is a noncommercial educational television broadcast station that is qualified for Community Service Grants by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting under section 396(k) of the Communications Act of 1934. 2. Individuals are not eligible for Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program financial assistance directly. B. What are the basic eligibility requirements for a project? 1. Grants shall be made to perform digital transitions of television broadcasting serving rural areas. Grant funds may be used to acquire, lease, and/or install facilities and software necessary to the digital transition. Specific purposes include: a. Digital transmitters, translators, and repeaters, including all facilities required to initiate DTV broadcasting. All broadcast facilities acquired with grant funds shall be capable of delivering DTV programming and HDTV programming, at both the interim and final channel and power authorizations. There is no limit to the number of transmitters or translators that may be included in an application; b. Power upgrades of existing DTV transmitter equipment, including replacement of existing low-power digital transmitters with digital transmitters capable of delivering the final authorized power level; c. Studio-to-transmitter links; d. Equipment to allow local control over digital content and programming, including master control equipment; e. Digital program production equipment, including cameras, editing, mixing and storage equipment; f. Multicasting and datacasting equipment; g. Cost of the lease of facilities, if any, for up to three years; and, h. Associated engineering and environmental studies necessary to implementation. 2. Matching contributions: There is no requirement for matching funds in this program (see 7 CFR 1740.5). 3. To be eligible for a grant, the Project must not (see 7 CFR 1740.7): a. Include funding for ongoing operations or for facilities that will not be owned by the applicant, except for leased facilities as provided above; b. Include costs of salaries, wages, and employee benefits of public television station personnel unless they are for construction or installation of eligible facilities; c. Have been funded by any other source; d. Include items bought or built prior to the application deadline specified in this Notice of Funds Availability. C. See paragraph IV.B of this Notice for a discussion of the items that make up a completed application. You may also refer to 7 CFR 1740.9 for completed grant application items. IV. Application and Submission Information *A. Where to get application information* . The application guide, copies of necessary forms and samples, and the Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program regulation are available from these sources: 1. The Internet: *http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/* , or *http://www.grants.gov.* 2. The USDA Rural Development Advanced Services Division, for paper copies of these materials:
(202)690-4493. B. What constitutes a completed application? 1. Detailed information on each item required can be found in the Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program regulation and application guide. Applicants must read and apply both the regulation and the application guide. This Notice does not change the requirements for a completed application specified in the program regulation. The program regulation and application guide provide specific guidance on each of the items listed and the application guide provides all necessary forms and sample worksheets. 2. A completed application must include the following documentation, studies, reports and information in form satisfactory to USDA Rural Development. Applications should be prepared in conformance with the provisions in 7 CFR part 1740, subpart A, and applicable USDA regulations including 7 CFR parts 3015, 3016, and 3019. Applicants must use the application guide for this program containing instructions and all necessary forms, as well as other important information, in preparing their application. Completed applications must include the following: a. An application for federal assistance, Standard Form 424. b. An executive summary, not to exceed two pages, describing the public television station, its service area and offerings, its current digital transition status, and the proposed project. c. Evidence of the applicant's eligibility to apply under this Notice, proving that the applicant is a Public Television Station as defined in this Notice, and that it is required by the FCC to perform the digital transition. d. A spreadsheet showing the total project cost, with a breakdown of items sufficient to enable USDA Rural Development to determine individual item eligibility. e. A coverage contour map showing the digital television coverage area of the application project. This map must show the counties (or county) comprising the Core Coverage Area, as defined in 7 CFR 1740.2, by shading and by name. Partial counties included in the applicant's Core Coverage Area must be identified as partial and must contain an attachment with the applicant's estimate of the percentage that its coverage contour comprises of the total area of the county (total area is available from American Factfinder, referenced above). If the application is for a translator, the coverage area may be estimated by the applicant through computer modeling or some other reasonable method, and this estimate is subject to acceptance by USDA Rural Development. f. The applicant's own calculation of its Rurality score, as calculated pursuant to 7 CFR 1740.8(c), supported by a worksheet showing the population of its Core Coverage Area, and the urban and rural populations within the Core Coverage Area. The data source for the urban and rural components of that population must be identified. If the application includes computations made by a consultant or other organization outside the public television station, the application shall state the details of that collaboration. g. The applicant's own calculation of its Economic Need score, as calculated pursuant to 7 CFR 1740.8(d), supported by a worksheet showing the National School Lunch Program eligibility levels for all school districts within the Core Coverage Area and averaging these eligibility percentages. The application must include a statement from the state or local organization that administers the NSLP program certifying the school district scores used in the computations. h. If applicable, a presentation not to exceed five pages demonstrating the Critical Need for the project, as outlined in 7 CFR 1740.8(e). i. Evidence that the FCC has authorized the initiation of digital broadcasting at the project sites. In the event that an FCC construction permit has not been issued for one or more sites, USDA Rural Development may include those sites in the grant, and make advance of funds for that site conditional upon the submission of a construction permit. j. Compliance with other Federal statutes. The applicant must provide evidence or certification that it is in compliance with all applicable Federal statutes and regulations, including, but not limited to the following:
(1)Executive Order (E.O.) 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by E.O. 11375 and as supplemented by regulations contained in 41 CFR part 60;
(2)Architectural barriers;
(3)Flood hazard area precautions;
(4)7 CFR part 3015—Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations.
(5)Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970;
(6)Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1998 (41 U.S.C. 701);
(7)E.O.s 12549 and 12689, Debarment and Suspension; and
(8)Byrd Anti-Lobbying Amendment (31 U.S.C. 1352). k. Environmental impact and historic preservation. The applicant must provide details of the digital transition's impact on the environment and historic preservation, and comply with 7 CFR part 1794, which contains the Agency's policies and procedures for implementing a variety of federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders generally pertaining to the protection of the quality of the human environment. This must be contained in a separate section entitled “Environmental Impact of the Digital Transition,” and must include the Environmental Questionnaire/Certification, available from USDA Rural Development, describing the impact of its digital transition. Submission of the Environmental Questionnaire/Certification alone does not constitute compliance with 7 CFR part 1794. 3. DUNS Number. As required by the OMB, all applicants for grants must now supply a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)number when applying. The Standard Form 424 (SF-424) contains a field for you to use when supplying your DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number costs nothing and requires a short telephone call to Dun and Bradstreet. Please see the Public Television Station Digital Transmitter Grant Program Web site or Grants.gov for more information on how to obtain a DUNS number or how to verify your organization's number. C. How many copies of an application are required? 1. Applications submitted on paper: Submit the original application and two
(2)copies to USDA Rural Development. 2. Electronically submitted applications: The additional paper copies for USDA Rural Development are not necessary if you submit the application electronically through Grants.gov. *D. How and where to submit an application.* Grant applications may be submitted on paper or electronically. 1. Submitting applications on paper. a. Address paper applications for grants to the Telecommunications Program, USDA Rural Development, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 2844, STOP 1550, Washington, DC 20250-1550. Applications should be marked “Attention: Director, Advanced Services Division.” b. Paper applications must show proof of mailing or shipping consisting of one of the following:
(i)A legibly dated postmark applied by the U. S. Postal Service;
(ii)A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the USPS; or
(iii)A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier. c. Non-USPS-applied postage dating, *i.e.* dated postage meter stamps, do not constitute proof of the date of mailing. d. Due to screening procedures at the Department of Agriculture, packages arriving via the USPS are irradiated, which can damage the contents. USDA Rural Development encourages applicants to consider the impact of this procedure in selecting their application delivery method. 2. Electronically submitted applications. a. Applications will not be accepted via facsimile machine transmission or electronic mail. b. Electronic applications for grants will be accepted if submitted through the Federal government's Grants.gov initiative at *http://www.grants.gov* . c. How to use Grants.gov:
(i)Navigate your Web browser to *http://www.grants.gov* .
(ii)Follow the instructions on that Web site to find grant information.
(iii)Download a copy of the application package.
(iv)Complete the package off-line.
(v)Upload and submit the application via the Grants.gov Web site. d. Grants.gov contains full instructions on all required passwords, credentialing and software. e. USDA Rural Development encourages applicants who wish to apply through Grants.gov to submit their applications in advance of the deadline. Difficulties encountered by applicants filing through Grants.gov will not justify filing deadline extensions. f. If a system problem occurs or you have technical difficulties with an electronic application, please use the customer support resources available at the Grants.gov Web site. E. Deadlines. 1. Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than June 11, 2007 to be eligible for FY 2007 grant funding. Late applications are not eligible for FY 2007 grant funding. 2. Electronic grant applications must be received by June 11, 2007 to be eligible for FY 2007 funding. Late applications are not eligible for FY 2007 grant funding. V. Application Review Information A. Criteria 1. Grant applications are scored competitively and subject to the criteria listed below. 2. Grant application scoring criteria are detailed in 7 CFR 1740.8. There are 100 points available, broken down as follows: a. The Rurality of the Project (up to 50 points); b. The Economic Need of the Project's Service Area (up to 25 points); and c. The Critical Need for the project, and of the applicant, including the benefits derived from the proposed service (up to 25 points). B. Review Standards 1. All applications for grants must be delivered to USDA Rural Development at the address and by the date specified in this notice to be eligible for funding. USDA Rural Development will review each application for conformance with the provisions of this part. USDA Rural Development may contact the applicant for additional information or clarification. 2. Incomplete applications as of the deadline for submission will not be considered. If an application is determined to be incomplete, the applicant will be notified in writing and the application will be returned with no further action. 3. Applications conforming with this part will be evaluated competitively by a panel of USDA Rural Development employees selected by the Administrator of RUS, and will be awarded points as described in the scoring criteria in 7 CFR 1740.8. Applications will be ranked and grants awarded in rank order until all grant funds are expended. 4. Regardless of the score an application receives, if USDA Rural Development determines that the Project is technically or financially infeasible, USDA Rural Development will notify the applicant, in writing, and the application will be returned with no further action. C. Scoring Guidelines 1. The applicant's self scores in Rurality and Economic Need will be checked and, if necessary, corrected by USDA Rural Development. 2. The Critical Need score will be determined by USDA Rural Development based on information presented in the application. This score is intended to capture from the rural public's standpoint the necessity and usefulness of the proposed project. This scoring category will also recognize that some transition purchases are more essential than others, so that applications for first digital transmitter capability, and translators <sup>[ec3]</sup> and transmitter power upgrades that extend coverage into rural-only areas, will receive scoring advantages. Master control facilities which tailor programming to local needs will also be recognized in this category. VI. Award Administration Information A. Award Notices USDA Rural Development recognizes that each funded project is unique, and therefore may attach conditions to different projects' award documents. The Agency generally notifies applicants whose projects are selected for awards by faxing an award letter. USDA Rural Development follows the award letter with a grant agreement that contains all the terms and conditions for the grant. An applicant must execute and return the grant agreement, accompanied by any additional items required by the grant agreement. B. *Administrative and National Policy Requirements.* The items listed in the program regulation at 7 CFR 1740.9(j) implement the appropriate administrative and national policy requirements. C. Performance Reporting All recipients of Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program financial assistance must provide annual performance activity reports to USDA Rural Development until the project is complete and the funds are expended. A final performance report is also required; the final report may serve as the last annual report. The final report must include an evaluation of the success of the project. VII. Agency Contacts A. Web site: *http://www.usda.gov/rus/.* The Web site maintains up-to-date resources and contact information for the Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program. B. Phone: 202-690-4493. C. Fax: 202-720-1051. D. Main point of contact: Orren E. Cameron III, Director, Advanced Services Division, Telecommunications Program, USDA Rural Development. Dated: March 19, 2007. Curtis M. Anderson, Acting Administrator, Rural Utilities Service. [FR Doc. E7-6702 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-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 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* Fisheries Certificates of Origin. *Form Number(s):* NOAA 370. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0335. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 3,667. *Number of Respondents:* 350. *Average Hours Per Response:* 20 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* Due to the information required by the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act, amendment to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, is needed: To document the dolphin-safe status of tuna import shipments; to verify that import shipments of fish were not harvested by large scale, high seas driftnets; and to verify that imported tuna was not harvested by an embargoed nation or one that is otherwise prohibited from exporting tuna to the United States. Forms are submitted by importers and processors. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *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: April 4, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-6663 Filed 4-9-07; 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 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* Commercial Operator's Annual Report (COAR). *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0428. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 792. *Number of Respondents:* 99. *Average Hours Per Response:* Interim reports, 9 hours and 45 minutes; and final reports, 11 hours and 45 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The Commercial Operator's Annual Report
(COAR)provides information on ex-vessel value (the total dollar value for fish in any product form of groundfish pounds before any deductions are made for goods and services, e.g., bait, ice, fuel, repairs, machinery replacement, etc., provided to groundfish harvesters. Includes price adjustments made in the current year to groundfish harvesters for landings made during the fishing year); and first wholesale value for statewide Alaska fish and shellfish products. This information is used to analyze and measure the impact of proposed or enacted management measures. The National Marine Fisheries Service requires owners of catcher/processors and motherships operating in the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska to complete the State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game COAR. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* Annually. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *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: April 4, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-6664 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the emergency provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). *Title:* Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Antiboycott Violations. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* None. *Type of Request:* Emergency submission. *Burden Hours:* 1,280. *Number of Respondents:* 10. *Average Hours Per Response:* Regular companies, 10 hours; and very large companies, 600 hours. *Needs and Uses:* To strengthen antiboycott enforcement efforts, BIS is proposing the addition of a new section, “Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Antiboycott Violations,” to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The information collection requirements are modeled after those in the existing self-disclosure collection,
(1)General;
(2)Initial Notification;
(3)Narrative Account;
(4)Supporting Documentation;
(5)Certification;
(6)Oral Presentations and
(7)Where To Make Voluntary Self-Disclosure. The voluntary self-disclosures allow BIS to conduct investigations of the disclosed incidents faster than would be the case if BIS had to detect the violations without such disclosure. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* Annually. *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 by May 4, 2007 to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number
(202)395-7258 or via the Internet at *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: April 4, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-6665 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Report of Requests for Restrictive Trade Practice or Boycott—Single or Multiple Transactions ACTION: Proposed Information Collection: Comment Request. 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, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 11, 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 Larry Hall, BIS ICB Liaison, Department of Commerce, Room 6622, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The information obtained from this collection authorization is used to carefully and accurately monitor requests for participation in foreign boycotts against countries friendly to the U.S. which are received by U.S. persons. The information is also used to identify trends in such boycott activity and to assist in carrying out U.S. policy of opposition to such boycotts. II. Method of Collection Submitted on forms. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0694-0012. *Form Number:* BIS 621-P; BXA 621-P; BIS 6051-P; BXA 6051-P; BIS-6051 P-a; and BXA-6051 P-a. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; business or other for-profit organizations; and not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,243. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 61 to 91 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1,371. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $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. In addition, the public is encouraged to provide suggestions on how to reduce and/or consolidate the current frequency of reporting. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: April 4, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-6661 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Procedure for Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Violations of the Export Administration Regulations ACTION: Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request. 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, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 11, 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 Larry Hall, BIS ICB Liaison, Department of Commerce, Room 6622, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The information is needed to detect violations of the Export Administration Act and Regulations to determine if an investigation or prosecution is necessary and to reach settlement with violators. The respondents are likely to be export-related businesses. II. Method of Collection Submitted in written form. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0694-0058. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households, business or other for-profit organizations, and not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 67. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 10 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 670. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $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. In addition, the public is encouraged to provide suggestions on how to reduce and/or consolidate the current frequency of reporting. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: April 3, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-6662 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-401-806] Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On October 6, 2006, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of the 2004-2005 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rod from Sweden. The review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Fagersta Stainless AB (“FSAB”). The period of review (“POR”) is September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margin for the reviewed firm is listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: April 10, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian C. Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1766. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The review covers one manufacturer/exporter: Fagersta Stainless AB (“FSAB”). The period of review is September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005. On October 6, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of this administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rod from Sweden. *See Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 59082 (October 6, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results of review. 1 1 In the Preliminary Results, we determined it appropriate to treat FSAB and its affiliates, AB Sandvik Materials Technology (“SMT”) and Kanthal AB (“Kanthal”), as one entity for margin calculation purposes because they met the regulatory criteria for collapsing affiliated producers. See April 13, 2006, Memorandum from the Team to The File, entitled “Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden: Whether to Collapse FSAB, SMT, and Kanthal.” No party objected to this preliminary determination. Therefore, we have continued to treat these affiliated companies as one entity in the final results. FSAB filed its case brief on November 27, 2006, and the petitioners 2 filed their rebuttal brief on December 4, 2006. Per FSAB's November 3, 2006, request, we held a hearing on December 6, 2006. 2 The petitioners include the following companies: Carpenter Technology Corporation; Crucible Specialty Metals Division, Crucible Materials Corporation; and Electroalloy Corporation, a Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc. On January 11, 2007, we extended the time limit for the final results in this review until April 4, 2007. * See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden * , 72 FR 2261 (January 18, 2007). We have conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Scope of the Order For purposes of this order, SSWR comprises products that are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled and/or descaled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils, that may also be coated with a lubricant containing copper, lime or oxalate. SSWR is made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. These products are manufactured only by hot-rolling or hot-rolling annealing, and/or pickling and/or descaling, are normally sold in coiled form, and are of solid cross-section. The majority of SSWR sold in the United States is round in cross-sectional shape, annealed and pickled, and later cold-finished into stainless steel wire or small-diameter bar. The most common size for such products is 5.5 millimeters or 0.217 inches in diameter, which represents the smallest size that normally is produced on a rolling mill and is the size that most wire-drawing machines are set up to draw. The range of SSWR sizes normally sold in the United States is between 0.20 inches and 1.312 inches in diameter. Certain stainless steel grades are excluded from the scope of the order. SF20T and K-M35FL are excluded. The following proprietary grades of Kanthal AB are also excluded: Kanthal A-1, Kanthal AF, Kanthal A, Kanthal D, Kanthal DT, Alkrothal 14, Alkrothal 720, and Nikrothal 40. The chemical makeup for the excluded grades is as follows: SF20T Carbon 0.05 max Chromium 19.00/21.00 Manganese 2.00 max Molybdenum 1.50/2.50 Phosphorous 0.05 max Lead added (0.10/0.30) Sulfur 0.15 max Tellurium added (0.03 min) Silicon 1.00 max K-M35FL Carbon 0.015 max Nickel 0.30 max Silicon 0.70/1.00 Chromium 12.50/14.00 Manganese 0.40 max Lead 0.10/0.30 Phosphorous 0.04 max Aluminum 0.20/0.35 Sulfur 0.03 max Kanthal A-1 Carbon 0.08 max Aluminum 5.30 min, 6.30 max Silicon 0.70 max Iron balance Manganese 0.40 max Chromium 20.50 min, 23.50 max Kanthal AF Carbon 0.08 max Aluminum 4.80 min, 5.80 max Silicon 0.70 max Iron balance Manganese 0.40 max Chromium 20.50 min, 23.50 max Kanthal A Carbon 0.08 max Aluminum 4.80 min, 5.80 max Silicon 0.70 max Iron balance Manganese 0.50 max Chromium 20.50 min, 23.50 max Kanthal D Carbon 0.08 max Aluminum 4.30 min, 5.30 max Silicon 0.70 max Iron balance Manganese 0.50 max Chromium 20.50 min, 23.50 max Kanthal DT Carbon 0.08 max Aluminum 4.60 min, 5.60 max Silicon 0.70 max Iron balance Manganese 0.50 max Chromium 20.50 min, 23.50 max Alkrothal 14 Carbon 0.08 max Aluminum 3.80 min, 4.80 max Silicon 0.70 max Iron balance Manganese 0.50 max Chromium 14.00 min, 16.00 max Alkrothal 720 Carbon 0.08 max Aluminum 3.50 min, 4.50 max Silicon 0.70 max Iron balance Manganese 0.70 max Chromium 12.00 min, 14.00 max Nikrothal 40 Carbon 0.10 max Nickel 34.00 min, 37.00 max Silicon 1.60 min, 2.50 max Iron balance Manganese 1.00 max Chromium 18.00 min, 21.00 max The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by the parties to this antidumping duty administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” ( *Decision Memo* ) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated April 4, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the *Decision Memo* , is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memo* can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the *Decision Memo* are identical in content. Changes from the Preliminary Results Based on the information submitted and our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations for FSAB as follows.
(1)We matched products of identical grade first before matching products of the next most similar grade and, where appropriate, attempted to match products beyond the top three most similar grades before resorting to constructed value (“CV”), consistent with our intent in the preliminary results and in accordance with the Department's practice. *See* Comment 2 for further discussion.
(2)We included in our final margin analysis a U.S. sales transaction made by FSAB's U.S. affiliate, Fagersta Stainless Inc. (“FSI”), for which the entry date was within the POR but the sale date preceded the POR, in accordance with the Department's normal practice to review sales associated with entries made during the review period. See Comment 3 for further discussion.
(3)We corrected a clerical error by applying the general and administrative (“G&A”) expenses and further manufacturing costs, which were recalculated in the Preliminary Results, to only the U.S. sales of FSAB's other U.S. affiliate, Sandvik Metallurgical Technology U.S. (“SMT U.S.”), for which SMT U.S. reported an amount for further manufacturing. *See* Comment 4 for further discussion.
(4)For SMT U.S.' sales of merchandise that was further manufactured but for which SMT U.S. did not report a further manufacturing cost, we applied as facts available under section 776(a)(1) of the Act, a weighted average of the costs reported by SMT U.S. for its other U.S. sales of further-manufactured merchandise, as recalculated for purposes of the *Preliminary Results* , and deducted this amount from the prices of the U.S. sales at issue. *See* Comment 4 for further discussion.
(5)We used SMACC's 3 cost of producing billets reported in the August 18, 2006, Section D supplemental questionnaire response to compare to the market price of billets and to the transfer price FSAB paid to SMACC for billets used to make the merchandise under consideration. We also excluded an additional G&A expense relevant to Outokumpu Oyj 4 which had been incorrectly added to SMACC's cost of production for purposes of the *Preliminary Results* . In addition, we included the total net foreign exchange gain or loss in the calculation of Outokumpu Oyj's consolidated financial expense rate that was applied to SMACC's cost of producing the billets, in accordance with Department practice. *See* Comment 5 for further discussion. 3 SMACC or Outokumpu Stainless Ltd. Sheffield is affiliated with FSAB. 4 Outokumpu Oyj is the consolidated parent of SMACC.
(6)We corrected a clerical error by subtracting the adjustment to SMT's 5 transfer price from FSAB's cost of billets prior to calculating FSAB's total cost of manufacturing. 5 AB Sandvik Materials Technology or SMT is affiliated with FSAB and is also the parent company of SMT U.S.
(7)We corrected a clerical error by converting FSAB's U.S. affiliate's reported U.S. inventory carrying costs from SEK/kg. to USD/lb. in the margin calculations. *See* April 4, 2007, Memorandum from Case Analyst to The File, entitled “Calculation Memorandum for the Final Results for Fagersta Stainless AB"; and April 4, 2007, Memorandum to Neal M. Halper from Michael P. Harrison, entitled “Cost of Production, Constructed Value and Further Manufacturing Calculation Adjustments for the Final Results - Fagersta Stainless AB,” for further details. Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentage exists: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) Fagersta Stainless AB/AB Sandvik Materials Technology/Kanthal AB 20.42 Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the company subject to this review directly to CBP 15 days after publication of these final results of review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c), we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above *de minimis (i.e.* , is not less than 0.50 percent *ad valorem* ). For entries made by FSAB on behalf of its U.S. affiliate, FSI, we calculated the importer-specific *ad valorem* duty assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. However, for shipments of subject merchandise produced by FSAB and imported by its U.S. affiliate, SMT U.S., where the respondent was unable to provide the entered value, we calculated the importer-specific per-unit duty assessment rate by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and divided this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the per-unit duty assessment rate is *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated an importer-specific *ad valorem* ratio based on the estimated entered value. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the company included in these final results of review for which the reviewed company did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary ( *e.g.* , reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the “All Others” rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, *see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)the cash deposit rate for FSAB/SMT/Kanthal will be the rate indicated above;
(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 less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation, but the manufacturer is, then 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 will continue to be 5.71 percent. This rate is the “All Others” rate from the LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221. Dated: April 4, 2007, Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix List of Issues *Comment 1:* Whether to Include Electroslag Refining As a Model-Matching Criterion *Comment 2:* Grade-Matching Methodology *Comment 3:* Treatment of One U.S. Sale Entered During the POR But Sold Prior to the POR *Comment 4:* Application of Further Manufacturing G&A Expenses to Sales of Non-Further Manufactured Merchandise *Comment 5:* Calculation of Affiliated Supplier's Billet Cost [FR Doc. E7-6749 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (C-533-825) Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: Notice of Partial Rescission of Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 10, 2007 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi Blum, Nicholas Czajkowski, or Toni Page, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0197,
(202)482-1395, or
(202)482-1398, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 3, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on Polyethylene Terephthalate
(PET)Film, Sheet, and Strip from India. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 37890 (July 3, 2006). On July 26, 2006, MTZ Polyfilms, Ltd.
(MTZ)timely requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of merchandise it produced and exported. On July 31, 2006, Polyplex Corporation, Ltd. (Polyplex), Jindal Poly Films Limited of India (Jindal), and Garware Polyester, Ltd. (Garware) also timely requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of merchandise they produced and exported. Polyplex withdrew its request for an administrative review on August 22, 2006, before the initiation of this review. Shortly thereafter, the Department published a notice of the initiation of the countervailing duty administrative review of PET Film from India for MTZ, Garware, and Jindal for the period January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 51573 (August 30, 2006). On November 28, 2006, Jindal withdrew its request for an administrative review. Partial Rescission of Review The Department's regulations at section 351.213(d)(1) provide that the Department will rescind an administrative review if the party that requested the review withdraws its request for review within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review, or withdraws its request at a later date if the Department determines that it is reasonable to extend the time limit for withdrawing the request. Jindal submitted its request within the 90 day limit set by the regulations. Since no other parties requested a review of Jindal, the Department is rescinding, in part, the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on PET film from India for the period January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005, for Jindal. Both Garware and MTZ remain subject to this administrative review. The preliminary results for this administrative review for these companies are currently due July 31, 2007. Assessment The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries. Jindal shall be assessed countervailing duty rates equal to the cash deposit of the estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of this notice. Cash Deposit Rates Jindal's cash deposit rate will be the rate in effect on the date of entry. This cash deposit requirement shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of this administrative review. Notification Regarding APOs This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders
(APOs)of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: April 4, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-6748 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration The President's Export Council: Meeting of the President's Export Council AGENCY: International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of an Open Meeting via Teleconference. SUMMARY: The President's Export Council will hold a meeting via teleconference to deliberate a draft recommendation to the President regarding Trade Promotion Authority. *Date:* April 24, 2007. *Time:* 12 p.m. (EDST). *For the Conference Call-In Number and Further Information, Contact:* The President's Export Council Executive Secretariat, Room 4043, Washington, DC 20230 (Phone: 202-482-1124), or visit the PEC Web site, *http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/pec.* Dated: April 5, 2007. J. Marc Chittum, Staff Director and Executive Secretary, President's Export Council. [FR Doc. 07-1800 Filed 4-6-07; 1:39 pm]
Connectionstraces to 18
Traces to 18 documents
65 references not yet in our index
  • 50 CFR 648
  • 9 CFR 1
  • 7 USC 2131-2159
  • 7 CFR 2.22
  • 26 CFR 1
  • 7 CFR 1.28
  • 36 CFR 294
  • EO 2006
  • 36 CFR 223
  • 40 CFR 1500
  • 435 U.S. 519
  • 541 U.S. 752
  • 40 CFR 1503.3
  • 7 CFR 650
  • 7 CFR 1703
  • 7 CFR 1703.124
  • 7 CFR 1703.133
  • 7 CFR 1703.143
  • 7 CFR 1703.103
  • 7 CFR 1703.102
  • 7 CFR 1703.125(g)
  • 7 CFR 1703.121
  • 7 CFR 1703.126(b)(4)
  • 7 CFR 1703.103(a)(2)
  • 7 CFR 1703.126(a)(2)
  • 7 CFR 1703.123(a)(11)
  • 7 CFR 1703.132(a)(5)
  • 7 CFR 1703.142(b)(3)
  • 7 CFR 1703.125
  • 7 CFR 1703.134
  • 7 CFR 1703.144
  • 7 CFR 15
  • 7 CFR 3015
  • 7 CFR 3017
  • 7 CFR 3018
  • 7 CFR 3021
  • 7 CFR 1703.101(h)
  • 7 CFR 1703.101
  • 91 Stat. 1164
  • 7 CFR 1703.112
+ 25 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Final rule
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 1801
U.S.C.§ 2131
Fed. Reg.Rules and Regulations
U.S.C.§ 7805
U.S.C.§ 450b
U.S.C.§ 950aaa
U.S.C.§ 3501
Fed. Reg.Notices
SCOTUS435 U.S. 519
SCOTUS541 U.S. 752
Cite50 CFR 648
Cites 83 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.