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 · 2007-05-10 · Nuclear Regulatory Commission · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Proposed rule

59,984 words·~273 min read·/register/2007/05/10/07-2317

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

BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 RIN 3150—AI13 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC-MPC Revision 5 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is proposing to amend its regulations revising the NAC International, Inc., NAC-Multi-Purpose Canister
(MPC)system listing within the “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks” to include Amendment No. 5 to Certificate of Compliance
(CoC)Number 1025. Amendment No. 5 would modify the CoC by revising the Technical Specifications
(TS)to incorporate changes to the reporting and monitoring requirements to allow for visual inspection of the air inlet and outlet vents instead of thermal monitoring, revising the TS to incorporate guidance from NRC Interim Staff Guidance-22 and replace all references to backfilling the cask with air to backfilling with inert gas, revising the CoC description to remove the requirement for tamper-indicating devices on the Vertical Concrete Casks, and including several editorial changes to improve the clarity of the documents associated with the NAC-MPC system, under the general provisions that govern licensing requirements for the independent storage of spent nuclear fuel, high level radioactive waste, and reactor-related greater than Class C waste. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before June 11, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include the following number (RIN 3150-AI13) in the subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comment will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates in your submission. *Mail comments to:* Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. *E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov* . If you do not receive a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at
(301)415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at *http://rulemaking.llnl.gov* . Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher
(301)415-5905; e-mail *cag@nrc.gov* . Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* . *Hand deliver comments to:* 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays [telephone
(301)415-1966]. *Fax comments to:* Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
(301)415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically on the public computers at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Selected documents, including comments, can be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov* . Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html* . From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . An electronic copy of the proposed CoC No. 1025, the proposed TS, and the preliminary safety evaluation report
(SER)for Amendment 5 can be found under ADAMS Accession Nos. ML063520431, ML063520434, and ML063520440. The proposed CoC No. 1025, the proposed TS, the preliminary SER for Amendment No. 5, and the environmental assessment are available for inspection at the NRC PDR, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville MD. Single copies of these documents may be obtained from Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
(301)415-6219, e-mail *jmm2@nrc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
(301)415-6219, e-mail *jmm2@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this **Federal Register** . Procedural Background This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment 5 to CoC No. 1025 and does not include other aspects of the NAC-MPC design. Because NRC considers this action noncontroversial and routine, the NRC is publishing this proposed rule concurrently as a direct final rule. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The direct final rule will become effective on July 24, 2007. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments by June 11, 2007, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws the direct final rule and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule. The NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action. A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:
(1)The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when—
(a)The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b)The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c)The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.
(2)The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3)The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or TS. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72 Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72. PART 72—LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR-RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE 1. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended; sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242; as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951, as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241; sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); sec. 651(e), Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 806-10 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111). Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c),(d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2244 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198). 2. In § 72.214, Certificate of Compliance 1025 is revised to read as follows: § 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks. Certificate Number: 1025. Initial Certificate Effective Date: April 10, 2000. Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: November 13, 2001. Amendment Number 2 Effective Date: May 29, 2002. Amendment Number 3 Effective Date: October 1, 2003. Amendment Number 4 Effective Date: October 27, 2004. Amendment Number 5 Effective Date: July 24, 2007. SAR Submitted by: NAC International, Inc. SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the NAC Multi-Purpose Canister System (NAC-MPC System). Docket Number: 72-1025. Certificate Expiration Date: April 10, 2020. Model Number: NAC-MPC. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of April, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Martin J. Virgilio, Acting Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. E7-9007 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 11 CFR Part 106 [Notice 2007-10] Hybrid Communications AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Federal Election Commission requests comments on a proposed rule to attribute the disbursements for a public communication made by a political party that refers to a clearly identified Federal candidate and that also generically refers to other candidates of a political party without clearly identifying them. Several alternatives are presented, including an alternative to include public communications that refer to multiple Federal candidates. The Commission has made no final decision on the issues presented in this rulemaking. Further information is provided in the supplementary information that follows. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 11, 2007. The Commission will hold a hearing on the proposed rules on July 11, 2007 at 10 a.m. Anyone wishing to testify at the hearing must file written comments by the due date and must include a request to testify in the written comments. ADDRESSES: All comments must be in writing, must be addressed to Ms. Amy L. Rothstein, Assistant General Counsel, and must be submitted in either e-mail, facsimile, or paper copy form. Commenters are strongly encouraged to submit comments by e-mail to ensure timely receipt and consideration. E-mail comments must be sent to *hybridads@fec.gov.* If e-mail comments include an attachment, the attachment must be in either Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) or Microsoft Word (.doc) format. Faxed comments must be sent to
(202)219-3923, with paper copy follow-up. Paper comments and paper copy follow-up of faxed comments must be sent to the Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463. All comments must include the full name and postal service address of the commenter or they will not be considered. The Commission will post comments on its Web site after the comment period ends. The hearing will be held in the Commission's ninth-floor meeting room, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy L. Rothstein, Assistant General Counsel, Ms. Esa L. Sferra, Attorney, or Mr. Robert M. Knop, Attorney, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463,
(202)694-1650 or
(800)424-9530. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Through this rulemaking, the Commission seeks to establish how political party committees attribute disbursements for “hybrid communications”—communications that refer both to one or more clearly identified Federal candidates and generically to candidates of a political party (“generic party reference”). The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (“the Act”), and current Commission regulations do not explicitly provide for the attribution of disbursements for hybrid communications, except for those communications distributed by means of a telephone bank. *See* 11 CFR 106.8 (requiring disbursements to be attributed equally between the Federal candidate clearly identified in the communication and the political party committee making the communication). Recently, the Commission considered the attribution of disbursements for hybrid communications made by a political party committee through two other types of public communication: Hybrid communications by means of mass mailings and hybrid communications by means of broadcast television and radio. *See* Advisory Opinion 2006-11 (Washington Democratic State Central Committee) (mass mailings); 1 Report of the Audit Division on Bush-Cheney '04, Inc. and the Bush-Cheney '04 Compliance Committee, Inc. (approved March 22, 2007) (“ *Final Audit Report* ”) (television and radio advertisements). 2 The proposed rule discussed below presents alternative methods for attributing the disbursements for various forms of hybrid communications made by political party committees, and would supersede and replace current 11 CFR 106.8. 1 Available at *www.fec.gov/law/law.shtml.* 2 Available at *www.fec.gov/audits/audit_reports_pres.shtml.* I. Background The general rule for attributing disbursements for a communication made on behalf of more than one Federal candidate clearly identified in the communication is based on the “benefit reasonably expected to be derived” by the candidates. *See* 11 CFR 106.1(a). Under § 106.1(a), that benefit is determined by the proportion of space or time, or number of questions or statements, devoted to each clearly identified Federal candidate as compared to the total space or time, or number of questions or statements, devoted to all clearly identified Federal candidates. The percentage reflecting the relative proportion of space or time devoted to a clearly identified Federal candidate is the percentage of the disbursements for the communication attributed to that candidate (“space or time attribution”). The terms of this rule are limited to communications that refer to two or more clearly identified Federal candidates, and do not provide a method for a political party to attribute a portion of the communication to itself, through a generic party reference. Current section 106.8 does permit attribution of the benefit reasonably expected to be derived from a generic party reference in hybrid communications made by a political party, but only when the communication is made by means of a telephone bank. *See* 11 CFR 106.8; Final Rules and Explanation and Justification for Party Committee Telephone Banks, 68 FR 64517 (Nov. 14, 2003) (“ *Telephone Bank Final Rules* ”). Currently, section 106.8 requires disbursements for the communication to be attributed equally to the clearly identified Federal candidate and the political party making the communication. Recently, the Commission was asked to address the attribution of disbursements for a hybrid communication by means of a mass mailing paid for by a State committee of a political party. In Advisory Opinion 2006-11 (Washington Democratic State Central Committee), the Commission noted that “[n]either the Act nor Commission regulations definitively address the appropriate allocation of payments for” a mass mailing that referred to one clearly identified Federal candidate and contained a generic party reference. Advisory Opinion 2006-11. “Section 106.1(a) provides the general rule that expenditures made on behalf of *more than one* clearly identified candidate ‘shall be attributed to each such candidate according to the benefit reasonably expected to be derived.’ ” *Id.* “Commission regulations at 11 CFR 106.8 (which apply only to *phone banks* conducted by a party committee) do address the attribution required for a communication that possesses the same attributes as the mass mailings described in [the] request ( *i.e.* , reference to only one clearly identified Federal candidate along with a generic reference to other party candidates; and no solicitation of funds).” *Id.* The Commission nonetheless concluded that at least 50 percent of the disbursements should be attributed to the clearly identified Federal candidate. If the space devoted to that Federal candidate exceeds the amount of space devoted to the generic party reference, the disbursement must be attributed to the Federal candidate based on an analysis of the space or time devoted to the Federal candidate, as compared to the space or time devoted to the generic party reference, pursuant to guidance in 11 CFR 106.1(a). Most recently, the Commission was presented with the issue of attributing disbursements for hybrid communications by means of broadcast television and radio paid for in part by a publicly funded presidential candidate and in part by a national committee of a political party. *See Final Audit Report.* The national committee attributed 50 percent of the disbursements for the hybrid communications to its publicly funded presidential candidate clearly identified in the communications, and 50 percent to the political party committee. In the *Final Audit Report* , the Commission considered the extent to which, if any, 11 CFR 106.1 and 106.8 provided guidance for attributing the disbursements for the communications, but did not make a finding. 3 *Id.* 3 Statements of Reasons issued by Commissioners on the *Final Audit Report* are available at *http://www.fec.gov.* The Commission is proposing to amend current 11 CFR 106.8 to address the attribution of disbursements for hybrid communications made through all types of “public communication” as defined in 11 CFR 100.26. Proposed section 106.8 would be divided into paragraph
(a)setting out the scope of the proposed rule, paragraph
(b)setting out the attribution formulas, and paragraph
(c)describing the reporting of disbursements attributed under the proposed rule. The discussion below explains each paragraph separately and also seeks comment on the proposed rule. II. Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)—Scope Proposed 11 CFR 106.8 would apply to any “public communication,” as defined in 11 CFR 100.26, which includes broadcast, cable, and satellite communications; newspapers and magazines; outdoor advertising facilities; mass mailings; telephone banks; and Internet communications placed for a fee on another person's Web site. *See* 2 U.S.C. 431(22); 11 CFR 100.26. Proposed 11 CFR 106.8 would address the attribution of disbursements for a public communication made by any national, State, district, or local party committee, including national congressional campaign committees and convention committees, *see* 11 CFR 9008.3(a)(2), that contains a generic party reference and also refers to only one clearly identified Federal candidate, such as “Show your support for Senator X and our other great Democratic candidates.” As discussed below, proposed 11 CFR 106.8 would also address the attribution of disbursements for a public communication that refers to two or more clearly identified Federal candidates, provided that those candidates are running for the same Federal office. 4 An additional proposed alternative would further address the attribution of disbursements for a public communication that refers to two or more clearly identified Federal candidates running for different Federal offices. Neither the proposed rule nor any of the alternatives presented would apply to disbursements for public communications that are independent expenditures. 4 For purposes of this section, the Commission would consider a reference to a clearly indentified presidential and vice presidential candidate of the same political party as a reference to one clearly identified candidate. The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of the scope of proposed 11 CFR 106.8. Should the Commission apply a uniform attribution rule to all types of public communication? In 2003, the Commission “decided to limit the scope of new section 106.8 to phone banks * * * because each type of communication presents different issues that need to be considered in further detail before establishing new rules.” *Telephone Bank Final Rules* , 68 FR at 64518. Are there communication-specific considerations that counsel against adoption of a uniform approach? A. Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)(1)(i) and (ii)—Reference to a Clearly Identified Federal Candidate 1. Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)(1)(i)(A) and
(B)The proposed rule would extend to two types of public communications. The first type refers to only one clearly identified Federal candidate and does not refer to any other clearly identified Federal or non-Federal candidate. The clearly identified Federal candidate could be either a candidate of the political party making the communication, or an opposing candidate. The Commission requests comment on this approach. The second type of public communication covered by the proposed rule refers to two or more clearly identified Federal candidates running for the same Federal office, only one of whom is a candidate of the political party making the public communication, provided the communication does not clearly identify any other Federal or non-Federal candidate. This portion of the proposed rule is intended to reach communications that compare or contrast the political party's own clearly identified Federal candidate with other clearly identified candidates not supported by the political party. The Commission requests comment on this approach. For purposes of the proposed rule, a Federal candidate of a political party would include both a Federal candidate seeking the nomination of that political party and a candidate who has already obtained that political party's nomination. 2. Proposed Alternative 11 CFR 106.8(a)(1)(i)(C)—Multiple Federal Candidate Reference Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)(1)(i)(C) would extend the rule to a third type of public communication, namely a public communication that refers to multiple clearly identified Federal candidates of the same political party who are seeking different Federal offices. This portion of the proposed rule is intended to reach communications that promote a “slate” of a political party's candidates, along with the party itself. For example, proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)(1)(i)(C) would permit attribution of a public communication that refers to a political party's candidates for both U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives. The Commission seeks comment on this approach. Are such communications quantitatively different from communications clearly identifying Federal candidates for the same Federal office only? Is the value of the generic party reference in a hybrid communication diluted by the inclusion of more clearly identified candidates? The Commission seeks comments on such an approach and possible methods for attributing disbursements for a communication clearly identifying multiple Federal candidates of the same political party seeking different Federal offices between those candidates and the political party making the communication. If the Commission were to adopt this approach, should it exclude public communications that include a reference to a clearly identified non-Federal candidate? What would be the consequences of including such a reference? B. Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)(1)(iii)—Generic Party Reference Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)(1)(iii) would define a generic party reference in a public communication as a reference to other Federal or non-Federal candidates that does not clearly identify those candidates. The proposed rule presents two alternative descriptions of a generic party reference. The first alternative would require the generic party reference to refer to the other candidates as candidates of a political party by using the name or nickname of the political party, such as “our wonderful Democratic team,” or “the great Republican ticket.” The Commission seeks comment on this proposed alternative. Under this approach, the generic reference must refer to candidates of a political party, rather than simply refer to a political party. For example, in the statement “Candidate Y and the Republican Party,” the reference to the Republican Party would not be a generic reference to other Republican candidates and, therefore, would not be a hybrid communication. Should general references to party members without reference to their status as candidates, such as “the Democratic leaders” or “Republicans in Congress,” be treated as generic party references under this alternative? Should an unambiguous reference to a political party that does not use the political party's formal name also be a generic party reference? The second proposed alternative for 11 CFR 106.8(a)(1)(iii) would retain the language of current 11 CFR 106.8, which requires a generic reference to candidates without clearly identifying them, but does not require the candidates to be identified as candidates of a political party, or that the political party be clearly identified. The Commission seeks comment on this second alternative. For example, should a reference to “Liberals in Congress” or “Leaders in Congress” be treated as a generic party reference under this alternative? C. Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)(1)(iv) and (v)—Other Requirements Proposed 11 CFR 106.8, like current 11 CFR 106.8, would not apply to hybrid communications that solicit contributions, donations, or other funds. The Commission seeks comment on whether proposed section 106.8(a)(1)(iv), containing the solicitation exemption, is necessary. Should the proposed rule apply to hybrid communications regardless of whether they contain a solicitation? Proposed 11 CFR 106.8 would not apply to any hybrid communications where the costs are otherwise exempt from the definitions of “contribution” and “expenditure” under 11 CFR part 100, subpart C or E. Disbursements that do not constitute “contributions” or “expenditures” under 11 CFR part 100 need not be attributed to any candidate in order to determine the permissibility of contributions or to report expenditures. The Commission seeks comment on this approach. D. Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)(2)—Exclusion of Certain Multiple Candidate Hybrid Communications Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)(2) would exclude from the proposed rule any hybrid communication made by a political party that refers to two or more clearly identified Federal candidates, other than candidates running for the same Federal office. For example, a communication that states “Vote for Senate Candidate X, House Candidate Y, and the rest of the great Party ticket” would not be covered by the proposed rule. The proposed rule would also exclude hybrid communications that refer to one or more clearly identified non-Federal candidates. These communication would remain subject to attribution solely between the candidates who are clearly identified in the public communication under 11 CFR 106.1(a). The Commission seeks comment on this approach. A proposed alternative version of 11 CFR 106.8(a)(2) would exclude from the proposed rule hybrid communications that refer to multiple clearly identified Federal candidates who are seeking different Federal offices, but are not candidates of the political party making the communication. The proposed alternative version would also exclude hybrid communications that refer to one or more clearly identified non-Federal candidates. These communications would remain subject to attribution solely between the candidates who are clearly identified in the public communication under 11 CFR 106.1(a). The Commission seeks comment on this approach. Under either approach, is attribution of excluded public communications pursuant to 106.1(a) appropriate? Should the Commission conclude that a generic party reference benefits a political party committee in only certain prescribed circumstances? E. Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)(3)—Exclusion of Independent Expenditures Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)(3) would exclude from the proposed rule any disbursement that is an independent expenditure under 11 CFR 100.16, even if such a communication contains a generic party reference. Under 11 CFR 104.4 and 104.3(b)(3)(vii), the entire amount of such independent expenditures must be reported as either in support of, or in opposition to, a particular candidate, without regard to any generic reference to other candidates. Independent expenditures are not contributions to any candidate. Under 11 CFR part 300, such independent expenditures must be made entirely with Federal funds. III. Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(b)—Attribution Although current 11 CFR 106.8 attributes a fixed 50 percent of the disbursements for a hybrid communication through a telephone bank to the Federal candidate clearly identified in the communication, the Commission is revisiting both the attribution method and the attribution percentage appropriate for all hybrid communications covered by the proposed rule. Consistent with the general rule that disbursements for a communication should be attributed to a candidate based on the benefit reasonably expected to be derived by that candidate, proposed 11 CFR 106.8(b) would attribute a disbursement for a hybrid communication between the political party making the hybrid communication and the political party's own Federal candidate. Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(b) would attribute disbursements for hybrid communications as follows: • If the candidate of the political party making the communication is the only clearly identified Federal candidate in the hybrid communication, then the proposed rule would attribute the disbursements for the communication between the clearly identified Federal candidate and the political party making the communication. • If the only clearly identified Federal candidate in the hybrid communication is the opponent of the candidate of the political party making the communication, then the proposed rule would attribute the disbursements for the communication between the political party making the communication and the candidate of that political party who is running for the same Federal office as the clearly identified Federal candidate. • If the hybrid communication clearly identifies at least two Federal candidates running for the same Federal office, only one of whom is a candidate of the political party making the communication, then the proposed rule would attribute the disbursements for the communication between the political party making the communication and the clearly identified Federal candidate of that political party. Additionally, under the proposed multiple Federal candidate reference alternative: • If the hybrid communication clearly identifies at least two Federal candidates of the same political party running for different Federal offices, the proposed rule would attribute the disbursements for the communication among the political party making the communication and the clearly identified Federal candidates of that political party. The Commission seeks comment on this approach. Are there data or other evidence that support a down-ticket benefit from ads that reference a clearly identified candidate and also contain a generic reference? Hybrid communications that are made prior to a primary election and clearly identify a candidate of a political party other than the party making the communication present an additional issue, because the political party making the communication could have several of its own candidates seeking nomination for the same Federal office as the Federal candidate clearly identified in the communication. The Commission seeks comment on how the proposed rule should attribute disbursements between the political party making the communication and its various candidates seeking the political party's nomination for the same Federal office as the candidate clearly identified in the communication. Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(b) presents three alternative attribution formulas:
(1)A fixed percentage (proposed at 25 percent, 50 percent, or 75 percent);
(2)a fixed percentage of 100 percent, requiring the entire amount of each disbursement for the communication to be attributed to the Federal candidate of the political party making the communication; and
(3)the greater of either a fixed percentage (proposed at 25 percent, 50 percent, or 75 percent), or a percentage based on space or time attribution. The Commission seeks comment on these three alternative attribution formulas and whether a single formula should apply to all hybrid communications, regardless of the office sought by the Federal candidate who is clearly identified in the communication. Additionally, if the Commission were to adopt the proposed multiple Federal candidate reference alternative at proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)(1)(i)(C), what attribution formula or method would be most appropriate? The Commission also invites comment on whether there are other factors that the Commission should consider to be relevant to determining the relative benefit reasonably expected to be derived from the hybrid communication by a Federal candidate and by the political party making the communication. Must the hybrid communication be disseminated or distributed in the jurisdiction in which the clearly identified Federal candidate is running? Should different attribution percentages apply to House, Senate or Presidential candidates? Should a different attribution formula apply for publicly funded presidential candidates? Should a different fixed percentage apply if the clearly identified Federal candidate is in a highly contested race? Should a different fixed percentage apply for a presidential candidate if the hybrid communication is disseminated or distributed in a battleground state? Lastly, should the percentage attributed to the clearly identified Federal candidate change based on timing, *i.e.* , the proximity to the election of the hybrid communication's dissemination or distribution? A. Attribution Alternative 1—Fixed Percentage (Proposed at 25% or 50% or 75%) Attribution Alternative 1 would require a fixed percentage of the disbursements for a public communication to be attributed to the Federal candidate of the political party making the communication. This candidate would be either clearly identified in the public communication, or (in the case of negative advertisements) a candidate for the same Federal office as the only Federal candidate clearly identified in the public communication. The remaining percentage of the disbursements would not be attributable to any other Federal or non-Federal candidate and could be treated as political party committee operating expenses. Attribution Alternative 1 is based on current 11 CFR 106.8, which requires 50 percent of the disbursements for hybrid communications made via telephone banks to be attributed to the clearly identified Federal candidate and prohibits the remaining 50 percent of the disbursements from being attributed to any other Federal or non-Federal candidate. Attribution Alternative 1 proposes three alternative percentages:
(1)25 percent,
(2)50 percent, and
(3)75 percent, as discussed below. The Commission seeks comment on Attribution Alternative 1, including which, if any, of the three alternative percentages should be adopted, or whether a different fixed percentage should be adopted. The Commission seeks comment on whether the percentage should be fixed or a minimum. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the attribution percentages should differ depending on the type of public communication or on other factors. In addition to opinion and suggestion, the Commission invites the submission of empirical evidence and other analysis that would justify the use of a particular percentage method. 1. 25 Percent The first alternative would require that 25 percent of the disbursements for a public communication be attributed to the Federal candidate of the political party making the public communication, with the remaining 75 percent of the disbursements not attributed to any other Federal or non-Federal candidate. This alternative is based on the proposition that the Federal candidate of the political party making the public communication could reasonably expect to derive significantly less benefit from the communication than the political party making the communication. The Commission seeks comment on this alternative. 2. 50 Percent The second alternative, like current 11 CFR 106.8, would require 50 percent of the disbursements for a public communication to be attributed to the Federal candidate of the political party making the communication, with the remaining 50 percent of the disbursements not attributed to any other Federal or non-Federal candidate. This alternative is based on the proposition that the Federal candidate of the political party making the public communication could reasonably expect to derive roughly the same benefit from the communication as the political party making the communication. The Commission seeks comment on this alternative. 3. 75 Percent Under the third alternative, 75 percent of the disbursements for a public communication would be attributed to the Federal candidate of the political party making the communication, and the remaining 25 percent of the disbursements would not be attributable to any other Federal or non-Federal candidate. This alterative is based on the proposition that the Federal candidate of the political party making the communication could reasonably expect to derive the most benefit from a public communication, while recognizing that a generic party reference does provide some benefit to the political party making the communication. The Commission seeks comment on this alternative. B. Attribution Alternative 2—Fixed Percentage (100%) Under Attribution Alternative 2, all of the disbursements for a public communication would be attributed to the Federal candidate of the political party making the communication. This candidate would be either clearly identified in the public communication, or a candidate for the same Federal office as the only Federal candidate clearly identified in the public communication. This alternative would be similar to the allocation rules for separate segregated funds and nonconnected committees in 11 CFR 106.6(f). 5 This alternative is based on the proposition that a generic party reference could be reasonably expected to provide at most an insignificant benefit to the political party making the public communication, and that the Federal candidate of the political party making the communication could reasonably expect to derive all of the benefit from the communication. The Commission seeks comment on Attribution Alternative 2. In 2003, the Commission did not adopt a 100% candidate attribution alternative for phone bank communications. Does evidence or experience indicate that the Commission should reconsider this conclusion? 5 Under § 106.6(f), the disbursements for a public communication are allocated between Federal and non-Federal accounts based solely on the candidates clearly identified in the communication, without regard to any generic party reference. *See also* Final Rules and Explanation and Justification for Political Committee Status, Definition of Contribution, and Allocation for Separate Segregated Funds and Nonconnected Committees, 69 FR 68056, 68063 (Nov. 23, 2004). C. Attribution Alternative 3—The Greater of a Fixed Percentage (Proposed at 25% or 50% or 75%) or a Space or Time Attribution Attribution Alternative 3 would require the disbursements for a public communication to be attributed to the Federal candidate of the political party making the communication who is either clearly identified in the public communication or a candidate for the same Federal office as the only Federal candidate clearly identified in the public communication, based on either a given attribution percentage, or based on a space or time attribution percentage, whichever is greater. The space or time attribution percentage would be calculated as a ratio of the public communication's space or time devoted to all clearly identified Federal candidates compared to the communication's space or time devoted to all clearly identified Federal candidates and all generic party references. The disbursements not attributed to the Federal candidate of the political party paying for the communication would not be attributed to any other Federal or non-Federal candidate. Attribution Alternative 3 is based on the attribution formula in Advisory Opinion 2006-11 (Washington Democratic State Central Committee). In Advisory Opinion 2006-11, the Commission concluded that at least 50 percent of the disbursements for the mass mailing must be attributed to the clearly identified Federal candidate, even if the space attributable to that candidate is less than the space attributable to the generically referenced candidates. However, the Commission concluded that if the amount of space in the mailing devoted to the clearly identified Federal candidate exceeds the space devoted to the generically referenced candidates, then the disbursements attributed to the clearly identified Federal candidate must exceed 50 percent and “reflect at least the relative proportion of the space devoted to that candidate,” similar to the space or time attribution under 11 CFR 106.1(a). Although the Commission determined that 50 percent was the minimum percentage to be attributed to the clearly identified Federal candidate under the facts of Advisory Opinion 2006-11, Attribution Alternative 3 presents three alternative minimum percentages:
(1)25 percent,
(2)50 percent, and
(3)75 percent. The Commission seeks comment on Attribution Alternative 3, including which, if any, of the alternative minimum percentages should apply to all types of “public communication,” or whether the minimum percentage should depend on the specific type of public communication. The Commission invites comment on whether a space or time attribution, or some other method of attribution, is appropriate for all types of public communication. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the space or time devoted to a clearly identified Federal candidate in any general or “stand by your ad” disclaimer required by the Act and Commission regulations should be considered when calculating a space or time analysis under Attribution Alternative 3. *See* 2 U.S.C. 441d(a) and 11 CFR 110.11(a)(1), (b)(1) and
(2)(general disclaimer requirement); *see also* 2 U.S.C. 441d(d) and 11 CFR 110.11(c)(3) (the “stand-by-your-ad” provisions). IV. Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(c)—Treatment Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(c) would permit a political party making a hybrid communication to treat disbursements attributed to a Federal candidate under proposed 11 CFR 106.8(b) as an in-kind contribution to that candidate subject to the limitations of 11 CFR 110.1 and 110.2 or a party coordinated expenditure on behalf of that candidate under 11 CFR part 109, subpart D. Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(c) would also allow the Federal candidate or the candidate's authorized committee to reimburse the political party for the costs attributed to the candidate. The Commission notes that such a reimbursement would have to be made within a reasonable time. *See, e.g.* , Advisory Opinion 2004-37 (Waters) (reimbursement by Federal candidates' authorized committees for disbursements for a printed communication would not constitute a contribution to another Federal candidate's authorized committee if the reimbursements were made within a “reasonable time”). The Commission invites comment on whether the proposed rule should require prepayment of shared hybrid communication costs, or whether it should include a time limit for reimbursement, such as 30 or 60 days, or some other time period. The Commission notes that the proposed rule would permit a hybrid communication that is coordinated with a Federal candidate to be treated as a combination of an in-kind contribution, a party coordinated expenditure, and/or a reimbursement. The Commission seeks comment on this approach and the general treatment of these disbursements under the proposed rule. V. Alternative Proposal—Amend 11 CFR 106.1 As an alternative to adopting proposed 11 CFR 106.8, should the Commission instead amend 11 CFR 106.1 to also include expenditures that contain generic party references, and require that such expenditures be attributed
(1)to each clearly identified Federal candidate and political party according to the benefit each may reasonably expect to derive, or
(2)according to a ratio based on the number of candidates referenced, including the generic party reference? For example, under the latter alternative, a communication encouraging viewers to support “Senator Smith, Representative Jones, and all the great candidates of the Democratic Party” would be attributed equally between the three references (i.e., one-third to Smith, one-third to Jones, and one-third to the political party making the communication). The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of this alternative. Certification of No Effect Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) (Regulatory Flexibility Act) The Commission certifies that the attached proposed rule would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The basis for this certification is that any individuals and not-for-profit entities that would be affected by the proposed rule are not “small entities” under 5 U.S.C. 601. The definition of “small entity” does not include individuals, but classifies a not-for-profit enterprise as a “small organization” if it is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field. 5 U.S.C. 601(4). The proposed rule would affect political party committees, including national, State, district, and local party committees, and other organizations of a political party, which are not independently owned and operated because they are not financed and controlled by a small identifiable group of individuals. Political party committees are financed by contributions from a large number of individuals and are controlled by the political party officials and political party employees and volunteers. In addition, the political party committees and organizations representing the Democratic and Republican parties have a major controlling influence within the national, State, and local political arenas and are thus dominant in their field. District and local party committees, and other organizations of a political party that are considered affiliated with the State committees need not be considered separately. To the extent that any political party committees might be considered “small organizations,” the number that would be affected by this proposed rule is not substantial. Therefore, the attached proposed rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. List of Subjects in 11 CFR Part 106 Campaign funds, Political committees and parties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. PART 106—ALLOCATIONS OF CANDIDATE AND COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Federal Election Commission proposes to amend Subchapter A of Chapter I of Title 11 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* as follows: 1. The authority citation for part 106 would continue to read as follows: Authority: 2 U.S.C. 438(a)(8), 441a(b), 441a(g). 2. Section 106.8 would be revised to read as follows: § 106.8 Attribution of expenses for political party committee hybrid communications.
(a)*Scope and definition.*
(1)This section applies to any public communication, as defined in 11 CFR 100.26, made by a national, State, district, or local committee or organization of a political party, that— Paragraph (a)(1)(i) and (ii)—Alternative 1 (Candidate References)
(i)Refers to either:
(A)Only one clearly identified Federal candidate; or
(B)Two or more clearly identified Federal candidates for the same Federal office, only one of whom is the candidate of the political party making the public communication;
(ii)Does not refer to any other clearly identified Federal or non-Federal candidate; Paragraph (a)(1)(i) and (ii)—Alternative 2 (Multiple Federal Candidate Reference)
(i)Refers to either:
(A)Only one clearly identified Federal candidate;
(B)Two or more clearly identified Federal candidates for the same Federal office, only one of whom is the candidate of the political party making the public communication; or
(C)Two or more clearly identified Federal candidates for different Federal offices, all of whom are candidates of the political party making the public communication.
(ii)Does not refer to any other clearly identified Federal or non-Federal candidate; Paragraph (a)(1)(iii)—Alternative 1 (Generic Party Reference)
(iii)Generically refers to other Federal or non-Federal candidates of a political party by using the name or nickname of the political party, but without clearly identifying the candidates; Paragraph (a)(1)(iii)—Alternative 2 (Generic Party Reference)
(iii)Generically refers to other Federal or non-Federal candidates without clearly identifying the candidates;
(iv)Does not solicit a contribution, donation, or any other funds from any person; and
(v)Is not exempt from the definition of *contribution* or *expenditure* under 11 CFR part 100, subpart C or E. Paragraph (a)(2)—Alternative 1 (Certain Hybrid Communications Excluded)
(2)This section does not apply to a public communication that refers to two or more clearly identified Federal candidates for different Federal offices, or one or more clearly identified non-Federal candidates, and generically refers to other Federal or non-Federal candidates as described in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section. Disbursements for such public communications must be attributed solely to the clearly identified candidates under 11 CFR 106.1(a). Paragraph (a)(2)—Alternative 2 (Certain Hybrid Communications Excluded)
(2)This section does not apply to a public communication that refers to two or more clearly identified Federal candidates for different Federal offices who are not candidates of the political party making the communication, or to one or more clearly identified non-Federal candidates, and generically refers to other Federal or non-Federal candidates as described in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section. Disbursements for such public communications must be attributed solely to the clearly identified candidates under 11 CFR 106.1(a).
(3)This section does not apply to independent expenditures, as defined in 11 CFR 100.16, for a public communication described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Under 11 CFR 104.4 and 104.3(b)(3)(vii), the entire amount of such independent expenditures must be reported as either in support of, or in opposition to, a particular candidate, without regard to the generic reference to other candidates. Under 11 CFR part 300, such independent expenditures must be made entirely with Federal funds. Paragraph (b)—Alternative 1 (Fixed Percentage (25% or 50% or 75%) Attribution)
(b)*Attribution.* Each disbursement for a public communication described in paragraph
(a)of this section must be made entirely with Federal funds and must be attributed as follows:
(1)25 or 50 or 75 percent of the disbursement is attributed to the Federal candidate of the political party making the public communication who is either:
(i)Clearly identified in the public communication; or
(ii)A candidate for the same Federal office as the only Federal candidate clearly identified in the public communication.
(2)The portion of each disbursement not attributed to the Federal candidate described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section is not attributable to any other Federal or non-Federal candidate. Paragraph (b)—Alternative 2 (Fixed Percentage (100%) Attribution)
(b)*Attribution.* The entire amount of each disbursement for a public communication described in paragraph
(a)of this section must be attributed to the Federal candidate of the political party making the public communication who is either clearly identified in the public communication or a candidate for the same Federal office as the only Federal candidate clearly identified in the public communication, and must be made entirely with Federal funds. Paragraph (b)—Alternative 3 (The Greater of a Fixed Percentage or a Space or Time Attribution)
(b)*Attribution.* Each disbursement for a public communication described in paragraph
(a)of this section must be made entirely with Federal funds and must be attributed as follows:
(1)Each disbursement must be attributed to the Federal candidate of the political party making the public communication who is either clearly identified in the public communication or a candidate for the same Federal office as the only Federal candidate clearly identified in the public communication, based on the proportion of the space or time, or number of questions or statements, devoted to all clearly identified Federal candidates as compared to the total space or time, or number of questions or statements, devoted to all clearly identified Federal candidates and all generic references to other candidates, but at least 25 or 50 or 75 percent of each disbursement must be attributed to the Federal candidate of the political party making the public communication; and
(2)The portion of each disbursement not attributed to the Federal candidate described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section is not attributable to any other Federal or non-Federal candidate.
(c)*Treatment of disbursements.* The disbursement described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section may be one or a combination of the following:
(1)An in-kind contribution, subject to the limitations of 11 CFR 110.1 or 110.2;
(2)A party coordinated expenditure, subject to the limitations, restrictions, and requirements of 11 CFR part 109, subpart D; or
(3)Reimbursed by the Federal candidate described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section or the authorized committee of such candidate. Dated: May 3, 2007. Robert D. Lenhard, Chairman, Federal Election Commission. [FR Doc. E7-8956 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-156779-06] RIN 1545-BG27 Determining the Amount of Taxes Paid for Purposes of Section 901; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to notice of proposed rulemaking that was published in the **Federal Register** on Friday, March 30, 2007 (71 FR 15081) providing guidance relating to the determination of the amount of taxes paid for purposes of section 901. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bethany A. Ingwalson,
(202)622-3850 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-156779-06) that is the subject of this correction is under section 901 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, this notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-156779-06) contains an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-156779-06), that was the subject of FR Doc. E7-5862, is corrected as follows: On page 15085, column 3, in the preamble, first full paragraph of the column, under the paragraph heading “ *3. Comments and Proposed Regulations* ”, lines 1 and 2, the language “The fifth condition is that the counterparty is a person (other than the” is corrected to read “The fifth condition is that the arrangement involves a counterparty. A counterparty is a person (other than the”. LaNita Van Dyke, Branch Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E7-8942 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army 32 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. USA-2007-0017] RIN 0702-AA57 Recruiting and Enlistments AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Army has revised its regulation that prescribes policies and procedures concerning recruiting and enlistment into the Regular Army and Reserve Components. DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by 32 CFR Part 571, Docket No. USA-2007-0017 and or RIN 0702-AA57, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* Federal Docket Management System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160. Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)for this **Federal Register** document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Tench,
(703)695-7520. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background The Administrative Procedure Act, as amended by the Freedom of Information Act, requires publication of certain policies and procedures and other information concerning the Department of the Army in the **Federal Register** . The policies and procedures covered by this part fall into that category. The Army has changed the publications and policies, thus requiring the rules in the **Federal Register** to be updated. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Army has determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply because the proposed rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Department of the Army has determined that the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not apply because the proposed rule does not include a mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or the private sector, of $100 million or more. D. National Environmental Policy Act The Department of the Army has determined that the National Environmental Policy Act does not apply because the proposed rule does not have an adverse impact on the environment. E. Paperwork Reduction Act The Department of the Army has determined that the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed rule does not involve collection of information from the public. F. Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights) The Department of the Army has determined that Executive Order 12630 does not apply because the proposed rule does not impair private property rights. G. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) The Department of the Army has determined that, according to the criteria defined in Executive Order 12866, this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action. As such, the proposed rule is not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under section 6(a)(3) of the Executive Order. H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risk and Safety Risks) The Department of the Army has determined that, according to the criteria defined in Executive Order 13045, this proposed rule does not apply. I. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) The Department of the Army has determined that, according to the criteria defined in Executive Order 13132, this proposed rule does not apply because it will not have a substantial effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Alphonsa D. Green, Chief, Recruiting Policy Branch. List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 571 Military personnel. For reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Army proposes to revise 32 CFR part 571 to read as follows: PART 571—RECRUITING AND ENLISTMENTS Subpart A—Recruiting and Enlistment Eligibility Sec. 571.1 General. 571.2 Basic qualifications for enlistment. 571.3 Waiver enlistment criteria. 571.4 Periods of enlistment. 571.5 Enlistment options. Subpart B—[Reserved] Authority: 10 U.S.C. 504, 505, 509, 513, 520, 3262. Subpart A—Recruiting and Enlistment Eligibility § 571.1 General.
(a)*Purpose.* This part gives the qualifications for men and women enlisting in the Regular Army
(RA)or Reserve Components (RC). The procedures simplify and standardize the processing of recruited applicants. The applicant's ability to meet all requirements or exceptions will determine eligibility. This includes obtaining prescribed waivers.
(b)*References* —(1) *Required Publications.*
(i)AR 601-210, Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program. (Cited in §§ 571.2, 571.3, and 571.5).
(ii)AR 40-501, Standards of Medical Fitness. (Cited in §§ 571.2 and 571.3).
(iii)AR 600-9, The Army Weight Control Program. (Cited in §§ 571.2 and 571.3).
(2)*Related Publications.*
(i)DOD Directive 1304.26, Qualifications for Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction.
(ii)Army Retention Program.
(c)*Definitions.* The following definitions apply to this part:
(1)*Enlistment.* Voluntary contract (DD Form 4) for military service that creates military status as an enlisted member of the Regular Army or a Reserve Component. This includes enlistment of both non-prior service and prior service personnel.
(2)*Reenlistment.* The second or subsequent voluntary enrollment in the Regular Army or a Reserve Component as an enlisted member.
(3)*United States Army.* The Regular Army, Army of the United States (AUS), Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS), and the United States Army Reserve (USAR).
(4)*Regular Army (RA).* The Regular Army is the component of the Army that consists of persons whose continuous service on active duty in both peace and war is contemplated by law and of retired members of the Regular Army.
(5)*Prior Service (PS)* . For persons enlisting in the RA, those who have 180 days or more of active duty in any component; or, for persons enlisting in a Reserve Component, those who have 180 days of active duty in any component of the armed forces and who have been awarded an MOS; or former members of an armed forces academy who did not graduate and who served 180 days or more.
(6)*Non-Prior Service (NPS).* Those persons who have never served in any component of the armed forces or who have served less than 180 days of active duty as a member of any component of the armed forces. Reserve Component applicants must not have been awarded an MOS; or have enlisted illegally while underage and been separated for a void enlistment; or be a former member of a service academy who did not graduate and who served fewer than 180 days; or have completed ROTC and served only Active Duty for Training as an officer.
(7)*Delayed Entry Program (DEP).* A program in which Soldiers may enlist and are assigned to a United States Army Reserve
(USAR)Control Group until they enlist in the Regular Army. The Commanding General, United States Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) is authorized by 10 U.S.C. 513 to organize and administer DEP. § 571.2 Basic qualifications for enlistment.
(a)Age requirements for non-prior service and prior service personnel are defined in AR 601-210.
(b)Applicants must meet citizenship requirements as defined in AR 601-210.
(c)Non-prior and prior service applicants must meet medical fitness standards prescribed in AR 40-501. Height and weight standards for non-prior service personnel AR 40-501 and in AR 600-9 for prior service personnel.
(d)Education standards, dependency criteria, and trainability requirements are prescribed in AR 601-210. § 571.3 Waiver enlistment criteria.
(a)*Waiver criteria* —(1) All persons who process applicants for enlistment in the Army use the utmost care to procure qualified personnel. Eligibility of personnel for enlistment will be based upon their ability to meet all requirements, including procurement of prescribed waivers.
(2)Applicants applying for moral or medical waivers will document their waiver requests, as prescribed by AR 601-210 or AR 40-501.
(3)The approval authorities for various types of waiver requests are set forth in AR 601-210. Commanders at levels below the approval authority may disapprove waivers for applicants who do not meet prescribed standards and who do not substantiate a meritorious case.
(4)Unless otherwise stated in AR 601-210, waivers are valid for 6 months.
(b)Nonwaiver medical, moral, and administrative disqualifications are defined in AR 601-210. § 571.4 Periods of enlistment. Enlistments are authorized for periods of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 years. § 571.5 Enlistment options. Personnel who enlist in the Regular Army for 2 or more years may select certain initial assignments or classifications, provided they meet the criteria set forth in AR 601-210 and valid Army requirements exist for the assignments and skills. Subpart B—[Reserved] [FR Doc. E7-8793 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-08-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service 36 CFR Part 261 RIN 0596-AC38 Amend Certain Paragraphs in 36 CFR 261.2 and 261.10 To Clarify Issuing a Criminal Citation for Unauthorized Occupancy and Use of National Forest System Lands and Facilities by Mineral Operators AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: This proposed rule would allow, if necessary, a criminal citation to be issued for unauthorized mineral operations on National Forest System lands. The Forest Service invites written comments on this proposed rule. DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by July 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Forest Service, USDA, Attn: Director, Minerals and Geology Management
(MGM)Staff, (2810), at Mail Stop 1126, Washington, DC 20250-1126; by electronic mail to *36cfr228a@fs.fed.us;* or by fax to
(703)605-1575; or by the electronic process available at Federal e-Rulemaking portal at *http://www.regulations.gov.* If comments are sent by electronic mail or by fax, the public is requested not to send duplicate written comments via regular mail. Please confine written comments to issues pertinent to the proposed rule; explain the reasons for any recommended changes; and, where possible, reference the specific wording being addressed. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, will be placed in the record and will be available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received on this proposed rule in the Office of the Director, MGM Staff, 5th Floor, Rosslyn Plaza Central, 1601 North Kent Street, Arlington, Virginia 22209, Monday through Friday (except for Federal holidays) between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. Those wishing to inspect comments are encouraged to call ahead at
(703)605-4545 to facilitate entry into the building. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janine Clayton, Minerals and Geology Management Staff,
(703)605-4788, or electronic mail to *jclayton01@fs.fed.us.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Notification and Request for Comments The Department is making every effort to ensure that all interested parties, including mineral operators, minerals-related organizations and associations, are informed of the availability of the proposed rule. To ensure the widest distribution, the proposed rule will be distributed by paper copy mailings, e-mail notices, posting on the Forest Service Minerals and Geology Management Staff internet web site, as well as published notices in local newspapers. Copies of the proposed rule also will be provided to the appropriate Congressional committee members. Background and Need for Proposed Rule The Forest Service uses two enforcement options, civil and criminal, to enforce its mining regulations at 36 CFR part 228, subpart A. Criminal enforcement (36 CFR part 261) is often used in situations that are factually uncomplicated and where immediate action is needed, or other resolutions have failed. In 1984, a Federal district judge ruled that the prohibitions at 36 CFR 261.10 did not apply to mineral operations. As a result, the Forest Service amended §§ 261.10(a) and 261.10(l) to directly tie the wording to locatable mineral operations by adding “or approved operating plan” to both of these paragraphs. Unfortunately, the wording was not added to §§ 261.10(b) and 261.10(k), and that omission makes these paragraphs less clearly applicable to mineral operations. Two recent court decisions have prompted the Forest Service to amend the prohibitions at 36 CFR 261.10. In California, the Forest Service cited a suction dredge operator under the criminal regulations at 36 CFR 261.10(k) for use or occupancy without a special use permit authorization. The magistrate court judge dismissed the charge in *U.S.* v. *McClure,* 364 F. Supp. 2d 1183 (E.D.Cal., 2005), and cited in support of the ruling another recent California Eastern District Court decision, *U.S.* v. *Lex,* 300 F. Supp. 2d 951 (E.D.Cal., 2003). In summary, these decisions found that special-use authorizations and the application of 36 CFR 261.10(b) and 261.10(k) do not apply to mineral operations. As a result of the *McClure* and *Lex* court decisions, it is advisable to again amend certain paragraphs in 36 CFR 261.10 to clearly tie them to locatable mineral operations and other mineral operations. The Regions dealing with suction dredge operators are particularly concerned about the effects of the two adverse ruling on their use of provisions in 261. Clarification for Issuing a Criminal Citation for Unauthorized Occupancy and Use of National Forest System Lands and Facilities by Mineral Operators The technical amendments to 36 CFR part 261 clarify that a criminal citation can be issued for unauthorized occupancy and use of National Forest System lands and facilities by mineral operators when such authorization is required. The technical amendments to 36 CFR part 261 also clarify what constitutes residential occupancy as well as show there is a clear distinction between a special-use authorization and an operating plan. Exemption From Notice and Comment Comments received on this proposed rule will be considered in adoption of a final rule, notice of which will be published in the **Federal Register** . The final rule will include a response to comments received and identify any revisions made to the rule as a result of the comments. Regulatory Impact This proposed rule has been reviewed under USDA procedures and Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. It has been determined that this proposed rule is not significant. It will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy, nor adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, nor State or local governments. This proposed rule would not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency, nor raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this action will not alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, nor the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs. Moreover, this proposed rule has been considered in light of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), and it has been determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by that Act. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Environmental Impacts This proposed rule more clearly establishes when mineral operators can be issued a criminal citation for unauthorized occupancy and use of National Forest System lands and facilities when such authorization is required. Section 31.1(b) of Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR 43168; September 18, 1992) excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement “rules, regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide administrative procedures, program processes, or instruction.” This proposed rule falls within this category of actions and no extraordinary circumstances exist which would require preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Energy Effects This proposed rule has been reviewed under the Executive Order 13211 of May 18, 2001, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.” It has been determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the Executive order. Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public This proposed rule does not contain any new recordkeeping or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already approved for use. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply. Federalism The agency has considered this proposed rule under the requirements of Executive Order 13132—Federalism, and Executive Order 12875—Government Partnerships. The agency has made a preliminary assessment that the proposed rule conforms with the federalism principles set out in these Executive orders; would not impose any compliance costs on the States; and would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Based on comments received on this proposed rule, the agency will consider if any additional consultations will be needed with the State and local governments prior to adopting a final rule. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications as defined by Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments; therefore, advance consultation with tribes is not required. No Takings Implications This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630—Government Actions and Interference with Civil Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. It has been determined that the proposed rule does not pose the risk of a taking of private property. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule were adopted,
(1)all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this proposed rule or that impede its full implementation would be preempted;
(2)no retroactive effect would be given to this proposed rule; and
(3)it would not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court to challenge its provisions. Unfunded Mandates Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), which the President signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Forest Service has assessed the effects of this proposed rule on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This proposed rule would not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or tribal government or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the Act would not be required. List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 261 Law enforcement, Mines, National Forests. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, amend subpart A of part 261 of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 261—PROHIBITIONS Subpart A—General Prohibitions 1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1011(f); 16 U.S.C. 472, 551, 620(f), 1133(c), (d)(1), 1246(i). 2. Amend § 261.2 Definitions, by revising the definitions for motorized equipment and operating plan, and adding a definition for residence to read as follows: § 261.2 Definitions. *Motorized equipment* means any machine activated by a nonliving power source except small battery-powered handcarried devices such as flashlights, shavers, Geiger counters, magnetometers, seismographs, and cameras. *Operating plan* means the following documents, providing that the document has been issued or approved by the Forest Service: A plan of operations as provided for in 36 CFR part 228, subparts A and D, and 36 CFR part 292, subparts C and G; a supplemental plan of operations as provided for in 36 CFR part 228, subpart A, and 36 CFR part 292, subpart G; an operating plan as provided for in 36 CFR part 228, subpart C, and 36 CFR part 292, subpart G; an amended operating plan and a reclamation plan as provided for in 36 CFR part 292, subpart G; a surface use plan of operations as provided for in 36 CFR part 228, subpart E; a supplemental surface use plan of operations as provided for in 36 CFR part 228, subpart E; a permit as provided for in 36 CFR 251.15; and an operating plan and a letter of authorization as provided for in 36 CFR part 292, subpart D. *Residence* means any temporary or permanent, natural or fabricated structure or object including but are not limited to, boats, buildings, buses, cabins, houses, lean-tos, mills, motor homes, pole barns, recreational vehicles, sheds, shops, tents, trailers, caves, cliff ledges, and tunnels which is being used as, or designed to be used as, living or sleeping quarters, in whole or in part, by any person, including a watchman, except structures or objects used for camping. 3. Amend § 261.10 Occupancy and use, by revising paragraphs
(a)and
(b)and adding
(p)to read as follows: § 261.10 Occupancy and use.
(a)Constructing, placing, or maintaining any kind of road, trail, structure, fence, enclosure, communications equipment, significant surface disturbance, or other improvement on National Forest System land or facilities without a special-use authorization, contract, or approved operating plan when such authorization is required.
(b)Constructing, reconstructing, improving, maintaining, occupying, or using a residence on National Forest System land unless authorized by a special use authorization or approved operating plan when such authorization is required.
(p)Use or occupancy of National Forest System land or facilities without an approved operating plan when such authorization is required. Dated: March 26, 2007. Abigail R. Kimbell, Chief, Forest Service. [FR Doc. E7-8706 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD 36 CFR Parts 1193 and 1194 Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines; Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) has established a Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (Committee) to assist it in revising and updating accessibility guidelines for telecommunications products and accessibility standards for electronic and information technology. This notice announces the dates, time, and location of the next committee meeting, which will be open to the public. DATES: The meeting is scheduled for May 22-24, 2007 (beginning at 9 a.m. and ending at 5 p.m. on May 22 and 23; and beginning at 9 a.m. and ending at 3 p.m. on May 24). Notices of future meetings will be published in the **Federal Register** . ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room II-555, Arlington, VA 22230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Creagan, Office of Technical and Information Services, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street, NW., suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone number: 202-272-0016 (Voice); 202-272-0082 (TTY). Electronic mail address: *creagan@access-board.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) established the Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (Committee) to assist it in revising and updating accessibility guidelines for telecommunications products and accessibility standards for electronic and information technology. The next meeting of the Committee will take place on May 22-24, 2007. A summary of the meeting agenda is provided below. The full agenda is available at the Access Board's Web site at: *http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/agenda.htm.* Topics To Be Discussed on Tuesday, May 22 Report and discussion on recommendations contained in the reports of the following subcommittees: • Software, Web, and Content • General Interface Requirements and Functional Performance Criteria • Desktops, Portables, Peripherals, and Other Computer Hardware • Subpart A • Documentation and Technical Support Presentation and directed discussion on proposals of the editorial working group. Topics To Be Discussed on Wednesday, May 23 Report and discussion on recommendations contained in the reports of the following subcommittees: • Telecommunications • Audio/Visual • Self Contained, Closed Products After the reports and discussion on recommendations from the subcommittees, the following subcommittees will meet: • Telecommunications • Audio/Visual • Self Contained, Closed Products • Software, Web, and Content • General Interface Requirements and Functional Performance Criteria Topics To Be Discussed on Thursday, May 24 Discussion and resolution of proposals of the editorial working group followed by these subcommittees meetings: • Subpart A • Desktops, Portables, Peripherals, and Other Computer Hardware • Documentation and Technical Support Information about the Committee, including future meeting dates is available on the Access Board's Web site ( *http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/update-index.htm* ) or at a special Web site created for the Committee's work ( *http://teitac.org* ). The site includes a calendar for subcommittee meetings, e-mail distribution lists, and a “Wiki” ( *http://teitac.org/wiki/TEITAC_Wiki* ) which provides interactive online work space. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons can attend the meetings and communicate their views. Members of the public will have opportunities to address the Committee on issues of interest to them and the Committee during public comment periods scheduled on each day of the meeting. Members of groups or individuals who are not members of the Committee are invited to participate on subcommittees; participation of this kind is very valuable to the advisory committee process. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Sign language interpreters, an assistive listening system, and real-time captioning will be provided. For the comfort of other participants, persons attending Committee meetings are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances. Due to security measures at the National Science Foundation, all attendees must notify the Access Board's receptionist at 202-272-0007 or *receptionist@access-board.gov* by May 18, 2007 of their intent to attend the meeting. This notification is required for expeditious entry into the facility and will enable the Access Board to provide additional information as needed. Lisa Fairhall, Deputy General Counsel. [FR Doc. E7-8952 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8150-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0917; FRL-8312-2] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Redesignation of the Richmond-Petersburg 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Associated Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking, correction. SUMMARY: This document corrects and clarifies an error in the preamble language of the Richmond-Petersburg 8-hour ozone nonattainment area redesignation request and approval of the associated maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 14, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0917 by one of the following methods: A. *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. *E-mail:* *miller.linda@epa.gov* . C. *Mail:* EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0917, Linda Miller, Acting Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. *Hand Delivery:* At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0917. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Caprio, 215-814-2156, or by e-mail at *caprio.amy@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 12, 2007, (72 FR 18434), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking announcing the approval and promulgation of Virginia's redesignation of the Richmond-Petersburg 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment and approval of the associated maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory. In the preamble of this document, EPA inadvertently printed the incorrect data in Table 5 (titled: Total NO <sup>X</sup> Emissions for 2005-2018 (tpd)). This action corrects Table 5 in the notice of proposed rulemaking, so that it reflects the correct NO <sup>X</sup> emissions for the Richmond-Petersburg Area for 2005-2018. Correction In rule document E7-7018, on page 18442, Table 5 is corrected to read as follows: Table 5.—Total NO <sup>X</sup> Emissions for 2005-2018
(tpd)Source category 2005 NO <sup>X</sup> emissions 2011 NO <sup>X</sup> emissions 2018 NO <sup>X</sup> emissions Point 77.281 84.296 90.521 Area 1 26.501 27.417 28.169 Mobile 2 67.155 43.661 26.827 Non-road 16.862 13.118 8.641 Total 187.799 168.492 154.158 1 Includes selected local controls (open burning). 2 Includes transportation provisions. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, it is not subject to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Dated: May 4, 2007. James W. Newsom, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E7-9010 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 122 and 412 [EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0036; FRL-8311-4] RIN 2040-AE92 Proposed Revised Compliance Dates Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulations and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA proposes to extend certain compliance dates in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
(ELGs)for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) while EPA works to complete rulemaking to respond to the decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in *Waterkeeper Alliance et al.* v. *EPA* , 399 F.3d 486 (2nd Cir. 2005). The sole purpose of this proposed rule is to address timing issues associated with the Agency's response to the *Waterkeeper* decision. This proposal would revise the dates established in the 2003 CAFO rule and later modified by a rule published in the **Federal Register** on February 10, 2006, by which facilities newly defined as CAFOs are required to seek permit coverage and by which all permitted CAFOs are required to develop and implement their nutrient management plans (NMPs). EPA is proposing to extend the date by which operations defined as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, that were not defined as CAFOs prior to that date, must seek NPDES permit coverage, from July 31, 2007, to February 27, 2009. EPA is also proposing to amend the date by which operations that become defined as CAFOs after April 14, 2003, due to operational changes that would not have made them a CAFO prior to April 14, 2003, and that are not new sources, must seek NPDES permit coverage, from July 31, 2007, to February 27, 2009. Finally, EPA is proposing to extend the deadline by which permitted CAFOs are required to develop and implement NMPs, from July 31, 2007, to February 27, 2009. DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received on or before June 11, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0036 by one of the following methods
(1)*www.regulations.gov* : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
(2)*E-mail* : *ow-docket@epa.gov,* Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0036.
(3)*Mail* : Send the original and three copies of your comments to: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OW-2005-0036.
(4)*Hand Delivery* : Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. OW-2005-0036. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0036. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is
(202)566-2426. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Roose, Water Permits Division, Office of Wastewater Management (4203M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202)564-0758, e-mail address: *roose.rebecca@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? II. Background A. The Clean Water Act B. History of Actions to Address CAFOs Under the NPDES Permitting Program C. Status of EPA's Response to the *Waterkeeper* Decision D. History of CAFO Compliance Dates III. This Proposed Rule A. Application Deadline for Newly Defined CAFOs B. Deadline for Nutrient Management Plans IV. Rationale for This Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? This action applies to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) as defined in section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act and in the NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.23. The following table provides a list of standard industrial codes for operations covered under this revised rule. Table 1.—Entities Potentially Regulated by This Rule Category Examples of regulated entities North American industry code
(NAIC)Standard industrial classification code Federal, State, and Local Government: Industry Operators of animal production operations that meet the definition of a CAFO: Beef cattle feedlots (including veal) 112112 0211 Beef cattle ranching and farming 112111 0212 Hogs 11221 0213 Sheep 11241, 11242 0214 General livestock except dairy and poultry 11299 0219 Dairy farms 11212 0241 Broilers, fryers, and roaster chickens 11232 0251 Chicken eggs 11231 0252 Turkey and turkey eggs 11233 0253 Poultry hatcheries 11234 0254 Poultry and eggs 11239 0259 Ducks 112390 0259 Horses and other equines 11292 0272 This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility may be regulated under this rulemaking, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 122.23. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting Confidential Business Information.* Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. 2. *Tips for Preparing Your Comments.* It will be helpful if you follow these guidelines as you prepare your written comments: i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions—The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background A. The Clean Water Act Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972), also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters.” 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). Among its core provisions, the CWA established the NPDES permit program to authorize and regulate the discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the U.S. 33 U.S.C. 1342. EPA has issued comprehensive regulations that implement the NPDES program at 40 CFR Part 122. The Act also provided for the development of technology-based and water quality-based effluent limitations that are imposed through NPDES permits to control the discharge of pollutants from point sources. CWA Section 301(a) and (b). B. History of Actions To Address CAFOs Under the NPDES Permitting Program EPA's regulation of wastewater and manure from CAFOs dates from the 1970s. EPA initially issued national effluent limitations guidelines and standards for feedlots on February 14, 1974, (39 FR 5704) and NPDES CAFO regulations on March 18, 1976 (41 FR 11458). In February 2003, EPA revised these regulations. 68 FR 7176 (the “2003 CAFO rule”). The 2003 CAFO rule required owners or operators of all CAFOs 1 to seek coverage under an NPDES permit, unless they demonstrated no potential to discharge. CAFO industry organizations (American Farm Bureau Federation, National Pork Producers Council, National Chicken Council, and National Turkey Federation (NTF), although NTF later withdrew its petition) and environmental groups ( *Waterkeeper* Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and American Littoral Society) filed petitions for judicial review of certain aspects of the 2003 CAFO rule. This case was brought before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On February 28, 2005, the court ruled on these petitions and upheld most provisions of the 2003 rule but vacated and/or remanded others. *Waterkeeper Alliance et al.* v. *EPA* , 399 F.3d 486 (2nd Cir. 2005) (hereafter referred to as *Waterkeeper* ). Notably, the court vacated the requirement that all CAFOs apply for NPDES permit coverage unless a CAFO demonstrates no potential to discharge. The court also remanded the rule for failing to require incorporation of the terms of CAFOs' NMPs into their permits and for failing to prescribe public review and comment and permitting authority approval of the terms of the NMPs. Other provisions were remanded for further clarification and analysis. 1 To improve readability in this preamble, reference is made to “CAFOs” as well as “owners and operators of CAFOs.” No change in meaning is intended. C. Status of EPA's Response to the Waterkeeper Decision On June 30, 2006, EPA published a proposed rule in response to the *Waterkeeper* decision. 71 FR 37744. EPA proposed to revise several aspects of the Agency's regulations governing discharges from CAFOs. In summary, EPA proposed to require only owners or operators of those CAFOs that discharge or propose to discharge to seek coverage under a permit. Second, EPA proposed to require CAFOs seeking coverage under a permit to submit their NMP with their application for an individual permit or, for general permit coverage, with their notice of intent to be authorized to discharge under a general permit. Permitting authorities would be required to review the NMP and provide the public with an opportunity for meaningful public review and comment. Permitting authorities would also be required to incorporate terms of the NMP as NPDES permit conditions. The proposed rule also addressed the remand of issues for further clarification and analysis. These issues concern the applicability of water-quality based effluent limitations (WQBELs); the record supporting new source performance standards for swine, poultry, and veal CAFOs; and the record support for “best conventional technology” effluent limitations guidelines for pathogens. The proposed rule reflected the dates for compliance as revised in February 2006; i.e., July 31, 2007, for permit application by newly defined CAFOs and NMP development and implementation by all permitted CAFOs. The public comment period for the June 2006 CAFO proposal closed on Aug. 29, 2006. EPA will respond to these comments when it takes final action on the June 30, 2006, proposed rule. In this action, EPA is proposing, and accepting comment only on, a change to the date by which certain operations must seek coverage under an NPDES permit and the date by which all permitted CAFOs must develop and implement their NMPs. 2 In part because of extensive and widely divergent public comment on the array of issues raised by the court, EPA will not complete a final rule revising the 2003 CAFO rule before the current compliance dates of July 31, 2007, and is, therefore, proposing to revise this compliance date. Though EPA describes them here for context, the proposed provisions in the June 2006 proposed rule in response to *Waterkeeper* are beyond the scope of this current proposal, and EPA is not taking comment on these provisions. 2 Note that in response to the *Waterkeeper* decision, EPA proposed a variation to the “develop and implement” language of the June 2006 proposal which stated that a CAFO operator must submit an NMP with its permit application or NOI and that it must be implemented upon permit coverage. 71 FR 37744. D. History of CAFO Compliance Dates The 2003 CAFO rule amended the definition of “CAFO” to add facilities that had not previously been defined as CAFOs (in the 1976 regulations). 40 CFR 122.23(b). Operations newly defined as CAFOs in the 2003 CAFO rule included veal operations, swine weighing less than 55 pounds, chicken and layer operations using other than liquid manure handling systems, and animal feeding operations
(AFOs)that were previously not defined as CAFOs because they discharged only in the event of a 25-year/24-hour storm. CAFOs in these categories that were in existence when the 2003 CAFO rule took effect (April 14, 2003) represent the group of CAFOs that were initially subject to a February 13, 2006, deadline for permit application. 68 FR 7267. In addition, other existing facilities that became defined as CAFOs under the revised CAFO definitions in the 2003 CAFO rule include so-called “new dischargers” that subsequent to the effective date of the 2003 CAFO rule became CAFOs due to changes in their operations, where such changes would not have made the operation a CAFO prior to April 14, 2003. This second group of facilities was initially required to seek permit coverage by April 13, 2006, or 90 days after becoming defined as a CAFO, whichever date is later. 68 FR 7268. Thus, each of these groups of CAFOs were allowed three years from the 2003 rule to seek permit coverage when EPA issued the 2003 CAFO rule. EPA reasoned in the 2003 CAFO rule, and reiterated in the 2006 date change rule, that allowing newly regulated entities three years to come into compliance was consistent with Congressional intent, as expressed in the 1972 Clean Water Act with respect to newly established point sources. Moreover, the Agency stated that the three year timeframe was necessary for States authorized to administer the NPDES permit program to provide permit coverage for CAFOs that were not previously required to be permitted and to revise State regulatory programs. 68 FR 7204. In addition to the requirements to seek permit coverage, the 2003 CAFO rule also required all permitted CAFOs to develop and implement NMPs by December 31, 2006. EPA believed that this date was reasonable given that operations would have had a little over three and a half years from the issuance of the 2003 rule to develop and implement an NMP. This timeframe allowed States to update their NPDES programs and issue permits to reflect the NMP requirements of the 2003 CAFO rule. It also provided flexibility for permitting authorities to establish permit schedules based on specific circumstances, including prioritization of nutrient management plan development and implementation based on site-specific water quality risks and the available infrastructure for development of NMPs. These timing considerations were affected by the *Waterkeeper* decision. On February 10, 2006, prior to the Agency's proposed rule responding to the *Waterkeeper* decision, EPA promulgated a limited rule to revise each of the compliance dates in the 2003 CAFO rule that were affected by the decision (referred to as the “2006 date rule”). 71 FR 6978. Specifically, EPA extended the dates for those newly defined CAFOs described above to seek NPDES permit coverage and the date by which all CAFOs must develop and implement NMPs. EPA revised these dates in order to:
(1)Provide the Agency sufficient time to take final action on the regulatory revisions with respect to the *Waterkeeper* decision; and
(2)require NMPs to be submitted at the time of the permit application, consistent with the court's decision. It was necessary for EPA to revise the dates separately from addressing the rest of the issues raised by the *Waterkeeper* decision because EPA had not completed the proposed rule responding to the *Waterkeeper* decision prior to the dates by which newly defined CAFOs were required to seek permit coverage. III. This Proposed Rule This notice proposes to amend the section detailing when operations defined as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, that were not defined as CAFOs prior to that date, must seek NPDES permit coverage, as well as the section detailing when, due to operational changes, operations that would not have become CAFOs under the prior rule become CAFOs under the 2003 rule. Second, EPA is proposing to extend the deadline by which permitted CAFOs are required to develop and implement NMPs. This proposed rule would not modify or otherwise affect any other existing regulatory provisions, nor does it reopen the comment period on the proposed rule to respond to the *Waterkeeper* decision published on June, 30, 2006. 71 FR 37744. A. Application Deadline for Newly Defined CAFOs EPA is proposing to extend the date by which operations defined as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, that were not defined as CAFOs prior to that date, must seek NPDES permit coverage, from July 31, 2007, to February 27, 2009. EPA is also proposing to amend the date by which operations that became defined as CAFOs after April 14, 2003, or that will become CAFOs due to operational changes that would not have made them a CAFO prior to April 14, 2003, and that are not new sources, must seek NPDES permit coverage, from July 31, 2007, to February 27, 2009. This proposed rule would not affect the applicable time for seeking permit coverage for newly constructed CAFOs not subject to new source performance standards
(NSPS)or for new source CAFOs subject to NSPS that discharge or propose to discharge, even those in categories that were added to the definition of a CAFO in the 2003 CAFO rule. These CAFOs that discharge or propose to discharge are required by 40 CFR 122.21(a) and 123.23(g)(3)(i) and
(4)to seek NPDES permit coverage at least 180 days prior to the time that they commence operating, and these provisions were unaffected by the 2006 date rule. This proposed rule would not supersede State requirements. States may choose to require CAFOs to obtain NPDES permits in advance of the dates set in the federal NPDES regulations, pursuant to the authority reserved to States under section 510 of the Clean Water Act to adopt requirements more stringent than those that apply under federal law. Further, CAFOs that are already permitted, e.g., CAFOs that existed prior to the effective date of the 2003 CAFO rule and as such have been required to seek NPDES permit coverage even before EPA issued the 2003 CAFO rule, continue to be required to maintain permit coverage pursuant to section 122.23(h). EPA is also proposing to correct a typographical error that was created in the 2006 date rule. In that rule, 40 CFR 122.23(g)(1) as promulgated in the 2003 CAFO rule (which provides that existing operations defined as CAFOs prior to April 14, 2003, must seek permit coverage by the effective date of the 2003 rule) was inadvertently replaced with 40 CFR 122.23(g)(2) (which provides extended compliance dates for operations defined as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, but were not defined as CAFOs prior to that date). Because the “(2)” was erroneously printed as “(1)”, section 122.23(g)(1) was overwritten and section 122.23(g)(2) was incorrectly left unchanged. As a result, the current rule contains two provisions applicable to “Operations defined as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, who were not defined as CAFOs prior to that date” with conflicting dates. EPA is proposing to restore the original section 122.23(g)(1) as promulgated in 2003, and to revise the date in section 122.23(g)(2) to reflect this proposal. B. Deadline for Nutrient Management Plans EPA is proposing to extend the deadline by which permitted CAFOs are required to develop and implement NMPs, from July 31, 2007, to February 27, 2009. This proposal would revise all references to the date by which CAFOs must develop and implement NMPs currently in Parts 122 and 412. Thus, this proposal would revise the deadlines established in 40 CFR 122.21(i)(1)(x), 122.42(e)(1), 412.31(b)(3), and 412.43(b)(2). This proposal would not supersede State requirements, nor would it affect CAFOs operating under existing permits so long as those permits remain in effect. If their existing permits require development and implementation of an NMP, currently permitted CAFOs must develop and implement their NMPs in accordance with the terms of their current permit, or their applicable state requirements. This proposed rule also would not affect the applicable land application limitations and requirements for all CAFOs subject to the new source performance standards under 40 CFR 412.35 and 40 CFR 412.46. Upon permit coverage, new sources must meet all relevant land application requirements. IV. Rationale for This Action At the time of the 2006 date rule, EPA believed that July 31, 2007, would allow sufficient time for the Agency to complete the rulemaking to address the *Waterkeeper* decision. EPA also reasoned that the basis for these revised dates was generally consistent with the approach taken by Congress in the 1972 Clean Water Act, as explained when setting the compliance dates in the 2003 CAFO rule. 68 FR 7204. EPA anticipated that the dates established in the 2006 date rule provided sufficient time to ensure compliance with the NPDES regulations within a reasonable timeframe consistent with the dates established in the 2003 CAFO rule. 71 FR 6980-81. The amount of time needed to revise the rule in response to the *Waterkeeper* decision has been greater than EPA anticipated at the time it promulgated the 2006 date rule. At that time, EPA had not yet proposed revisions to the CAFO rule and could only surmise what the public response to the proposal would be. In light of comments received and after further consideration of the proposed rule, EPA is continuing to explore the best method of implementing the *Waterkeeper* decision. To avoid any potential conflict with existing deadlines that precede the publication of the final rule, it is appropriate to propose this rulemaking to change the dates at issue. In comments on the proposed 2006 date rule, commenters asserted that the proposed deadlines would not offer CAFOs sufficient time to submit permit applications, including NMPs, that will comply with the regulatory revisions the Agency is planning to address in its response to the *Waterkeeper* decision. Other commenters expressed the view that EPA needed to take into consideration the time necessary for States to make conforming revisions to State programs following EPA's regulatory revisions. See docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0036. Commenters reiterated these concerns in comments on the 2006 proposed CAFO rule in response to *Waterkeeper* . See docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0037. This proposed rule balances the need to address the concerns raised by commenters with the interest of having the regulatory requirements implemented in a timely fashion. In EPA's view, this proposal would also provide sufficient time for newly defined facilities to review the revised duty to apply requirements to determine whether they need to seek permit coverage. Finally, it would provide time for permitting authorities to identify the necessary procedures for reviewing NMPs and incorporating them into general permits. Taking into account the time EPA needs to complete the rule in response to *Waterkeeper* , as well as the period of time after the final rule is promulgated to allow States, the regulated community, and other stakeholders the opportunity to adjust to the new regulatory requirements, EPA believes that extending the dates to February 27, 2009, is reasonable. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order. As discussed above, the purpose of this proposed rule is solely to address timing issues associated with the Agency's response to the *Waterkeeper* court ruling on petitions for review challenging portions of the 2003 CAFO rule. After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities since the effect of the proposal, if implemented, is solely to extend certain deadlines related to NPDES CAFO permitting. Additionally, this proposed rule would not affect small governments, as the permitting authorities are state or federal agencies. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to sections 202, 203, or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this proposed rule does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (63 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) because it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. This proposed rule will not have federalism implications, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) because it will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State or local governments, nor will it preempt State law. Thus, the requirements of sections 6(b) and 6(c) of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health and safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) which establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose any new information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). However, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations at 40 CFR Parts 9, 122, 123, and 412 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* and has assigned OMB control number 2040-0250. The EPA ICR number for the original set of regulations is 1989.02. List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 122 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control. 40 CFR Part 412 Environmental protection, Feedlots, Livestock, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control. Dated: May 3, 2007. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR parts 122 and 412 as follows: PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM 1. The authority citation for part 122 continues to read as follows: Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 *et seq.* § 122.21 [Amended] 2. In § 122.21 paragraph (i)(1)(x), the date “July 31, 2007” is revised read “February 27, 2009”. 3. Section 122.23 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3)(iii) to read as follows: § 122.23 Concentrated animal feeding operations (applicable to State NPDES programs, see § 123.25).
(g)* * *
(1)*Operations defined as CAFOs prior to April 14, 2003.* For operations that are defined as CAFOs under regulations that are in effect prior to April 14, 2003, the owner or operator must have or seek to obtain coverage under an NPDES permit as of April 14, 2003, and comply with all applicable NPDES requirements, including the duty to maintain permit coverage in accordance with paragraph
(h)of this section.
(2)*Operations defined as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, that were not defined as CAFOs prior to that date.* For all operations defined as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, that were not defined as CAFOs prior to that date, the owner or operator of the CAFO must seek to obtain coverage under an NPDES permit by a date specified by the Director, but no later than February 27, 2009.
(3)* * *
(iii)If an operational change that makes the operation a CAFO would not have made it a CAFO prior to April 14, 2003, the operation has until February 27, 2009, or 90 days after becoming defined as a CAFO, whichever is later. § 122.42 [Amended] 4. In § 122.42 paragraph (e)(1), the two dates “July 31, 2007” are revised read “February 27, 2009”. PART 412—CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS
(CAFO)POINT SOURCE CATEGORY 5. The authority citation for part 412 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, 1361. § 412.31 [Amended] 6. In § 412.31 paragraph (b)(3), the date “July 31, 2007” is revised to read “February 27, 2009”. § 412.43 [Amended] 7. In § 412.43 paragraph (b)(2), the date “July 31, 2007” is revised to read “February 27, 2009”. [FR Doc. E7-9027 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 72 90 Thursday, May 10, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 7, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service *Title:* Plum Pox Compensation. *OMB Control Number:* 0579-0159. *Summary of Collection:* Plum Pox is an extremely serious viral disease of plants that can affect may stone fruit species, including plum, peach, apricot, almond, and nectarine. The United States Department of Agriculture is responsible for preventing plant pests and noxious weeds for entering the United States; preventing the spread of pests new to the United States and eradicating those imported pests and weeds when eradication is feasible. The regulations in 7 CFR 301.74-5 permit owners of commercial stone fruit orchards and owners of fruit tree nurseries to receive compensation under certain circumstances. Owners of commercial stone fruit orchards may receive compensation for losses associated with trees destroyed to control plum pox pursuant to an emergency action notification
(EAN)issued by the Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). APHIS will collect information using form PPQ 651 Application for Plum Pox Compensation. *Need and Use of the Information:* APHIS will collect the owner's name and address, a description of the owner's property, and a certification statement that the trees removed from the owner's property were stone fruit trees from commercial fruit orchards or fruit tree nurseries. The owner's will also need to send APHIS a copy of the EAN ordering the destruction of their trees. If the information were not collected, APHIS would be unable to compensate eligible grove and nursery owners for the loss of their trees. *Description of Respondents:* State, Local or Tribal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 7. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 1. Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service *Title:* Interstate Movement of Swine Within a Production System. *OMB Control Number:* 0579-0161. *Summary of Collection:* Disease prevention is the most effective method for maintaining a healthy animal population, and for enhancing the Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) ability to compete in the world market of animal and animal product trade. The Veterinary Services Division of APHIS is responsible for carrying out this disease prevention mission. The regulations under which APHIS conducts these disease prevention activities are contained in Title 9, Subchapter C of Chapter I, which governs the interstate movement of animals to prevent the dissemination of livestock and poultry diseases within the United States. Regulations in Part 71 contain requirements for moving swine interstate within a swine production system. (A production system consists of separate farms that each specialize in a different phase of swine production—sow herds, nursery herds, and finishing herds.) Moving swine interstate within a swine production system involves the use of two information collection activities in the form of a Swine Production Health Plan and an Interstate Swine Movement Report. *Need and Use of the Information:* The Swine Production Health Plan is a document developed by participating swine producers, stating that all farms within the given swine production system will maintain the health of their swine and remain vigilant for any signs of communicable disease. The Interstate Swine Movement Report is a document initiated by swine producers to notify their accredited veterinarians, APHIS, and State regulatory officials in the States of origin and destination that a group of animals is being moved across State lines in a swine production system. Without the information, the movement of swine interstate within a swine production system would become less efficient and more time-consuming, consequently placing more financial and logistical burden on producers who regularly engage in this activity. *Description of Respondents:* Farms. *Number of Respondents:* 1,000. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 1,000. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-9017 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration [Docket No.: 070125020-7021-01] Solicitation of Applications for the University Center Economic Development Program AGENCY: Economic Development Administration (EDA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice; re-open competitive solicitation. SUMMARY: The Economic Development Administration
(EDA)publishes this notice to re-open the competitive solicitation for applications under the University Center Economic Development Program in EDA's Austin and Denver regional offices. DATES: The new closing date and time for receipt of electronic and paper applications for funding under the FY 2007 University Center Economic Development Program competition is Friday, May 25, 2007 at 4 p.m. local time. ADDRESSES: Applications may be submitted in two formats:
(i)In paper format at the addresses provided below; or
(ii)electronically in accordance with the procedures provided on *http://www.Grants.gov.* The content of the application is the same for paper submissions as it is for electronic submissions. EDA will not accept facsimile transmissions of applications. *Paper Submissions:* Applicants in Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas should submit paper submissions (via postal mail, overnight delivery or hand-delivery) to: FY 2007 University Center Program Competition, Economic Development Administration, Austin Regional Office, 504 Lavaca Street, Suite 1100, Austin, Texas 78701-4037. Applicants in Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming should submit paper submissions (via postal mail, overnight delivery or hand-delivery) to: FY 2007 University Center Program Competition, Economic Development Administration, Denver Regional Office, 1244 Speer Boulevard, Suite 670, Denver, Colorado 80204-3591. *Electronic Submissions:* Applicants may submit applications electronically in accordance with the instructions provided at www.Grants.gov. On *http://www.grants.gov/search/basic.do* , applicants can perform a “Basic Search” for this grant opportunity by completing the “Keyword Search;” the “Search by Funding Opportunity Number;” or the “Search by CFDA Number” field, and then clicking the “Search” button. The Funding Opportunity Number for this grant opportunity is EDA02142007 and the CFDA number is 11.303. EDA strongly encourages that applicants not wait until the application closing date to begin the application process through *www.Grants.gov.* The preferred file format for electronic attachments (e.g., the Project Narrative and exhibits to Form ED-900A) is portable document format (PDF); however, EDA will accept electronic files in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, Lotus or Excel formats. Applicants should access the following link for assistance in navigating www.Grants.gov and for a list of useful resources: *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/applicant_help.jsp.* If you do not find an answer to your question under *Frequently Asked Questions,* try consulting the *Applicant's User Guide.* If you still cannot find an answer to your question, contact *www.Grants.gov* via e-mail at *support@grants.gov* or telephone at 1.800.518.4726. The hours of operation for *www.Grants.gov* are Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.
(EST)(except for federal holidays). For a copy of the FFO announcement for this request for applications, please see the Web site listed below under “Electronic Access.” FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For additional information or for a paper copy of the FFO announcement, the designated contact person in the Austin regional office is John Christ. Mr. Christ may be reached at *jchrist@eda.doc.gov* or at 512.381.8145. The designated contact person in the Denver regional office is Forlesia S. Willis. Ms. Willis may be reached at *fwillis@eda.doc.gov* or at 303.844.5452. EDA's Internet Web site at *www.eda.gov* also contains additional information on EDA and its programs, including the University Center Economic Development Program. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 2, 2007, EDA published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 5002) the original notice regard the FY 2007 University Center Economic Development Program competition. The original deadline for receipt of applications was May 3, 2007 at 4 p.m. local time. EDA re-opens the solicitation period to provide the public more time to submit applications. The new deadline for receipt of electronic and paper applications for funding under the FY 2007 University Center Economic Development Program competition is May 25, 2007 at 4 p.m. local time. All applications that are submitted between May 3, 2007 and the date of publication of this notice will be considered timely. Applicants who submitted all application materials by the original deadline (May 3, 2007 at 4 p.m. local time) may revise their applications in light of the re-opening of the competitive solicitation, but all materials must be received by the Austin or Denver regional offices (as appropriate) by May 25, 2007 at 4 p.m. local time. All other information and requirements for the FY 2007 University Center Economic Development Program competition remain as stated in the February 2, 2007 **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 5002). *Electronic Access:* The FFO announcement for the FY 2007 University Center Economic Development Program competition is available at *http://www.Grants.gov.* Additional information is available through EDA's Internet Web site at *http://www.eda.gov.* *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number:* 11.303, Economic Development—Technical Assistance. Dated: May 4, 2007. Benjamin Erulkar, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development. [FR Doc. E7-8995 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-24-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-892] Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 7, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbazole violet pigment 23 (CVP 23) from the People's Republic of China
(PRC)for the period June 24, 2004, through November 30, 2005. *See Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission in Part* , 71 FR 65073 (November 7, 2006) (Preliminary Results). We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. Based upon our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to our margin calculation; however, the final dumping margin for Tianjin Hanchem Trading Co., Ltd. (Hanchem) does not differ from the Preliminary Results. Hanchem's final dumping margin is listed in the “Final Results of Review” section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Trainor or Terre Keaton, 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)482-4007 or
(202)482-1280, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 7, 2006, the Department published its Preliminary Results in this administrative review. We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On November 27, 2006, the petitioners 1 submitted additional surrogate value information. On December 7, 2006, the petitioners and Clariant Corporation, a domestic interested party, filed case briefs. On December 14, 2006, Hanchem filed a rebuttal brief. On January 23, 2007, we extended the final results by 60 days. *See Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results* , 72 FR 2855 (January 23, 2007). 1 The petitioners are Nation Ford Chemical Company and Sun Chemical Company. We have conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213. Period of Review The period of review
(POR)is June 24, 2004, through November 30, 2005. Scope of Order The merchandise covered by this order is carbazole violet pigment 23 identified as Color Index No. 51319 and Chemical Abstract No. 6358-30-1, with the chemical name of *diindolo [3,2-b:3′,2′-m] triphenodioxazine, 8,18-dichloro-5, 15-diethy-5,15-dihydro-* , and molecular formula of C 34 H 22 Cl 2 N 4 O 2 . 2 The subject merchandise includes the crude pigment in any form ( *e.g.* , dry powder, paste, wet cake) and finished pigment in the form of presscake and dry color. Pigment dispersions in any form ( *e.g.* , pigments dispersed in oleoresins, flammable solvents, water) are not included within the scope of this order. The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under subheading 3204.17.9040 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. 2 The bracketed section of the product description, *[3,2-b:3′,2′-m]* , is not business proprietary information, but is part of the chemical nomenclature. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the post-preliminary comments by parties in this review are addressed in the memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2004-2005 Administrative Review of Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the People's Republic of China “ dated May 3, 2007, (Issues and Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised, all of which are in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in the briefs and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the Department of Commerce. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculation. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comments 2 and 3. Final Results of Review The weighted-average dumping margin for the period June 24, 2004, through November 30, 2005 is as follows: Exporter/Manufacturer Weighted-Average Margin Percentage Tianjin Hanchem International Trading Co., Ltd. 0.00 percent Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and 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 assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of administrative review. Pursuant to 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). We calculated the importer-specific *ad valorem* duty assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margin calculated for the examined U.S. sale to the total entered value of that sale. 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 Hanchem included in these final results of review for which Hanchem did not know its merchandise 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 intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of CVP 23 from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)For Hanchem, the cash deposit rate will be zero;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)the cash deposit rate for all other PRC exporters will be 241.32 percent, the current PRC-wide rate 3 ; and
(4)the cash deposit rate for all non-PRC exporters that do no have their own rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. 3 *See The Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to United States Court of International Trade Remand Order, Goldlink Industries Co., Ltd., Trust Chem Co., Ltd., Tianjin Hanchem International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States* , Slip Op. 06-65 (May 4, 2006), confirmed by the CIT on December 8, 2006. * See also Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value * , 72 FR 327 (January 4, 2007). Notification to Interested Parties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this 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 double antidumping duties. 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 which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing these final results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213. Dated: May 3, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I: Issues Addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum *Comment 1:* Surrogate Value for Chloranil *Comment 2:* Surrogate Financial Ratios *Comment 3:* Surrogate Value for Triethylamine *Comment 4:* Brokerage Fees and Terminal Charges [FR Doc. E7-9042 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-122-840] Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 6, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of its third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Canada. The review covers the shipments of subject merchandise to the United States by Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. (“IRM”), and Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P., (“Sivaco”) (collectively, both IRM and Sivaco are referred to as “Ivaco”). 1 The period of review (“POR”) is October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2005. Based on our analysis of comments received, these final results differ from the preliminary results. The final results are listed below in the Final Results of Review section. 1 On March 30, 2007, the Department determined that Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. was the successor-in-interest to Ivaco Rolling Mills L.P.; and Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P., was the successor-in-interest to Ivaco Inc. *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada* , 72 FR 15102 (March 30, 2007). EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Damian Felton or Brandon Farlander, at
(202)482-0133 or
(202)482-0182, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 6, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Canada. *See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada* , 71 FR 64921 (November 6, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). We invited parties to comment on the *Preliminary Results* . On December 11, 2006, we received case briefs from the respondent, Ivaco, and the petitioners, Gerdau Ameristeel US, Inc., ISG Georgetown, Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North Star Steel Texas, Inc. (herein after referred to as “the petitioners”). Ivaco submitted its rebuttal brief on December 18, 2006. No public hearing was requested. Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) definitions for
(a)stainless steel;
(b)tool steel;
(c)high nickel steel;
(d)ball bearing steel; and
(e)concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are
(f)free machining steel products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. Grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as:
(i)grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter;
(ii)with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns);
(iii)having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns;
(iv)having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114;
(v)having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm;
(vi)capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and
(vii)containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown:
(1)0.78 percent or more of carbon,
(2)less than 0.01 percent of aluminum,
(3)0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur,
(4)0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and
(5)not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium. Grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as:
(i)grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter;
(ii)with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns);
(iii)having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns;
(iv)having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114;
(v)having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm;
(vi)capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and
(vii)containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown:
(1)0.78 percent or more of carbon,
(2)less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum,
(3)0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur,
(4)0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and
(5)either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified). For purposes of grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis - that is, the direction of rolling - of the rod) over thickness (measured on the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 24, 2003. The designation of the products as “tire cord quality” or “tire bead quality” indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise. All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope. The products under review are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.3092, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, 7227.90.6059, and 7227.90.6080 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Level of Trade As stated in the *Preliminary Results* , section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act provides that in order to grant a level of trade (“LOT”) adjustment, we must find that the export price (“EP”) or constructed export price sale (as appropriate) was made at a different level than that of the normal value sale and that this difference:
(1)involved different selling activities, and
(2)affected price comparability based on a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at different LOTs in the country in which normal value is determined. 2 2 *See Preliminary Results* , 71 FR at 64924. Ivaco reported two channels of distribution in the home and U.S. markets. The channels of distribution were:
(1)direct sales by IRM and
(2)direct sales by Sivaco. To determine whether the two channels constitute separate levels of trade, we examined the stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chains of distribution between Ivaco and its customers. Based on this examination, we preliminarily determined that Ivaco sold merchandise at two LOTs during the POR. One LOT is for sales made by the steel wire rod manufacturing facility, IRM; the second LOT is for sales made by Sivaco, the customer service center, which is a steel wire rod processing and drawing facility. Sales by Sivaco have different, more complex, distribution patterns, involving substantially greater selling activities. These selling activities are explained in greater detail in Comment 1 in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary (“Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Based upon our analysis of the marketing process for these sales, we continue to find that sales by Sivaco are at a more advanced stage than sales by IRM. For the *Preliminary Results* , the Department performed its standard analysis of price differences on Ivaco's submitted home market sales by comparing, for each identical model sold at both levels, the average net price of sales made in the ordinary course of trade at the two LOTs. 3 Our analysis for the *Preliminary Results* as well as for the final results reveals that for a preponderance of models and quantities sold at different LOTs by Sivaco and IRM, a pattern of consistent price differences existed. Therefore, we continue to grant a LOT adjustment for EP sales for which we were not able to find sales of the foreign-like product in the home market at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales. *See* Decision Memorandum, at Comments 1-4; *see also* Memorandum to the File entitled, “Analysis Memorandum for Ivaco,” Re: Final Results for the Third Antidumping Duty Review of Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, at 2 (May 3, 2007). 3 *See e.g., Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 62 FR 2081, 2106 (January 15, 1997). Analysis of Comments Received The issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the accompanying Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Decision Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit in Room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building, and can also be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received, we have corrected a programming error identified by Ivaco. Due to an error in the programing language, no level of trade adjustments were applied to any of Ivaco's sales in our preliminary margin calculation. Consequently, we have corrected the programming language for Ivaco for purposes of the final results. The changes are discussed in detail in the accompanying Decision Memorandum. Final Results of Review As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for the period October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2005: Producer Weighted-Average Margin (Percentage) Ivaco 2.06 Assessment The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. In accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP on or after 41 days following the date of publication of these final results of review. Cash Deposits Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Canada entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”):
(1)For the company covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above;
(2)for previously reviewed or 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 investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the producer of the merchandise in these final results of review, a prior review, or in the final determination; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 8.11 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the less-than-fair-value 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) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred, and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 3, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. APPENDIX I. Level of Trade Comment 1: Statutory Requirements for a Level of Trade Adjustment Comment 2: Pattern of Price Differences Analysis Comment 3: Pattern of Price Differences Methodology Comment 4: Post-Sale Price Adjustments II. Programing Comment 5: Level of Trade Adjustment in the Programing Language [FR Doc. E7-9039 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-427-818] Low Enriched Uranium From France: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myrna Lobo or Douglas Kirby, Office 6, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-2371, or
(202)482-3782, respectively. SUMMARY: On January 3, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on low enriched uranium
(LEU)from France pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and an inadequate response from respondent interested party, the Department has conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of this order pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the Department's regulations. As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the level indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 3, 2007, the Department published the notice of initiation of the first sunset review of the antidumping duty order on LEU from France pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-year (Sunset) Reviews* , 72 FR 100 (January 3, 2007). The Department received a notice of intent to participate from USEC Inc. and its subsidiary United States Enrichment Corporation (collectively USEC), the domestic party, within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations (Sunset Regulations). USEC claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a domestic producer of LEU. The Department also received a timely notice of appearance from respondent interested party Eurodif S.A. 1 (Eurodif), a French producer and exporter of LEU. Eurodif claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(A) of the Act. On February 2, 2007, the Department received a complete substantive response from USEC, within the 30-day deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Department's regulations. On the same day, the Department received a substantive response from Eurodif. In addition, on the same day, the Department received a notice of appearance and a substantive response from the Ad Hoc Utilities Group 2 (AHUG), an industry group comprised of owners and operators of U.S. nuclear power plants. Although AHUG claimed respondent interested party status under section 771(9)(A) of the Act, the Department determined it was not a respondent or an interested party pursuant to section 771(9)(A) of the Act. *See Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration; Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Low Enriched Uranium from France: Adequacy Determination* dated February 22, 2007 ( *Adequacy Memorandum* ), which is on file in B-099, the Central Records Unit of the main Commerce building (CRU). *Also see Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration; Comments Regarding Adequacy Determination: Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Low Enriched Uranium from France* , dated April 5, 2007 ( *Comments to Adequacy Memorandum* ), which is also on file in the CRU. The Department found that Eurodif's response was not adequate and therefore determined to conduct an expedited review. *See Adequacy Memorandum* . Subsequently, comments to the Department's *Adequacy Memorandum* were received from all parties. In those comments, USEC supported the Department's determination to conduct an expedited review, while Eurodif and AHUG argued in favor of a full sunset review. The Department responded to these comments, affirming it would not reverse its decision to conduct an expedited review in its *Comments to Adequacy Memorandum* . Accordingly, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the Department's regulations, the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of this order. 1 Eurodif S.A.'s affiliate companies are AREVA (formerly Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires (COGEMA)), an owner of Eurodif, AREVA NC and AREVA NC, Inc., sellers of enrichment services. 2 The members of AHUG are Constellation Energy Group, Inc., Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Duke Energy Corp., Entergy Services, Inc., Exelon Generation Co., LLC, Nebraska Public Power District, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc., Progress Energy Florida, Inc., Southern California Edison Co., Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Union Electric Co. (d/b/a/ Ameren UE), TXU Generation Co. LP, and Virginia Electric & Power Co. Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is all low enriched uranium (LEU). LEU is enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF <sup>6</sup> ) with a U 235 product assay of less than 20 percent that has not been converted into another chemical form, such as UO <sup>2</sup> , or fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies, regardless of the means by which the LEU is produced (including LEU produced through the down-blending of highly enriched uranium). Certain merchandise is outside the scope of this order. Specifically, this order does not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride with a U 235 assay of 20 percent or greater, also known as highly enriched uranium. In addition, fabricated LEU is not covered by the scope of this order. For purposes of this order, fabricated uranium is defined as enriched uranium dioxide (UO <sup>2</sup> ), whether or not contained in nuclear fuel rods or assemblies. Natural uranium concentrates (U <sup>3</sup> O <sup>8</sup> ) with a U 235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent and natural uranium concentrates converted into uranium hexafluoride with a U 235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent are not covered by the scope of this order. Also excluded from this order is LEU owned by a foreign utility end-user and imported into the United States by or for such end-user solely for purposes of conversion by a U.S. fabricator into uranium dioxide (UO <sup>2</sup> ) and/or fabrication into fuel assemblies so long as the uranium dioxide and/or fuel assemblies deemed to incorporate such imported LEU
(i)remain in the possession and control of the U.S. fabricator, the foreign end-user, or their designed transporter(s) while in U.S. customs territory, and
(ii)are re-exported within eighteen
(18)months of entry of the LEU for consumption by the end-user in a nuclear reactor outside the United States. Such entries must be accompanied by the certifications of the importer and end-user. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 2844.20.0020. Subject merchandise may also enter under 2844.20.0030, 2844.20.0050, and 2844.40.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this review are addressed in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Low Enriched Unranium from France* ( *Decision Memorandum* ) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 3, 2007, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the *Decision Memorandum* include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the order were to be revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.* The paper copy and electronic versions of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Final Results of Review The Department determines that revocation of the antidumping duty order on low enriched uranium from France would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins: Manufacturers/exporters/ producers Weighted average margin (percent) Eurodif/AREVA 19.95 All Others 19.95 International Trade Commission
(ITC)Notification Pursuant to section 752(c)(3) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final results of this expedited sunset review. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order 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. Timely 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 violation which is subject to sanction. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 3, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-9038 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-504] Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Eighth Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is currently conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) covering the period August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. This review covers imports of subject merchandise from one manufacturer/exporter: Deseado International, Ltd. (“Deseado”). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in accordance with these results. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary review results and will issue the final review results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-6905. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 28, 1986, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the PRC. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Petroleum Wax Candles From the People's Republic of China* , 51 FR 30686 (August 28, 1986) (“ *Candles Order* ”). On August 31, 2006, Deseado submitted a timely request for an administrative review. On September 29, 2006, in response to Deseado's request and in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), and section 351.213(b) of the Department's regulations, the Department initiated the eighth administrative review of petroleum wax candles from the PRC on 14 companies. 1 *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 2006). 1 The following companies upon which we initiated an administrative review, except Deseado, withdrew their requests for review after the issuance of the quantity and value (“Q&V”) questionnaire: Amstar Business Company Limited (“Amstar”), Apex Enterprises International Ltd. (“Apex”) and Apex's producer, Golden Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Golden”), Fuzhou Eastown Arts Co., Ltd. (“Fuzhou”), Gift Creative Company, Ltd. (“Gift”), Maverick Enterprise Co., Ltd. (“Maverick”) and Maverick's producer Great Founder International Co. (“Great Founder”), Qingdao Kingking Applied Chemistry Co., Ltd. (“KingKing”), Shantou Jinyuan Mingfeng Handicraft Co. (“Shantou Jinyuan”), Shanghai Shen Hong Arts and Crafts Co., Ltd. (“Shen Hong”) and Shen Hong's producer Shanghai Changran Enterprise, Ltd . (“Changran”), Shenzhen Sam Lick Manufactory (and affiliated exporter Prudential
(HK)Candles Manufacturing Co., Ltd). (“Sam Lick,” collectively), Transfar International Corp. (“Transfar”); On October 12, 2006, the Department issued a Q&V questionnaire to Deseado and the other 13 companies upon which we initiated the review. 2 On October 30, 2006, the Department sent a letter to Deseado notifying the company of its failure to submit a Q&V questionnaire response by the deadline date. 3 We provided Deseado with a new deadline of November 3, 2006, to submit a Q&V questionnaire response, which Deseado timely submitted. On December 7, 2006, the Department issued its standard non-market economy (“NME”) questionnaire to Deseado. On January 4, 2007, Deseado submitted its section A response to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. 4 In its section A questionnaire response, Deseado informed the Department that it is a trading company/exporter of the merchandise under consideration with an unaffiliated manufacturer/supplier in the PRC. 5 2 The original deadline for the quantity and value questionnaire was October 26, 2006. 3 *See* Letter dated October 30, 2006, to Deseado regarding the missed deadline for Q&V questionnaire response. 4 Sections A (Organization, Accounting Practices, Markets and Merchandise), C (Sales to the United States), D (Factors of Production), E (Cost of Further Manufacturing Performed in the United States) and Sales and Factors of Production Reconciliations. 5 *See* Deseado's Section A questionnaire response dated January 4, 2007, at 19. On January 8, 2007, the National Candle Association (“Petitioner”) submitted deficiency comments with respect to Deseado's Separate Rates Application. On January 26, 2007, Petitioner submitted additional deficiency comments with respect to Deseado's separate rates application and its section A response. On January 29, 2007, Deseado submitted the CBP 7501 entry summaries for its sales of subject merchandise to the United States, as requested by the Department, as well as its sections C and D questionnaire responses. On February 6, 2007, Petitioner submitted deficiency comments with respect to Deseado's section C response. On February 16, 2007, Petitioner submitted additional deficiency comments regarding Deseado's section C response relative to Deseado's submission of its CBP 7501 entry summaries. On February 16, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental section A questionnaire to Deseado. On March 6, 2007, Deseado submitted its supplemental section A response. On March 8, 2007, the Department issued a letter to Deseado stating that, upon review of Deseado's sections C and D questionnaire responses, Deseado had not provided any data that the Department could use to calculate an antidumping duty margin. The Department provided instructions within this letter for Deseado to correct its data deficiencies by March 19, 2007. On March 19, 2007, Deseado informed the Department that it was unable to provide the information requested by the Department in the March 8, 2007, letter. 6 On April 3, 2007, Petitioner submitted a request to terminate the administrative review with respect to Deseado. On April 10, 2007, Deseado submitted a letter stating that because it was the only party to have requested the administrative review, Petitioner had no grounds upon which to request a termination of the administrative review. 6 In its March 19, 2007, letter, Deseado stated that it was unable to provide the information requested in the Department's March 8, 2007, letter due to its supplier's unwillingness to cooperate and provide the information. Period of Review The period of review (“POR”) covers August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. Scope of the Order The products covered by *Candles Order* are certain scented or unscented petroleum wax candles made from petroleum wax and having fiber or paper-cored wicks. They are sold in the following shapes: tapers, spirals, and straight-sided dinner candles; round, columns, pillars, votives; and various wax-filled containers. The products were classified under the Tariff Schedules of the United States (“TSUS”) 755.25, Candles and Tapers. The product covered are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) item 3406.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience purposes, our written description remains dispositive. *See Candles Order and Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 77990 (December 29, 2004). Partial Rescission of Administrative Review Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary must rescind an administrative review if a party requesting a review withdraws the request within ninety
(90)days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. As noted above, thirteen companies upon which the Department initiated an administrative review submitted timely withdrawals of their requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). 7 No interested party provided any comments on the withdrawals. Therefore, because no other interested party requested a review of these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), and consistent with our practice, we are rescinding the administrative review of these thirteen companies for the POR. 7 On October 25, 2006, Nantucket Distributing Co., Inc., a U.S. importer, withdrew request for administrative reviews with respect to Sam Lick; on October 26, 2006, KingKing, withdrew its request for an administrative review; on October 25, 2006, Amstar withdrew its request for an administrative review; on October 26, 2007, Specialty Merchandise Corporation ("SMC"), a U.S. importer withdrew its request for administrative reviews with respect to Fuzhou, Gift, Maverick (and its producer Great), Shantou Jinyuan, Shen Hong (and its producer Changran), and Transfar; on November 22, 2006, SMC withdrew its request for administrative reviews with respect to Apex (and its producer, Golden). Non-Market Economy Country Status In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a NME country. Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 7013 (February 10, 2006). None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Separate Rates In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty deposit rate ( *i.e.* , a PRC-wide rate). In its separate rates application, Deseado reported that it is owned wholly by an entity located and registered in a market-economy country ( *i.e.* , Hong Kong). Thus, because we have no evidence indicating that Deseado is under the control of the PRC government, a separate-rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government control. *See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Fifth New Shipper Review* , 66 FR 44331 (Aug. 23, 2001), results unchanged from *Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Fifth New Shipper Review* , 66 FR 29080, 29081 (May 29, 2001) (where the respondent was wholly owned by a U.S. registered company); *Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Fourth New Shipper Review and Rescission of Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 66 FR 27063 (May 16, 2001) (where the respondent was wholly owned by a company located in Hong Kong), results unchanged from *Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Fourth New Shipper Review and Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 66 FR 1303, 1306 (January 8, 2001); and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the People's Republic of China* , 64 FR 71104, 71105 (Dec. 20, 1999) (“ *Creatine from the PRC* ”) (where the respondent was wholly owned by persons located in Hong Kong). Application of Adverse Facts Available As discussed further below, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C), and 776(b) of the Act, the Department preliminarily determines that the use of total adverse facts available is warranted for Deseado. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that, if an interested party
(A)withholds information that has been requested by the Department;
(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and
(e)of the Act;
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding; or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party “promptly after receiving a request from {the Department} for information, notifies {the Department} that such party is unable to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner, together with a full explanation and suggested alternative form in which such party is able to submit the information,” the Department may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on that party. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to the requirements listed in section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department “shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements established by the administering authority” if the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so without undue difficulties. Use of Facts Available We find that, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and
(C)of the Act, we should apply facts available to exports by Deseado because Deseado
(1)failed to provide information requested by the Department;
(2)failed to report in a timely manner information that was requested by the Department; and
(3)significantly impeded the proceeding. As discussed above, the Department reviewed Deseado's section C and D questionnaire responses, which should have contained detailed information regarding Deseado's sales of subject merchandise to the United States and factors of production (“FOP”) data, respectively. Deseado failed to provide accurate or complete information with respect to:
(1)A sales reconciliation, as requested;
(2)data fields in the sales database that are supposed to contain sale-specific data were instead populated with information other than numerical data, which renders the database unuseable;
(3)payment data for each sale invoice amount of subject merchandise sold to the United States; and
(4)inland freight, which was reported as an estimation of distance rather than an accurate reporting of inland freight distance for each sale to the United States. 8 Consequently, the breadth of the deficient, incorrect, or missing data alone forced the Department to send its letter dated March 8, 2007, to enumerate the deficiencies and receive a response upon which we could conduct an accurate analysis of Deseado's POR sales to the United States. As discussed below, the Department attempted to provide Deseado with an opportunity to remedy the deficiencies contained within its original section C response. 8 *See* Deseado's section C questionnaire response (“SCQR”) dated January 29, 2007, at C-9 through C-11 and Exhibit C-1. In the March 8, 2007, letter to Deseado, the Department stated that Deseado's sales data was unusable in the format in which it was submitted. Specifically, Deseado's sales data included a control number assigned to each sale that did not contain any physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration, as requested by the Department in its initial questionnaire. 9 The Department's March 8, 2007, letter provided the steps necessary for Deseado to reconstruct its CONNUM methodology into a format that is specific to the physical characteristics of the subject merchandise, which would reconcile to the FOPs used in manufacturing the merchandise. Moreover, the March 8, 2007, letter also stated that the sales database must be formatted pursuant to the Department's instructions in its initial questionnaire for use in the Department's margin calculation. Deseado's response in its March 19, 2007, letter did not address any of the sales data deficiencies remarked upon in our March 8, 2007, letter. 9 The control number (“CONNUM”) is assigned to each unique product reported in the sales database. Each identical product would be assigned the same CONNUM. However, products with physical variations require multiple CONNUMs assigned to it. The CONNUM methodology is based on the “physical characteristics” of each unique product sold by Deseado, which is used to tie each unique product sold to the cost of materials, labor, energy and packing, *i.e.* , the FOPs, to manufacture that unique product. Rather, Deseado provided the bar code numbers (“SKU”) numbers associated with the finished good rather than constructing a CONNUM for each unique product based in the physical characteristics of the merchandise. *See* SCQR at 8-9. The SKU numbers are not descriptive of the physical characteristics of the unique product. Thus, the Department could not compare the sale of the product with the FOPs used in manufacturing that product in the data submitted by Deseado as required by the dumping calculation. Additionally, in reviewing Deseado's section D questionnaire response, which should have contained information and data related to FOPs and the cost portion of the merchandise under consideration, the Department found that Deseado entirely omitted the FOP database and narrative descriptions of the FOPs from the section D questionnaire response. 10 Deseado did not provide any consumption data 11 for the FOPs used to produce the subject merchandise, without which the Department is unable to construct a normal value (“NV”). FOP information is fundamental for calculating a dumping margin. Section 771(35)(A) of the Act requires that dumping margins are calculated by comparing the NV to the export price or constructed export price. For NME countries, the Act states that the NV is determined “on the basis of the value of the factors of production utilized in producing the merchandise.” *See* section 773(c)(1) of the Act. 10 *See* Deseado's Section D questionnaire response dated January 29, 2007, at Exhibit D-1. The Department notes that Exhibit D-1, which Deseado referred to as the FOP database, is simply the FOP worksheet we include in the original questionnaire for respondents to provide information such as percentages of NME versus market economy purchases, supplier distance information, units of measurement, modes of transport, etc. 11 Consumption data consist of the POR consumption quantity of FOP inputs used to produce subject merchandise divided by the total POR production of subject merchandise. This methodology for calculating FOP consumption ratios is fully explained in the original Section D questionnaire. Deseado also failed to submit a cost reconciliation, as requested in the original questionnaire. The Department's letter dated March 8, 2007, also addressed Deseado's omission of the entire FOP narrative and data, providing it an opportunity to remedy this deficiency as well. On March 19, 2007, Deseado provided a brief response with respect to the missing FOP data, stating that its supplier was uncooperative. Deseado did not provide any further detail regarding the failures of its supplier to provide FOP data. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(B)of the Act, the Department has determined that it is appropriate to apply the facts available to Deseado's sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR because Deasado has failed to provide FOP information requested by the Department. Because the Department provided Deseado with an opportunity on March 8, 2007, to remedy the defects in its section D questionnaire response and Deseado failed to comply with the Department's request for information, we find that the information Deaseado submitted is so incomplete that the Department's reliance upon it would not result in an accurate measurement or reflection of Deseado's selling practices. Therefore, we find that the curative provisions of sections 782(d) and
(e)are not applicable. In addition, we find that Deseado's statement that it is unable to provide its own sales data because it cannot obtain other information from its supplier does not satisfy the requirements of section 782(c)(1) of the Act. Deasado has neither demonstrated the steps it undertook to gather the information, nor demonstrated its supplier's unwillingness to provide the information, nor suggested alternative or substitutable information for use in place of the missing FOP data. Therefore, as discussed above, we find that the application of facts available pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(B)of the Act is warranted in calculating a margin for Deseado for these preliminary results. We also find, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act, that it appropriate to apply facts available to Deseado because its failure to respond to the Department's questionnaires and its failure to provide complete FOP data significantly impeded the progress of this proceeding. Because Deseado has not provided its FOP data as requested by the Department, the Department cannot construct Deseado's NV and, therefore, it cannot determine an accurate dumping margin for Deseado. In addition, the questionnaire responses that Deseado provided were so incomplete that they could not be used by the Department. Therefore, we find that the application of the facts available is also warranted, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(C), because Deseado's actions significantly impeded the progress of this proceeding. Use of Adverse Inferences In selecting from among facts available, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department may apply an adverse inference when it has determined that a respondent has “failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information.” An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from
(1)the petition;
(2)a final determination in the investigation under this title;
(3)any previous review under section 751 of the Act or determination under section 753 of the Act, or
(4)any other information on the record. *See* section 776(b) of the Act. Congress has noted that adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA* , H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, Vol. 1 at 870
(1994)(“SAA”); *Mannesmannrohren-Werke AG v. United States* , 77 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (CIT 1999). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the Federal Circuit”) in *Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States* , 337 F. 3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“ *Nippon* ”), provided an explanation of the “failure to act to the best of its ability” standard, stating that the ordinary meaning of “best” means “one's maximum effort,” and that the statutory mandate that a respondent act to the “best of its ability” requires the respondent to do the maximum it is able to do. *Id* . The Federal Circuit acknowledged, however, that “deliberate concealment or inaccurate reporting” would certainly be sufficient to find that a respondent did not act to the best of its ability, although it indicated that inadequate responses to agency inquiries “would suffice” as well. *Id* . Compliance with the “best of the ability” standard is determined by assessing whether a respondent has put forth its maximum effort to provide the Department with full an complete answers to all inquiries in an investigation. *Id* . The Federal Circuit further noted that while the standard does not require perfection and recognizes that mistakes sometimes occur, it does not condone inattentiveness, carelessness, or inadequate record keeping. *Id* . As discussed above, we determine that, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, Deseado failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's multiple requests for information and significantly impeded this proceeding, and that the application of adverse facts otherwise available (“AFA”) is warranted. 12 The Department finds that Deseado failed to cooperate to the best of its ability because it did not respond accurately to the Department's questions on such basic information as payment received for its POR sales. Furthermore, Deseado provided an unuseable CONNUM to compare sales to FOPs, did not provide sales or cost reconciliations, and omitted an entire database and narrative description of production data consumption for the POR. The information requested by the Department can only be supplied by Deseado and cannot be obtained from any other sources. Without this information, the Department cannot calculate a dumping margin for Deseado. Therefore, the Department finds that, by not providing the necessary responses to the questionnaires issued by the Department, Deseado has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. 12 *See Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 75710 (December 18, 2006), results unchanged from *Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Rescission, In Part, and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 45768, 45771 (August 10, 2006) (where the Department stated that “...these deficiencies in the revised response, in view of the Department's detailed instructions and guidance, indicate that Liaoning Company did not act to the best of its ability in providing the requested information”); *see also Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review: Foundry Coke From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 4108 (January 28, 2004), results unchanged from *Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Foundry Coke from the People's Republic of China* , 68 FR 57869, 57873 (October 7, 2003). First, because this is an NME proceeding, it is necessary that the Department have valid FOP information in order to calculate the NV, as stated above. In cases such as this, when we are precluded from reviewing the FOPs of the suppliers, and absent any FOP information provided, the Department cannot simply create or postulate the costs of the uncooperative suppliers. Additionally, the Department has no other FOP information on the record. Because Deseado and its supplier have failed to provide FOP information for this administrative review, the Department cannot properly calculate a dumping margin in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1997-998 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Results of New Shipper Review* , 64 FR 61837, 61846 (November 15, 1999) (“TRBs-11”); *see also Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 19504 (April 21, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, Comment 7 (“ *Crawfish* ”). Thus, the Department finds that Deseado and its supplier have not acted to the best of their ability. Second, Deseado and its supplier have failed to provided any explanation why they were unable provide the FOP information, nor did they offer any alternative forms by which they might be able to comply with the Department's requests. As the Federal Circuit has held, a respondent must “put forth its maximum efforts” in complying with the Department's requests. *See Nippon* , 337 F.3d at 1382. Additionally, it has been the Department practice to apply adverse facts available when a respondent has failed to provide convincing evidence “claiming that their suppliers cannot supply requested factors of production information.” *See Creatine from the PRC* , 64 FR at 71108 (applying adverse facts available because the respondent did not provide an acceptable explanation on the record for its suppliers failure to provide the FOP information); *see also* TRBs-11, 64 FR at 61846 (finding that the respondent did not act to the best of its ability when it was unable to provide letters from unrelated suppliers stating their unwillingness to supply factors of production information); *see also Notice of Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review* , 68 FR 36767, 36768 (June 19, 2003) (“Garlic”) (applying adverse facts available when a supplier stated that it was unwilling to provide details on its production process or its FOPs; and the respondent did not provide an explanation as to why it or its supplier could not provide the FOP information); *see also Notice of Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 67 FR 48612 (July 25, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 10 (finding that there was no acceptable explanation on the record for the supplier's failure to provide factor of production information, an adverse inference in applying facts available was warranted due to the supplier's failure to act to the best of its ability). Although Deseado claimed that it attempted to obtain the information from its supplier, it is ultimately Deseado's responsibility for submitting accurate FOP information, as it is the party that is seeking the rate based on the FOP information and it is more readily available to them, and any “failures, even if made by a supplier, may provide grounds for the application of adverse facts available.” * See Crawfish * , 68 FR at 19504; *see also Garlic* , 68 FR at 36768. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we are preliminarily applying the AFA rate to Deseado's sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. In the instant proceeding, we find it appropriate to use an inference that is adverse to the interests of Deseado in selecting from among the facts otherwise available because Deseado failed to comply with the Department's request for sales and cost data required in the original questionnaire and its subsequent failure to provide corrected data upon the second opportunity to do so, despite the Department's specific and detailed explanations within the March 8, 2007, letter. *See, e.g. Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 9508 (March 2, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 27 (where “the Department found that Jilin Bright Future failed to cooperate to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's request for information”). Deseado failed to provide the Department with complete or revised responses during this administrative review and the application of total AFA in this case is appropriate because it should not be rewarded for its noncompliance. *See, e.g., Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States* , 298 F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we are applying as AFA the rate of 108.3 percent, the highest calculated rate from any segment of this proceeding. *See* the “Corroboration” section below for a discussion of the probative value of the 108.30 percent rate. Corroboration Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. As described in the SAA, it is the Department's practice to use secondary information from the petition, the final determination, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise. *See SAA* at 870. The Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information has probative value and, to the extent practicable, will examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. The AFA rate being assigned to Deseado (108.30 percent) is the highest calculated rate determined in any segment of this proceeding (the 2001-2002 administrative review). *See Amended Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China* (“ *Amended Final* ”) 69 FR 20858 (April 19, 2004). This rate was corroborated in the most recently completed new shipper review subsequent to the Amended Final. *See Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China (“2002-2003 New Shipper Review”)* 69 FR 77990 (December 29, 2004). Furthermore, no information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of this information. We note that this is the highest rate from any segment of the proceeding and the rate is less than four years old. Thus, the Department finds that the information continues to be reliable. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in *Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812 at Comment 4 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to “facts available”) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been judicially invalidated. *See D&L Supply Co. v. United States* , 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). The information used in calculating this margin was based on sales and production data submitted by the respondents in the 2001-2002 administrative review, together with the most appropriate surrogate value information available to the Department, chosen from submissions by the parties in the 2001-2002 administrative review, as well as gathered by the Department itself. Furthermore, the calculation of this margin was subject to comment from interested parties in the proceeding. Moreover, as there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriately used as AFA, we determine that this rate has relevance. Based on our analysis, we find that the margin of 108.30 percent is reliable and has relevance. As the rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value. Accordingly, we determine that the calculated rate of 108.30 percent, which is the current PRC-wide rate, is in accordance with the requirement of section 776(c) of the Act that secondary information be corroborated (that it have probative value). Consequently, we have assigned this AFA rate to exports of the subject merchandise from Deseado. Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily determine that the following margin exists during the period August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006: Petroleum Wax Candles from the PRC Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Deseado Industrial Co., Ltd. 108.30 Public Comment The Department will disclose to parties of this proceeding the information utilized in reaching the preliminary results within ten days of the date of announcement of the preliminary results. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties may submit written comments (case briefs) within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument:
(1)A statement of the issue;
(2)a brief summary of the argument; and
(3)a table of authorities. Further, the Department requests that parties submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing the public version of those comments. Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results. The assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review and future deposits of estimated duties shall be based on the final results of this review. Assessment Rates Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific (or customer) *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above *de minimis* . Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements, when imposed, will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)For previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(2)for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 108.30 percent; and
(3)the cash deposit rate for all non-PRC exporters (including Deseado) of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary 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 double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 2, 2007 David A. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-9040 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-557-813] Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from an interested party, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from Malaysia. The review covers one manufacturer/exporter. The period of review is August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. We have preliminarily determined that sales have not been made below normal value by the company subject to this review. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit comments in this review are requested to submit with each argument a statement of each issue and a brief summary of the argument. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yang Jin Chun or Richard Rimlinger, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5760 and
(202)482-4477, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 9, 2004, we published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on PRCBs from Malaysia. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Malaysia* , 69 FR 48203 (August 9, 2004). On August 1, 2006, we published in the **Federal Register** a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PRCBs from Malaysia. See *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Findings, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 43441 (August 1, 2006). Pursuant to section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), Euro Plastics Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. (Euro Plastics) requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PRCBs from Malaysia on August 8, 2006. On September 29, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice of initiation of administrative review of this order. See *Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 2006). We are conducting an administrative review of the order on PRCBs from Malaysia for Euro Plastics for the period August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. Scope of Order The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order is PRCBs which may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non-sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments, *e.g.* , grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and restaurants, to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. The scope of the order excludes
(1)polyethylene bags that are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and
(2)polyethylene bags that are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail establishments, *e.g.* , garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners. Imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). This subheading also covers products that are outside the scope of the order. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we have verified Euro Plastics's home-market and U.S. sales information using standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities, the examination of relevant sales and financial records, and the selection of original documentation containing relevant information. Our verification results are outlined in the public version of the verification report dated May 2, 2007, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building. Duty-Absorption Determination On October 30, 2006, the petitioners 1 in this proceeding requested that the Department determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by Euro Plastics, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(j). In making a duty-absorption determination, the Department will determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a producer or exporter subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such producer or exporter. See section 751(a)(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(j). Euro Plastics made export-price sales only to the United States during the period of review and the company did not make any of its U.S. sales through an affiliated importer. Therefore, a duty-absorption determination is not relevant for Euro Plastics for this review and we will not make such a determination in this review. 1 The Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee and its individual members, Hilex Poly Co., LLC, and Superbag Corporation. Export Price To determine whether sales of PRCBs from Malaysia to the United States were made at prices less than normal value, we compared the U.S. price to the normal value. For the price of sales by Euro Plastics to the United States, we used export price as defined in section 772(a) of the Act because the subject merchandise was first sold to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We calculated Euro Plastics's export price based on the prices of the subject merchandise sold to unaffiliated customers in, or for exportation to, the United States. See section 772(c) of the Act. We made deductions for domestic movement expenses incurred in Malaysia and domestic and international movement expenses incurred for sales to the United States in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Comparison-Market Sales In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the comparison market to serve as a viable basis for calculating the normal value, we compared the volume of home-market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of the U.S. sales of the subject merchandise in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act. Based on this comparison of the aggregate quantities of the comparison-market ( *i.e.* , Malaysia) and U.S. sales and absent any information that a particular market situation in the exporting country did not permit a proper comparison, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product sold by the respondent in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Thus, we determined that Euro Plastics's home market was viable during the period of review. See section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value for the respondent on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the exporting country in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the comparison-market sales. Cost of Production The petitioners in this proceeding filed an allegation that Euro Plastics made sales below its cost of production
(COP)in the comparison market pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act. Based on the information in the responses, we found that we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Euro Plastics's sales of the foreign like product were made at prices less than the COP. See section 773(b)(2) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted a COP investigation to determine whether Euro Plastics's sales were made at prices below their COP. See the COP Investigation Memo dated January 12, 2007, for a full discussion of the decision to initiate a COP investigation. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated Euro Plastics's COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, the selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental to packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the comparison-market sales and COP information provided by the respondent in its questionnaire responses. After calculating the COP, we tested whether comparison-market sales of the foreign like product were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. See section 773(b)(2) of the Act. In order to determine whether the sales were made at below-cost prices, we compared model-specific COP to the reported comparison-market prices less any applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates. See section 773(b) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined preliminarily that the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities. Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product during the period of review were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because we determined preliminarily that they were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C)of the Act. Based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COP for the period of review, we determined preliminarily that these sales were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. See Euro Plastics Preliminary Analysis Memorandum dated May 3, 2007. Based on this test, we disregarded Euro Plastics's below-cost sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Euro Plastics relied on its audited 2005 financial statement to calculate the COP because its audited 2006 financial statement was not yet available. Because the period of review covers five months in 2005 and seven months in 2006, we requested that Euro Plastics recalculate its general and administrative expenses and net interest rates using the audited 2006 financial statement. We also requested that Euro Plastics provide cost reconciliations using the audited 2006 financial statements and supporting documents. Euro Plastics stated that its audited 2006 financial statement will be available at the end of April 2007 and, once the audited 2006 financial statement becomes available, it will resubmit its cost data. For the final results, we intend to use Euro Plastics's cost data based on its audited 2006 financial statement. Model-Matching Methodology We compared U.S. sales with sales of the foreign like product in the home market. Specifically, in making our comparisons, we used the following methodology. If an identical comparison-market model was reported, we made comparisons to weighted-average comparison-market prices that were based on all sales which passed the COP test of the identical product during the relevant or contemporary month. If there were no contemporaneous sales of an identical model, we identified the most similar comparison-market model. To determine the most similar model, we matched the foreign like product based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondent in the following order of importance:
(1)quality,
(2)bag type,
(3)length,
(4)width,
(5)gusset,
(6)thickness,
(7)percentage of high-density polyethylene resin,
(8)percentage of low-density polyethylene resin,
(9)percentage of low linear-density polyethylene resin,
(10)percentage of color concentrate,
(11)percentage of ink coverage,
(12)number of ink colors,
(13)number of sides printed. Normal Value We based normal value for Euro Plastics on the prices of the foreign like products sold to its comparison-market customers. When applicable, we made adjustments for differences in packing and movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B)of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to export price, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses incurred on home-market sales from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, normal value. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value on sales at the same level of trade as the export price. See the “Level of Trade” section below. Level of Trade Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act provides that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate normal value based on sales at the same level of trade as the export price. The normal-value level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market before any adjustments. See section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. Euro Plastics reported identical selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer in the comparison and U.S. markets. We have reviewed the selling functions Euro Plastics reported including sales forecasting, order input/processing, direct sales personnel, sales/marketing support, freight and delivery, and packing. We examined them in relation to a number of expenses Euro Plastics reported in its responses and found no discrepancies. Therefore, we determined that Euro Plastics made all comparison-market sales at one level of trade, all U.S. sales at one level of trade, and all comparison-market sales at the same level of trade as the export-price sales. See sections 773(a)(1)(B)(i) and 773(a)(7) of the Act. See Euro Plastics Preliminary Analysis Memorandum dated May 3, 2007, for more analysis. Preliminary Results of the Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the weighted-average dumping margin on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Malaysia for the period August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006, for Euro Plastics is 0.00 percent. Comments We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate in a hearing if a hearing is requested must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the following:
(1)the party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2)the number of participants;
(3)a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice of preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs from interested parties, limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, may be submitted not later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs or comments. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1) and 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a summary of the arguments not exceeding five pages, and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We intend to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific assessment amount of 0.00. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will direct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries at this rate. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by Euro Plastics for which it did not know its merchandise 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 intermediate company(ies) 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 deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of PRCBs from Malaysia entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)The cash-deposit rate for Euro Plastics will be the rate established in the final results of review;
(2)for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Malaysia* , 69 FR 34128, 34129 (June 18, 2004);
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the less-than-fair-value investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise;
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be 84.94 percent, the “all others” rate for this proceeding. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importer This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 3, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-9036 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-427-819] Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Countervailing Duty Order on Low Enriched Uranium from France AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 3, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on low enriched uranium (“LEU”) from France, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of a domestic interested party and inadequate response from respondent interested parties (in this case, no response), the Department determined to conduct an expedited sunset review of this CVD order pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B). As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the level indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4793 or
(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 3, 2007, the Department initiated a sunset review of the CVD order on LEU from France pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 72 FR 100 (January 3, 2007). On January 16, 2007, the Department received a notice of appearance on behalf of Eurodif S.A., a French producer of LEU, and its affiliated companies, including AREVA, an owner of Eurodif, and AREVA NC and AREVA NC, Inc., (collectively, “Eurodif/AREVA”). 1 Eurodif/AREVA is an interested party under section 771(9)(A) of the Act. On January 18, 2007, the Department received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of USEC Inc. and its subsidiary, United States Enrichment Corporation (collectively, “USEC”), a domestic interested party. USEC, a domestic producer of LEU, is an interested party under section 771(9)(C) of the Act. 1 AREVA was previously known as Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires (“COGEMA”). On February 2, 2007, the Department received a complete substantive response from USEC within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). However, the Department did not receive a substantive response from any government or respondent interested party to this proceeding. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited sunset review of this CVD order. Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is all LEU. LEU is enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF 6 ) with a U 235 product assay of less than 20 percent that has not been converted into another chemical form, such as UO 2 , or fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies, regardless of the means by which the LEU is produced (including LEU produced through the down-blending of highly enriched uranium). Certain merchandise is outside the scope of this order. Specifically, this order does not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride with a U 235 assay of 20 percent or greater, also known as highly enriched uranium. In addition, fabricated LEU is not covered by the scope of this order. For purposes of this order, fabricated uranium is defined as enriched uranium dioxide (UO 2 ), whether or not contained in nuclear fuel rods or assemblies. Natural uranium concentrates (U 3 O 8 ) with a U 235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent and natural uranium concentrates converted into uranium hexafluoride with a U 235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent are not covered by the scope of this order. Also excluded from this order is LEU owned by a foreign utility end-user and imported into the United States by or for such end-user solely for purposes of conversion by a U.S. fabricator into uranium dioxide (UO 2 ) and/or fabrication into fuel assemblies so long as the uranium dioxide and/or fuel assemblies deemed to incorporate such imported LEU
(i)remain in the possession and control of the U.S. fabricator, the foreign end-user, or their designated transporter(s) while in U.S. customs territory, and
(ii)are re-exported within eighteen
(18)months of entry of the LEU for consumption by the end-user in a nuclear reactor outside the United States. Such entries must be accompanied by the certifications of the importer and end user. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheading 2844.20.0020. Subject merchandise may also enter under 2844.20.0030, 2844.20.0050, and 2844.40.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Decision Memorandum”) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 2, 2007, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit room B-099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review The Department determines that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rates listed below: Producers/Exporters Net Countervailable Subsidy (percent) Eurodif S.A. and AREVA NC 12.15 *ad valorem* All Others 12.15 *ad valorem* Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 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 the results and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 2, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-9037 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XA11 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; South Atlantic Exempted Fishing Permit AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS announces the receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit
(EFP)from Rachel Kalisperis on behalf of the South Carolina Aquarium. If granted, the EFP would authorize the applicant, with certain conditions, to collect limited numbers of groupers (not including goliath grouper), snappers, tilefishes, sea basses, jacks, spadefish, grunts, porgies, mackerel, cero, cobia, dolphin fish, spiny lobster, little tunny, triggerfishes, golden crab, hogfish, porkfish, puddingwife, red drum, scup, sheepshead, shrimp, wahoo, and wreckfish. Specimens would be collected from Federal waters off the coast of South Carolina from 2007 to 2012 and displayed at the South Carolina Aquarium, located in Charleston, South Carolina. DATES: Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on May 25, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments on the application may be sent via fax to 727-824-5308 or mailed to: Julie Weeder, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13 th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *SouthCarolina.Aquarium@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail document the following text: Comment on South Carolina Aquarium EFP Application. The application and related documents are available for review upon written request to the address above or the e-mail address below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Weeder, 727-551-5753; fax 727-824-5308; e-mail: *Julie.Weeder@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EFP is requested under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* ), and regulations at 50 CFR 600.745(b) concerning exempted fishing. According to the applicant, the South Carolina Aquarium is a public, non-profit institution located in Charleston, South Carolina. Its mission is to provide entertainment and education and to support conservation through aquatic exhibits displaying animals from South Carolina. The proposed collection for public display involves activities otherwise prohibited by regulations implementing the Fishery Management Plans
(FMPs)for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region, Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic Region, Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery off the Atlantic States, and Coastal Migratory Pelagics Resources. The applicant requires authorization to harvest and possess up to the following numbers of fishes during each 12-month period from June 20, 2007, to June 19, 2012: 50 Atlantic spadefish, 15 blueline tilefish, 12 cero, 6 cobia, 50 dolphin fish, 5 golden crab, 15 golden tilefish, 40 groupers of the genus *Epinephelus* (not including goliath grouper), 50 groupers of the genus *Mycteroperca* , 150 grunts, 6 hogfish, 100 jacks of the genus *Caranx* , 50 jacks of the genus *Seriola* , 15 king mackerel, 25 little tunny, 3 ocean triggerfish, 65 porgies, 15 porkfish, 2 puddingwife, 2 queen snapper, 12 red drum, 25 red porgy, 13 sand tilefish, 40 scup, 40 sea basses, 15 sheepshead, 375 shrimp, 75 snappers, 15 Spanish mackerel, 25 spiny lobster, 12 triggerfishes, 50 vermilion snapper, 5 wahoo, 10 wreckfish, and 15 yellowtail snapper. Specimens would be collected from Federal waters off the coast of South Carolina from June 20, 2007, to June 19, 2012. Fishes would be captured in some areas using hand nets in conjunction with scuba, dip nets deployed from a boat, hook and line, black sea bass pots, spiny lobster traps, golden crab traps, “bait fish” traps, “habitat” traps, and “octopus” traps. Black sea bass pots, spiny lobster traps, and golden crab traps will meet the construction requirements of 50 CFR 622.40. “Bait fish” traps are commercially available designs made of 0.25-inch (0.6-cm) or 1-inch (2.5-cm) galvanized wire mesh. “Habitat” traps, which are designed to target benthic fishes, are made of 4-inch (10.2-cm) high sections of 20-inch (50.8-cm) diameter PVC pipe which is sealed off at both ends. Each trap has one 3-inch (7.6-cm) diameter hole in one side. The traps are weighted using approximately 3.5-lb (1.6-kg) of cement, and deployed on longlines or hand placed by divers. The second trap type is designed to target octopus. These traps are made of 18-inch (45.7-cm) lengths of 4-inch (10.2-cm) diameter black corrugated drainage pipe. Cement is used to seal one end to a depth of approximately 2.5-inches (6.4-cm). “Habitat” and “octopus” traps have unblocked openings and no internal compartments, so animals may come and go at will. Sea bass pots, spiny lobster traps, and golden crab traps will be deployed for no more than 5 hours at a time. No more than five traps or pots of each type will be deployed at one time. These traps or pots will be set on individual lines. “Bait fish” traps will only be deployed during scuba dives for a maximum of 5 hours and will be retrieved when divers exit the water. “Habitat” and “octopus” traps will be deployed on a 500-ft (152-m) longline with an anchor and buoy at each end. “Habitat” traps may also be hand placed by divers. “Habitat” and “octopus” trap sets will not exceed 14 days. NMFS finds this application warrants further consideration. Based on a preliminary review, NMFS intends to issue an EFP. Possible conditions the agency may impose on this permit, if it is indeed granted, include but are not limited to: Reduction in the number or species of fish to be collected; restrictions on the placement of traps, especially with respect to fragile habitat; restrictions on the size of fish to be collected; prohibition of the harvest of any fish with visible external tags; and specification of locations, dates, and/or seasons allowed for collection of particular fish species. A final decision on issuance of the EFP will depend on a NMFS review of public comments received on the application, consultations with the affected states, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard, and a determination that it is consistent with all applicable laws. The applicant requests a 5-year (60-month) effective period for the EFP. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: May 7, 2007. James P. Burgess Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-9046 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [XRIN: 0648-XA12] Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will convene a public meeting of the Standing Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC)and the Special Reef Fish SSC. DATES: The SSC and Special Reef Fish SSC meeting will convene at 1 p.m. on Monday June 4 and conclude no later than 12 noon on Tuesday, June 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the W New Orleans, 333 Poydras St., New Orleans, LA 70130; telephone:
(504)525-9444. *Council address* : Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stu Kennedy, Fishery Biologist; telephone:
(813)348-1630. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SSC will address these issues: 1. Elect a new chair and vice-chair. 2. Review and provide guidance on the provisions of Reef Fish Amendment 27 and Shrimp Amendment 14 which set manage measures to rebuild the red snapper resource in the Gulf of Mexico. 3. Review the SEDAR re-evaluation of the assessment of gag in the Gulf of Mexico. The SSC will determine if the Review Panel reports are based on the best available information and reasonable. The SSC may provide guidance to the Council about the results of the assessment and research recommendations made by the SEDAR panels. 4. Review the analyses used to build the alternatives for Reef Fish Amendment 30A which includes greater amberjack and gray triggerfish management measures to determine if they are scientifically sound. 5. Receive a report on the development of guidelines for implementing Annual Catch Limits as specified in the re-authorization of the MSA; and 6. Review terms of reference for SEDAR 16 stock assessment of King Mackerel. Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the SSC for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions of the SSC will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency. Copies of the agenda can be obtained by calling
(813)348-1630. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Tina Trezza at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 working days prior to the meeting. Dated: May 7, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-9050 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [XRIN: 0648-XA10] New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council's (Council) Groundfish Advisory Panel will meet to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 29, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn, 30 Hampshire Street, Mansfield, MA 02048; telephone:
(508)339-2200. *Council address* : New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(978)465-0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The items of discussion in the panel's agenda are as follows: 1. The Groundfish Advisory Panel will meet to discuss Amendment 16 development. The Panel will discuss days-at-sea management alternatives and recommendations, recommendations for management of the U.S./Canada resource sharing areas, and sector proposals (including the interaction between sectors and common pool vessels). 2. Other business. Advisory Panel recommendations will be considered by the Multispecies Committee on May 31, 2007. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: May 7, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-9048 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [XRIN: 0648-XA15] New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Scallop Committee, in June, 2007, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from these groups will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate. DATES: This meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 6, 2007, at 9 a.m. ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held at the Radisson Hotel, 180 Water Street, Plymouth, MA 02360; telephone:
(508)747-4900; fax:
(508)746-2609. *Council address* : New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(978)465-0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The committee will review public comments received on the Amendment 11 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) and make recommendations for the Council to consider for final action on Amendment 11. Amendment 11 is considering alternatives to control capacity and mortality in the general category scallop fishery as well as other measures. If time permits, the committee will discuss development of alternatives for consideration in Framework 19. Framework 19 will consider management alternatives for fishing years 2008 and 2009. The Committee may consider other topics at their discretion. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at
(978)465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: May 7, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-9049 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [XRIN: 0648-XA13] North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory committees will hold public meetings. DATES: The meetings will be held on June 4, 2007 through June 12, 2007. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times. ADDRESSES: Council meeting - Centennial Hall, 330 Harbor Drive, Sitka, AK. *Council address* : North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Witherell, Council staff, Phone: 907-271-2809. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council will begin its plenary session at 8 a.m. on Wednesday, June 6, continuing through June 12, 2007. The Council's Advisory Panel
(AP)will begin at 8 a.m., Monday, June 4 and continue through Saturday June 9. The Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC)will begin at 8 a.m. on Monday, June 4 and continue through Wednesday June 6, 2007. The Enforcement Committee will meet Tuesday, June 5, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. at the Centennial Hall. All meetings are open to the public, except executive sessions. Council Plenary Session: The agenda for the Council's plenary session will include the following issues. The Council may take appropriate action on any of the issues identified. 1. Reports a. Executive Director's Report (including Standard Operations Practices and Procedures review and approval) b. NMFS Management Report (including updates on cost recovery, crab quota real-time transfers, crab right of first refusal, charter halibut moratorium appeals provisions) c. NMFS Enforcement Report d. U.S. Coast Guard Report e. Alaska Department of Fish & Game Report f. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Report g. Protected Species Report (including review of Endangered Species Act compendium, progress report on Steller Sea Lion
(SSL)Recovery Plan peer review, report to SSC on List of Fisheries, SSL Mitigation Committee Report) 2. Charter Halibut Management: Receive Stakeholder Committee report on compensated reallocation elements; action as necessary; Final action on Area 2C Guideline Harvest Levels
(GHLs)measures. 3. Halibut Subsistence: Review discussion paper on rural definition; action as necessary. 4. Trawl License Limitation Program
(LLP)Recency: Review information on LLP requirements and landings thresholds; action as necessary. 5. Bering Sea Aleutian Island
(BSAI)Crab Management: Receive reports from Crab Plan Team and Pacific Northwest Crab Industry Advisory Committee, Initial review of crab overfishing definition analysis; Review Discussion paper on custom processing; review discussion paper on “Active Participation” for C-shares; Review discussion paper on Post-delivery Transfers (crab and rockfish). 6. Observer Program: Review discussion paper on regulatory changes; Review committee report, provide direction on regulatory package. 7. Community Development Quota (CDQ): Discussion paper on CDQ program and Magnuson-Stevens Act amendments, and legal opinion, and action as necessary; Initial Review/Final action on regulation of harvest package. 8. Research Priorities: Review and adopt research priorities for 2007-08. 9. Groundfish Management: Initial review of Gulf of Alaska
(GOA)arrowtooth Maximum Retainable Amount
(MRA)adjustment (T); Salmon Bycatch Workgroup report, refine alternatives for analysis; Review and approve Guidelines for External Review; Review Experimental Fishing Permit for electronic monitoring of Central Gulf of Alaska rockfish fisheries (T). 10. Habitat Conservation: Final action on Bering Sea habitat conservation measures; Review Habitat Area of Particular Concern
(HAPC)priorities and timing, action as necessary. 11. Aleutian Island Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP): Review and approve Aleutian Island FEP. 12. Arctic Management: Review discussion paper, and take action as necessary. 13. Staff Tasking: Review Committees and tasking, and take action as necessary; Review Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement workplan priorities. 14. Other Business The SSC agenda will include the following issues: 1. Protected Species 2. Crab Management 3. Research Priorities 4. BSAI Crab Management 5. Aleutian Island Fishery Ecosystem Plan 6. Arctic Management The Advisory Panel will address the same agenda issues as the Council, except for reports. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/* . Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at
(907)271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date. Dated: May 7, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-9051 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [XRIN: 0648-XA14] Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold its Precious Corals Plan Team
(PCPT)meeting, in Honolulu, HI. ADDRESSES: The PCPT meeting will be held at the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council Office, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813. DATES: The meeting of the PCPT will be held on June 4, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone:
(808)522-8220. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PCPT will meet on June 4, 2007 to discuss the following agenda items: 1. Introductions 2. Review of last plan team meeting and recommendations 3. Proposed Auau Black Coral Limited Entry System 4. Status of Precious Corals Fishery Management Plan Amendments 5. Status of State of Hawaii Regulations Package 6. Proposed Precious Corals Research The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. Public comment periods will be provided throughout the agenda. The Plan Team will meet as late as necessary to complete scheduled business. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Plan Team for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Plan Team action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issue arising after publication of this document that requires emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds,
(808)522-8220 (voice) or
(808)522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: May 7, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-9052 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [DoD-2007-OS-0043] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD. ACTION: Notice to Add Blanket Routine Uses to Systems of Records. SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to add a new “Blanket Routine Uses” to DoD systems of records to its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. DATES: The changes will be effective on June 11, 2007 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Defense Privacy Office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Vahan Moushegian, Jr. at
(703)607-2943. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the **Federal Register** and are available from the address above or at *www.dod.mil/privacy/notices.* The Office of the Secretary of Defense is proposing to establish a new Department of Defense “Blanket Routine Use”
(BRU)that will apply to each of its current Privacy Act system of records. The BRU will permit the disclosure of information, as necessary, in connection with, and in response to, a data breach of information that identifies an individual for purposes of taking such remedial actions as considered appropriate to prevent or minimize potential harms that may result to an individual as a consequence of the breach. The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on May 2, 2007, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427). May 3, 2007. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. Department of Defense Blanket Routine Uses Routine Use—Data Breach Remediation Purposes: “A record from a system of records maintained by a Component may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when
(1)The Component suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of the information in the system of records has been compromised;
(2)the Component has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Component or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and
(3)the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Components efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.” [FR Doc. E7-8988 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 9, 2007. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues:
(1)Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department;
(2)will this information be processed and used in a timely manner;
(3)is the estimate of burden accurate;
(4)how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(5)how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Dated: May 4, 2007. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Institute of Education Sciences *Type of Review:* New. *Title:* An Evaluation of the Thinking Reader Software Intervention. *Frequency:* On Occasion. *Affected Public:* Individuals or household. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 75. *Burden Hours:* 59. *Abstract:* The evaluation of the Thinking Reader software intervention is to be carried out by the Northeast and Islands Regional Education Laboratory. This randomized controlled field trial involves 50 English/Language Arts teachers and 25 schools in Connecticut. Targeted outcomes are students' reading comprehension, reading vocabulary, use of reading comprehension strategies, and motivation to read. Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov,* by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3330. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov.* Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E7-8999 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity; Notice of Members AGENCY: National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, Department of Education. What Is the Purpose of This Notice? The purpose of this notice is to list the members of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (National Advisory Committee) and to give the public the opportunity to nominate candidates for the positions to be vacated by those members whose terms will expire on September 30, 2007. This notice is required under Section 114(c) of the Higher Education Act (HEA), as amended. What Is the Role of the National Advisory Committee? The National Advisory Committee is established under Section 114 of the HEA, as amended, and is composed of 15 members appointed by the Secretary of Education from among individuals who are representatives of, or knowledgeable concerning, education and training beyond secondary education, including representatives of all sectors and type of institutions of higher education. The National Advisory Committee meets at least twice a year and provides recommendations to the Secretary of Education pertaining to: • The establishment and enforcement of criteria for recognition of accrediting agencies or associations under subpart 2 of part H of Title IV, HEA. • The recognition of specific accrediting agencies or associations. • The preparation and publication of the list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies and associations. As the Committee deems necessary or on request, the Committee also advises the Secretary about: • The eligibility and certification process for institutions of higher education under Title IV, HEA. • The development of standards and criteria for specific categories of vocational training institutions and institutions of higher education for which there are no recognized accrediting agencies, associations, or State agencies in order to establish the interim eligibility of those institutions to participate in Federally funded programs. • The relationship between
(1)accreditation of institutions of higher education and the certification and eligibility of such institutions, and
(2)State licensing responsibilities with respect to such institutions. • Any other advisory functions relating to accreditation and institutional eligibility that the Secretary may prescribe. What Are the Terms of Office for Committee Members? The term of office of each member is 3 years, except that any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which the member's predecessor was appointed is appointed for the remainder of the term. A member may be appointed, at the Secretary's discretion, to serve more than one term. Who Are the Current Members of the Committee? The current members of the National Advisory Committee are: Members With Terms Expiring 9/30/07 • Dr. Lawrence J. DeNardis, President Emeritus, University of New Haven, Connecticut. • Dr. Geri H. Malandra, Associate Vice Chancellor for Institutional Planning and Accountability, University of Texas System. • Ms. Andrea Fischer-Newman, Chair, Board of Regents, University of Michigan; Senior Vice President of Government Affairs, Northwest Airlines. • Dr. Laura Palmer Noone, President Emerita, University of Phoenix, Arizona. Members With Terms Expiring 9/30/08 • Dr. Karen A. Bowyer, President, Dyersburg State Community College, Tennessee. • Dr. Arthur Keiser, Chancellor, Keiser Collegiate System, Florida. • Dr. George A. Pruitt, President, Thomas A. Edison State College, New Jersey. Members With Terms Expiring 9/30/09 • Dr. Carol D'Amico, Executive Vice President, Ivy Tech Community College, Indiana. • Mr. Patrick M. Callan, President, National Center for Public Policy/Higher Education. • Mr. William P. Glasgow, CEO American Way Education. • Ms. Anne D. Neal, President, American Council of Trustees and Alumni. • Ms. Crystal Rimoczy, Student Member, Boston College, Massachusetts. • Dr. James H. Towey, President Saint Vincent College. • Honorable Pamela P. Willeford, Former Chair, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board; Former Ambassador, Switzerland. • Dr. George Wright, President, Prairie View A & M University, Texas. How Do I Nominate an Individual for Appointment as a Committee Member? If you would like to nominate an individual for appointment to the Committee, send the following information to the Committee's Executive Director: • A copy of the nominee's resume; and • A cover letter that provides your reason(s) for nominating the individual and contact information for the nominee (name, title, business address, and business phone and fax numbers). The information must be sent by June 15, 2007 to the following address: Francesca Paris-Albertson, Executive Director, National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, U.S. Department of Education, room 7110, MS 7592, 1990 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. How Can I Get Additional Information? If you have any specific questions about the nomination process or general questions about the National Advisory Committee, please contact Ms. Francesca Paris-Albertson, the Committee's Executive Director, telephone:
(202)219-7009, fax:
(202)219-7008, e-mail: *Francesca.Paris-Albertson@ed.gov* between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1011c. Dated: May 4, 2007. James F. Manning, Delegated the Authority of the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education. [FR Doc. E7-9019 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Federal Student Aid [CFDA No. 84.069] Federal Student Aid; Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership and Special Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership Programs AGENCY: Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of the deadline dates for receipt of State applications for Award Year 2007-2008 funds. SUMMARY: This is a notice of deadline dates for receipt of State applications for Award Year 2007-2008 funds under the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership
(LEAP)and Special Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (SLEAP) programs. The LEAP and SLEAP programs, authorized under Title IV, part A, subpart 4 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), assist States in providing aid to students with substantial financial need to help them pay for their postsecondary education costs through matching formula grants to States. Under section 415C(a) of the HEA, a State must submit an application to participate in the LEAP and SLEAP programs through the State agency that administered its LEAP Program as of July 1, 1985, unless the Governor of the State has subsequently designated, and the Department has approved, a different State agency to administer the LEAP Program. DATES: To ensure funding under the LEAP and SLEAP programs for Award Year 2007-2008, a State must meet the applicable deadline date. Applications submitted electronically must be received by 11:59 p.m. (Eastern time) May 31, 2007. Paper applications must be received by May 24, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Greg Gerrans, LEAP Program Manager, Financial Partners Services, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, 830 First Street, NE., room 111G5, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone:
(202)377-3304. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format ( *e.g.* , Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Only the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands may submit an application for funding under the LEAP and SLEAP programs. State allotments for each award year are determined according to the statutorily mandated formula under section 415B of the HEA and are not negotiable. A State may also request its share of reallotment, in addition to its basic allotment, which is contingent upon the availability of such additional funds. In Award Year 2006-2007, 49 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands received funds under the LEAP Program. Additionally, 34 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands received funds under the SLEAP Program. *Applications Submitted Electronically:* Financial Partners Services within Federal Student Aid has automated the LEAP and SLEAP application process in the Financial Management System (FMS). Applicants may use the web-based form (Form 1288-E OMB 1845-0028) which is available on the FMS LEAP on-line system at the following Internet address: *http://fsa-fms.ed.gov.* *Paper Applications Delivered by Mail:* States or territories may request a paper version of the application (Form 1288 OMB 1845-0028) by contacting Mr. Greg Gerrans, LEAP Program Manager, at
(202)377-3304 or by e-mail: *greg.gerrans@ed.gov.* The form will be mailed to you. A paper application sent by mail must be addressed to: Mr. Greg Gerrans, LEAP Program Manager, Financial Partners Services, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, 830 First Street, NE., room 111G5, Washington, DC 20202. The Department of Education encourages applicants that are completing a paper application to use certified or at least first-class mail when sending the application by mail to the Department. The Department must receive paper applications that are mailed no later than May 24, 2007. *Paper Applications Delivered by Hand:* Paper applications that are hand-delivered must be delivered to Mr. Greg Gerrans, LEAP Program Manager, Financial Partners Services, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, 830 First Street, NE., room 111G5, Washington, DC 20202. Hand-delivered applications will be accepted between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. daily (Eastern time), except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. Paper applications that are hand-delivered must be received by 4:30 p.m. (Eastern time) on May 24, 2007. *Applicable Regulations:* The following regulations are applicable to the LEAP and SLEAP programs:
(1)The LEAP and SLEAP Program regulations in 34 CFR part 692.
(2)The Student Assistance General Provisions in 34 CFR part 668.
(3)The Regulations Governing Institutional Eligibility in 34 CFR part 600.
(4)The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR 75.60 through 75.62 (Ineligibility of Certain Individuals to Receive Assistance), part 76 (State-Administered Programs), part 77 (Definitions that Apply to Department Regulations), part 79 (Intergovernmental Review of Department of Education Programs and Activities), part 80 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments), part 82 (New Restrictions on Lobbying), part 84 (Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance)), part 85 (Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement)), part 86 (Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention), and part 99 (Family Educational Rights and Privacy). Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070c *et seq.* Dated: May 4, 2007. Theresa S. Shaw, Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid. [FR Doc. E7-8950 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [CFDA Nos. 84.038, 84.033, and 84.007] Federal Perkins Loan, Federal Work-Study, and Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Programs ACTION: Notice extending the 2006-2007 award year deadline date for the campus-based programs; Extension. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 27, 2006, we published a notice in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 15180-81) announcing the 2006-2007 award year deadline dates for the submission of requests and documents from postsecondary institutions for the campus-based programs. In that notice, on page 15181, we set a deadline date of April 27, 2007 for the submission of requests for a waiver of the FWS Community Service Expenditure Requirement for the 2007-2008 award year. We are extending the deadline date for submission of these requests for waivers to May 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherlene McIntosh, Director of Campus-Based Systems and Operations Division, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, 830 First Street, NE., Union Center Plaza, room 64A3, Washington, DC 20202-5453. Telephone:
(202)377-3242 or via the Internet: *sherlene.mcintosh@ed.gov.* If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format ( *e.g.* Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office
(GPO)toll free at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1087aa *et seq.* ; 42 U.S.C. 2751 *et seq.* ; and 20 U.S.C. 1070b *et seq.* Dated: May 4, 2007. Theresa S. Shaw, Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid. [FR Doc. E7-8946 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-439-000] ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Annual Report Filing May 4, 2007. Take notice that on May 1, 2007 ANR Pipeline Company
(ANR)tendered for filing its Operational Purchases and Sales of Gas Report for the twelve month period beginning January 1, 2006 and ending December 31, 2006. ANR states that it is filing this report in compliance with Section 38 of the General Terms and Conditions of ANR's FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time May 11, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8983 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-422-000] Canyon Creek Compression Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff May 3, 2007. Take notice that on April 30, 2007, Canyon Creek Compression Company (Canyon) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective June 1, 2007: Seventeenth Revised Sheet No. 6 Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 6A Canyon states that copies of the filing are being mailed to its customers and interested state commissions. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8929 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-428-000] Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Tariff Filing May 3, 2007. Take notice that on April 27, 2007, Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Cheyenne Plains) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, Fourth Revised Sheet No. 20, to become effective June 1, 2007. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8925 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-433-000] Crossroads Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff May 4, 2007. Take notice that on May 1, 2007, Crossroads Pipeline Company (Crossroads) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective date of June 1, 2007: Fifth Revised Sheet No. 6 First Revised Sheet No. 39 First Revised Sheet No. 359 First Revised Sheet No. 360 Original Sheet No. 361 Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8979 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-429-000] Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff May 4, 2007. Take notice that on May 1, 2007, Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP (Cove Point) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 216, to become effective June 1, 2007. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8975 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-430-000] Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff May 4, 2007. Take notice that on May 1, 2007, Dominion Transmission, Inc.
(DTI)tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1A, the following tariff sheets, to become effective June 1, 2007: Fourth Revised Sheet No. 10 Fourth Revised Sheet No. 11 Fourth Revised Sheet No. 12 First Revised Sheet No. 13 First Revised Sheet No. 15 Second Revised Sheet No. 16 Second Revised Sheet No. 17 Second Revised Sheet No. 18 First Revised Sheet No. 22 Second Revised Sheet No. 25 First Revised Sheet No. 31 First Revised Sheet No. 34 Second Revised Sheet No. 36 First Revised Sheet No. 37 First Revised Sheet No. 38 Second Revised Sheet No. 72 Second Revised Sheet No. 85 Fifth Revised Sheet No. 86 Second Revised Sheet No. 86A DTI states that the purpose of this filing is to modify DTI's FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1A to:
(1)Remove certain facilities that are being abandoned or sold;
(2)add new gathering facilities that have been recently added to DTI's gathering system; and
(3)renumber a facility currently designated as a distribution line. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8976 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-434-000] Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff May 4, 2007. Take notice that on May 1, 2007, Dominion Transmission, Inc.
(DTI)tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Original Sheet No. 1138A, to become effective June 1, 2007. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8980 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP05-164-010] Equitrans, L.P.; Notice of Compliance Filing May 4, 2007. Take notice that on April 30, 2007, Equitrans, L.P. (Equitrans) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, Tenth Revised Sheet No. 11, with an effective date of June 1, 2007. Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8974 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP06-1-002] Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of Compliance Filing May 4, 2007. Take notice that on April 30, 2007, Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC
(FGT)tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Sheet No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective date of May 1, 2007: First Revised Sheet No. 206 Original Sheet No. 206A First Revised Sheet No. 207 FGT states that the filing is being made in compliance with the Commission's Opinion and Order on Initial Decision issued April 20, 2007 in Docket No. RP04-249-001, et al., which required FGT to file tariff sheets in Docket No. CP06-1-000. Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 11, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8965 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP07-197-000] Freebird Gas Storage, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization May 4, 2007. Take notice that on April 25, 2007, Freebird Gas Storage, LLC (Freebird), 6363 Woodway, Suite 415, Houston, Texas 77057, filed in Docket No. CP07-197-000, an application pursuant to Part 157 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act
(NGA)as amended, to increase its maximum working gas capacity in the East Detroit Storage Facility in Lamar County, Alabama from 6 Bcf to 7.7 Bcf and increase its peak deliverability to 300,000 Mcf/d, under Freebird's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP05-29-000, et al., all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to the public for inspection. Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Nadine Moustafa, Baker Botts L.L.P., 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004, phone
(202)639-7701 or Gil Muhl, Multifuels LP, 6363 Woodway, Suite 415, Houston, TX 77057, phone
(832)252-2251. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number filed to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERC *OnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or call toll-free at
(866)206-3676, or, for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages intervenors to file electronically. Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8968 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-421-000] Garden Banks Gas Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff May 3, 2007. Take notice that on May 1, 2007, Garden Banks Gas Pipeline, LLC (Garden Banks) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective date of June 1, 2007: Second Revised Sheet No. 19 Second Revised Sheet No. 23 First Revised Sheet No. 23A First Revised Sheet 23B Third Revised Sheet No. 25 Second Revised Sheet No. 221 First Revised Sheet No. 226 Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8928 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-435-000] Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff May 4, 2007. Take notice that on April 30, 2007, Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership (Great Lakes) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective January 1, 2007: Twelfth Revised Sheet No. 3 Ninth Revised Sheet No. 3A Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 3B Ninth Revised Sheet No. 3C Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8981 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP07-8-001] Guardian Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Amendment to Application May 4, 2007. Take notice that on April 25, 2007, Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C. (Guardian), filed in Docket No. CP07-8-001, an amendment to its October 13, 2006 application pursuant to section 7
(c)of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA)in which it requested authorization to site, construct, and operate facilities consisting of approximately 110 miles of new mainline, two electric compressor stations, seven meter stations and appurtenant facilities resulting in 537,200 Dth/d of incremental firm capacity on Guardian's existing pipeline system and 437,200 Dth/d of firm capacity on the expansion facilities. The amended application consists mainly of a proposed, approximately 23-mile reroute that increases the total length of the pipeline by 8.74 miles. The reroute allows Guardian to avoid tribal lands for which it was unable to negotiate an easement. Additionally, Guardian proposes to move the Sycamore Compressor Station to a new location approximately 0.25 mile north, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The Commission staff will determine if this amendment will have an effect on the schedule for the environmental review of this project. If necessary, a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will be issued within 90 days of this Notice. The instant filing may be also viewed on the Web at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call
(866)208-3676 or TTY,
(202)502-8659. Any questions regarding this application may be directed to Bambi Heckerman, Director, Regulatory Affairs, ONEOK Partners GP, LLC, 13710 FNB Parkway, Omaha, Nebraska 68154-5200; phone:
(402)492-7575; e-mail: *bambi.heckerman@oneok.com.* There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding. However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest. Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order. Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 25, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8970 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-427-000] Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff May 3, 2007. Take notice that on May 1, 2007, Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C. (Gulfstream) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, Sixth Revised Sheet No. 7, with an effective date of June 1, 2007. Gulfstream states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all affected customers and interested state commissions. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8934 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP05-150-006] Hardy Storage Company, LLC; Notice of Compliance Filing May 4, 2007. Take notice that on April 30, 2007, Hardy Storage Company, LLC (Hardy) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 145, with an effective date of April 1, 2007. Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 11, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8985 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-437-000] Kern River Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff May 4, 2007. Take notice that on May 1, 2007, Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, to be effective June 1, 2007. Kern River states that it has served a copy of this filing upon its customers and interested state regulatory commissions. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8982 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP07-232-000] Louisville Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Application May 4, 2007. Take notice that on April 27, 2007, Louisville Gas and Electric Company (LG&E), 220 West Main Street, Louisville, Kentucky, filed an application in Docket No. CP07-232-000 pursuant to section 7(f) of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA)and Part 157 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations requesting the determination of a service area within which LG&E may, without further commission authorization, enlarge or expand its natural gas distribution facilities. LG&E also requests:
(1)A finding that LG&E qualifies for treatment as a local distribution company for the purposes of transportation under Section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act;
(2)confirmation that LG&E can continue to hold its currently effective Part 284 blanket certificate authorizing it to provide natural gas storage service in interstate commerce at market-based rates;
(3)confirmation that LG&E may continue to make off-system sales in support of its LDC operations; and
(4)waiver of the Commission's accounting, reporting, and other regulatory requirements ordinarily applicable to natural gas companies under the NGA, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or Telephone: 202-502-6652; Toll-free: 1-866-208-3676; or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. Any initial questions regarding this application should be directed to Elizabeth L. Cocanaugher, Senior Corporate Attorney, Louisville Gas and Electric Company, 220 West Main Street, Louisville, KY 40202, phone
(502)627-4850, fax
(502)627-3367, and e-mail *beth.cocanaugher@eon-us.com.* Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment
(EA)and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement
(FEIS)or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA. There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceeding for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding. However, a person does not have to intervene to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest. Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project, should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the applicant. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the commission's final order. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. *Comment Date:* May 25, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8969 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-423-000] National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff May 3, 2007. Take notice that on April 30, 2007, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, 101st Revised Sheet No. 9, to become effective May 1, 2007. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8930 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP99-176-134] Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Tariff Filing and Negotiated Rate May 4, 2007. Take notice that on April 30, 2007, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (Natural) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective June 1, 2007: Second Revised Sheet No. 26N Second Revised Sheet No. 414A Fifth Revised Sheet No. 414A.01 First Revised Sheet No. 414A.02 Original Sheet No. 414A.11 Natural also tendered for filing the related Transportation Rate Schedule FTS Agreement with a Negotiated Rate Exhibit (Agreement). Natural states that copies of the filing are being mailed to all parties set out on the Commission's official service list. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8964 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-424-000] Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff May 3, 2007. Take notice that on May 1, 2007 Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective November 1, 2007: 27 Revised Sheet No. 54 25 Revised Sheet No. 63 24 Revised Sheet No. 64 Northern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed to each of its customers and interested state commissions. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8931 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-425-000] Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff May 3, 2007. Take notice that on May 1, 2007, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective date of June 1, 2007: Fourth Revised Sheet No. 203 Third Revised Sheet No. 206A Sixth Revised Sheet No. 281 Original Sheet No. 281A Original Sheet No. 281B Northern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed to each of its customers and interested State Commissions. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8932 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP06-416-002] Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Compliance Filing May 4, 2007. Take notice that on April 27, 2007, Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Northwest) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Substitute Sixteenth Revised Sheet No. 7, to be effective March 1, 2007. Northwest states that copies of the filing were served on parties on the official service list in the above-captioned proceeding. Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 11, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8966 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP06-45-004] Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Compliance Filing May 4, 2007. Take notice that on April 26, 2007, Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Northwest) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be effective as of the date Northwest's Parachute Lateral facilities are placed into service: Substitute Tenth Revised Sheet No. 1 2nd Substitute Thirty-Second Revised Sheet No. 5 Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet No. 5-B 2nd Substitute Seventh Revised Sheet No. 5-C 2nd Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 5-D Northwest states that the purpose of this filing is to submit substitute tariff sheets in Docket No. CP06-45 reflecting rates filed by Northwest in Docket No. RP06-416-002. Northwest states that copies of the filing were served on parties on the official service list in the above-captioned proceeding. Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 11, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8967 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP06-200-025] Rockies Express Pipeline LLC; Notice of Tariff Filing and Negotiated Rate May 3, 2007. Take notice that on April 30, 2007, Rockies Express Pipeline LLC
(REX)tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, the following tariff sheets, to be effective May 1, 2007: Twentieth Revised Sheet No. 22 Ninth Revised Sheet No. 24 Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8926 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-419-000] Southern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff May 3, 2007. Take notice that on April 30, 2007, Southern Natural Gas Company (Southern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective date of June 1, 2007: Sixteenth Revised Sheet No. 2 Third Revised Sheet No. 102 Fifth Revised Sheet No. 160 Fifth Revised Sheet No. 161 Seventh Revised Sheet No. 188 Second Revised Sheet No. 297A Second Revised Sheet No. 302 Second Revised Sheet No. 364 Second Revised Sheet No. 368A Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8927 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-440-000] Southern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Fuel Sharing Refund Report May 4, 2007. Take notice that on April 30, 2007, Southern Natural Gas Company (Southern) tendered for filing a refund report showing that there are no refunds to be distributed in 2007 pursuant to Section 35 (Fuel Sharing Mechanism) of the General Terms and Conditions of Southern's tariff for the period March 1, 2006-February 28, 2007. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time May 11, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8984 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-426-000] Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff May 3, 2007. Take notice that on April 30, 2007, Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Stingray) tendered for filing with as part of Stingray's FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 208, with an effective date of May 1, 2007. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8933 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-431-000] Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff May 4, 2007. Take notice that on May 1, 2007, Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company (Williston Basin) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective June 1, 2007: Seventh Revised Sheet No. 247 Original Sheet No. 247A Fifth Revised Sheet No. 323 Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8977 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-432-000] Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff May 4, 2007. Take notice that on April 30, 2007, Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company (Williston Basin) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets to become effective April 30, 2007: Seventeenth Revised Sheet No. 5 Thirteenth Revised Sheet No. 6 Thirteenth Revised Sheet No. 8 Fifteenth Revised Sheet No. 9 Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8978 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 May 3, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings *Docket Numbers:* ER05-717-006; ER05-721-006; ER04-374-006; ER99-2341-008; ER06-230-003; ER06-1334-003; ER07-277-001. *Applicants:* Spring Canyon Energy LLC; Judith Gap Energy LLC; Invenergy TN LLC; Hardee Power Partners Limited; Wolverine Creek Energy LLC; Spindle Hill Energy LLC; and Invenergy Cannon Falls LLC; *Description:* Spring Canyon Energy LLC, Judith Gap Energy LLC, and Invenergy TN LLC's et al Notification of change in status under market-based rate authority. *Filed Date:* 04/27/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070501-0288. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 18, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-427-006. *Applicants:* Mystic Development, LLC. *Description:* Electric Refund Report of Mystic Development, LLC in Compliance with Feb. 21, 2007 Letter Order. *Filed Date:* 04/17/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070417-4003. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 08, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-129-003. *Applicants:* Atlantic Path 15, LLC. *Description:* Atlantic Path 15 LLC submits First Revised Sheet 16 et al to its FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No.1 to reflect the annual update of the Transmission Balancing Account Adjustment to become effective 1/1/07. *Filed Date:* 04/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070502-0303. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-700-001. *Applicants:* Bangor Hydro-Electric Company. *Description:* Bangor Hydro-Electric Company proposes to amend the 4/2/07 filing to include the additional ministerial revisions and to incorporate the tariff revisions. *Filed Date:* 04/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070502-0302. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-806-000. *Applicants:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. *Description:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc submits proposed revisions to its Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff. *Filed Date:* 04/27/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070501-0316. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 18, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-809-000. *Applicants:* Florida Power Corporation. *Description:* Florida Power Corp dba Progress Energy Florida, Inc submits a modification of the 8/1/90 Interconnection Agreement for construction of transmission facilities. *Filed Date:* 04/27/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070501-0317. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 18, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-810-000. *Applicants:* Grays Harbor Energy LLC. *Description:* Grays Harbor Energy LLC submits an application for authorization to make market-based wholesale sales of energy, capacity and ancillary services and its FERC Electric Tariff No. 1. *Filed Date:* 04/27/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070501-0318. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 18, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-811-000. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest ISO submits the redispatch agreement with East Kentucky Power Cooperative. *Filed Date:* 04/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070501-0319. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-812-000. *Applicants:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company. *Description:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits its Seventeenth Quarterly Filing of Facilities Agreements with City and County of San Francisco. Part 1 of 2. *Filed Date:* 04/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070501-0297. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-814-000. *Applicants:* Southern California Edison Company. *Description:* Southern California Edison Co submits their amended Interconnection Facilities Agreement with Mountainview Power Co LLC designated as Service Agreement No. 6 under its Transmission Owner Tariff, 2nd Rev Vol No. 6. *Filed Date:* 04/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070502-0308. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-815-000. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest ISO submits an Amended and Restated Facilities Construction Agreement among Lousiville Gas and Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities Company. *Filed Date:* 04/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070502-0307. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-816-000. *Applicants:* Tampa Electric Company. *Description:* Tampa Electric Co submits Fifth Revised Sheet Nos. 41 and 59 for inclusion in their open access transmission tariff under Service Schedule B etc, effective 5/1/07. *Filed Date:* 04/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070502-0209. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-817-000. *Applicants:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Description:* Entergy Services, Inc agent for the Entergy Operating Companies submit an executed Second Revised Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement with Cleco Power LLC. *Filed Date:* 04/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070502-0306. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-818-000. *Applicants:* Indeck-Olean Limited Partnership. *Description:* Indeck-Olean Limited Partnership submits a filing to revise its market-based rate authority tariff. *Filed Date:* 04/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070502-0305. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-819-000. *Applicants:* Tampa Electric Company. *Description:* Tampa Electric Company submits revised schedule sheets for inclusion in the rate schedules comprising their Agreements to Provide Qualifying Facility Transmission Service with Mosaic Fertilizer LLC *et al.* *Filed Date:* 04/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070502-0304. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 21, 2007. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8963 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2219-020—Utah] Garkane Energy Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Assessment May 4, 2007. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for new license for the Boulder Creek Hydroelectric Project, located on Boulder Creek in Garfield County, Utah, and has prepared a final Environmental Assessment
(EA)for the project. The project occupies 29.59 acres of Federal land, administered by the U.S. Forest Service as part of the Dixie National Forest. The final EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that issuing a new license for the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. A copy of the final EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202)502-8659. You may also register online at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp* to be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. For further information, contact Dianne Rodman at
(202)502-6077. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8972 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 12790-000] Pomperaug Hydro; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments May 4, 2007. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Type of Application:* Preliminary Permit. b. *Project No.:* 12790-000. c. *Date filed:* March 29, 2007. d. *Applicant:* Pomperaug Hydro. e. *Name of Project:* Pomperaug Hydro Project. f. *Location:* The project would be located on the Pomperaug River, in Litchfield County, Connecticut. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r). h. *Applicant Contacts:* Mr. Andrew Peklo III/Abby R. Peklo, 29 Pomperaug Road, Woodbury, CT 06798,
(203)263-4566. i. *FERC Contact:* Etta Foster,
(202)502-8769. j. *Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene:* 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. k. *Description of Project:* The proposed project would consist of:
(1)An existing 15-foot-high, 90-foot-long dam;
(2)an impoundment of approximately 3 acres, with an average depth of 3-feet, a storage capacity of approximately 9 acre-feet, and 227-feet above mean sea level;
(3)a 40-foot-long penstock;
(4)a spillway;
(5)a powerhouse containing 1-2 generating units with an installed capacity between 8-75 kW;
(6)a transmission line approximately 30-foot-long, and
(7)appurtenant facilities. The project would have an estimated average annual generation of 300,000 kilowatt-hours. l. *Locations of Applications:* A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426, or by calling
(202)502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Competing Preliminary Permit:* Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36). Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36. o. *Competing Development Application:* Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36. p. *Notice of Intent:* A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice. q. *Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit:* A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project. r. *Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene:* Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under “e-filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. s. *Filing and Service of Responsive Documents:* Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”,”COMPETING APPLICATION” OR “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. t. *Agency Comments:* Federal, State, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8971 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. RM05-17-000; RM05-25-000] Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission Service; Supplemental Notice of Technical Conferences May 4, 2007. On April 6, 2007, the Commission issued a notice scheduling staff technical conferences in the above-captioned proceeding. The Commission hereby supplements that notice with additional information regarding the technical conferences. As stated in the April 6 notice, these technical conferences will review and discuss the “strawman” proposals regarding processes for transmission planning required by the Final Rule issued in this proceeding on February 16, 2007. 1 Each transmission provider will be responsible for presenting its “strawman” proposal on the day identified in the attached schedule. To the extent transmission providers have collaborated in the development of their “strawman” proposals, they may combine the presentation of those proposals. Following the presentations in each subregion, opportunity will be provided for comment and input from stakeholders and other interested parties. All aspects of a transmission provider's “strawman” proposal will be open for discussion. 1 *Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission Service* , Order No. 890, 72 FR 12266 (March 15, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,241 at P 443 (2007), *reh'g pending* . Commission staff is in the process of identifying panelists to represent transmission providers and interested parties at each technical conference. Please contact the staff identified below if you are interested in participating as a panelist. 2 Once panelists have been identified, a further notice with a more detailed agenda for each conference will be issued. In the event a transmission provider or interested party is uncertain as to which technical conference is relevant, such persons should contact staff in advance to discuss the matter. 2 A/V equipment will be available for panelists wishing to use PowerPoint or similar presentations. For further information about these conferences, please contact: W. Mason Emnett, Office of the General Counsel—Energy Markets, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202)502-6540, *Mason.Emnett@ferc.gov.* Daniel Hedberg, Office of Energy Markets and Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202)502-6243, *Daniel.Hedberg@ferc.gov.* Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8973 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Commission Staff Attendance at Midwest Iso-Related Meetings May 3, 2007. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of the Commission and Commission staff may attend the following Midwest ISO-related meetings: • Reliability First and Midwest Reliability Organization Resource Adequacy Conference (9 a.m.-4:30 p.m., ET) ○ May 10, 2007. Marriott Downtown Indianapolis, 350 West Maryland Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. • Midwest ISO Supply Adequacy Working Group/OMS Resource Adequacy Working Group (1 p.m.-5 p.m., ET) ○ May 17, 2007. Lakeside Conference Center, 630 West Carmel Drive, Carmel, IN 46032. Further information may be found at *http://www.midwestiso.org* and *http://www.rfirst.org.* The discussions at each of the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings: Docket No. ER02-2595, *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.* Docket No. ER04-375, *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.* Docket No. ER04-458, *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.* Docket Nos. ER04-691 and ER04-106, *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.* Docket No. EL04-104, *Public Utilities With Grandfathered Agreements In the Midwest ISO Region* Docket Nos. ER05-6, EL04-135, EL02-111 and EL03-212, *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.* Docket No. ER05-752, *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.* Docket No. ER05-1083, *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.* Docket No. ER05-1085, *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.* Docket No. ER05-1138, *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.* Docket No. ER05-1201, *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.* Docket No. ER05-1230, *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.* Docket No. EL05-103, *Northern Indiana Power Service Co.* v. *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.* Docket No. EL05-128, *Quest Energy, L.L.C.* v. *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.* Docket No. ER06-18, *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.* Docket No. ER06-27, *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.* Docket Nos. EC06-4 and ER06-20, *E.ON U.S., LLC* Docket No. ER06-1308, *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.* Docket Nos. ER06-360, ER06-360, ER06-361, ER06-362, ER06-363, ER06-372 and ER06-373, *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.* Docket No. ER06-356, *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.* Docket No. ER06-532, *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.* Docket No. ER06-313, *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.* Docket No. EL06-31, *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.* Docket No. EL06-49, *Midwest Independent Transmission Systemerator, Inc.* Docket No. ER06-56, *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.* Docket No. ER07-478, *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.* Docket No. ER07-550, *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.* Docket No. ER07-701, *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.* These meetings are open to the public. For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy Markets and Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at
(317)249-5937 or *patrick.clarey@ferc.gov* , or Christopher Miller, Office of Energy Markets and Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at
(317)249-5936 or *christopher.miller@ferc.gov* . Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8935 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [AMS-FRL-8311-3] California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Request for Waiver of Federal Preemption; Opportunity for Public Hearing AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice announcing an additional hearing and hearing locations. SUMMARY: EPA previously announced the opportunity for public hearing and written comment on the California Air Resources Board's request for a waiver of preemption for its Greenhouse Gas Emission
(GHG)regulations for passenger cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year (MY). This previous announcement occurred on April 30, 2007 at 72 FR 21260. By this notice EPA is announcing the location of the May 22, 2007 hearing which commences at 9 a.m. EPA is also announcing an additional hearing, and location, for May 30, 2007 which will commence at 9 a.m. If you wish to present testimony at the May 22, 2007 hearing please follow the directions provided at 72 FR 21260. If you wish to present testimony at the May 30, 2007 hearing please follow the contact directions below. ADDRESSES: The May 22, 2007 hearing will take place at the EPA Potomac Yard Conference Center, 2777 Crystal Drive—Room S-1204, Arlington, VA 22202. The May 30, 2007 hearing will take place at the Byron Sher Auditorium, Cal/EPA Headquarters, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you wish to present testimony at the Sacramento, CA hearing then provide notification by May 23, 2007 to David Dickinson, Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division (6405J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460, e-mail address: *Dickinson.David@EPA.GOV.* Dated: May 4, 2007. William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. E7-9025 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMNETAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRI-8311-8] Office of Research and Development; Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods: Designation of a New Equivalent Method AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of the designation of a new equivalent method for monitoring ambient air quality. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)has designated, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 53, a new equivalent method for measuring concentrations of sulfur dioxide (SO <sup>2</sup> ) in the ambient air. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Hunike, Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division (MD-D205-03), National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. Phone:
(919)541-3737, e-mail: *Hunike.Elizabeth@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with regulations at 40 CFR Part 53, the EPA evaluates various methods for monitoring the concentrations of those ambient air pollutants for which EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) as set forth in 40 CFR Part 50. Monitoring methods that are determined to meet specific requirements for adequacy are designated by the EPA as either reference methods or equivalent methods (as applicable), thereby permitting their use under 40 CFR Part 58 by States and other agencies for determining attainment of the NAAQSs. The EPA hereby announces the designation of a new equivalent method for measuring concentrations of sulfur dioxide (SO <sup>2</sup> ) in the ambient air. This designation is made under the provisions of 40 CFR Part 53, as amended on December 18, 2006 (71 FR 61271). The new equivalent method is an automated method (analyzer) that utilizes a measurement principle based on ultraviolet fluorescence. The newly designated equivalent SO <sup>2</sup> method is identified as follows: EQSA-0507-166, “SIR, S.A. Model S-5001 U.V. Fluorescence SO <sup>2</sup> Analyzer, ” operated with a full-scale measurement range of 0-0.5 ppm, with an integration time setting of 1 minute, and with or without an optional PCMCIA Card or the optional Internal Span permeation oven. An application for an equivalent method determination for the candidate method based on this SO <sup>2</sup> analyzer was received by the EPA on October 4, 2006. The sampler is commercially available from the applicant, SIR USA, 826 West Braddock Road, Alexandria, VA 22302-3605 or from SIR Spain, Avenida de la Industria, 3; 28760 Tres Cantos (Madrid), Spain. A test analyzer representative of this method has been tested in accordance with the applicable test procedures specified in 40 CFR Part 53 (as amended on December 18, 2006). After reviewing the results of those tests and other information submitted by the applicant in the application, EPA has determined, in accordance with Part 53, that this method should be designated as an equivalent method. The information submitted by the applicant in the application will be kept on file, either at EPA's National Exposure Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park North Carolina 27711 or in an approved archive storage facility. That information will be made available for inspection (upon request and with advance notice) to the extent consistent with 40 CFR Part 2 (EPA's regulations implementing the Freedom of Information Act). As a designated reference or equivalent method, this method is acceptable for use by states and other air monitoring agencies under the requirements of 40 CFR Part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance. For such purposes, the method must be used in strict accordance with the operation or instruction manual associated with the method and subject to any specifications and limitations ( *e.g.,* configuration or operational settings) specified in the applicable designation method description (see the identifications of the method above). Use of the method should also be in general accordance with the guidance and recommendations of applicable sections of the “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution measurement Systems, Volume I,” EPA/600/R-94/038a and “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume II, Part 1,” EPA-454/R-98-004 (available at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qabook.html* ). Vendor modifications of a designate reference or equivalent method used for purposes of Part 58 are permitted only with prior approval of the EPA, as provided in Part 53. Provisions concerning modification of such methods by users are specified under Section 2.8 (Modifications of Methods by Users) of Appendix C to 40 CFR Part 58. In general, a method designation applies to any sampler or analyzer which is identical to the sampler or analyzer described in the application for designation. In some cases, similar samplers or analyzers manufactured prior to the designation may be upgraded or converted ( *e.g.,* by minor modification or by substitution of the approved operation or instruction manual) so as to be identical to the designated method and thus achieve designated status. The manufacturer should be consulted to determine the feasibility of such upgrading or conversion. Part 53 requires that sellers of designated reference or equivalent method analyzers or samplers comply with certain conditions. These conditions are specified in 40 CFR 53.9 and are summarized below:
(a)A copy of the approved operation or instruction manual must accompany the sampler or analyzer when it is delivered to the ultimate purchaser.
(b)The sampler or analyzer must not generate any unreasonable hazard to operators or to the environment.
(c)The sampler or analyzer must function within the limits of the applicable performance specifications given in 40 CFR 50 and 53 for at least one year after delivery when maintained and operated in accordance with the operation or instruction manual.
(d)Any sampler or analyzer offered for sale as part of a reference or equivalent method must bear a label or sticker indicating that it as been designated as part of a reference or equivalent method in accordance with Part 53 and showing its designated method identification number.
(e)If such an analyzer has two or ore selectable ranges, the label or sticker must be placed in close proximity to the range selector and indicator which range or ranges have been included in the reference or equivalent method designation.
(f)An applicant who offers samplers or analyzers for sale as part of a reference or equivalent method is required to maintain a list of ultimate purchasers of such samplers or analyzers and to notify them within 30 days if a reference or equivalent method designation applicable to the method has been canceled or if adjustment of the sampler or analyzer is necessary under 40 CFR 53.11(b) to avoid a cancellation.
(g)An applicant who modifies a sampler or analyzer previously designated as part of a reference or equivalent method is not permitted to sell the sampler or analyzer (as modified as part of a reference or equivalent method (although it may be sold without such representation), nor to attach a designation label or sticker to the sampler or analyzer (as modified) under the provisions described above, until the applicant has received notice under 40 CFr Part 53.14(c) that the original designation or a new designation applies to the method as modified, or until the applicant has applied for an received notice under 40 CFR 53.8(b) of a new reference or equivalent method determination for the sampler or analyzer as modified. Aside from occasional breakdown or malfunctions, consistent or repeated noncompliance with any of these conditions should be reported to: Director, Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division (MD-E205-01), National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. Designation of this new equivalent method is intended to assist the States in establishing and operating their air quality surveillance systems under 40 CFR Part 58. Questions concerning the commercial availability or technical aspects of the method should be directed to the applicant. Jewel F. Morris, Acting Director, National Exposure Research Laboratory. [FR Doc. 07-2317 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 85
Traces to 85 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
66 references not yet in our index
  • 10 CFR 72
  • 68 Stat. 929
  • 83 Stat. 444
  • Pub. L. 86-373
  • 73 Stat. 688
  • 88 Stat. 1242
  • Pub. L. 95-601
  • 92 Stat. 2951
  • Pub. L. 102-486
  • 106 Stat. 3123
  • Pub. L. 91-190
  • 83 Stat. 853
  • Pub. L. 97-425
  • 96 Stat. 2229
  • Pub. L. 100-203
  • 101 Stat. 1330
  • 112 Stat. 2750
  • Pub. L. 109-58
  • 119 Stat. 806
  • 68 Stat. 955
  • 96 Stat. 2230
  • 96 Stat. 2202
  • 98 Stat. 2230
  • 96 Stat. 2252
  • 11 CFR 106
  • 11 CFR 100
  • 11 CFR 300
  • 11 CFR 109
  • 26 CFR 1
  • 32 CFR 571
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • 36 CFR 261
  • 36 CFR 228
  • 364 F. Supp. 2d 1183
  • 300 F. Supp. 2d 951
  • 5 CFR 1320
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 36 CFR 292
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 399 F.3d 486
+ 26 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Proposed rule
U.S.C.§ 553
U.S.C.§ 2071
U.S.C.§ 2021
U.S.C.§ 5841
U.S.C.§ 5851
U.S.C.§ 4332
U.S.C.§ 10151
U.S.C.§ 3504
U.S.C.§ 2014
F. Supp.364 F. Supp. 2d 1183
F. Supp.300 F. Supp. 2d 951
F. App'x399 F.3d 486
Cites 151 · 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.