Notices. Notice of availability and public hearings

50,677 words·~230 min read·/register/2007/06/01/07-2714

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

BILLING CODE 6820-KF-M DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the FutureGen Project AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of availability and public hearings. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE)announces the availability of the document, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the FutureGen Project (DOE/EIS-0394D), for public comment. The draft environmental impact statement

(EIS)analyzes the potential environmental consequences of DOE's proposed action to provide federal funding for the FutureGen Project. The Project would include the planning, design, construction and operation of the FutureGen facility, a prototype electric power and hydrogen gas generating plant that employs coal gasification technology integrated with combined-cycle electricity generation and the capture and geologic sequestration of the carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions. The project would also include a research platform, which would be a principal feature of the prototype plant. The proposed action would be undertaken by a private sector, non-profit consortium of industrial participants known as the FutureGen Alliance, Inc., (the Alliance). The Alliance includes some of the largest coal producers and electricity generators in the world. Under a Cooperative Agreement between DOE and the Alliance, the Alliance would be primarily responsible for implementing the FutureGen Project, while DOE would guide the Alliance at a programmatic level to ensure the FutureGen Project's objectives are met. The Department prepared the draft EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), the Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ)regulations that implement the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and DOE procedures implementing NEPA (10 CFR part 1021). DOE identified four reasonable alternative sites for analysis in the EIS. Based on the EIS, DOE will determine which sites, if any, are acceptable to DOE to host the FutureGen Project. The four sites currently being considered for the FutureGen Project are: Mattoon, Illinois; Tuscola, Illinois; Jewett, Texas; and Odessa, Texas. The Project would incorporate cutting-edge research, as well as help develop promising new energy-related technologies at a commercial scale. Performance and economic test results from the FutureGen Project would be shared among all participants, industry, the environmental community, and the public. The proposed power plant would be a 275-megawatt

(MW)output Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle

(IGCC)system combined with CO 2 capture and geologic storage at a rate of at least 1.1 million tons of CO 2 per year. The research facilities and power plant would be constructed at one of the four alternative sites identified above. The potential environmental impacts of locating and operating the FutureGen Project at each of the alternative sites are evaluated in the draft EIS. The draft EIS also analyzed the No-Action Alternative, under which DOE would not share in the cost for constructing and operating the FutureGen Project. Without DOE funding, neither the Alliance nor U.S. industry would likely undertake the commercial scale integration of CO 2 capture and geologic sequestration in deep saline reservoirs with a coal-fueled power plant in a comparable timeframe. DATES: DOE invites the public to comment on the draft EIS during the public comment period, which ends July 16, 2007. DOE will consider all comments postmarked or received during the public comment period in preparing the final EIS, and will consider late comments to the extent practicable. DOE will conduct public hearings near each of the four candidate sites to obtain comments on the draft EIS. The meeting schedule is: June 19, 2007 in Midland, Texas; June 21, 2007 in Buffalo, Texas; June 26, 2007 in Mattoon, Illinois; and June 28, 2007 in Tuscola, Illinois. Informational sessions will be held at each location from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., preceding the formal presentations and formal comment period from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for details on the meeting process and locations. ADDRESSES: Requests for information about this draft EIS and requests to receive a copy of the draft EIS should be directed to: Mr. Mark L. McKoy, NEPA Document Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, P.O. Box 880, Morgantown, WV 26507-0880, Attn: FutureGen Project EIS. Mr. McKoy can also be contacted by telephone at

(304)285-4262, toll free at 1-800-432-8330 (extension 4262), fax 304-285-4403, or e-mail *FutureGen.EIS@netl.doe.gov* . Additional information about the draft EIS may also be requested or messages recorded by calling the FutureGen telephone line at

(304)285-4262, or toll free at

(800)432-8330 (extension 4262). The draft EIS will be available via the Internet at *http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/* . Copies of the draft EIS are also available for public review at the locations listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this Notice. Written comments on the draft EIS can be mailed to Mr. Mark L. McKoy, NEPA Document Manager, at the address noted above. Written comments may also be submitted by fax to:

(304)285-4403; or submitted electronically to: *FutureGen.EIS@netl.doe.gov* . In addition to providing oral comments during the public hearings, oral comments on the draft EIS may be recorded by calling the FutureGen telephone line at

(304)285-4262, or toll free at

(800)432-8330 (extension 4262). *For Additional Information:* For further information on the proposed project or the draft EIS, contact Mr. Mark L. McKoy as directed above. For general information regarding the DOE NEPA process, please contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0119, Telephone:

(202)586-4600, or leave a message at

(800)472-2756. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background President Bush proposed on February 27, 2003, that the United States undertake a $1 billion, 10-year project to build the world's first coal-fueled plant to produce electricity and hydrogen with near-zero emissions. In response to this announcement, the DOE developed plans for the FutureGen Project, which would establish the technical and economic feasibility of producing electricity and hydrogen from coal—a low-cost and abundant energy resource—while capturing and geologically storing the CO 2 generated in the process. DOE would implement the FutureGen Project through a Cooperative Agreement that provides financial assistance to the FutureGen Alliance, Inc., a non-profit corporation that represents a global coalition of coal and energy companies. The Alliance members are: American Electric Power Company, Inc. (Columbus, OH); Anglo American, LLC (London, UK); BHP Billiton Limited (Melbourne, Australia); China Huaneng Group (Beijing, China); CONSOL Energy, Inc. (Pittsburgh, PA); E.ON U.S. LLC (Louisville, KY); Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc. (Linthicum Heights, MD); Peabody Energy Corporation (St. Louis, MO); PPL Corporation (Allentown, PA); Rio Tinto Energy America (Gillette, WY); Southern Company (Atlanta, GA); and Xstrata Coal (Sydney, Australia). Several foreign governments have entered into discussions with DOE regarding possible contributions. Description of Alternatives DOE analyzed four alternative sites and the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative DOE would not share in the cost for constructing and operating the FutureGen Project. Without DOE funding, neither the Alliance nor U.S. industry would likely undertake the commercial scale integration of CO 2 capture and geologic sequestration in deep saline reservoirs with a coal-fueled power plant in a comparable timeframe. Under the proposed action, DOE would provide financial assistance to the Alliance to plan, design, construct, and operate the FutureGen Project. DOE has identified four potential sites and, based on the EIS, will determine which sites, if any, are acceptable to DOE to host the FutureGen Project. The four sites currently being considered as reasonable alternatives for the FutureGen Project are: Mattoon, Illinois; Tuscola, Illinois; Jewett, Texas; and Odessa, Texas. The FutureGen Project would include a coal-fueled electric power and hydrogen production plant. The power plant would be a 275-megawatt

(MW)output Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle

(IGCC)system combined with CO 2 capture and geologic storage at a rate of at least 1.1 million tons of CO 2 per year. The draft EIS analyzes the environmental consequences that may result from the proposed action at each of the four candidate sites. Potential impacts identified during the scoping process and analyzed in the draft EIS relate to: Air quality; climate and meteorology; geology; physiography and soils; groundwater; surface water; wetlands and floodplains; biological resources; cultural resources; land use; aesthetics; transportation and traffic noise and vibration; utility systems; materials and waste management; human health, safety, and accidents; community services; socioeconomics; and environmental justice. Availability of the Draft EIS Copies of the draft EIS have been distributed to members of Congress, Federal, State, and local officials, and agencies, organizations, and individuals who may be interested or affected. The draft EIS will be available on the Internet at: *http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/* . Additional copies can also be requested by contacting the NEPA Document Manager, as indicated above under ADDRESSES . Copies of the draft EIS are also available for public review at the locations listed below. Mattoon Public Library, 1600 Charleston Avenue, Mattoon, IL 61938. Tuscola Public Library, 112 East Sale Street, Tuscola, IL 61953. Fairfield City Library (near Jewett), 350 W. Main Street, Fairfield, TX 75480. University of Texas of the Permian Basin, J. Conrad Dunagan Library, Main Floor, 4901 E. University Avenue, Odessa, TX 79762-0001. Additional information about the FutureGen Project can be found at these web sites: *http://www.doe.gov; http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/futuregen/* ; or *http://www.futuregenalliance.org* . Public Meetings DOE will conduct public hearings near each of the four candidate sites to obtain comments on the draft EIS. Requests to speak at the public hearings can be made by calling or writing to the NEPA Document Manager (see ADDRESSES ). Requests to speak that have not been submitted prior to the hearing will be accepted in the order in which they are received during the hearing. Speakers are encouraged to provide a written version of their oral comments or supplementary materials for the record. Each speaker will be allowed approximately five minutes to present comments. Those speakers who want more than five minutes should indicate the length of time desired in their request. Depending on the number of speakers, DOE may need to limit all speakers to five minutes initially and provide additional opportunities as time permits. Comments will be recorded by a court reporter and will become part of the public record. Oral and written comments will be given equal consideration. Each hearing will begin with an information session at approximately 4 p.m., followed by formal presentations and a formal comment session beginning at approximately 7 p.m. DOE will begin each meeting's formal session with an overview of the proposed FutureGen Project, followed by oral statements by the scheduled speakers. Speakers may be asked questions to help ensure that DOE fully understands the comments. A presiding officer will establish the order of speakers and provide any additional procedures necessary to conduct the meetings. All meetings will be accessible to people with disabilities. Any individual with a disability requiring special assistance, such as a sign language interpreter, or a translator, should contact Mr. Mark McKoy, the NEPA Document Manager, (See ADDRESSES ) at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting so that arrangements can be made. Meeting Schedule Texas—Odessa Site. Date: June 19, 2007. Place: Center for Energy and Economic Diversification

(CEED)Building, 1400 North FM 1788, Midland, TX 79707. Texas—Jewett Site. Date: June 21, 2007. Place: Buffalo Civic Center, 941 North Hill Street, Buffalo, TX 75831 (Located near the intersection of US-79 and I-45). Illinois—Mattoon Site. Date: June 26, 2007. Place: Riddle Elementary School, 4201 Western Avenue, Mattoon, IL 61938 (Located at the corner of Western Avenue and 43rd Street [CR 300E]). Illinois—Tuscola Site. Date: June 28, 2007. Place: Tuscola Community Building, 122 W. Central Avenue, Tuscola, IL 61953. (From I-57, take exit 212 to U.S. Hwy 36 and continue to the intersection of North Central Ave. and South Main Street). Issued in Washington, DC, on May 25, 2007. Mark J. Matarrese, Director, Office of Environment, Security, Safety and Health, Office of Fossil Energy. [FR Doc. E7-10563 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC07-542-000; FERC-542] Commission Information Collection Activities, Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension May 25, 2007. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(a) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-13), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described below. DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due August 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: Copies of sample filings of the proposed collection of information can be obtained from the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filings/elibrary.asp* ) or from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Attn: Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director, ED-34, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments may be filed either in paper format or electronically. Those parties filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. For paper filing, the original and 14 copies of such comments should be submitted to the Secretary of the Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 and refer to Docket No. IC07-542-000. Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in WordPerfect, MS Word, Portable Document Format, or ASCII format. To file the document, access the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* , choose the Documents & Filings tab, click on eFiling, then follow the instructions given. First time users will have to establish a user name and password. The Commission will send an automatic acknowledgement to the sender's e-mail address upon receipt of comments. All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the Internet through FERC's homepage using the eLibrary link. For user assistance, contact *FERConlinesupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at

(866)208-3676 or for TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by telephone at

(202)502-8415, by fax at

(202)273-0873, and by e-mail at *michael.miller@ferc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information collected under the requirements of FERC-542 “Gas Pipeline Rates: Rate Tracking” (OMB No. 1902-0070) is used by the Commission to implement the statutory provisions of Title IV of the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA), 15 U.S.C. 3301-3432, and Sections 4, 5 and 16 of the Natural Gas Act

(NGA)(Pub. L.) 75-688) (15 U.S.C. 717-717w). These statutes empower the Commission to collect natural gas transmission cost information from interstate natural gas transporters for the purpose of verifying that these costs, which are passed on to pipeline customers, are just and reasonable. Interstate natural gas pipeline companies are required by the Commission to track their transportation associated costs to allow for the Commission's review and where appropriate, approval of the pass-through of these costs to pipeline customers. Most of these FERC-542 tracking filings are monthly accountings of the cost of fuel or electric power necessary to operate compressor stations. Others track the costs of

(1)Gas Research Institutes fees;

(2)annual charges of various types, and

(3)other types of rate adjustments. Tracking filings may be submitted at any time or on a regularly scheduled basis in accordance with the pipeline company's tariff. Filings may be either:

(1)Accepted;

(2)suspended and set for hearing;

(3)suspended, but not set for hearing; or

(4)suspended for further review, such as technical conference or some other type of Commission action. The Commission implements these filing requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)under 18 CFR part 154, §§ 154.4, 154.7, 154.101, 154.307, 154.201, 154.207-154.209 and 154.401-154.403. *Action:* The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the current expiration date, with no changes to the existing collection of data. *Burden Statement:* Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated as: Number of respondents annually

(1)Number of responses per respondent

(2)Average burden hours per response

(3)Total annual burden hours (1)×(2)×(3) 95 3.5 40 13,300 Estimated cost burden to respondents is $780,972. (13,300 hours/2080 hours per year times $122,137 per year average per employee = $780,972). The cost per respondent is $8,221. There is a significant increase in the number of respondents and number of filings per respondent since the last renewal request because in the last two years each pipeline has had to file for a change in annual charges whereas previously they did not. However, the annual charge filings are shorter than most other tracking filings which has resulted in a reduction in the burden hours per response. The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information including:

(1)Reviewing instructions;

(2)developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing and providing information;

(3)adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;

(4)training personnel to respond to a collection of information;

(5)searching data sources;

(6)completing and reviewing the collection of information; and

(7)transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information. The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than any one particular function or activity. Comments are invited on:

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

(2)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology *e.g.* permitting electronic submission of responses. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-10543 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-459-000] Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Proprosed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff May 25, 2007. Take notice that on May 22, 2007, Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin) tendered for filing as a part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to be effective on June 22, 2007: Second Revised Sheet No. 529 First Revised Sheet No. 563 First Revised Sheet No. 568 Algonquin states that copies of its filing have been served upon all affected customers of Algonquin and interested state commissions. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call

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

(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-10536 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 459-173] Union Electric Company dba AmerenUE; Notice Rejecting Filing May 25, 2007. On April 20, 2007, the Commission issued an order granting an application filed by AmerenUE, licensee for the Osage Hydroelectric Project No. 459, for non-project use of project lands. 1 On May 21, 2007, Duncan's Point Lot Owners Association, Inc.; Duncan's Point Homeowners Association, Inc.; and Nancy A. Brunson and Pearl Hankins, individually (Duncan's Point Owners) requested rehearing of the Commission's decision. 1 119 FERC ¶ 61,073 (2007). The two page request for rehearing states without explanation that the Commission's order has not met the most minimal requirements of procedural due process. 2 2 Duncan's Point Owners request a 30-day extension to address the issues. Because the 30-day rehearing deadline is statutorily-based, we cannot grant the requested extension. Section 313(a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825l (2000), requires an aggrieved party 3 to file its request for rehearing within 30 days after the issuance of the Commission order and to set forth specifically the ground or grounds upon which such request is based. Duncan's Point Owners' rehearing request raises no specific allegations of error with respect to the Commission's order. Therefore, it must be rejected. 4 3 Juanita Brackens and Helen Davis were also listed in the caption of the request for rehearing. Because they did not file motions to intervene, they are not parties to the proceeding. Therefore, to the extent the request for rehearing was filed on behalf of Ms. Brackens and Ms. Davis, it must be rejected due to a lack of party status. 4 In addition, the pleading as filed is deficient because it failed to include a Statement of Issues, as required by Revision of Rules of Practice and Procedure Regarding Issue Identification, Order No. 663, 70 FR 55,723 (September 23, 2005), FERC Statutes and Regulations ¶ 31,193

(2005)as amended by Order 663-A, effective March 23, 2006, to limit its applicability to rehearing requests. Revision of Rules of Practice and Procedure Regarding Issue Identification, Order No. 663-A, 71 FR 14,640 (March 23, 2006), FERC Statutes and Regulations ¶ 31,211

(2006)(codified at 18 CFR 385.203(a)(7) and 385.713(c)(2) (2006)). This notice constitutes final agency action. Request for rehearing of this rejection notice must be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this notice, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.713 (2006). Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-10534 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP06-422-001] Cameron LNG, LLC; Notice of Filing May 25, 2007. Take notice that on February 15, 2007, Cameron LNG, LLC (Cameron LNG) tendered for filing a supplemental request for a modification of the Commission's January 18, 2007 Order granting authorization under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act

(NGA)for Cameron LNG to construct its Terminal Expansion Project. Cameron LNG requests authority to increase the send-out rate of its LNG terminal prior to the construction of any Terminal Expansion Project facilities, rather than during the construction of those facilities as authorized by the January 18, 2007 Order. 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, 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. 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 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 on June 8, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-10544 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP96-200-174] CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate Filing May 25, 2007. Take notice that on May 23, 2007, CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company

(CEGT)tendered for filing and approval a negotiated rate agreement between CEGT and Petrohawk Energy Corporation. CEGT states that it has entered into an agreement to provide firm transportation service to this shipper under Rate Schedule FT and requests the Commission accept and approve the transaction under which transportation service will commence upon the “in- service” date following completion of certain Line CP facilities. 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. E7-10541 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP06-355-003] Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Compliance Filing May 25, 2007. Take notice that on April 30, 2007, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective date of June 9, 2006: Sec. Sub. First Revised Sheet No. 3701 Original Sheet No. 3701A Gulf South states that the filing is being made in compliance with the Commission's order issued April 10, 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. E7-10535 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP06-540-003] High Island Offshore System, L.L.C.; Notice of Motion To Place Settlement Rates Into Effect on an Interim Basis May 25, 2007. Take notice that on May 23, 2007, High Island Offshore System, L.L.C.

(HIOS)tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Sixth Revised Sheet No. 10, to be effective June 1, 2007, subject to certain conditions. 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 June 1, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-10542 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER07-938-000] ISO New England, Inc.; Notice of Filing May 25, 2007. Take notice that on May 25, 2007, ISO New England Inc. (the ISO) filed a limited change to the Forward Capacity Market Rule

(FCA)conditionally accepted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on April 16, 2007. ISO New England, Inc., 119 FERC ¶ 61,045 (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, 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 comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to 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 on June 1, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-10550 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-437-001] Kern River Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Withdrawal of Tariff Sheets May 25, 2007. Take notice that on May 22, 2007, Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) proposed to withdraw the following tariff sheets filed on May 1, 2007, in this docket number. Third Revised Sheet No. 301. Second Revised Sheet No. 327. Kern River states that it has served a copy of this filing upon each person designated on the official service list. 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 29, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-10540 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-463-000] Liberty Gas Storage, LLC; Notice of Filing May 25, 2007. Take notice that on April 26, 2007, Liberty Gas Storage LLC (Liberty), filed in the above referenced docket a request for an extension of time to implement requests for electronic data interchange. Liberty requests an extension of time until 90 days following its receipt of such a request. 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 30, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-10545 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-461-000] Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff May 25, 2007. Take notice that on May 22, 2007, Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C. (Maritimes) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective on June 22, 2007: First Revised Sheet No. 226 Third Revised Sheet No. 227B Fourth Revised Sheet No. 236 Second Revised Sheet No. 238 Fourth Revised Sheet No. 254 Maritimes states that copies of this filing were mailed to all affected customers of Maritimes and interested state commissions. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call

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

(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-10538 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP07-381-000] Ozark Gas Transmission, L.L.C.; Notice of Application May 25, 2007. Take notice that on May 14, 2007 Ozark Gas Transmission, L.L.C. (Ozark), 1437 S. Boulder, Suite 1500, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74119, filed in Docket No. CP07-381-000, an application pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), to amend the certificate granted to Ozark by the Commission in Docket Nos. CP98-265-000, CP98-266-000, CP98-267-000, CP98-268-000, and CP98-269-000. Specifically, Ozark seeks to increase the maximum certificated capacity of its pipeline system from 330,000 Mcf/d to 420,000 Mcf/d, all as more fully set forth in the application on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. 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

(202)502-8659 or TTY,

(202)208-3676. Any questions regarding this application should be directed to David A. Harrell, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Ozark Gas Transmission, L.L.C., 1437 S. Boulder, Suite 1500, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74119, telephone

(918)398-2123, fax

(918)398-2165, e-mail *dharrell@ozarkgastransmission.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 proceedings 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 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. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, 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 on June 15, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-10546 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-462-000] Puget Sound Energy, Inc.; Notice of Tariff Filing May 25, 2007. Take notice that on May 22, 2007, Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (Puget) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, Sixth Revised Sheet No. 1 and Original Sheet Nos. 127 through 133, to be effective June 22, 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. E7-10539 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER07-911-000] RPL Holding, Inc.; Notice of Filing May 24, 2007. Take notice that on May 18, 2007, RPL Holdings, Inc. filed an application for authorization to make market-based wholesale sales of energy, capacity, and ancillary services and submitted FERC Electric Tariff 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, 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 comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to 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 on June 4, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-10548 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-460-000] Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Proprosed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff May 25, 2007. Take notice that on May 22, 2007, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) tendered for filing as a part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets proposed to be effective on June 22, 2007: Second Revised Sheet No. 519 Fourth Revised Sheet No. 528 Fourth Revised Sheet No. 554 Third Revised Sheet No. 556 Texas Eastern states that copies of its filing have been served upon all affected customers of Texas Eastern and interested state commissions. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call

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

(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-10537 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AC07-127-000] UGI Utilities, Inc.; Notice of Filing May 25, 2007. Take notice that on May 18, 2007, UGI Utilities, Inc. (“UGI”), submitted a request for a one-time change of its requirement to report in the format prescribed by the Regulations. UGI Utilities requests that it be allowed to submit its FERC financial statements and accompanying CPA Certification with respect to its 2006-07 fiscal year, rather than submit a CPA Certification with respect to its 2006 calendar-year financial statements included with the company's 2006 annual report FERC Form 1-F. In the event the Commission denies the above request, UGI Utilities asks that it be granted an extension of time to file a CPA certification with respect to its 2006 calendar year financial statements. Each utility is required to close its books at the end of each calendar year under the General Instructions in Section 101 of the Commission's regulations. 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 or 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 comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to 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:* June 14, 2007. Kimberly Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-10547 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER07-503-000] Wisconsin Electric Power Company; Notice of Filing May 25, 2007. Take notice that on May 17, 2007, Wisconsin Electric Power Company filed an explanation of settlement in support of its concurrently filed settlement agreement, pursuant to Rule 602 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 U.S.C. 385.602. 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, 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 comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to 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 online 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 June 4, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-10533 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings # 1 May 22, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* EC07-45-000. *Applicants:* Morgan Stanley. *Description:* Morgan Stanley's response to the Commission's letter issued on 2/26/07. *Filed Date:* 5/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070522-0213. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* EC07-91-000. *Applicants:* General Electric Capital Corporation; LS Power Partners, LP; LS Power Partners II, L.P.; LS Power Equity Partners, LP; LS Power Equity Partners II, L.P.; LS Power Equity Partners Pie I, LP; LS Power Equity Partners II PIE, L.P.; Shady Hills Power Company, L.L.C. *Description:* Joint application under section 203 of the FPA for authorization for indirect transfer of control of a public utility and for expedited consideration of General Electric Capital Corporation et al. *Filed Date:* 5/11/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070516-0187. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 1, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* EC07-92-000. *Applicants:* DTE Energy Services, Inc.; DTE Georgetown Holdings, Inc.; DTE Georgetown, LP; Indianapolis Power & Light Company. *Description:* DTE Energy Services, Inc, DTE Georgetown Holdings, Inc, DTE Georgetown, LP and Indianapolis Power & Light Co submit their application requesting authorization for the indirect disposition of an 80 MW gas turbine. *Filed Date:* 5/18/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070522-0319. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 8, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* EC07-93-000. *Applicants:* NRG Energy, Inc. *Description:* Application of NRG Energy Inc and its public utility subsidaries for Commission Approval in connection with a corporate restructuring etc. *Filed Date:* 5/17/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070522-0318. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 7, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings: *Docket Numbers:* EG07-54-000. *Applicants:* Stanton Wind Energy LLC. *Description:* Stanton Wind Energy LLC submits its Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status. *Filed Date:* 5/17/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070522-0118. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 7, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* EG07-55-000. *Applicants:* Scurry County Wind II LLC. *Description:* Scurry County Wind II LLC submits its Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status. *Filed Date:* 5/17/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070522-0117. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 7, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER01-3121-011; ER03-478-016; ER06-200-009; ER07-254-001; ER03-1326-009; ER05-534-010; ER05-365-010; ER05-1262-007; ER06-1093-003; ER03-296-003; ER02-418-010; ER03-416-013; ER05-332-010; ER07-287-003; ER07-242-003; ER03-951-012; ER04-94-010; ER02-417-010; ER05-1146-010; ER05-481-010; ER07-240-004; ER07-195-001; ER02-2085-004. *Applicants:* PPM Energy Inc.; Flying Cloud Power Partners, LLC; Flat Rock Windpower LLC; Flat Rock Windpower II LLC; Elk River Wind LLC; Eastern Desert Power LLC; Colorado Green Holdings LLC; Casselman Windpower, LLC; Big Horn Wind Project LLC; Klamath Energy LLC; Klamath Generation LLC; Klondike Wind Power LLC; Klondike Wind Power II; Klondike Wind Power III LLC; MinnDakota Wind LLC; Moraine Wind LLC; Mountain View Power Partners III; Phoenix Wind Power LLC; Shiloh I wind Project, LLC; Trimont Wind I LLC; Twin Buttes Wind LLC; Locust Ridge Wind Farm, LLC; Northern Iowa Windpower II, LLC. *Description:* The Iberdrola Companies submit a notice of a change in status resulting from the sale of Scottish Power plc.. *Filed Date:* 5/14/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070516-0177. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 4, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER02-2397-006; ER06-643-002; ER06-784-002; ER05-454-004; ER06-805-001; ER07-528-001; ER06-642-003; ER05-118-005; ER05-131-004; ER06-1446-002; ER03-796-006; ER07-527-001. *Applicants:* Great Lakes Hydro America LLC; Bear Swamp Power Company LLC; Brookfield Energy Marketing Inc.; Brookfield Energy Marketing US LLC; Brookfield Power Piney & Deep Creek LLC; Carr Street Generating Station, L.P.; Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P.; Hawks Nest Hydro LLC; Katahdin Paper Company LLC; Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc.; Rumford Falls Hydro LLC. *Description:* Notice of Change in Status of Bear Swamp Power Company LLC, et al. *Filed Date:* 5/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070521-5067. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 11, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-114-003; ER04-183-002. *Applicants:* Great Bay Power Marketing, Inc.; Great Bay Hydro Corporation. *Description:* Great Bay Power Marketing, Inc and Great Bay Hydro Corp submits an amendment to its 2/12/07 triennial market power analysis. *Filed Date:* 5/11/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070516-0018. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 1, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-1065-008. *Applicants:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Description:* Entergy Operating Companies submits revisions to the Available Flowgate Capability Process Manual, FERC Electric Tariff, Rate Schedule 1 etc in compliance with FERC's 4/24/06 Order et al. *Filed Date:* 5/18/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070522-0231. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 8, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-1178-010; ER05-1191-010. *Applicants:* Gila River Power, L.P.; Union Power Partner, L.P. *Description:* Gila River Power, LP et al submits this notice of non-material change in status relating to their upstream ownership structure pursuant to Section 35.27(c) of FERC's Regulations and Order 652. *Filed Date:* 5/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070517-0075. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-522-004; ER06-1382-004. *Applicants:* Bluegrass Generation Company, L.L.C. *Description:* Electric Refund Report (Compliance Only) of Bluegrass Generation Company, L.L.C. *Filed Date:* 5/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070515-5051. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-554-003. *Applicants:* Virginia Electric and Power Company. *Description:* PJM submit an Electric Refund Report detailing refunds from a Reactive Power settlement between Virginia Electric and Power Company, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, and North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation. *Filed Date:* 5/18/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070518-5072. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 8, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-445-001. *Applicants:* Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. *Description:* Duke Energy Corp reports that on 4/26/07 Duke Energy Indiana, Inc and Indiana Municipal Power Agency executed a new power agreement to replace the Power Coordination Agreement, effective 6/1/07 under ER07-445. *Filed Date:* 5/14/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070516-0184. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 4, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-575-002. *Applicants:* MidAmerican Energy Company. *Description:* MidAmerican Energy Company submits Substitute Original Sheet 15 to FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume 8. *Filed Date:* 5/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070517-0068. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-577-001. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System. *Description:* Xcel Energy Services, Inc on behalf of Northern States Power Company submits its response to FERC's 4/20/07 deficiency letter. *Filed Date:* 5/18/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070522-0226. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 8, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-585-002. *Applicants:* WPS Niagara Generation, LLC. *Description:* Integrys Energy Group submits a requests to withdraw Niagara Generation from the 4/20/07 Notice of Change in Status for Market-Based Rate Authority. *Filed Date:* 5/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070521-0580. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-626-001. *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corp. *Description:* American Electric Power Service Corp submits a revised tariff sheet to the Open Access Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume 6 in compliance with FERC's 4/13/07 Order. *Filed Date:* 5/14/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070516-0179. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 4, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-671-001. *Applicants:* Trigen-St. Louis Energy Corporation. *Description:* Trigen-St Louis Energy Corp submits its revised FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 5/14/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070516-0183. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 4, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-761-001. *Applicants:* Fulcrum Energy Limited. *Description:* Fulcrum Energy Limited submits an Amendment to Original Sheet 1 to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 5/14/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070517-0073. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 4, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-799-001; EL07-61-000. *Applicants:* Norwalk Power, LLC. *Description:* Norwalk Power, LLC's supplemental information and corrects computational errors contained in certain exhibits filed in conjunction with the 4/26/07, unexecuted cost-of-service agreement with NRG Power Marketing, Inc. et al. *Filed Date:* 5/17/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070522-0217. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 7, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-876-000. *Applicants:* Chevron Coalinga Energy Company. *Description:* Chevron Coalinga Energy Co. submits notice of succession and tariff amendments to adopt and amend the market-based rate tariff of Texaco Natural Gas, Inc. *Filed Date:* 5/9/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070514-0122. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 30, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-890-000. *Applicants:* Waterbury Generation, LLC. *Description:* Waterbury Generation, LLC request for Expedited Consideration and Temporary Waiver of Qualification Process Reimbursement Deposit Due Date under Market Rule 1. *Filed Date:* 5/14/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070515-0334. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 4, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-891-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits revisions to the chart in Schedule 2 to adjust downward the zonal revenue requirements of Reliant Energy Electric Solutions, LLC. *Filed Date:* 5/14/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070515-0333. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 4, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-898-000. *Applicants:* Baltimore Gas and Electric Company. *Description:* Baltimore Gas and Electric Company submits certain revised tariff sheets (in Appendix A) to FERC Open Access Transmission Tariff pursuant to Order 668 etc. *Filed Date:* 5/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070517-0074. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-899-000. *Applicants:* Aquila, Inc. *Description:* Aquila, Inc. submits Amendatory Agreement 4 to the Multiple Interconnection & Transmission Contract w/Missouri Public Service and Kansas City Power & Light Company etc. *Filed Date:* 5/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070517-0072. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-900-000. *Applicants:* Aquila, Inc. *Description:* Aquila, Inc. submits Amendatory Agreement 6 to the Agreement for Interchange of Power & Interconnected Operation w/Missouri Public Service and Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. etc. *Filed Date:* 5/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070517-0071. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-901-000. *Applicants:* Duquesne Light Company. *Description:* Duquesne Light Company submits First Revised Sheet 314H.01 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1, to become effective 6/1/07. *Filed Date:* 5/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070517-0070. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-902-000. *Applicants:* Tenaska Alabama Partners, L.P. *Description:* Tenaska Alabama Partners, LP submits Rate Schedule FERC 2, under which specifies its revenue requirement for Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Service etc. *Filed Date:* 5/16/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070517-0069. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 6, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-905-000. *Applicants:* Sierra Pacific Resources Operating Company. *Description:* Nevada Power Company & Sierra Pacific Power Co. submits proposed revisions to the Sierra Pacific Resources Operating Companies' Open Access Transmission Tariff. *Filed Date:* 5/16/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070521-0158. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 6, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-906-000. *Applicants:* ISO New England Inc. *Description:* ISO New England Inc. submits its Capital Projects Report and schedule of the unamortized costs of its funded capital expenditures for the quarter ending 3/31/07. *Filed Date:* 5/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070521-0151. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-912-000. *Applicants:* Potomac Electric Power Company. *Description:* Potomac Electric Power Co submits First Revised Sheet 310A et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1, effective 6/1/07. *Filed Date:* 5/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070521-0630. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-913-000. *Applicants:* Atlantic City Electric Company. *Accession Number:* 20070521-0630. *Description:* Atlantic City Electric Co submits First Revised Sheet 298A et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1, effective 6/1/07. *Filed Date:* 5/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070521-0631. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-914-000. *Applicants:* Delmarva Power & Light Company. *Description:* Delmarva Power & Light Company submits First Revised Sheet 300E et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1, pursuant to FERC's 12/30/05 issued Order 668, effective 6/1/07. *Filed Date:* 5/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070521-0632. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-915-000; EL06-109. *Applicants:* Duquesne Light Company. Description: Duquesne Light Company submits an informational filing of 2007 Formula Rate Update pursuant to the Commission's 2/6/07 Order. *Filed Date:* 5/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070521-0621. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 5, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-916-000; ER07-917-000. *Applicants:* KGEN Southaven LLC; KGEN New Albany LLC *Description:* KGen Southaven, LLC and KGEN New Albany, LLC submits Notices of Cancellation of First Revised Sheet 1 to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 5/18/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070522-0228. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 8, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-918-000. *Applicants:* AP Holdings Southaven, LLC. *Description:* AP Holdings Southaven, LLC notifies the Commission that, as a result of a name change they have succeeded BTEC Southaven, LLC. *Filed Date:* 5/18/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070522-0230. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 8, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-921-000. *Applicants:* ISO New England, Inc. *Description:* ISO New England, Inc. submits its Settlement Agreement and Explanatory Statement in Support of the Settlement Agreement and Market Rule 1 Revisions etc. *Filed Date:* 5/18/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070523-0023. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 4, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings: *Docket Numbers:* ES07-37-000. *Applicants:* Rockland Electric Company. *Description:* Application under Section 204 of Rockland Electric Co for authorization to issue and sell short-term debt not in excess of $30 million at any one time outstanding. *Filed Date:* 5/14/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070514-5019. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 25, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings: *Docket Numbers:* PH07-3-001. *Applicants:* Enbridge Inc. *Description:* FERC Form 65 B—Waiver Notification and Notice of Material Change in Facts of Enbridge Inc. *Filed Date:* 5/14/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070514-5164. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 4, 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. E7-10551 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings # 1 May 25, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings: *Docket Numbers:* EG07-53-000. *Applicants:* Bethlehem Renewable Energy, LLC. *Description:* Bethlehem Renewable Energy LLC submits its Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status. *Filed Date:* 5/16/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070521-0148. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 6, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER98-2782-012; ER01-1275-008; ER06-146-003 *Applicants:* Alliance Energy Marketing, LLC; AER NY-Gen, LLC; AG Energy, L.P.; Seneca Power Partners, L.P.; Sterling Power Partners, L.P. *Description:* Notice of Change in Status of Alliance Energy Marketing, LLC, *et al.* *Filed Date:* 5/23/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070523-5022. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 13, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER01-989-004. *Applicants:* Green Mountain Power Corporation. *Description:* Non-Material Change-in-Status Report of Green Mountain Power Corporation. *Filed Date:* 5/16/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070516-5019. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 6, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER01-1699-008. *Applicants:* Pilot Power Group, Inc. *Description:* Pilot Power Group, Inc submits First Revised Sheet 1 to Rate Schedule FERC 1, effective 3/21/05 in compliance with Order 652. *Filed Date:* 5/17/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070521-0625. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 7, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER01-3103-014. *Applicants:* Astoria Energy LLC. *Description:* Astoria Energy LLC submits the proposed Code of Conduct as a result of an indirect affiliate with Green Mountain Power Corporation. *Filed Date:* 5/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070524-0044. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 11, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER02-579-005; ER02-580-006. *Applicants:* Capitol District Energy Center Cogeneration; Pawtucket Power Associates Limited Partnership *Description:* Pawtucket Power Associates LP, et al reports a change in status pursuant to Order 652 etc. *Filed Date:* 5/17/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070521-0620. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 7, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-1085-004. *Applicants:* Covanta Union, Inc. *Description:* Covanta Union, Inc submits its triennial market power update demonstrating that it continues to lack market power in generation and transmission and cannot erect barriers to entry. *Filed Date:* 5/14/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070516-0185. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 4, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER04-805-006. *Applicants:* Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc. *Description:* Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc submits an updated market power analysis pursuant to FERC's letter order issued on 7/1/04. *Filed Date:* 5/16/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070521-0150. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 6, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-1065-008. *Applicants:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Description:* Entergy Operating Companies submits revisions to the Available Flowgate Capability Process Manual, FERC Electric Tariff, Rate Schedule 1 etc in compliance with FERC's 4/24/06 Order *et al.* *Filed Date:* 5/18/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070522-0231. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 8, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-232-003. *Applicants:* Aragonne Wind LLC. *Description:* Aragonne Wind LLC notifies that the sales of test energy from the Facility commenced on 12/18/06 and submits Substitute Sheets 1 and 2 to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1 pursuant to FERC's 12/7/06 Order. *Filed Date:* 5/16/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070521-0149. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 6, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-539-001; ER07-540-001. *Applicants:* Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. *Description:* Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation dba National Grid submits information in response to FERC's 3/30/07 deficiency letter and on May 22, 2007 submit a correction to this filing. *Filed Date:* 5/16/2007; 5/22/07. *Accession Number:* 20070521-0155. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 6, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-558-001. *Applicants:* PacifiCorp. *Description:* PacifiCorp submits a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's 4/17/07 letter order. *Filed Date:* 5/16/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070516-5008. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 6, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-570-002. *Applicants:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. *Description:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc submits revisions to its Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff etc to comply with FERC's 4/17/07 Order. *Filed Date:* 5/17/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070521-0627. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 7, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-643-001. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool Inc submits Exhibit I a table of listing of its agreements in reference to its 3/21/07 filing. *Filed Date:* 5/16/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070521-0156. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 6, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-868-001. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC supplements their 5/4/07 filing by submitting revisions to certain other provisions that parallel the Operating Agreement in the PJM Open-Access Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 5/18/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070522-0229. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 8, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-881-001. *Applicants:* Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. *Description:* Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc submits an amendment to its 5/10/07 filing. *Filed Date:* 5/21/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070524-0050. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 11, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-898-001. *Applicants:* Baltimore Gas and Electric Company. *Description:* Baltimore Gas and Electric Co resubmits its Second Revised Sheet 299A et al to FERC Electric Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1, effective 6/1/07. *Filed Date:* 5/18/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070521-0628. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 8, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-903-000. *Applicants:* Bethlehem Renewable Energy, LLC. *Description:* Bethlehem Renewable Energy LLC submits an application for ordering accepting market-base rate tariff, waiving certain requirements and granting authorizations and blanket authority. *Filed Date:* 5/16/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070521-0153. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 6, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-904-000. *Applicants:* FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC. *Description:* FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC submits a request for authorization to sell energy and capacity at market-based rates. *Filed Date:* 5/16/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070521-0152. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 6, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-907-000. *Applicants:* Bruce Power Inc. *Description:* Petition of Bruce Power Inc for order accepting Market-Based Rate Schedule for filing and granting waivers and blanket approvals. *Filed Date:* 5/17/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070521-0624. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 7, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-908-000. *Applicants:* New York State Electric & Gas Corporation. *Description:* New York State Electric & Gas Corp submits a Notice of Termination and a Notice of Filing requesting that FERC terminate its Rate Schedule 229 with New York Power Authority, effective 8/31/07. *Filed Date:* 5/17/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070521-0623. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 7, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-909-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC submits revisions to FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Rate Schedule 24. *Filed Date:* 5/18/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070521-0622. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 8, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-910-000. *Applicants:* Baltimore Gas and Electric Company. *Description:* Baltimore Gas and Electric Co resubmits Second Revised Sheet 299A et al to FERC Electric Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1, effective 6/1/07. *Filed Date:* 5/18/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070521-0628. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 8, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-922-000. *Applicants:* Westar Energy, Inc. *Description:* Westar Energy, Inc requests waiver of the May 15, 2007 Posting Date set forth in Section I.3 of Attachment H-2 of the Open Access Transmission Tariff. *Filed Date:* 5/22/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070524-0039. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-924-000. *Applicants:* Kansas City Power & Light Company. *Description:* Kansas City Power & Light Co submits the initial rate schedules for Electric Interconnection and Delivery Service. *Filed Date:* 5/22/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070524-0040. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-925-000. *Applicants:* MidAmerican Energy Company. *Description:* MidAmerican Energy Co submits Second Revised Sheet 11 et al to FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume 8, to be effective 3/1/07. *Filed Date:* 5/22/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070524-0041. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-926-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection LLC submits an amendment to Schedule 2 to reflect corporate name of LSP-Kendall Energy, LLC to Dynegy Kendall Energy LLC, effective April 2, 2007. *Filed Date:* 5/23/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070523-5017. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 13, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-927-000. *Applicants:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Description:* Entergy Services, Inc agent for Entergy Arkansas, Inc et al submits the annual informational filing containing the 2007 rate redetermination in accordance with the annual rate redetermination provisions of Appendix 1 etc. *Filed Date:* 5/22/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070524-0051. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 12, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-928-000. *Applicants:* Southern California Edison Company. *Description:* Southern California Edison Company submits Fourth Revised Sheet 41 et al to the Amended and Restated Huntington Beach Generating Station Radial Lines Agreement with AES Huntington Beach, LLC, effective 7/23/07. *Filed Date:* 5/23/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070524-0042. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 13, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-929-000. *Applicants:* Southern California Edison Company. *Description:* Southern California Edison submits First Revised Sheet 3 et al to FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume 6, effective 7/23/07. *Filed Date:* 5/23/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070524-0037. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 13, 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. E7-10552 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP06-446-000, et al.] Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project May 25, 2007. The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)for the natural gas pipeline facilities proposed by Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South) under the above-referenced docket. Gulf South's East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project (Project) would be located in various counties and parishes in eastern Texas, northern Louisiana, and western Mississippi. The Final EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff concludes that the proposed Project, with the appropriate mitigation measures as recommended, would have limited adverse environmental impact. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(COE)are federal cooperating agencies for the development of this EIS. A federal cooperating agency has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved with the proposal and is involved in the NEPA analysis. The general purpose of the proposed Project is to transport up to 1.7 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas from production fields in eastern Texas to markets in the Gulf Coast, Midwestern, Northeastern, and Southeastern regions of the United States. The Final EIS addresses the potential environmental impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the following facilities: • Approximately 240.3 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending easterly from DeSoto Parish, Louisiana to Simpson County, Mississippi; • approximately 3.3 miles of 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending northward from Gulf South's existing Carthage Junction Compressor Station in Panola County, Texas to interconnects with existing natural gas facilities within Panola County; • two new compressor stations, the Vixen and the Tallulah Compressor Stations, located in Ouachita and Madison Parishes, Louisiana, respectively; • modifications to three existing compressor stations, the Carthage Junction, Hall Summit, and McComb Compressor Stations in Panola, County, Texas, Bienville Parish, Louisiana and Walthall County, Mississippi, respectively; and • other ancillary facilities, including six meter and regulator (M/R) facilities, eleven mainline valves, nine side valves, and five pig launcher and/or receiver facilities. Dependent upon Commission approval, Gulf South proposes to complete construction and begin operating the proposed Project in September 2007. The Final EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,

(202)502-8371. A limited number of copies of the Final EIS are available from the Public Reference Room identified above. In addition, CD copies of the Final EIS have been mailed to affected landowners; various federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; local libraries and newspapers; intervenors; and other individuals that expressed an interest in the proposed Project. Hard-copies of the Final EIS have also been mailed to those who requested that format during the scoping and comment periods for the proposed Project. In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's

(CEQ)regulations implementing NEPA, no agency decision on a proposed action may be made until 30 days after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)publishes a notice of availability of a Final EIS. However, the CEQ regulations provide an exception to this rule when an agency decision is subject to a formal internal process that allows other agencies or the public to make their views known. In such cases, the agency decision may be made at the same time the notice of the Final EIS is published, allowing both periods to run concurrently. Should the FERC issue Gulf South authorizations for the proposed Project, it would be subject to a 30-day rehearing period. Therefore, the Commission could issue its decision concurrently with the EPA's notice of availability. Additional information about the proposed Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the FERC Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ). To access information via the FERC Web site click on the “eLibrary” link then click on “General Search” and enter the docket number (CP06-446) excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. The “eLibrary” link provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. For assistance with “eLibrary”, please contact FERC Online Support at *FercOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to these documents. To learn more about eSubscription and to sign-up for this service please go to *http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm* . Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-10532 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of FERC Staff Attendance at Southwest Power Pool Board of Directors/Members Committee Meetings and Southwest Power Pool Regional State Committee Meeting May 24, 2007. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of its staff may attend the meetings of the Southwest Power Pool

(SPP)Board of Directors, SPP Members Committee and SPP Regional State Committee noted below. Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts. Board of Directors June 11, 2007-11 a.m.-5 p.m. (CST), June 12, 2007-8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. (CST), The Peabody Little Rock, 3 Statehouse Plaza, Little Rock, AR 72201, 501-375-5000. Board of Directors/Members Committee July 24, 2007-8 a.m.-3 p.m. (CST), Marriott Country Club Plaza, 4445 Main Street, Kansas City, MS 64111, 816-531-3000. SPP Regional State Committee July 23, 2007 (Time TBD), Marriott Country Club Plaza, 4445 Main Street, Kansas City, MS 64111, 816-531-3000. The discussions may address matters at issue in the following proceedings: Docket No. ER04-1232, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER05-799, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER05-526, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER05-1416, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. EL06-83, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER06-432, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER06-448, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER06-451, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER06-1047, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER06-767, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket Nos. ER06-1485 and ER07-266, Xcel Energy Services, Inc. Docket No. ER06-1488, Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company Docket No. ER06-1463, Empire District Electric Company Docket No. ER07-385, American Electric Power Service Corporation Docket No. ER06-1471, Westar Energy, Inc. Docket No. ER06-1467, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. EL06-71, Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. v Southwest Power Pool Docket No. ER07-14, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket Nos. ER07-211 and ER07-709, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER07-314, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER07-319, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER07-603, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER07-734, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER07-736, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER07-828, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER07-886, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. EL07-27, East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc., *et al.* and Docket No. ER07-396, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. These meetings are open to the public. For more information, contact John Rogers, Office of Energy Markets and Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at

(202)502-8564 or *john.rogers@ferc.gov* . Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-10549 Filed 5-31-07; 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 25, 2007. On April 6, 2007, as supplemented on May 4, 2007, the Commission issued notices scheduling staff technical conferences in the above-captioned proceeding. 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 The Commission hereby provides the following additional information and instruction regarding these conferences. 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* . The attached agenda details the dates and times of the technical conferences and identifies the companies presenting their strawman proposals, and the customer and industry groups to be represented in the stakeholder panels. To the extent a transmission provider is not listed or otherwise represented by a planning group as detailed on the attached agendas, it should contact the staff members listed below as soon as possible. In addition, each transmission provider should e-mail Commission staff with an electronic link to its strawman proposal at *890Planning.Strawman@ferc.gov* as soon as such proposal is posted on the transmission provider's Web site. The Commission will provide access to links to all strawman proposals in the OATT Reform section of the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/oatt-reform/strawman-info.asp* . Representatives of the customer groups identified on the attached agenda and other interested persons should please contact the staff identified below if interested in participating as a panelist. 2 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. E7-10531 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-6687-5] Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at 202-564-7167. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements

(EISs)was published in FR dated April 6, 2007 (72 FR 17156). Draft EISs EIS No. 20070116, ERP No. D-AFS-J65478-00, Norwood Project, Proposes to Implement Multiple Resource Management Actions, Black Hills National Forest, Hell Canyon Ranger District, Pennington County, SD and Weston and Crook Counties, WY. *Summary:* EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to water quality, impacts to wetlands, impacts from noxious and invasive weeds, and impacts to wildlife habitat. Also, the final EIS should include information about future interactions with the soon to be completed cellulosic ethanol plant. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20070119, ERP No. D-NOA-L02034-AK, PROGRAMMATIC—Outer Continental Shelf Seismic Surveys in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, Proposed Offshore Oil and Gas Seismic Survey, AK. *Summary:* EPA expressed environmental concerns about the uncertainties presented in the document that do not provide support for many of the documents alternatives and conclusions. EPA also requested that the cumulative effects analysis be expanded. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20070122, ERP No. D-BLM-J03020-00, Overland Pass Natural Gas Liquids Pipeline Project (OPP), Construction and Operation of 760 Mile Natural Gas Liquids Pipeline, Right-of-Way Grant, KS, WY and CO. *Summary:* EPA expressed environmental concerns about potential impacts to river and stream water quality. EPA requested additional analysis of water quality impacts and mitigation measures. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20070154, ERP No. D-NOA-E91018-00, Amendment 27 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan and Amendment 14 to the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan, To Address Stock Rebuilding and Overfishing of Red Snapper, Gulf of Mexico. *Summary:* EPA does not object to the proposed actions. Rating LO. EIS No. 20070140, ERP No. DR-NOA-A91073-00, PROGRAMMATIC—Toward an Ecosystem Approach for the Western Pacific Region: From Species-Based Fishery Management Plans to Place-Based Fishery Ecosystem Plans, Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish, Coral Reef Ecosystems, Crustaceans, Precious Corals, Pelagics, Implementation, American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Hawaii, U.S. Pacific Remote Island Area. *Summary:* EPA expressed a lack of objections to the proposed action. Rating LO. Final EISs EIS No. 20070164, ERP No. F-AFS-J65440-MT, Northeast Yaak Project, Additional Documentation of Cumulative Effects Analysis, Proposed Harvest to Reduce Fuels in Old Growth, Implementation, Kootenai National Forest, Three Rivers Ranger District, Lincoln County, MT. *Summary:* EPA continues to express concern about impacts to wildlife habitat. Dated: May 29, 2007. Ken Mittelholtz, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. E7-10600 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-6687-4] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability *Responsible Agency:* Office of Federal Activities, General Information

(202)564-7167 or *http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/* . Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 05/21/2007 Through 05/25/2007 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. *EIS No. 20070205, Draft EIS, AFS, WA* , Tripod Fire Salvage Project, Proposal to Salvage Harvest Dead Trees and Fire-Injured Trees Expected to Die Within One Year, Methow Valley and Tonasket Ranger Districts, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests, Okanogan County, WA, *Comment Period Ends:* 07/16/2007, *Contact:* John Newcom 509-996-4003. *EIS No. 20070206, Final EIS, FHW, NY* , NY Route 347 Safety and Mobility Improvement Project, from Northern State Parkway to NY Route 25A, Funding, Towns of Smithtown, Islip and Brookhaven, Suffolk County, NY, *Wait Period Ends:* 07/02/2007, *Contact:* Robert Arnold 518-431-4167. *EIS No. 20070207, Draft EIS, AFS, SD* , Citadel Project Area, Proposes to Implement Multiple Resource Management Actions, Northern Hills Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest, Lawrence County, SD, *Comment Period Ends:* 07/16/2007, *Contact:* Chris Stores 605-642-4622. *EIS No. 20070208, Draft EIS, HUD, CA* , Vista Village Workforce Housing Project, To Provide Professional Managed Affordable Housing, Tahoe Vista, Placer County, CA, *Comment Period Ends:* 07/16/2007, *Contact:* Joanne Auerboch 530-745-3150. *EIS No. 20070209, Draft EIS, FHW, NY* , Long Island Truck-Rail Intermodel (LITRIM) Facility, Construction and Operation, Right-of-Way Acquisition, Town of Islip, Suffolk County, NY, *Comment Period Ends:* 07/25/2007, *Contact:* Robert Arnold 518-431-4127. *EIS No. 20070210, Draft EIS, USA, CA* , Carmp Parks Real Property Master Plan and Real Property Exchange, Provide Exceptional Training and Modern Facilities for Soldiers, Master Planned Development, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, CA, *Comment Period Ends:* 07/16/2007, *Contact:* Amy Phillip 925-875-4298. *EIS No. 20070211, Draft EIS, AFS, OR* , Thorn Fire Salvage Recovery Project, Salvaging Dead and Dying Timber, Shake Table Fire Complex, Malheur National Forest, Grant County, OR, *Comment Period Ends:* 07/16/2007, *Contact:* Jerry Hensley 541-575-3000. *EIS No. 20070212, Draft EIS, TVA, AL* , Bear Creek Dam Leakage Resolution Project, To Modify Dam and Maintain Summer Pool Level of 576 Feet, Bear Creek Dam, Franklin County, AL, *Comment Period Ends:* 07/16/2007, *Contact:* James F. Williamson 865-632-6418. *EIS No. 20070213, Draft EIS, DOE, 00* , FutureGen Project, Planning, Design, Construction and Operation a Coal Fueled Electric Power and Hydrogen Gas Production Plant, Four Alternative Sites: Mattoon, IL, Tuscola, IL, Jewett, TX and Odessa, TX, *Comment Period Ends:* 07/16/ 2007, *Contact:* Mark McKoy 304-285-4426. *EIS No. 20070214, Final EIS, FRC, 00* , East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project, Construction and Operation of 243.3 miles Natural Gas Pipeline to Transport Natural Gas from Production Fields in eastern Texas to Markets in the Gulf Coast, Midwestern, Northeastern and Southeastern United States, *Wait Period Ends:* 07/02/2007, *Contact:* Andy Black 1-866-208-3372. *EIS No. 20070216, Draft Supplement, AFS, 00* , Southwest Idaho Ecogroup Land and Resource Management Plan, Additional Information Concerning Terrestrial Management Indicator Species (MIS), Boise National Forest, Payette National Forest and Sawtooth National Forest, Forest Plan Revision, Implementation, Several Counties, ID; Malhaur County, OR and Box Elder County, UT, *Comment Period Ends:* 08/30/2007, *Contact:* Sharon LaBrecque 208-737-3200. *EIS No. 20070217, Final EIS, CDB, NY* , East River Waterfront Esplanade and Piers Project, Revitalization, Connecting Whitehall Ferry Terminal and Peter Minuit Plaza to East River Park, Funding New York, NY, *Wait Period Ends:* 07/02/2007, *Contact:* Irene Chang 212-962-2300. *EIS No. 20070218, Draft EIS, FHW, CA* , Interstate 405 (San Diego Freeway) Sepulveda Pass Widening Project, From Interstate 10 to US-101 in the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, CA, *Comment Period Ends:* 07/16/2007, *Contact:* Steve Healow 916-498-5849. *EIS No. 20070219, Final EIS, AFS, 00* , Norwood Project, Proposes to Implement Multiple Resource Management Actions, Black Hills National Forest, Hell Canyon Ranger District, Pennington County, SD and Weston and Crook Counties, WY, *Wait Period Ends:* 07/02/2007, *Contact:* Kelly Honors 605-673-4853. Amended Notices *EIS No. 20070069, Second Final Supplement, FHW, WV* , Appalachian Corridor H Project, Construction of a 9-mile Long Segment between the Termini of Parsons and Davis, Updated Information the Parsons-to-Davis Project, Funding and U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit Issuance, Tucker County, WV, *Wait Period Ends:* 08/01/2007, *Contact:* Thomas J. Smith 304-347-5928. Revision to FR Notice Published 03/02/2007: Reopen and Extending Comment Period from 4/27/2007 to August 1, 2007. Dated: May 29, 2007. Ken Mittelholtz, Environmental Protection Specialist, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. E7-10593 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0072; FRL-8131-1] Pesticide Products; Registration Applications AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of applications to register pesticide products containing new active ingredients not included in any currently registered products pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c)(4) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0072, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

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

(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0072. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

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

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Wilson, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)305-6103; e-mail address: *wilson.eugene@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Registration Applications EPA received applications as follows to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any previously registered products pursuant to the provision of section 3(c)(4) of FIFRA. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on the applications. Products Containing Active Ingredients not Included in any Previously Registered Products 1. *File Symbol* : 264-ILO. *Applicant* : Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. *Product name* : AE 0172747 Technical. *Product type:* Herbicide. *Active ingredient* : 2-[2-chloro-4-(methylsulfonyl)-3-[2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy)methyl]benzoyl]-1,3 cyclohexanedione) at 96.2%. *Proposal classification/Use* : Field and silage corn, seed corn, sweet corn and popcorn. 2. *File Symbol* : 264-IAN. *Applicant* : Bayer CropScience. *Product name* : Laudis Herbicide. *Product type:* Herbicide. *Active ingredient* : 2-[2-chloro-4-(methylsulfonyl)-3-[2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy)methyl]benzoyl]-1,3 cyclohexanedione) at 34.5%. *Proposal classification/Use* : Field and silage corn, seed corn, sweet corn and popcorn. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest. Dated: May 17, 2007. Daniel J. Rosenblatt, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E7-10519 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission, Comments Requested May 25, 2007. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)of 1995, Public Law No. 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning:

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

(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Written Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)comments should be submitted on or before July 31, 2007. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: You may submit all Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)comments by e-mail or U.S. post mail. To submit you comments by e-mail, send them to *PRA@fcc.gov.* To submit your comments by U.S. mail, mark them to the attention of Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554 and Jasmeet Seehra, Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)Desk Officer, Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via Internet at *Jasmeet_K._Seehra@omb.eop.gov* or via fax

(202)395-5167. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about the information collection(s), send an e-mail to *PRA@fcc.gov* or contact Cathy Williams at 202-418-2918. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0874. *Title:* 475-B and 2000 Consumer Complaint Forms. *Form No.:* FCC Forms 475-B; 2000-A, 2000-B, 2000-C, 2000-D, 2000-E, and 2000-F. *Type of Review:* Revision of currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Individuals or households; Business and other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions; Federal Government; State, Local or Tribal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 1,330,108 (FCC Forms 475-B: 1,271,332; 2000A through 2000F: 58,776). *Estimated Time per response:* 15 minutes per form for the Form 475-B; 30 minutes per form for the Form 2000. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion reporting requirement. *Obligation to Respond:* Voluntary. *Total Annual Burden:* 347,221 (FCC Forms 475-B: 317,833 hours; 2000A through 2000F: 29,388 hours). *Total Annual Costs:* $0. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* Confidentiality is an issue to the extent that individuals and households provide personally identifiable information, which is covered under the FCC's system of records notice (SORN), FCC/CIB-1, “Informal Complaints and Inquiries.” *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* Under development. *Needs and Uses:* Section 208(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, authorizes complaints by any “person complaining of anything done or omitted to be done by any common carrier” subject to the provisions of the Act. Section 208(a) further states that, if a carrier does not satisfy a complaint or there appears to be any reasonable ground for investigating the complaint, the Commission shall “investigate the matters complained of in such manner and by such means as it shall deem proper.” Although the Act does not discuss how the Commission should treat complaints against non-common carriers for violations of the Act or Commission rules, the Commission investigates such complaints in a manner similar to how it treats those against common carriers. Currently, the Commission has specific complaint forms for the unauthorized conversion of a person's telephone service (“slamming”) (FCC Form 501), the broadcast of indecent, obscene, or profane material (FCC Form 475B), and the unlawful telemarketing, “junk faxing,” or e-mail messaging to a wireless device (FCC Form 1088). The current FCC Form 475 is used for all other types of complaints, although, as currently drafted, it is predominately oriented toward common carrier complaints. The proposed FCC Form 2000 replaces current FCC Form 475, providing greater clarity and ease of use by separating the various complaint subject areas into separate subparts tailored to each subject. The Internet-based version of FCC Form 2000 first asks for the complainant's contact information, including name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address; then presents a “gateway” question to determine the general topic of the complaint:

(1)Deceptive or unlawful advertising or marketing;

(2)billing, privacy, or service quality;

(3)disability access;

(4)emergency or public safety;

(5)general media issues; or

(6)other complaints. As described below, the form provides examples of the types of issues covered by each topic. After the complainant answers this question, the form asks additional questions geared to the specific type of violation reported. The form poses certain mandatory threshold questions that must be answered for the Commission to determine whether a violation has occurred. It also provides space for complainants to provide additional information and details that may be necessary or helpful to the Commission in investigating the complaint. In printed format, FCC Form 2000 will have six subparts, one for each area described above. Each subpart of the printable version of FCC Form 2000 consolidates the complainant's personal information with detailed questions about the specific violations alleged by the complainant. The following descriptions of FCC Form 2000A, 2000B, 2000C, 2000D, 2000E and 2000F, therefore, refer to the printable subparts of FCC Form 2000. *FCC Form 2000A, Deceptive or Unlawful Advertising or Marketing Complaint* . This form would be used if the complainant alleges deceptive or otherwise unlawful advertising or marketing by communications companies, including common carriers, broadcasters, and cable and satellite service providers. The consumer protection issues covered by this form include deceptive advertising by telephone companies, wireless service providers, or Internet access service providers, as well as subliminal advertising on radio or television, illegal advertisements on non-commercial educational television or radio stations, and excessive or otherwise unlawful commercials during children's television programming. *FCC Form 2000B, Billing, Privacy, or Service Quality Complaint* . This form would be used if the complainant alleges billing, privacy, or service quality issues with a telephone company or wireless provider. The consumer protection issues covered by this form include complaints about the quality or availability of service by a telephone company, wireless provider, or Internet access service provider, including complaints that a telephone company or wireless provider is not allowing the complainant to keep his or her telephone number after changing service providers. Complainants also would use this form for complaints about the unauthorized disclosure of calling records by telephone companies or wireless providers. *FCC Form 2000C, Disability Access Complaint* . This form would be used for complaints about disability access, *e.g.* , issues with Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS), closed captioning, or the accessibility of emergency information. This form would also be used for complaints about the accessibility of telecommunications equipment and services such as the compatibility of hearing aids with both wireless and wireline telephone equipment. *FCC Form 2000D, Emergency or Public Safety Complaint* . This form would be used for complaints regarding problems with communications companies about emergency or public safety issues. This form would be used for complaints about the quality or availability of Enhanced 911 service, interference with emergency/public safety communications or devices, radio tower problems (lighting, fencing, painting), Emergency Alert System

(EAS)problems, and cable signal leakage. *FCC Form 2000E, Media (General) Complaint* . This form would be used for complaints alleging misconduct by radio or television stations, cable systems, or satellite operators. This form would cover a broad spectrum of complaints, including those alleging unfair contests, hoaxes, payola or sponsorship identification problems, news distortion, unauthorized or pirate broadcasters, and the broadcast of telephone conversations without prior notice. *FCC Form 2000F, Other Communications Complaint Not Covered by Form 2000A through Form 2000E* . This form would be used for complaints that do not come within the scope of any of the other subparts of FCC Form 2000. Some of the areas covered by this form would be interference to non-emergency services or communications, such as garage door openers or home appliances, as well as amateur or Citizens Band

(CB)radio issues. FCC Form 2000 will allow the Commission to collect detailed information from complainants concerning possible violations of the Act and the Commission's rules, which will enable the Commission to investigate such allegations more efficiently and to initiate enforcement actions against violators as appropriate. By collecting complaint information in a single, comprehensive template, the form will provide a standardized way for complainants to provide their information, thus reducing the need for further documentation or questions from FCC investigators to determine whether violations have occurred. This approach will ensure that complainants present their information in a way that maximizes the FCC's ability to take enforcement action against violators and protects complainants from violations that are unjust, unreasonable, and potentially hazardous to life and property. Additionally, FCC Form 2000's format reduces the need for complainants to compose narratives with all the information necessary for the Commission to begin an investigation, principally by including fields for and examples of the information most commonly needed for investigations of the most common types of violations. The form will allow the Commission to gather and review this information more efficiently. The information collected by FCC Form 2000 may ultimately become the foundation for enforcement actions and/or rulemaking proceedings, as appropriate. *FCC Form 475-B, Obscene, Profane, and Indecent Complaint Form* . This form is used by consumers to lay out precisely their complaint(s) and issue(s) concerning the practices of the communications entities, which consumers believe may have aired obscene, profane, and/or indecent programming. FCC Form 475-B will remain unchanged. Note: In this document, the Commission corrects inaccuracies published in 71 FR 53686, September 12, 2006, regarding OMB Control No. 3060-0874. Federal Communications Commission. William F. Caton, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-10575 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Announcement of First Meeting of the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Health and Science. ACTION: Notice of meeting. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 217a, section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended. The Committee is governed by the provision of Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS)announces the first in a series of three federal advisory committee meetings on the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, to be held in Washington, DC. These meeting will be open to the public. The Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee will review existing scientific literature to identify where there is sufficient evidence to develop a comprehensive set of specific physical activity recommendations. The Committee will prepare a report to the Secretary of HHS that documents the scientific background and rationale for the issuance of Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. The report will also identify areas where further scientific research is needed. HHS will use the Final Report of the Committee to develop Physical Activity Guidelines. The intent is to issue physical activity recommendations for all Americans that will be tailored as necessary for specific subgroups of the population. DATES: The Committee will meet on June 28-29, 2007 for a day and a half meeting. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, located at 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 800, Washington, DC 20201. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CAPT Richard Troiano, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee, Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Public Health and Science, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Room LL-100, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Rockville, MD 20852, 240/453-8280 (telephone), 240/453-8281 (fax). Additional information is available on the Internet at *http://www.health.gov/PAguidelines.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee: The thirteen-member Committee is chaired by William Haskell, Ph.D., Professor of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine. The Vice-Chair is Miriam Nelson, Ph.D., Director, John Hancock Center for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University. Other members of the Committee include Rod K. Dishman, Ph.D., Professor of Exercise Science and Director, Exercise Psychology Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, University of Georgia; Edward Howley, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of Exercise, Sport, and Leisure Studies, University of Tennessee; Wendy Kohrt, Ph.D., Professor of Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center; William Kraus, M.D., Professor, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine; I-Min Lee, M.D., Sc.D., Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Associate Professor of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health; Anne McTiernan, M.D., Ph.D., Director, Prevention Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; Russell Pate, Ph.D., Associate Vice President for Health Sciences, Office of Research and Health Sciences and Professor, Department of Exercise Science, University of South Carolina; Kenneth Powell, M.D., M.P.H., Public Health and Epidemiologic Consultant; Judith Regensteiner, Ph.D., Professor Department of Medicine and Director, Center for Women's Health Research, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center: James Rimmer, Ph.D., Professor and Director, National Center on Physical Activity and Disability, Department of Disability and Human Development, University of Illinois at Chicago; and Antronette Yancey, M.D., M.P.H., Professor, Department of Health Services, University of California at Los Angeles School of Public Health. *Purpose of Meeting:* Over the past 40 years, many organizations, including the Federal Government, have issued physical activity recommendations. While the various recommendations illustrate scientific consensus on the health benefits of physical activity, they differ from each other in the particular recommendations and highlighted benefits. The Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee will review existing scientific literature to identify where there is sufficient evidence to develop a comprehensive set of specific physical activity recommendations. The Committee will prepare a report to the Secretary of HHS that documents the scientific background and rationale for the issuance of Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. The report will also identify areas where further scientific research is needed. HHS will use the Final Report of the Committee to develop Physical Activity Guidelines. The intent is to develop physical activity recommendations for all Americans that will be tailored as necessary for specific subgroups of the population. *Public Participation at Meeting:* Members of the public are invited to observe the Advisory Committee meeting. Please note it is anticipated that there will be no oral public comments during the initial Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee meeting, however, written comments are welcome throughout the Guidelines development process and may be e-mailed to *PA.guidelines@hhs.gov.* A summary of the Advisory Committee meetings will be made available shortly after each meeting. To observe the Committee meeting, individuals must pre-register at the Physical Activity Guidelines Web site at *http://www.health.gov/PAguidelines.* Registrations must be completed by June 22, 2007. Space for the meeting is limited. Registrations will be accepted until maximum room capacity is reached. A waiting list will be maintained should registrations exceed room capacity. Individuals on the waiting list will be contacted as additional space for the meeting becomes available. Registrants for the Physical Activity Advisory Committee meeting must present valid government-issued photo identification (i.e., driver's license) and should arrive 45 minutes prior to the start of the meeting to pass through security. Registration questions may be directed to Experient at *PAguidelines@experient-inc.com* (e-mail),

(703)525-8333 x3349 (phone) or

(703)525-8557 (fax). Dated: May 22, 2007. Penelope Slade Royall, RADM, USPHS, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. [FR Doc. E7-10440 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-32-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. 2006N-0197] Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Registration of Food Facilities Under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Registration of Food Facilities Under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of the Chief Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4659. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the **Federal Register** of December 15, 2006 (71 FR 75555), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0502. The approval expires on May 31, 2010. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets* . Dated: May 29, 2007. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E7-10617 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. 2007E-0046] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; ZILMAX AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)has determined the regulatory review period for ZILMAX and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of Patents and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that animal drug product. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and petitions to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to *http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy (HFD-007), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-594-2041. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive. A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For animal drug products, the testing phase begins on the earlier date when either a major environmental effects test was initiated for the drug or when an exemption under section 512(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360b(j)) became effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the animal drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for an animal drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(4)(B). FDA recently approved for marketing the animal drug product ZILMAX (zilpaterol hydrochloride). ZILMAX is indicated for increased rate of weight gain, improved feed efficiency, and increased carcass leanness in cattle fed in confinement for slaughter during the last 20 to 40 days on feed. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for ZILMAX (U.S. Patent No. 4,900,735) from Intervet International B.V., and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated March 5, 2007, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this animal drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of ZILMAX represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Shortly thereafter, the Patent and Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period. FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for ZILMAX is 4,720 days. Of this time, 4,674 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 46 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates: 1. *The date an exemption under section 512(j) of the act involving this animal drug product became effective* : September 9, 1993. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational new animal drug application

(INAD)became effective was on September 9, 1993. 2. *The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the animal drug product under section 512(b) of the act* : June 26, 2006. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new animal drug application

(NADA)for ZILMAX (NADA 141-258) was initially submitted on June 26, 2006. 3. *The date the application was approved* : August 10, 2006. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NADA 141-258 was approved on August 10, 2006. This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 5 years of patent term extension. Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published is incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments and ask for a redetermination by July 31, 2007. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by November 28, 2007. To meet its burden, the petition must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30. Comments and petitions should be submitted to the Division of Dockets Management. Three copies of any mailed information are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Comments and petitions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Dated: May 7, 2007. Jane A. Axelrad, Associate Director for Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. [FR Doc. E7-10602 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. 2007E-0011] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; LANTUS AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)has determined the regulatory review period for LANTUS and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of Patents and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and petitions to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to *http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy (HFD-007), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-594-2041. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive. A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the human drug product becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B). FDA approved for marketing the human drug product LANTUS (insulin glargine [rDNA origin]). LANTUS is indicated for once-daily subcutaneous administration for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus or adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who require basal (long-acting) insulin for the control of hyperglycemia. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for LANTUS (U.S. Patent No. 5,101,013) from Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft, and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated January 26, 2007, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of LANTUS represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Shortly thereafter, the Patent and Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period. FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for LANTUS is 1,591 days. Of this time, 1,227 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 364 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates: 1. *The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective* : December 14, 1995. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational new drug application became effective was on December 14, 1995. 2. *The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the act* : April 23, 1999. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application

(NDA)for LANTUS (NDA 21-081) was initially submitted on April 23, 1999. 3. *The date the application was approved* : April 20, 2000. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 21-081 was approved on April 20, 2000. This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 976 days of patent term extension. Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments and ask for a redetermination by July 31, 2007. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by November 28, 2007. To meet its burden, the petition must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30. Comments and petitions should be submitted to the Division of Dockets Management. Three copies of any mailed information are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Comments and petitions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Dated: May 7, 2007. Jane A. Axelrad, Associate Director for Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. [FR Doc. E7-10632 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. 2006E-0259] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; X-STOP INTERSPINOUS PROCESS DECOMPRESSION SYSTEM AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)has determined the regulatory review period for X-STOP INTERSPINOUS PROCESS DECOMPRESSION SYSTEM and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of Patents and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that medical device. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and petitions to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to *http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy (HFD-007), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-594-2041. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive. A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and Trademarks may award (half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a medical device will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B). FDA recently approved for marketing the medical device X-STOP INTERSPINOUS PROCESS DECOMPRESSION SYSTEM. X-STOP INTERSPINOUS PROCESS DECOMPRESSION SYSTEM is indicated for treatment of patients aged 50 or older suffering from neurogenic intermittent claudication secondary to a confirmed diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis (with x-ray, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and/or computerized tomography

(CT)evidence of thickened ligamentum flavum, narrowed lateral recess and/or central canal narrowing). The X-STOP INTERSPINOUS PROCESS DECOMPRESSION SYSTEM is indicated for those patients with moderately impaired physical function who experience relief in flexion from their symptoms of leg/buttock/groin pain, with or without back pain, and have undergone a regimen of at least 6 months of nonoperative treatment. The X-STOP INTERSPINOUS PROCESS DECOMPRESSION SYSTEM may be implanted at one or two lumbar levels in patients in whom operative treatment is indicated at no more than two levels. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for X-STOP INTERSPINOUS PROCESS DECOMPRESSION SYSTEM (U.S. Patent No. 6,235,030) from St. Francis Medical Technologies, Inc., and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated December 12, 2006, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of X-STOP INTERSPINOUS PROCESS DECOMPRESSION SYSTEM represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the Patent and Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period. FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for X-STOP INTERSPINOUS PROCESS DECOMPRESSION SYSTEM is 2,224 days. Of this time, 1,538 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 686 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates: 1. *The date an exemption under section 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(g)) involving this device became effective* : October 22, 1999. The applicant claims that the investigational device exemption

(IDE)required under section 520(g) of the act for human tests to begin became effective on February 11, 2000. However, FDA records indicate that the IDE was determined substantially complete for clinical studies to have begun on October 22, 1999, which represents the IDE effective date. 2. *The date an application was initially submitted with respect to the device under section 515 of the act (21 U.S.C. 360e)* : January 6, 2004. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the premarket approval application

(PMA)for X-STOP INTERSPINOUS PROCESS DECOMPRESSION SYSTEM (PMA P040001) was initially submitted January 6, 2004. 3. *The date the application was approved* : November 21, 2005. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that PMA P040001 was approved on November 21, 2005. This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,053 days of patent term extension. Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments and ask for a redetermination by July 31, 2007. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by November 28, 2007. To meet its burden, the petition must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30. Comments and petitions should be submitted to the Division of Dockets Management. Three copies of any mailed information are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Comments and petitions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Dated: May 7, 2007. Jane A. Axelrad, Associate Director for Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. [FR Doc. E7-10618 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. 2006E-0282] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; PHAKIC INTRAOCULAR LENSES AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)has determined the regulatory review period for PHAKIC INTRAOCULAR LENSES and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of Patents and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that medical device. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and petitions to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to *http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy (HFD-7), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-594-2041. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive. A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and Trademarks may award (half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a medical device will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B). FDA approved for marketing the medical device, PHAKIC INTRAOCULAR LENSES. PHAKIC INTRAOCULAR LENSES is indicated for:

(1)The reduction or elimination of myopia in adults with myopia ranging from -5 to -20 diopters with less than or equal to 2.5 diopters of astigmatism at the spectacle plane and whose eyes have an anterior chamber depth greater than or equal to 3.2 millimeters; and

(2)patients with documented stability of refraction for the prior 6 months, as demonstrated by spherical equivalent change of less than or equal to 0.50 diopters. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for PHAKIC INTRAOCULAR LENSES (U.S. Patent No. 5,192,319) from Ophtec USA, Inc., subsidiary of Ophtec B.V., and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated September 5, 2006, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of PHAKIC INTRAOCULAR LENSES represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the Patent and Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period. FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for PHAKIC INTRAOCULAR LENSES is 2,545 days. Of this time, 2,107 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 438 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates: 1. *The date an exemption under section 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(g)) involving this device became effective* : September 24, 1997. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational device exemption

(IDE)required under section 520(g) of the act for human tests to begin became effective September 24, 1997. 2. *The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the device under section 515 of the act (21 U.S.C. 360e)* : July 1, 2003. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the premarket approval application

(PMA)for PHAKIC INTRAOCULAR LENSES (PMA P030028) was initially submitted July 1, 2003. 3. *The date the application was approved* : September 10, 2004. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that PMA P030028 was approved on September 10, 2004. This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,484 days of patent term extension. Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments and ask for a redetermination by July 31, 2007. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by November 28, 2007. To meet its burden, the petition must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30. Comments and petitions should be submitted to the Division of Dockets Management. Three copies of any mailed information are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Comments and petitions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Dated: May 7, 2007. Jane A. Axelrad, Associate Director for Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. [FR Doc. E7-10631 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. 2006E-0234] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; GEM 21S GROWTH-FACTOR ENHANCED MATRIX AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)has determined the regulatory review period for GEM 21S GROWTH-FACTOR ENHANCED MATRIX and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of Patents and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that medical device. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and petitions to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to *http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy (HFD-007), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-594-2041. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive. A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and Trademarks may award (half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a medical device will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B). FDA approved for marketing the medical device, GEM 21S GROWTH-FACTOR ENHANCED MATRIX. GEM 21S GROWTH-FACTOR ENHANCED MATRIX is indicated to treat the following periodontally related defects:

(1)Intrabony periodontal defects,

(2)furcation periodontal defects, and

(3)gingival recession associated with periodontal defects. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for GEM 21S GROWTH-FACTOR ENHANCED MATRIX (U.S. Patent No. 5,124,316) from Biomimetic Therapeutics, Inc. (previously Biomimetic Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated January 8, 2007, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of GEM 21S GROWTH-FACTOR ENHANCED MATRIX represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the Patent and Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period. FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for GEM 21S GROWTH-FACTOR ENHANCED MATRIX is 1,361 days. Of this time, 744 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 617 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates: 1. *The date an exemption under section 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(g)) involving this device became effective* : February 28, 2002. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational device exemption

(IDE)required under section 520(g) of the act for human tests to begin became effective February 28, 2002. 2. *The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the device under section 515 of the act (21 U.S.C. 360e)* : March 12, 2004. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the premarket approval application

(PMA)for GEM 21S GROWTH-FACTOR ENHANCED MATRIX (PMA P040013) was initially submitted March 12, 2004. 3. *The date the application was approved* : November 18, 2005. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that PMA P040013 was approved on November 18, 2005. This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 987 days of patent term extension. Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments and ask for a redetermination by July 31, 2007. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by November 28, 2007. To meet its burden, the petition must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30. Comments and petitions should be submitted to the Division of Dockets Management. Three copies of any mailed information are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Comments and petitions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Dated: May 7, 2007. Jane A. Axelrad, Associate Director for Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. [FR Doc. E7-10633 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. 2006D-0088] Guidance for Industry: Clinical Data Needed to Support the Licensure of Pandemic Influenza Vaccines; Availability AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Clinical Data Needed to Support the Licensure of Pandemic Influenza Vaccines,” dated May 2007. The guidance document provides to sponsors of pandemic influenza vaccines guidance on clinical development approaches to facilitate and expedite the licensure of influenza vaccines for the prevention of disease caused by pandemic influenza viruses. The guidance provides recommendations concerning clinical data to support traditional license approval of a biologics license application (BLA), or a BLA using the accelerated approval pathway. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance of the same title dated March 2006. DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on agency guidances at any time. ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Communication, Training, and Manufacturers Assistance (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 301-827-1800. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document. Submit written comments on the guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to *http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen E. Swisher, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, 301-827-6210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Clinical Data Needed to Support the Licensure of Pandemic Influenza Vaccines,” dated May 2007. This document is intended to provide sponsors of pandemic influenza vaccines guidance on clinical development approaches to facilitate and expedite the licensure of influenza vaccines where the intended indication is for active immunization in persons at high risk of exposure to, or during a pandemic caused by, pandemic influenza viruses. The approaches in this guidance apply to both nonadjuvanted and adjuvanted hemagglutinin-based pandemic vaccines, including “split virus,” subunit, and whole virus inactivated vaccines propagated in embryonated chicken eggs or cell-culture, and to recombinant hemagglutinin-based protein vaccines, and DNA vaccines that express hemagglutinin. Also addressed are live attenuated influenza vaccines. In the **Federal Register** of March 10, 2006 (71 FR 12366), FDA announced the availability of the draft guidance of the same title dated March 2006. FDA received several comments on the draft guidance. FDA considered those comments when finalizing the guidance. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance dated March 2006. In the March 2006 draft guidance, FDA stated that clinical trial data could be submitted as a clinical efficacy supplement to an original BLA when the manufacturer has a U.S.-licensed trivalent inactivated or live attenuated influenza vaccine. After reviewing comments on the draft guidance and considering the matter further, we revised our recommendations in the final guidance. All submissions for the initial licensure of a pandemic influenza vaccine should be submitted as BLAs, which will provide for a trade name and labeling specific to the pandemic vaccine. For sponsors with existing licensed seasonal inactivated or live attenuated influenza vaccines who intend to file a BLA for a pandemic influenza vaccine that utilizes the same manufacturing process, we would expect that the BLA would reference the original BLA, including the nonclinical and chemistry, manufacturing, and controls data in their original BLA. Manufacturers that do not have existing licensed influenza vaccines, or that do, but are seeking to license a pandemic influenza vaccine utilizing a different manufacturing process, may seek accelerated approval according to the provisions of 21 CFR 601.41. The guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents FDA's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338 and in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. III. Comments Interested persons may, at any time, submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding the guidance. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. A copy of the guidance and received comments are available for public examination in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. IV. Electronic Access Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either *http://www.fda.gov/cber/guidelines.htm* or *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm* . Dated: May 17, 2007. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E7-10499 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. 2006D-0083] Guidance for Industry: Clinical Data Needed to Support the Licensure of Seasonal Inactivated Influenza Vaccines; Availability AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Clinical Data Needed to Support the Licensure of Seasonal Inactivated Influenza Vaccines,” dated May 2007. The guidance document is intended to provide to sponsors of seasonal inactivated influenza vaccines guidance on clinical development approaches to support a biologics license application (BLA). The guidance provides recommendations concerning clinical data to support traditional and accelerated license approvals for new seasonal inactivated influenza vaccines. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft “Guidance for Industry: Clinical Data Needed to Support the Licensure of Trivalent Inactivated Influenza Vaccine” dated March 2006. DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on agency guidances at any time. ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Communication, Training, and Manufacturers Assistance (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 301-827-1800. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document. Submit written comments on the guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to *http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen E. Swisher, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, 301-827-6210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Clinical Data Needed to Support the Licensure of Seasonal Inactivated Influenza Vaccines,” dated May 2007. The guidance is intended to provide to sponsors of seasonal inactivated influenza vaccines guidance on the clinical data needed to support a BLA. The approaches in the guidance apply to both nonadjuvanted and adjuvanted hemagglutinin-based seasonal vaccines, including “split virus,” subunit, and whole virus inactivated vaccines propagated in embryonated chicken eggs or cell-culture, and to recombinant hemagglutinin-based protein vaccines, and DNA vaccines that express hemagglutinin. Licensure of seasonal inactivated influenza vaccines may be sought through either traditional or accelerated pathways. The guidance provides recommendations for clinical data to support traditional and accelerated license approvals for new seasonal inactivated influenza vaccines. In the **Federal Register** of March 10, 2006 (71 FR 12367), FDA announced the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Clinical Data Needed to Support the Licensure of Trivalent Inactivated Influenza Vaccines” dated March 2006. FDA received several comments on the draft guidance and those comments were considered as the guidance was finalized. The changes in the final guidance include a change from the term “trivalent” inactivated influenza vaccines to “seasonal” inactivated influenza vaccines. This change was made to provide flexibility for evolving public health needs, including the development of vaccines with either more than three or less than three antigens. In addition, editorial changes were made to improve clarity. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance dated March 2006. The guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents FDA's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338; those in 21 CFR part 600 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0308; and those in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. III. Comments Interested persons may, at any time, submit to the Division of Dockets Management (See ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding the guidance. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in the brackets in the heading of this document. A copy of the guidance and received comments are available for public examination in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. IV. Electronic Access Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either *http://www.fda.gov/cber/guidelines.htm* or *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm* . Dated: May 17, 2007. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E7-10497 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5125-N-22] Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ezzell, room 7266, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone

(202)708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired

(202)708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in *National Coalition for the Homeless* v. *Veterans Administration* , No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.). Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD:

(1)Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless,

(2)its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or

(3)a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless. Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to John Hicks, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, room 5B-17, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857;

(301)443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581. For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable. For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available. Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Mark Johnston at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the **Federal Register** , the landholding agency, and the property number. For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice ( *i.e.* , acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses: *Army:* Ms. Veronica Rines, Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, Attn: DAIM-ZS, Rm 8536, 2511 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202;

(703)601-2545; *Air Force:* Ms. Kathryn M. Halvorson, Director, Air Force Real Property Agency, 1700 North Moore St., Suite 2300, Arlington, VA 22209-2802;

(703)696-5502; *COE:* Ms. Tracy Beck, Army Corps of Engineers, Office of Counsel, CECC-R, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20314;

(202)761-0019; (These are not toll-free numbers). Dated: May 24, 2007. Mark R. Johnston, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs. Title V, Federal Surplus Property Program Federal Register Report for 06/01/2007 05/24/2007 Unsuitable Properties Building Florida Bldgs. 05531, 70666 Cape Canaveral Brevard FL 32925 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720001 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration, Secured Area, Floodway Hawaii Bldgs. 102, 103, 104, 105 Hickam Petro Products Storage Annex Wheeler HI Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720002 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration Bldgs. 106, 107, 108, 109 Hickam Petro Products Storage Annex Wheeler HI Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720003 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration Unsuitable Properties Building Hawaii Bldg. 83111 Hickam Petro Products Storage Annex Wheeler HI Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720004 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration Kansas 2 Bldgs. School Creek Boat Ramp Junction City KS Landholding Agency: COE Property Number: 31200720001 Status: Excess Reasons: Extensive deterioration 2 Bldgs. School Creek A Loop Junction City KS 66441 Landholding Agency: COE Property Number: 31200720002 Status: Excess Reasons: Extensive deterioration Unsuitable Properties Building Massachusetts Lee House Knightville Dam Project Huntington MA Landholding Agency: COE Property Number: 31200720003 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration Former Environmental Lab 200 Coldbrook Road Barre MA Landholding Agency: COE Property Number: 31200720004 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration Missouri Bldg. #55001 Cooper Creek Warsaw MO 65355 Landholding Agency: COE Property Number: 31200720005 Status: Excess Reasons: Extensive deterioration Unsuitable Properties Building New Jersey Bldgs. 00350, 00352, 00354 Picatinny Arsenal Morris NJ 07806 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200720102 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area, Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material Bldgs. 937, 1071D Picatinny Arsenal Morris NJ 07806 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200720103 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material , Secured Area Bldgs. 1361, 1372 Picatinny Arsenal Morris NJ 07806 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200720104 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material, Secured Area Bldgs. 8339, 9014 Fort Dix Ft. Dix NJ 08640 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200720105 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration Unsuitable Properties Building New Mexico Bldg. 57009 Kirtland AFB Bernalillo NM 87117 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720005 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area, Extensive deterioration New York Bldgs. 21609, 22789 Fort Drum Jefferson NY Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200720106 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration North Carolina 60 Vault Toilets W. Kerr Scott Project Wilkesboro NC 28697 Landholding Agency: COE Property Number: 31200720006 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration Unsuitable Properties Building North Dakota Bldgs. 212, 218, 934 Grand Forks Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720006 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area, Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material 67 Duplexes, 3BR Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720007 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area, Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material 8 Bldgs. Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720008 Status: Unutilized Directions: 1156, 1160, 1301, 1307, 1802, 1806, 1825, 1829 Reasons: Secured Area, Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material Unsuitable Properties Building North Dakota Bldgs. 1158, 1159 Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720009 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area, Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material 10 Duplexes, 4BR Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720010 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area, Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material 41 Duplexes, 3BR Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720011 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area, Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material Bldg. 1188 Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720012 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area, Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material Unsuitable Properties Building North Dakota 6 Bldgs. Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720013 Status: Unutilized Directions: 1190, 1300, 1800, 1801, 1807, 1841 Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material, Secured Area 13—6 Vehicle Garages Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720014 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material, Secured Area Bldgs. 1202, 1212, 1216 Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720015 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area, Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material Unsuitable Properties Building North Dakota 7 Bldgs. Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720016 Status: Unutilized Directions: 1204, 1206, 1210, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1217 Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material, Secured Area Bldgs. 1211, 1218 Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720017 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area, Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material 7 Bldgs. Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720018 Status: Unutilized Directions: 1302, 1304, 1308, 1331, 1333, 1335, 1337 Reasons: Secured Area, Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material Unsuitable Properties Building North Dakota Bldgs. 1303, 1306 Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720019 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material, Secured Area 6 Bldgs. Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720020 Status: Unutilized Directions: 1364, 1808, 1817, 1818, 1821, 1822 Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material, Secured Area 14—4 Plexes, 3BR Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720021 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material, Secured Area Unsuitable Properties Building North Dakota Bldgs. 1360, 1368, 1399 Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720022 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material, Secured Area Bldgs. 1612, 1741 Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720023 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material, Secured Area 4 Bldgs. Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720024 Status: Unutilized Directions: 1747, 1787, 1788, 1920 Reasons: Secured Area, Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material Unsuitable Properties Building North Dakota Bldgs. 1804, 1827 Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720025 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material Bldgs. 1812, 1814 Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720026 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area, Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material Bldgs. 1836, 1838, 1840 Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720027 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material, Secured Area Unsuitable Properties Building North Dakota 7 Bldgs. Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720028 Status: Unutilized Directions: 1883, 1889, 1895, 1897, 1901, 1907, 1913 Reasons: Secured Area, Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material 8 Duplexes, 2BR Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200720029 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material, Secured Area Oklahoma Bldg. Sizemore Landing Gore OK 74435 Landholding Agency: COE Property Number: 31200720007 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration Unsuitable Properties Building Oklahoma Bldg. Taylor Ferry Fort Gibson OK 74434 Landholding Agency: COE Property Number: 31200720008 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration Pennsylvania Bldgs. 00302, 00630, 00846 Carlisle Barracks Cumberland PA 17013 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200720107 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration Texas Bldg. 13051 Fort Hood Bell TX 76544 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200720108 Status: Excess Reasons: Extensive deterioration Bldgs. 56226, 56228 Fort Hood Bell TX 76544 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200720109 Status: Excess Reasons: Extensive deterioration Unsuitable Properties Building Texas Bldgs. 56520, 56521 Fort Hood Bell TX 76544 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200720110 Status: Excess Reasons: Extensive deterioration Bldg. 4483 Fort Hood Bell TX 76544 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200720111 Status: Excess Reasons: Extensive deterioration 31 Bldgs. Texoma Lake Denison TX Landholding Agency: COE Property Number: 31200720009 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration 9 Bldgs. Texoma Lake Denison TX Landholding Agency: COE Property Number: 31200720010 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration Unsuitable Properties Building Texas Summary for UNSUITABLE PROPERTIES Total number of Properties 304 [FR Doc. E7-10368 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Habitat Conservation Plan, Williamson County, TX AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS); announcement of public scoping meeting; request for comments. SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), advise the public that we intend to prepare an EIS to evaluate the impacts of, and alternatives to, the proposed issuance of an incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act to Williamson County, Texas, and/or the Williamson County Conservation Foundation (Applicant). We also announce a public scoping meeting and public comment period. DATES: We must receive written comments on alternatives and issues to be addressed in the EIS by July 14, 2007. We will hold a public scoping meeting on June 14, 2007, from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the Williamson County Central Maintenance Facility, 3151 S.E. Inner Loop, Georgetown, Texas 78626. The primary purpose of this meeting and public comment period is to receive suggestions and information on the scope of issues and alternatives to consider when drafting the EIS. We will accept oral and written comments at this meeting. You may also submit your comments to the address listed below. Once the draft EIS and Williamson County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan

(RHCP)are completed, additional opportunity for public comment on the content of these documents and an additional public meeting will be provided. ADDRESSES: Send written comments by mail to the Field Supervisor, at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758, or by fax at 512/490-0974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *EIS Information:* Mr. Scott Rowin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; 512/490-0057 (phone); 512/490-0974 (fax); or *Scott_Rowin@fws.gov* (e-mail). *Williamson County RHCP Information:* Ms. Connie Watson, Public Information Officer, Williamson County Courthouse, 710 Main Street, Georgetown, TX 78626; 512/943-1663 (phone). *Other Information:* You may obtain information on the purpose, membership, meeting schedules, and documents associated with the Williamson County RHCP on the Internet at *http://www.wilco.org/wccf.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We intend to prepare an EIS to evaluate the impacts of, and alternatives to, the proposed issuance of an incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), to the Applicant. We also announce a public scoping meeting and public comment period. The Applicant proposes to apply for an incidental take permit through development and implementation of the Williamson County RHCP, as required by the Act. The Williamson County RHCP will include measures necessary to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the proposed taking of federally-listed and candidate species, and the habitats upon which they depend. We furnish this notice in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) in order to:

(1)Advise other Federal and State agencies, affected tribes, and the public of our intent to prepare an EIS;

(2)announce the initiation of a public scoping period; and

(3)obtain suggestions and information on the scope of issues and alternatives we will consider in our EIS. We intend to gather the information necessary to determine impacts and alternatives for an EIS regarding our potential issuance of an incidental take permit to the Applicant, and the implementation of the Williamson County RHCP. The Applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, undertake to minimize and mitigate the impacts of such incidental take of federally protected species. Purpose and Need for Action Section 9 of the Act prohibits “taking” of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened under Section 4, such as the Bone Cave harvestman ( *Texella reyesi* ), Coffin Cave mold beetle ( *Batrisodes texanus* ), golden-cheeked warbler ( *Dendroica chrysoparia* ), and black-capped vireo ( *Vireo atricapilla* ). The term “take” under the Act means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Regulations define “harm” as significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). We may however under specified circumstances issue permits that allow the take of federally listed species incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of otherwise lawful activities. Regulations governing permits for endangered and threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act contains provisions for issuing incidental take permits to non-Federal entities for the take of endangered and threatened species, provided the following criteria are met:

(1)The taking will be incidental;

(2)The applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impact of such taking;

(3)The applicant will develop a habitat conservation plan and ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided;

(4)The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and

(5)The applicant will carry out any other measures that we may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the habitat conservation plan. We anticipate that the applicant will request permit coverage for a period of 30 years. Among other actions, implementation of the Williamson County RHCP will result in the establishment of a conservation lands system that the Applicant believes will provide for the conservation of the covered species and their habitats in perpetuity. Research and monitoring described in the Williamson County RHCP, in combination with adaptive management, will be used to facilitate accomplishment of these goals. Proposed Action Our proposed action is the issuance of an incidental take permit for the covered species in Williamson County. The Applicant would develop and implement the Williamson County RHCP, which must meet the requirements in section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Act by providing measures to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the actions on the proposed taking of covered species and the habitats upon which they depend. Activities we propose for coverage under the incidental take permit include lawful activities that would occur consistent with the Williamson County RHCP conservation guidelines and include, but are not limited to, construction and maintenance of county operations and other public capital improvement projects, as well as residential, commercial, and/or industrial development. We expect the applicant to apply for an incidental take permit for four species listed as endangered or threatened within the county. These species include the following federally-listed species: Bone Cave harvestman, Coffin Cave mold beetle, golden-cheeked warbler, and black-capped vireo. The Williamson County RHCP will also address 24 additional species that will not be covered by the proposed incidental take permit nor would be covered if the species should be listed as endangered or threatened in the future. The purpose of addressing the additional species in the RHCP is to encourage efforts to minimize and mitigate impacts of permitted actions on these species, primarily to reduce the likelihood that any of them will need to be listed in the future. One currently listed species, the Tooth Cave ground beetle ( *Rhadine persephone* ), is included as an additional species because it may benefit from the conservation measures proposed in the RHCP. The additional species also include the following 19 non-listed karst invertebrate species: *Aphrastochthonius* sps, *Arrhopalites texensis* , *Batrisodes cryptotexanus* , *Batrisodes reyesi* , *Cicurina browni* , *Cicurina buwata* , *Cicurina* n.sp., *Cicurina travisae* , *Cicurina vibora* , *Neoleptoneta anopica* , *Oncopodura fenestra* , *Rhadine* n.sp., *Rhadine noctivaga* , *Rhadine russelli* , *Rhadine subterranea mitchellii* , *Rhadine subterranea subterranea* , *Speodesmus bicornourus* , and *Tartarocreagris infernalis* . Four salamander species are included as well: the Georgetown salamander ( *Eurycea naufragia* ) and Salado Springs salamander ( *Eurycea chisholmensis* ), both candidate species; the Jollyville Plateau salamander ( *Eurycea tonkawae* ), a species recently petitioned to be listed; and the Buttercup Creek salamander ( *Eurycea* n.sp.), a salamander restricted to the Buttercup Creek drainage in Williamson County that has yet to be given a scientific name. The Applicant expects that numerous other non-listed species, for which the Applicant is not seeking permit coverage, may also benefit from the conservation measures provided in the Williamson County RHCP. Alternatives The proposed action and alternatives that will be developed in the EIS will be assessed against the No Action/No Project alternative, which assumes that some or all of the current and future projects proposed in Williamson County would be implemented individually, one at a time, and be in compliance with the Act. The No Action/No Project alternative implies that the impacts from these potential projects on the permitted species and their habitats would be evaluated and mitigated on a project-by-project basis, as is currently the case. For any activities involving take of listed species due to non-Federal projects/actions, individual Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits would be required. Without a coordinated, comprehensive ecosystem-based conservation approach for the region, listed species may not be adequately addressed by individual project-specific mitigation requirements, unlisted candidate and other rare species would not receive proactive action intended to preclude the need to list them in the future, and project-specific mitigation would be piecemeal and less cost effective in helping Federal and non-Federal agencies work toward recovery of listed species. Current independent conservation actions would continue, although some of these are not yet funded. A reasonable range of alternatives will also be considered, along with the associated impacts of the various alternatives. Scoping Meeting The purpose of the scoping meeting is to brief the public on the background of the Williamson County RHCP, alternative proposals under consideration for the draft EIS, and the Service's role and steps to be taken to develop the draft EIS for this regional habitat conservation planning effort. At the scoping meeting, there will be an opportunity for the public to ask questions, provide oral comments, and also provide written comments. The public may also send written comments to us by mail (see ADDRESSES above). A primary purpose of the scoping process is to identify, rather than debate, significant issues related to the proposed action. In order to ensure that we identify a range of issues and alternatives related to the proposed action, we invite comments and suggestions from all interested parties. We will conduct a review of this project according to the requirements of NEPA, NEPA regulations, other appropriate Federal laws, regulations, policies, and guidance, and Service procedures for compliance with those regulations. Public Availability of Comments Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Environmental Review We will conduct an environmental review that analyzes the proposed action, as well as a range of reasonable alternatives and the associated impacts of each. The EIS will be the basis for our evaluation of impacts to the covered species and the range of alternatives to be addressed. We expect the EIS to provide biological descriptions of the affected species and habitats, as well as the effects of the proposed action on resources such as: vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, threatened or endangered species and rare species, geology and soils, air quality, water resources, flood control, water quality, cultural resources (prehistoric, historic, and traditional cultural properties), land use, recreation, water use, local economy, and environmental justice. After the environmental review is complete, we will publish a notice of availability and a request for comment on the draft EIS and the applicant's permit application, which will include the Williamson County RHCP. The draft EIS and RHCP are expected to be completed and available to the public by October 2007. Christopher T. Jones, Acting Regional Director, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. [FR Doc. E7-10576 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); Fourteenth Regular Meeting; Tentative U.S. Negotiating Positions for Agenda Items and Species Proposals Submitted by Foreign Governments and the CITES Secretariat AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We, the United States, as a Party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), will attend the fourteenth regular meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (CoP14) in The Hague, The Netherlands, June 3-15, 2007. This notice announces the tentative U.S. negotiating positions on amendments to the CITES Appendices (species proposals), draft resolutions and decisions, and agenda items submitted by other countries and the CITES Secretariat for consideration at CoP14. With this notice we also announce that we will publish a notice after the conclusion of CoP14 to invite public input on whether the United States should take a reservation on any of the amendments to the CITES Appendices that are adopted. DATES: In further developing U.S. negotiating positions on these issues, we will continue to consider information and comments submitted in response to our notice of February 21, 2007 (72 FR 7904). We will also continue to consider information received at the public meeting announced in that notice, which was held on April 9, 2007. We will publish a notice after June 15, 2007, to invite public input on whether the United States should take a reservation on any of the amendments to the CITES Appendices that are adopted. ADDRESSES: Comments pertaining to draft resolutions and decisions, and agenda items should be sent to the Division of Management Authority; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 North Fairfax Drive; Room 700; Arlington, VA 22203; or via e-mail at: *cop14@fws.gov* ; or via fax at: 703-358-2298. Comments pertaining to species proposals should be sent to the Division of Scientific Authority; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 North Fairfax Drive; Room 750; Arlington, VA 22203; or via e-mail at: *scientificauthority@fws.gov* ; or via fax at: 703-358-2276. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at either the Division of Management Authority or the Division of Scientific Authority. Reservations With this notice, we announce that we will publish a notice after the conclusion of CoP14 to invite public input on whether the United States should take a reservation on any of the amendments to the CITES Appendices that are adopted. Available Information Information concerning the results of CoP14 will be available after the close of the meeting on the Secretariat's Web site at *http://www.cites.org* ; or upon request from the Division of Management Authority; or on our CITES Web site ( *http://international.fws.gov/cites/cites.html* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information pertaining to resolutions and agenda items contact: Chief, Branch of CITES Operations, Division of Management Authority; telephone, 703-358-2095; fax, 703-358-2298; e-mail, *cop14@fws.gov* . For information pertaining to species proposals contact: Chief, Division of Scientific Authority; telephone, 703-358-1708; fax, 703-358-2276; e-mail, *scientificauthority@fws.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES or the Convention) is an international treaty designed to control and regulate international trade in certain animal and plant species that are now or potentially may become threatened with extinction due to trade. These species are listed in the Appendices to CITES, which are available on the CITES Secretariat's Web site at *http://www.cites.org/eng/app/index.shtml* . Currently, 171 countries, including the United States, are Parties to CITES. The Convention calls for regular meetings of the Conference of the Parties

(CoP)to review issues pertaining to implementation, makes provisions enabling the CITES Secretariat to carry out its functions, consider amendments to the list of species in Appendices I and II, consider reports presented by the Secretariat, and make recommendations to improve the effectiveness of CITES. Any country that is a Party to CITES may propose and vote on amendments to Appendices I and II (species proposals), draft resolutions and decisions, and agenda items submitted for consideration by the Conference of Parties. Accredited nongovernmental organizations

(NGOs)may participate in the meeting as approved observers and may speak during sessions when recognized by the meeting Chairman, but they may not vote or submit proposals. This is our fourth in a series of **Federal Register** notices that, together with announced public meetings, provide you with an opportunity to participate in the development of U.S. tentative negotiating positions for CoP14. In this notice we announce the tentative U.S. negotiating positions on species proposals, draft resolutions and decisions, and agenda items submitted by other Parties and the Secretariat for consideration at CoP14. We published our first CoP14-related **Federal Register** notice on January 20, 2006 (71 FR 3319), and with it we requested information and recommendations on species proposals, draft resolutions and decisions, and agenda items for the United States to consider submitting for consideration at CoP14. We published our second such **Federal Register** notice on November 7, 2006 (71 FR 65126), and with it we requested public comments and information on species proposals, draft resolutions and decisions, and agenda items that the United States was considering submitting for consideration at CoP14. On December 11, 2006, we held the public meeting announced in our second **Federal Register** notice; at that meeting, we discussed the issues contained in our November 7 **Federal Register** notice and in our Web site posting on the same topic. In our third **Federal Register** notice, published on February 21, 2007 (72 FR 7904), we announced the provisional agenda for CoP14, solicited public comments on items on the provisional agenda, and announced a public meeting to discuss the agenda items. That public meeting was held on April 9, 2007. You may obtain information on the above **Federal Register** notices from the following sources. For information on draft resolutions and decisions, and agenda items, contact the Division of Management Authority (see ADDRESSES , above); and for information on species proposals, contact the Division of Scientific Authority (see ADDRESSES , above). Our regulations governing this public process are found in 50 CFR 23.31-23.39. Pursuant to 50 CFR 23.38(a), the Director has decided to suspend the procedure for publishing a notice of final negotiating positions in the **Federal Register** because time and resources needed to prepare a **Federal Register** notice would detract from essential preparation for CoP14. Tentative Negotiating Positions In this notice we summarize the tentative U.S. negotiating positions on proposals to amend the Appendices (species proposals), draft resolutions and decisions, and agenda items that have been submitted by other countries and the CITES Secretariat. Documents submitted by the United States for consideration of the Parties at CoP14 can be found on the Secretariat's Web site at: *http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml* . Those documents are: CoP14 Doc. 18.2, CoP14 Doc. 39, and CoP14 Doc. 43. The United States also submitted Document CoP14 Doc. 67 at the request of the Animals and Plants Committees. The United States, either alone or as a co-proponent, submitted the following proposals to amend Appendices I and II: CoP14 Prop. 2, CoP14 Prop. 17, CoP14 Prop. 19, CoP14 Prop. 21, CoP14 Prop. 22, CoP14 Prop. 23, CoP14 Prop. 28, and CoP14 Prop. 36. In this notice, we will not provide any additional explanation of the U.S. negotiating position for documents that the United States submitted. The introduction in the text of each of the documents the United States submitted contains a discussion of the background of the issue and the rationale for submitting the document. In this notice, numerals next to each agenda item or resolution correspond to the numbers used in the agenda for CoP14 and posted on the Secretariat's Web site. When we completed the notice, the Secretariat had not yet made available documents for a number of the agenda items on the CoP14 agenda. For several other documents, we are still working with other agencies in the United States and other CITES Parties to develop the U.S. negotiating position. The documents for which we do not currently have tentative U.S. negotiating positions are: CoP14 Doc. 10 and CoP14 Doc. 30. In the discussion that follows, we have included a brief description of each species proposal, draft resolution, draft decision, and agenda item submitted by other Parties or the Secretariat, followed by a brief explanation of the tentative U.S. negotiating position for that item. New information that may become available prior to or at CoP14 could lead to modifications of these positions. The U.S. delegation will fully disclose changes in our negotiating positions and the explanations for those changes during public briefings at CoP14. The United States is concerned about the budgetary implications and workload burden that will be placed upon the Parties, the committees, and the Secretariat, and intends to evaluate all documents for CoP14 in view of these concerns. Agenda (Provisional) Opening Ceremony and Welcoming Addresses The Secretariat will not prepare a document on these agenda items. According to tradition, as the host country for CoP14, The Netherlands will conduct an opening ceremony and make welcoming remarks. Administrative Matters 1. Rules of Procedure (Doc. 1). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. The CITES Secretariat prepared Document CoP14 Doc. 1, the draft Rules of Procedure for CoP14. The draft Rules are identical to those adopted for CoP13, except for several amendments proposed to Rules 14 and 15, regarding the creation of the position of an Alternate Chairman of the Conference, and Rule 28, regarding submission of informative documents for the CoP. The United States tentatively supports the draft Rules of Procedure and the amendments proposed to Rules 14, 15, and 28, but plans to propose several additional amendments to the text of these three Rules to clarify several points. 2. Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairmen of the meeting and of Chairmen of Committees I and II (No document). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. According to tradition, the host country—in this case, The Netherlands—will provide the Conference Chairman. The United States will support the election of committee Chairmen and a Vice-Chairman of the Conference who have the required technical knowledge and skills and also reflect the geographic and cultural diversity of the CITES Parties. 3. Adoption of the agenda (Doc. 3). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. 4. Adoption of the working programme (Doc. 4). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. Prior to a CoP, the working programme is provisional and changes may be made to it prior to the start of CoP14 or at the beginning of the CoP. The United States supports the provisional working programme posted at the time this notice was prepared. 5. Credentials Committee 5.1 Establishment of the Credentials Committee (No document). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. 5.2 Report of the Credentials Committee (No document). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. The United States will follow the work of the Credentials Committee and intervene as appropriate. 6. Admission of observers (Doc. 6). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. A document for this agenda item is not normally distributed prior to the start of a CoP. National NGOs are admitted as observers if their headquarters are located in a CITES Party country and if the national government of that Party approves their attendance at the CoP. International NGOs are admitted by approval of the CITES Secretariat. After being approved as an observer, an NGO is admitted to the CoP unless one-third of the Parties object. The United States supports admission to the meeting of all technically qualified NGOs, and opposes unreasonable limitations on their full participation as observers at CoP14. In addition, the United States supports flexibility and openness in the process for disseminating documents produced by NGOs to Party delegates, which are vital to decision-making and scientific and technical understanding. 7. Financing and budgeting of the Secretariat and of meetings of the Conference of the Parties. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position on Agenda Items 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3:* Undecided. These are comprehensive documents that require extensive review, internal discussion, and analysis of the financial implications for Parties and the impact on the work of the Secretariat and the committees. The United States will review the documents carefully, bearing in mind the need to balance tasks with available resources. The United States advocates fiscal responsibility and accountability on the part of the Secretariat and the Conference of the Parties and plans to be an active participant in the budget discussions at CoP14. The voluntary annual contribution of the United States to CITES is determined through our domestic budgeting process. The United States believes it is necessary that the CITES Secretariat provide additional information on budgetary and financial matters in relation to the costed programme of work proposed in Document CoP14 Doc. 7.3. Until such information is provided and analyzed, and discussed with the Parties and the Secretariat, we will not be able to consider supporting any increase in the budget of the Convention. 8. Committee Reports 8.1 Report of the Chairman of the Standing Committee (Doc. 8.1). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* At the time this notice was prepared, this document had not been posted on the Secretariat's website. This report is largely a summary of activities conducted by the Standing Committee, or particularly the Chairman, since CoP13. Many of these activities are covered by other CoP14 agenda items. 8.2 Report of the Chairman of the Animals Committee (Doc. 8.2). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Most of this document is a report by the Chairman of his activities or a recounting of the proceedings of meetings of the Animals Committee, and therefore not requiring a position. The outcomes of some of the Animals Committee deliberations are reflected in other agenda items for CoP14, where they are elaborated more substantially. However, there are some specific recommendations contained in the report requiring a position. These (and the tentative U.S. position) include: • Draft decisions for *Psittacus erithacus* , derived from the Review of Significant Trade in this species, calling for the development of management plans by range countries, with assistance from the Secretariat, subject to external funding (Support); • A draft decision for the Secretariat to convene, subject to external funding, a workshop to initiate regional cooperation on fisheries management for Tridacnidae (Support); • Extending Decision 13.93 to continue the review of the Felidae, particularly the review of *Lynx* spp. and look-alike issues, until CoP15 (Support); • Consider that the Parties, Animals Committee, and Secretariat have complied with Decisions 13.95-13.97 related to fossil corals (Support); and • Consideration of providing supplemental funding (US$30,000 annually) to the Chairman of the Animals Committee, especially if from a developing country and where governmental or institutional support is insufficient to fulfill the duties of the position (Unable to support given the current budgetary situation for the Convention). 8.3 Report of the Chairman of the Plants Committee (Doc. 8.3). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Most of this document is a report by the Chairman of her activities or a recounting of the proceedings of meetings of the Plants Committee, and therefore not requiring a position. The outcomes of some of the Plants Committee deliberations are reflected in other agenda items for CoP14, where they are elaborated more substantially. However, there are some specific recommendations contained in the report requiring a position. These (and the tentative U.S. position) include: • A draft decision directed to range countries, regional Plants Committee representatives, and the Secretariat to address the management and enforcement needs of seven species of medicinal plants from Asia, and to report on progress to the Plants Committee at its 17th and 18th meetings (Support); • Consideration by the Parties of ways to obtain identification materials for plants listed in the Appendices given that there is no longer a specific budget line for this activity (Support); • A draft decision directed to the Plants Committee and the Secretariat to continue cooperation with the Convention on Biological Diversity on the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (Support, as amended by the Secretariat); • A draft decision directed to the Plants Committee to develop principles, criteria, and indicators for making non-detriment findings for timber and medicinal plant species (Support); • Renewal of Decision 13.54, which directs the Plants Committee to continue to consider proposals to include additional timber species in the Appendices, based on the outcomes of regional workshops and other information (Support); • Consideration that the Plants Committee's work under Decisions 13.51 and 13.52 regarding annotations of medicinal plants, Decision 13.60 related to *Harpagophytum* , and Decision 13.72 regarding monitoring effects of the revision of the definition of “artificially propagated” have been completed (Support); • Draft decisions directed to the Parties and the Plants Committee to monitor the effects of exempting the artificially propagated hybrids of various orchid genera from CITES controls, and consideration of whether the exemption of hybrids of additional genera is advisable (Support); and • Draft decisions directed to the Parties, Plants Committee, Secretariat, and inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations (IGOs and NGOs) to address various issues related to trade in agarwood, including capacity building, the making of non-detriment findings, information sharing, definition of terms relating to agarwood, development of identification and training materials, and recommendations on appropriate units of measure for agarwood, as well as consideration of potential annotations to exempt certain agarwood specimens from CITES controls (Support, but with reservations regarding the ability of the CoP to direct work to IGOs and NGOs, and also regarding the scope of work and potential budget implications). 8.4 Joint report of the Chairmen of the Animals and Plants Committees (Doc. 8.4). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* U.S. position: Much of this document is a report by the Chairmen of the Animals and Plants Committees recounting the proceedings of joint meetings of the two committees, and therefore not requiring a position. The outcomes of some of the deliberations of the two committees meeting in joint session are reflected in other agenda items for CoP14, where they are elaborated more substantially. However, there are some specific recommendations contained in the report requiring a position. These (and the tentative U.S. position) include: • Recommended Rules of Procedure for the two committees, which follow longstanding practices and represent the committees' views with regard to a practicable adaptation of the Rules of Procedure for the Standing Committee (Support, with some amendments proposed by the Secretariat); • A draft decision directed to the Secretariat to publish and distribute, subject to available funding, manuals for regional representatives to the committees in the three languages of the Convention (Support, as amended by the Secretariat); • A recommendation to eliminate Resolution Conf. 13.10 on “Trade in invasive alien species” and incorporate elements of it into Resolution Conf. 10.4 on “Cooperation and synergy with the Convention on Biological Diversity,” to reflect the limited role CITES can play in addressing the problem of invasive species (Support); and • Draft decisions directed to the Parties, Standing Committee, and Secretariat to provide support to the University of Co rdoba and the International University of Andalusia (Spain) to support the continuation of the Master's course on “Management, Access and Conservation of Species in Trade” (Support). 8.5 Report of the Nomenclature Committee (Doc. 8.5). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. The report contains numerous recommendations regarding the adoption of standard nomenclatural and taxonomic references for CITES-listed fauna and flora, and a program of work and proposed budget for the next intersessional period. We are still evaluating the references, and the proposed work and budget implications. 9. Committee Elections and Appointments 9.1 Standing Committee (No document). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. Since the close of CoP13, the North American region has been represented on the Standing Committee by Canada, serving as the North American regional representative, and Mexico, serving as the alternate representative. Canada and Mexico will continue to serve in their current capacities until the end of CoP15. 9.2 Animals Committee (No document). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. Since the close of CoP14, the North American region has been represented on the Animals Committee by Mr. Rodrigo A. Medelli n of Mexico, serving as the North American regional representative, and up until May 2007, Mr. Robert R. Gabel of the United States, serving as the alternate representative. Mr. Gabel has now moved on to other duties as the Chief of the U.S. Management Authority, and as such, the United States will provide a new alternate representative who has yet to be determined. 9.3 Plants Committee (No document). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. Since the close of CoP14, the North American region has been represented on the Plants Committee by Mr. Robert R. Gabel of the United States, serving as the North American regional representative, and Dr. Adrianne Sinclair, of Canada, serving as the alternate representative. 9.4 Nomenclature Committee (No document). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. In its report to the CoP, the Nomenclature Committee recommends, as also recommended in CoP14 Doc. 12 (on review of the scientific committees), submitted by the Standing Committee, that the Nomenclature Committee be re-characterized as a working group of the Animals and Plants Committees. However, we anticipate that this will have little effect on the operation of the Nomenclature Committee, and we expect the current Chairmen of this committee, Dr. Ute Grimm of Germany (co-Chairman for Fauna) and Dr. Noel McGuff of the United Kingdom (co-Chairman for Flora), to continue in their positions, regardless of how this body is characterized. Strategic Matters 11. CITES Strategic Vision: 2008-2013 (Doc. 11). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* While the United States supports the revision and updating of both CITES' Strategic Plan and the accompanying Action Plan, we have significant concerns related to the revisions proposed in Document CoP14 Doc. 11, which we communicated in comments to the Strategic Plan Working Group

(SPWG)following the 54th meeting of the CITES Standing Committee (SC54). CITES developed its current (and first) “Strategic Vision Through 2005” when the United States chaired the Standing Committee. This earlier document was adopted at CoP11 and was closely linked to an Action Plan, with practical and measurable steps for the Parties, Secretariat, and other entities. The Action Plan was developed in concert with the Strategic Vision to provide evidence that the goals of the latter were being met. At CoP13 the Parties adopted Decision 13.1, which extended the Strategic Vision through CoP14, but also set in motion the process to revise and update both the Strategic Vision and the Action Plan. Document CoP14 Doc. 11 represents the output of the SPWG, taking into account the comments received from Parties and NGOs on the draft Strategic Plan after SC54. The SPWG has also prepared a draft resolution for consideration by the Parties at CoP14 (Document Doc. 11 Annex, p. 4), and the “CITES Strategic Vision: 2008-2013” is included as a sub-annex to that document (pp. 5-12). While the SPWG accepted some of the comments of the United States in preparing this document, we remain concerned that the document would direct CITES away from its core mission of monitoring and controlling international trade in wildlife and plants. Although the “CITES Strategic Vision: 2008-2013” does not prescribe or proscribe specific actions by the Parties, if adopted, it is intended to provide guidance for the evolution of CITES through 2013. 12. Review of the scientific committees (Doc. 12). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. This document is submitted by the Standing Committee. At SC54 in October 2006, the Committee adopted the recommendations of an External Evaluation Working Group's review of the CITES scientific committees (Animals, Plants, and Nomenclature), and agreed to propose to CoP14 pertinent modifications to Resolution Conf. 11.1 (Rev. CoP13) and 12.11 (Rev. CoP13). The United States supports adoption of the Standing Committee's recommendations that will enhance the work and efficiency of the scientific committees. However, the United States disagrees with the Secretariat's suggestion to merge the scientific committees. 13. Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity (Doc. 13). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. Document CoP14 Doc. 13 was prepared by the Plants and Animals Committees, and is based on the outcome of discussions at the 22nd meeting of the Animals Committee and 16th meeting of the Plants Committee (PC16—Lima, Peru; July 2006). The committees focused on the applicability of the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity (Addis Ababa Principles) to the making of non-detriment findings, and concluded that not all of the principles and guidelines are directly relevant. The committees proposed that Resolution Conf. 10.4 be amended to acknowledge the use of the Addis Ababa Principles as a voluntary additional tool that can be used in making non-detriment findings. The United States agrees with the committees' conclusion that the Addis Ababa Principles are not always applicable to the decision making process under CITES, and supports the proposal to consider them as a voluntary additional tool that can be used in making non-detriment findings. 14. CITES and livelihoods (Doc. 14; Argentina, China, Germany on behalf of the European Community Member States, and Nicaragua). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. In Document CoP14 Doc. 14, the proponents summarize the outcomes and recommendations from the CITES and Livelihoods Workshop (Cape Town, South Africa; September 2006), and propose two draft decisions that build on those recommendations. The first draft decision directs the Standing Committee to assist in the development of tools and guidelines for the Parties to use in examining the impacts of CITES regulation on human well-being and the livelihoods of the poor. The second draft decision directs the Secretariat to provide an assessment of the ways in which the implementation of CITES has taken, or could take, into account these impacts on the livelihoods of the poor. Although we are supportive of considering human well-being and livelihoods in the implementation of CITES, these considerations should be separate from the objective scientific assessments required for listings and making non-detriment findings. We are also concerned about the budget implications of the proposed Decisions in this document. 15. National wildlife trade policy reviews (Doc. 15). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. In Document CoP14 Doc. 15, the CITES Secretariat reported on progress made in implementing Decisions 13.74 and 13.75 and that the four pilot countries interested in undertaking wildlife trade policy reviews, will be provided an opportunity to share compiled and synthesized information on the initial results from their wildlife trade policy reviews at a CoP14 side event. The Secretariat further recommends that interested importing countries carry out national wildlife policy reviews in order to provide a balanced view to exporting countries and facilitate a better understanding of wildlife trade policy at both ends of the international wildlife trade (supply and demand), and invites donors to provide financial support to countries interested in preparing these reviews. The Secretariat recommends renewing the deadlines in Resolution Conf. 13.74 for reporting to the Standing Committee and Conference of the Parties to SC57 and CoP15, and deleting a recommendation calling for submission of project proposals in order to seek financial support for preparation of trade policy reviews in interested countries. The United States looks forward to reviewing the results achieved with the four pilot countries. However, given the overall lackluster response of the Parties (7 out of 171 Parties expressed interest), this is not high priority work of the CITES Secretariat. Implementation of the Secretariat's recommendations would have budgetary implications that must be weighed against priorities that are more urgent. 16. Capacity building (Doc. 16). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Oppose. This document from the CITES Secretariat proposes the creation of an interactive CITES Virtual College for basic and more advanced training in the Convention over the Internet. The Secretariat proposes that this program could be linked to academic institutions. In Document CoP14 Doc. 7.3 Annex 1, the CITES Secretariat estimates that it would cost close to $1.6 million to run this program from 2009 through 2011. While the United States has always, and continues to be, a strong supporter and proponent of training in the implementation and enforcement of CITES, we do not support such an initiative with such significant budget implications. There are already similar educational and capacity-building programs and mechanisms that would be duplicated by the development of such a program at the Secretariat (e.g., the Masters and Doctoral courses conducted by the International University of Andalucia, and current U.S. training offered in connection to Regional Free Trade Agreements). 17. Cooperation between Parties and promotion of multilateral measures (Doc. 17). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. At the time this notice was prepared, this document had not been posted on the Secretariat's Web site. 18. Cooperation With Other Organizations 18.1 Cooperation with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (Doc. 18.1). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided on establishment of a Fishery Working Group within CITES; support strengthening cooperation between CITES and United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

(FAO)with regard to forestry and non-timber forest products, but opposed to formalization of the relationship through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). This document was submitted by the CITES Secretariat. It provides a history of the collaboration between CITES and FAO regarding marine listing and implementation issues, and summarizes cooperative activities in recent years related to queen conch, sturgeons, sharks, sea cucumbers, and other species. Pointing to the success of collaborative efforts between CITES and FAO on marine issues, the Secretariat recommends strengthening cooperation with FAO on issues related to forestry and non-timber forest products. The document includes draft decisions for consideration by the Parties at CoP14. One of these decisions directs the Secretariat to initiate discussions with FAO on strengthening and formalizing cooperation between CITES and FAO with regard to forestry and non-timber forest products. Another, directed to the Standing Committee, would establish a Fishery Working Group to address practical issues related to the implementation of the Treaty for fish and marine invertebrates. The United States endorsed the establishment of the MoU with FAO on marine issues that was finalized at SC54, and we fully support ongoing cooperation between CITES and FAO regarding marine issues. FAO has provided valuable advice and assistance to CITES on a number of marine issues, including the development of listing criteria for marine species and the formation of *ad hoc* expert advisory panels to evaluate marine listing proposals prior to a CoP. We have endorsed the idea of a marine working group in the past; in fact, at CoP10, the United States submitted a document calling for the Standing Committee to establish a temporary working group for marine fish species. However, given the formalized cooperative arrangement with FAO, ongoing work in the Animals Committee, and the desire to avoid duplication of effort, we are uncertain of the need for establishing a Fishery Working Group within CITES at this time. No information has been provided regarding the proposed composition or the mandate of such a group. We will develop a position as more information becomes available. The International Tropical Timber Organization

(ITTO)promotes the conservation and sustainable management of and trade in tropical forest resources. We submitted a document for consideration at CoP14 (Doc. 18.2) that recognizes the importance of close cooperation between CITES and ITTO in the consideration and implementation of CITES listings of tropical timber species and recommends strengthening the cooperation between the CITES and ITTO Secretariats. While we would also support increased cooperation between CITES and ITTO regarding forestry and non-timber forest products, we do not believe that it is necessary to formalize the relationship through a MoU. 18.3 Statements from representatives of other conventions and agreements (No document). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Not applicable. 19. Dialogue Meetings 19.1 Terms of reference for CITES dialogue meetings (Doc. 19.1). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. Range country dialogue meetings have occurred for the African elephant since 1996 and hawksbill sea turtles since 2001. The Standing Committee instructed the Secretariat to draft terms of reference for the organization and conduct of dialogue meetings for any taxon. The Secretariat's draft was reviewed at SC50 and approved with amendments at SC53 (July 2005). The Standing Committee agreed with the Secretariat that the revised document should be the basis for a draft resolution at CoP14. This document incorporates the suggestions from the Standing Committee and describes what a dialogue meeting is, who may call a dialogue meeting, the organization of the meeting, how decisions are made and communicated, and how the rules of procedure may be amended. The United States participated in the SC53 discussions and generally supports the document. 19.2 Results of the dialogue meeting on the African elephant (Doc. 19.2). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Not applicable. The African elephant dialogue meeting is scheduled to be held in The Hague, The Netherlands, immediately prior to the start of CoP14. When the document is available, we will review it closely and develop our position. We support the range States dialogue process for debating multinational species issues, and the United States provided funding for this meeting through a grant under the African Elephant Conservation Act. Interpretation and Implementation of the Convention Review of Resolutions and Decisions 20. Review of Resolutions 20.1 Resolutions relating to Appendix-I species (Doc. 20.1). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. In Document CoP14 Doc. 20.1, the Secretariat puts forward two draft consolidated resolutions relating to Appendix-I species. The first draft resolution is a consolidation of the resolutions related to hunting trophies for Appendix-I species, and the second draft resolution consolidates the resolutions related to the conservation of and trade in specimens of specific Appendix-I species. The United States has long supported the efforts to consolidate resolutions related to Appendix-I species, as long as such an approach continues to allow for the elaboration of specific measures that may be needed for individual species and does not result in a generic approach to the conservation of these rare and endangered species. 20.2 General review (Doc. 20.2). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. At the time this notice was prepared, Document CoP14 Doc. 20.2 was not available for review on the Secretariat's Web site. Prior to CoP12, the Secretariat began a review of the existing CITES resolutions to identify those that were difficult to implement, redundant with other resolutions, or with outdated text. At CoP12 and again at CoP13, the Secretariat proposed changes to and consolidations of sections of several resolutions, which the Parties considered, and some of which the Parties adopted. With Document CoP14 Doc. 20.2, the Secretariat is continuing this review process by identifying a number of resolutions for which it has proposed changes, consolidations, or transfers of text to other resolutions. 21. Revision of Resolution Conf. 11.16 on ranching and trade in ranched specimens of species transferred from Appendix I to Appendix II (Doc. 21). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Oppose, but agree with some aspects. While the United States agrees that reporting requirements should request only appropriate information that is used to monitor ranching operations and to determine that such operations continue to meet the requirements agreed by the Parties in Resolution Conf. 11.16, we do not agree with eliminating the collection of needed information based on Parties' inability or unwillingness to submit a complete report. Annual reporting must include sufficient information to determine if ranching operations are having an adverse effect on wild populations and that population trends are stable or increasing. Regarding the revision to the definition of “ranching,” the United States agrees that the definition should be amended, but does not accept the proposed definition. The Parties should postpone a revision of the definition of “ranching” in Resolution Conf. 11.16 until consideration of Document CoP14 Doc. 38, and if agreed, the review proposed in that document has been completed. 22. Review of Decisions (Doc. 22). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. At the time this notice was prepared, Document CoP14 Doc. 22 was not available for review on the Secretariat's Web site. At CoP13, the Parties reviewed the current CITES decisions to identify those that were long term in nature. For these long-term decisions, the Parties adopted the transfer of their text into new or existing resolutions. With Document CoP14 Doc. 22, the Secretariat is continuing this process by identifying existing decisions that are intended to be valid for a long term and making proposals for the transfer of the relevant texts of these decisions into new or existing resolutions. Compliance and Enforcement Issues 23. Guidelines for compliance with the Convention (Doc. 23). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. At CoP12, the Parties directed the Standing Committee to develop guidelines for compliance with the Convention and a working group was established at SC50 to accomplish the task. The United States has been an active member of the Working Group on Compliance and supports completion of the draft guidelines at CoP14. The existing compliance mechanisms in the Treaty and resolutions are effective and appropriate. We have worked to ensure that the guidelines for compliance accurately describe those mechanisms and do not go beyond what already exists by introducing new mechanisms or procedures. Although significant progress was made and agreement was reached on most of the text, some areas of disagreement remained after SC54. Document CoP14 Doc. 23 was prepared by the Chairman of the Working Group on Compliance and includes the draft guidelines and the Chairman's recommendations for resolving remaining areas of disagreement. The United States supports his recommendations because they focus the guidelines on describing existing practice instead of creating new compliance procedures. 24. National laws for implementation of the Convention (Doc. 24). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. At the time this notice was prepared, this document had not been posted on the Secretariat's Web site. The United States strongly believes that the Convention's effectiveness is undermined when Party States do not have adequate national laws in place for implementing CITES, and we have previously supported action by the Conference of the Parties to compel Parties to adopt effective CITES implementing legislation. 25. Enforcement matters (Doc. 25). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. The United States supports the proposed decisions relating to a meeting of the CITES Enforcement Experts Group and the suggestion that Resolution Conf. 11.3 be revised. The United States agrees that existing efforts to capture illegal trade information have largely been unsuccessful and welcomes an opportunity to discuss the issue so that illegal trade activities are better understood and enforcement efforts to combat them are made more effective. The United States also concurs with the Secretariat's assessment that, despite remarkable efforts by dedicated wildlife enforcement officers around the world, governments need to raise the profile of wildlife enforcement and ensure that sufficient resources are devoted to interdiction of illegal trade and prosecution of wildlife criminals. 26. Compliance and enforcement (Doc. 26; Germany, on behalf of the European Community Member States). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Partial support. The United States agrees with many of the Secretariat's concerns. The United States does not believe it is necessary, at this point, to establish a permanent Enforcement Experts Group. However, a second meeting of this group is warranted to follow up on previous recommendations and take up some of the issues identified in this document as well as enforcement-related documents, such as Document CoP14 Doc. 25 and Document CoP14 Doc. 28. 27. Disposal of illegally traded and confiscated specimens of Appendix-II and -III species (Doc. 27; Indonesia). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Oppose. The United States does not support the proposed decision directed to the Standing Committee regarding amendments to Resolution Conf. 9.10 (Rev. CoP13). Some of the issues raised in Document CoP14 Doc. 27 and the proposed decision are clearly addressed in existing resolutions. In addition, several of the issues identified as possible amendments would raise enormous logistical, financial, and workload challenges that would substantially outweigh any possible conservation benefit for Parties that regularly confiscate large volumes of wildlife. The proposed amendments to Resolution Conf. 9.10 (Rev. CoP13) included in this document, if adopted, could have a negative conservation impact by discouraging Parties from confiscating illegally traded wildlife if they were required to take on the substantial logistical, financial, and workload burdens that would accompany these requirements. 28. Internet trade in specimens of CITES-listed species (Doc. 27; Germany, on behalf of the European Community Member States). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. The United States is concerned about the role of the Internet in illegal wildlife trade and has already devoted enforcement resources to this issue. The United States supports the Secretariat's alternative draft decisions, which would be a more efficient and cost-effective approach to the workshop. 29. National reports (Doc. 29). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support with minor changes. With Document CoP14 Doc. 29, the Secretariat reports on progress it and the Parties have made since CoP13 in implementing Resolution Conf. 11.17 (Rev. CoP13) on national reports, and on progress it has made in implementing Decisions 13.90-13.92 on reporting requirements. The Secretariat recommends that the Parties consider adopting two draft decisions included in Annex 2 of Document CoP14 Doc. 29. The first draft decision, which the United States supports, would direct the Standing Committee to undertake a review of the CITES recommendations to Parties to provide special reports, assess whether they might be effectively incorporated into the annual and biennial reports, and report to CoP15 on its conclusions and recommendations. The second draft decision would direct the Secretariat to continue work directed under Decision 13.92 to facilitate the harmonization of knowledge management and reporting with other biodiversity-related conventions. This draft decision would continue work directed under Decision 13.90 to identify ways to reduce reporting burdens on Parties. The United States supports both of these aspects of the draft decision. However, the second point of the draft decision also directs the Secretariat to support the Standing Committee on electronic permitting. The United States recognizes the potential benefits electronic permitting could provide in relation to national reports, but we are concerned about the potential financial impact on some Parties and the limited capacity of many Parties to completely implement electronic permitting (see the U.S. position on Document CoP14 Doc. 40.1 and Document CoP14 Doc. 40.2). Therefore, the United States, while supportive of most of the text of the second draft decision, does not support inclusion of the phrase “* * * its support of the Standing Committee on electronic permitting* * *” 31. Monitoring of the implementation of the annotations to *Euphorbia* spp. and Orchidaceae spp. included in Appendix II (Doc. 31; Switzerland). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. Switzerland has submitted a proposal for CoP14 to amend the annotation to Orchidaceae (Prop. 34), and another proposal to amend the annotation to *Euphorbia* spp. (Prop. 29). In Document CoP14 Doc. 31, Switzerland explains that, if these two proposals are adopted, then it would be appropriate to renew Decisions 13.98 and 13.99 to monitor the implementation of the amended orchid annotation, and also adopt similar decisions to monitor the implementation of the amended *Euphorbia* annotation. In the Annex to Document CoP14 Doc. 31, Switzerland provides the draft renewals of Decisions 13.98 and 13.99, plus two new similar draft decisions on the *Euphorbia* annotation. The United States agrees that, if the species proposals amending the *Euphorbia* annotation and the orchid annotation are adopted at CoP14, then the Parties should also adopt decisions to monitor the implementation of these amended annotations, in order to determine how effective they are and whether they are causing any significant enforcement difficulties. It is also the U.S. position that, if these two proposals are not adopted, Decisions 13.98 and 13.99 should still be continued. 32. Incentives for implementation of the Convention (Doc. 32). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Oppose. Document CoP14 Doc. 32 reviews Decisions 13.76 and 13.77, and summarizes the issues involved in incentives for implementation of the convention. The Secretariat's lists numerous recommendations, including the creation of a working group to identify options for CITES Authorities in designing and using specific incentive measures. While the United States does not have any fundamental objections to the use of economic incentives to further wildlife conservation in the context of CITES, the text of the Convention is silent on this matter. Although careful and detailed consideration must be given by the Parties prior to incorporating these concepts and specific recommendations into the body of CITES soft law, we note that the Secretariat's report indicates that there was no response from Parties to the Notification calling for submissions on economic incentives (2005/022). We, therefore, have questions about the value of this work to the CITES Parties. The report presents interesting information to the Parties, but given the lack of interest, this work can be successfully brought to a close and this agenda topic retired. Specific work, such as the survey of fee structures is valuable in its own right as an implementation item, but other proposed decision elements directed to the Standing Committee, the Parties, and the Secretariat are not a priority and should not be supported. Trade Control and Marking Issues 33. Introduction from the sea (Doc. 33). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. This document was prepared by the CITES Secretariat on behalf of the Standing Committee and reports on progress made since CoP13 on issues related to introduction from the sea. In 2005, a workshop on introduction from the sea was convened in accordance with Decision 13.18. The report of the workshop, the comments received on the report, and a draft resolution and draft decision prepared by the Secretariat were considered at SC54. It was agreed that a working group would work electronically to refine the definition of the “marine environment not under the jurisdiction of any State” based on issues raised at SC54 and comments on the workshop report. Document CoP14 Doc. 33 includes a draft resolution that contains both the definition agreed by the workshop and an alternative definition put forward by the working group. The Standing Committee recommends that the CoP reach agreement on the bracketed text and adopt the resolution to provide a definition of the “marine environment not under the jurisdiction of any State.” The United States has been actively involved in discussions related to introduction from the sea since the drafting of the Treaty, and we strongly support continuing efforts to achieve common understanding of the practical application of the introduction from the sea provision under CITES. We participated in the 2005 workshop and the electronic working group following SC54. We strongly support adoption of the draft resolution with the alternative definition put forward by the working group in place of the definition agreed at the 2005 workshop. Document CoP14 Doc. 33 also includes a draft decision directed to the Standing Committee. The decision calls for the establishment of a working group on introduction from the sea, to work primarily through electronic means, to consider further clarification of terms and other issues identified in the 2005 workshop report. The working group would be asked to report its findings to CoP15. The United States believes that, given the increasing number of listing proposals for marine species at recent CoPs, continued work on the practical implementation of the introduction from the sea provision is important, and we therefore support the formation of such a working group. 34. Trade in Appendix-I species (Doc. 34). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Based on the results of the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) analysis reported at SC54, most trade in Appendix-I species reported by the Parties is conducted appropriately. However, UNEP-WCMC noted that further clarification of the purpose of transaction codes would be useful, and that countries also need to show greater care in applying source codes. The United States supports the need to clarify further the use of certain purpose of transaction and source codes so that there is more uniformity in how codes are used. As identified in Document CoP14 Doc. 38, the Animals Committee and Plants Committee were unable to make significant progress on production systems and source codes and have proposed a more narrow scope of work to develop a definition of ranching for application to CITES for CoP15. The United States submitted a document (CoP14 Doc. 39) proposing refinements to the purpose of transaction codes, to eliminate duplicities and ensure better usage by the Parties. 35. International expert workshop on non-detriment findings (Doc. 35; Mexico). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. The Scientific Authority of each Party is required to make non-detriment findings for species listed in Appendix I and Appendix II. However, many countries lack financial and technical resources and expertise to fully meet this obligation. The proposed workshop on making CITES non-detriment findings will improve Parties abilities to make scientifically sound findings, build regional capacity, and foster greater cooperation among Parties to effectively implement the Convention. The proposed workshop is an initiative that grew out of discussions among the three Parties in the North American Region of CITES—Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The United States is fully supportive of this workshop. We believe that strengthening the capacities of CITES Scientific Authorities will help to ensure that trade in CITES-listed species does not occur at levels that threaten their survival. 36. Management of annual export quotas (Doc. 36). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support, provided negotiated changes to the text of the draft resolution will advance and support the establishment, implementation, and monitoring of nationally established export quotas for Appendix-II species. The United States initiated discussion of this issue at CoP12 and has been an active participant in the Standing Committee's Export Quota Working Group (EQWG). This document accurately reflects the discussions of the EQWG since CoP13, which has made significant progress in developing a draft resolution and amendments to existing resolutions that would cover this issue. Although substantive issues remain unresolved, as reflected in Document CoP14 Doc. 36, the United States hopes that, with further discussion at CoP14, a final draft resolution can be agreed and adopted. The United States has participated in these deliberations with a goal of ensuring that export quotas for CITES-listed species provide a meaningful tool for monitoring and controlling trade by providing a feedback mechanism for importing countries to communicate irregularities and potential illegal trade to exporting countries. 37. Appendix-I Species Subject to Export Quotas 37.1 Leopard export quotas for Mozambique (Doc. 37.1; Mozambique). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Oppose. In this document, Mozambique proposes to increase its export quota for leopard hunting trophies and skins for personal use from 60 to 120. The United States, as reflected in the document we submitted for CoP12 on establishing scientifically based quotas, and in accordance with Resolution Conf. 9.21 (Rev. CoP13), which calls for establishment of a scientific basis for proposed quotas, is very interested in ensuring that annual export quotas are established on strong biological data. Mozambique's request does not provide enough biological information about the population of leopards or their prey in Mozambique to determine whether the population can be sustained under the proposed quota figure. 37.2 Black rhinoceros export quotas for Namibia and South Africa (Doc. 37.2; Kenya). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. Kenya is proposing to rescind Resolution Conf. 13.5, which allows Namibia and South Africa to export five black rhino sport-hunted trophies annually. Kenya has provided information about management problems in Namibia and increased levels of rhino poaching in South Africa since the exports were approved at CoP13 in 2004. However, this information is contradicted by a report on the status and trade of rhinos produced by the IUCN-SSC's African Rhino Specialist Group (CoP14 Doc. 54), which reports an increase in the black rhino population in both countries and very limited rhino poaching in Namibia or South Africa. Although Kenya fails to provide information to show that the existing quota is biologically unsustainable or that range-wide poaching of black rhinos has increased as a result of the export of sport-hunted trophies, their document does raise questions that should be addressed by Namibia and South Africa prior to the United States finalizing its position on this document. It should be noted that this species is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act and that the import of a black rhinoceros sport-hunted trophy into the United States must meet additional regulatory requirements. 38. Production systems for specimens of CITES-listed species (Doc. 38). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. The United States has been an active participant in the discussion of production systems and source codes, by chairing an intersessional joint working group of the Animals and Plants Committees on the subject. We agree that additional discussions with a narrower focus on ranching are warranted, as described in the document. 40. Electronic Permitting 40.1 Report of the Secretariat (Doc. 40.1). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Oppose. The United States believes that the majority of Parties do not and will not have the technological or financial support to fully implement an electronic permitting system, now or in the near future. Given the complexity of this effort and the current state of technology, the United States believes that this does not represent a high-priority activity at this time, particularly given the current budget atmosphere. 40.2 Report of the Standing Committee's Working Group (Doc. 40.2). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Oppose. See discussion on Document CoP14 Doc. 40.1 above. 41. Transport of live specimens (Doc. 41). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. In Document CoP14 Doc. 41 (Rev. 1), the Secretariat summarizes work done by the Transport Working Group and presents a revision of Resolution Conf. 10.21 on “Transport of live animals” to “Transport of live specimens” by including the transport of plants. Other changes would limit review of shipment mortality to only those shipments with high mortality. The United States is generally in favor of the revisions to Resolution Conf. 10.21, in particular the inclusion of plants, which will result in a more comprehensive resolution. While the United States continues to be interested in all mortality during shipment, we realize that this presents a burden on already-taxed inspectors and customs officials, and agree with the new language in the revision that calls for the Animals and Plants Committees to examine high-mortality shipments of live specimens. The United States is in favor of efforts to provide comprehensive information on the best methods for live animal and plant transport. The requirements in the International Air Transport Association

(IATA)Live Animals Regulations (LAR), while used specifically for air transport, are in most cases appropriate for non-air transport (road, rail, and sea). The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)'s proposed Web site for non-air animal and plant transport methods would be useful as a supplement for alternative transport methods to those described in the IATA-LAR, provided it addresses the challenges presented with the transport of live captive and wild CITES-listed taxa that require special attention for non-air transport methods (e.g., duration of transit time, environmental conditions, and conveyance vehicles). 42. Physical inspection of timber shipments (Doc. 42; Germany, on behalf of the European Community Member States). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. Document CoP14 Doc. 42 details a number of problems faced by CITES inspection officials at ports of import and export in inspecting, identifying, and measuring the volume of CITES timber shipments. Document CoP14 Doc. 42 recommends that CITES take action to provide guidance to the Parties on enforcement of timber listings and focuses on identification and the development of a methodology for the physical inspection of timber shipments. The document contains two draft decisions in the Annex. The first draft decision would direct the Secretariat, in consultation with the Plants Committee, CITES Parties, and relevant organizations, to identify existing timber identification tools for CITES-listed species and identify ways that these tools can be accessed by CITES inspection authorities. This decision would further direct the Secretariat to identify gaps for which additional work is needed to develop timber identification tools; the Secretariat is then to report its findings to the Standing Committee. The second draft decision would direct the Standing Committee, in consultation with the Secretariat, range countries, and other Parties and relevant organizations, to develop guidelines for the enforcement of timber listings and to focus on the development of a methodology to carry out physical inspections of timber shipments. 44. Identification Manual (Doc. 44). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. This document is a report from the Secretariat on progress in the development of identification materials for listed species. We are nearing completion of an identification sheet for paddlefish ( *Polyodon spathula* ) and plan to submit the sheet to the CITES Secretariat later this year. On December 16, 2005, we listed the alligator snapping turtle ( *Macroclemys temminckii* ) and all species of map turtles ( *Graptemys* spp.) in Appendix III of CITES. We are currently working with the University of Kansas to draft identification sheets for those species. We will continue to address the remaining CITES-listed species for which the United States is responsible for providing identification materials. Exemptions and Special Trade Provisions 45. Personal and household effects (Doc. 45). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. This document contains a proposal from the Standing Committee's Personal and Household Effects Working Group to amend Resolution Conf. 13.7 (on control of trade in personal and household effects) to facilitate trade in personally owned specimens of certain CITES-listed species. The United States has been an active participant in this working group since it was established in 2006. The United States believes that the list of exempted items is a useful tool in implementing the Convention. We also believe that, although additions to the list may be appropriate in certain limited circumstances, any substantial increase in the number of items included in the list is likely to create confusion and enforcement problems. The United States supports development of a careful and deliberative process to amend the list. 46. Trade in some crocodilian specimens (Doc. 46; Germany, on behalf of the European Community Member States). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Oppose. The basic contention of the document is that the implementation of Resolution Conf. 11.12 is working so well that the issuance of re-export documents for finished crocodilian leather products is an expensive, unnecessary redundancy. This proposal is inconsistent with CITES Article I(b)(ii), which requires that readily recognizable parts and derivatives of animal species listed in Appendices I and II are considered specimens that are subject to the provisions of the Convention. The proponents have not argued or presented information to suggest that these specimens are not readily recognizable. We are unconvinced that the issuance of re-export documents for finished crocodilian leather products is unnecessarily redundant. Furthermore, we believe that adoption of such a proposal would establish a dangerous precedent that some Parties may wish to apply to the finished products of other CITES-listed species. 47. Applications to register operations that breed Appendix-I animal species in captivity for commercial purposes (Doc. 47). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Oppose. This document refers to Notification to the Parties Nos. 2004/054 and 2005/48, requests by the Management Authority of the Philippines to register a captive-breeding operation for the following birds: *Amazona ochrocephala auropalliata, Amazona ochrocephala oratrix, Amazona viridigenalis, Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus, Ara militaris, Ara rubrogenys, Cacatua goffini, and Propyrrhura maracana.* We are unable to support the approval of this operation for these eight species because the applications did not provide sufficient documentation on legal acquisition of the parental stock. Although documentation was provided, it is not specific to the species involved and refers only generically to parrots. Further, no documentation is provided to show that the parental stock was legally exported from range countries. Therefore, the captive-breeding operation does not meet the bred-in-captivity criteria of Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), specifically paragraph (b)(ii)A, which requires that the breeding stock must have been established “in accordance with CITES and relevant national laws.” Approval of this operation in the absence of documentation of legal origin of its stock could potentially set a precedent for approving other captive-breeding operations that similarly lack such documentation. 48. Relationship between *ex situ* production and *in situ* conservation: report of the Standing Committee (Doc. 48). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Document CoP14 Doc. 48 contains recommendations of the Standing Committee's Clearing House. As a member of the Clearing House, the United States provided technical comments on the version of this document presented to the Standing Committee for SC54. The United States agrees with the CITES Secretariat that the issues raised by the relationship between *ex situ* production methods and *in situ* conservation efforts (for CITES-listed species) are interesting. However, we believe that the Parties must carefully consider, in light of current budgetary constraints, whether the recommended study represents a high-priority activity and will support the core purposes and functions of CITES. 49. Reservations regarding species transferred from one Appendix to another (Doc. 49). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. The Convention provides three provisions under which a Party may take a reservation:

(1)Article XXIII provides for a new Party to take a reservation with respect to a species listed in Appendix I, II, or III, within 90 days after the date that the Party deposits its instrument of ratification;

(2)Article XV provides for a Party to take a reservation to an adopted amendment to Appendix I or II, within 90 days after the CoP at which the amendment was adopted; and

(3)Article XVI provides for a Party to take a reservation on a species listed in Appendix III, or on any parts or derivatives of that species, at any time after the listing of the species. With Document CoP14 Doc. 49, the Secretariat presents a draft revision to Resolution Conf. 4.25 to clarify that, in cases where a Party holds a reservation in relation to a species that is subsequently transferred from one Appendix to another (or in other words deleted from one Appendix and simultaneously added to another Appendix), the reservation will be considered as no longer valid, and the Party will need to enter a new reservation if it wishes to maintain the reservation on the species. In the draft revision, the Secretariat also proposes to combine the two existing recommendations in Resolution Conf. 4.25 to shorten and simplify the text. Species Trade and Conservation Issues 50. Great apes (Doc. 50). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided until certain reports are made available to the CITES Secretariat and reviewed. In Document CoP14 Doc. 50 the CITES Secretariat reviews activities involving great apes. At SC54, held in October 2006, the Secretariat expressed its concern regarding a lack of information relating to orangutans that had been illegally imported into Cambodia and questioned whether the Convention was being adequately implemented. The Standing Committee called upon Cambodia to facilitate a mission by the Secretariat to assess implementation of the Convention, but to date the request has not been answered. The Secretariat will report on this subject at CoP14 and also has expressed its concerns regarding illicit trade in great apes by Egypt. The Standing Committee requested Egypt to prepare a report for CoP14 on its enforcement of the Convention, particularly with regard to the illicit trade in primates. The report has not yet been prepared. The Standing Committee recommended that the Conference of the Parties review the reports concerning Cambodia and Egypt and decide whether additional measures, including non-compliance measures or a verification mission by the Secretariat, are necessary. The United States is unable to determine a definite position until the reports requested by the Secretariat from Cambodia and Egypt concerning reports on illegal trade in primates can be reviewed. The United States takes non-compliance issues very seriously and will look closely at the responses and reports requested from Cambodia and Egypt. The United States has been supportive of past actions recommended by the Secretariat in response to non-compliance issues, and unless there are circumstances that would warrant otherwise, we expect to continue our support of the Secretariat's recommendations. 51. Cetaceans (Doc. 51; Japan). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Oppose. This document contains two draft decisions that, if adopted, would direct the Animals Committee to include in its Review of the Appendices all cetaceans in Appendix I that are managed by the International Whaling Commission (IWC). The second draft decision would direct the CITES Secretariat to write to the IWC Secretariat conveying the concern of the Conference of the Parties regarding the postponement of the Revised Management Scheme discussions. The United States believes it is doubtful that any new and compelling information would be revealed by this review, since the whale species most highly traded have been carefully reviewed by the IWC Scientific Committee and have been under almost continuous scrutiny by the Parties since CoP9 in 1994. 52. Asian big cats (Doc. 52). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. In Document CoP14 Doc. 52, the Secretariat notes that several countries have achieved success in halting the downward population trend for wild tigers by using well-equipped and trained anti-poaching units. However, the Secretariat contends that, despite all the attention and money that have been put towards conserving tigers, wild tiger populations are probably at greater risk of extinction today than ever before. Unless the CoP can identify any new approach to the conservation of Asian big cat species, the Secretariat sees little option other than for the Parties to renew their efforts to eliminate illicit trade in specimens of these species. 53. Elephants 53.1 Trade in elephant specimens (Doc. 53.1). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided, pending the outcome of the African elephant range States dialogue meeting and discussions at SC55. This document was submitted by the Secretariat to report on a number of items related to both domestic and international ivory trade. Specifically, the document provides information on accomplishments achieved under the Action Plan for the control of trade in African elephant ivory, adopted at CoP13; the Secretariat's efforts to verify if certain conditions have been met to allow international trade from government-owned ivory stocks for certain countries, in line with the annotation adopted at CoP12; a review of the implementation of ivory trade controls in Zimbabwe; and a number of recent items related to illegal international trade in ivory. The Secretariat will report orally on this subject at CoP14 and make specific recommendations at that time. The United States will formulate its position based on the results of the African elephant range States dialogue meeting and reports expected at SC55 and CoP14. 53.2 Monitoring of illegal trade in ivory and other elephant specimens (Doc. 53.2). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. At the time this notice was prepared, this document had not been posted on the Secretariat's website. 53.3 Monitoring of illegal hunting in elephant range States (Doc. 53.3). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. This document was prepared by the Secretariat to report on progress since CoP13 in implementing the MIKE (Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants) program. At SC54, the Committee agreed that MIKE baseline information was not yet complete (a condition required before the ivory sale agreed at CoP12 may take place) and that the Secretariat should report on the MIKE baseline at SC55. The Secretariat notes in Document CoP14 Doc. 53.3 that the completed baseline information is ready to be presented at SC55. The document discusses MIKE activities since CoP13 and describes the current status of funding for the African and Asian MIKE programs. Although funding has been secured to support the MIKE program in Africa through 2011, the Secretariat is seeking $4 million to support MIKE activities in Asia for the period 2007-2011. The Secretariat will report orally on this subject at CoP14, including information on the outcomes of the baseline discussions at SC54 and fund-raising efforts. The United States will formulate its position based on the results of the African elephant range States dialogue meeting and reports expected at SC55 and CoP14. 53.4 Illegal ivory trade and control of internal markets (Doc. 53.4; Kenya and Mali). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. This document submitted by Kenya and Mali is intended to support CoP14 Prop. 6. Document CoP14 Doc. 53.4 chronicles ivory seizures since CoP13 and provides information on domestic ivory markets around the world. Kenya and Mali propose amendments to Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP12), including a recommendation that Parties whose elephant populations are listed in Appendix I not introduce proposals to transfer those populations to Appendix II for a period of 20 years and a 20-year moratorium on ivory trade from Appendix-II populations, except for non-commercial trade in hunting trophies and the sale approved at CoP12. The document also includes a draft decision urging ivory-importing countries and others to provide financial and technical support for implementation of the Action Plan for the control of trade in African elephant ivory. We appreciate the position of Kenya and Mali relative to conservation efforts for African elephants. However, we note that a 20-year ban on listing proposals may be contrary to Article XV of the Treaty, which provides for any Party to propose an amendment to Appendix I or II at any CoP. The United States will formulate its final position based on the results of the African elephant range States dialogue meeting and reports expected at SC55 and CoP14. 54. Rhinoceroses (Doc. 54). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support in principle, but financial decisions are still undecided. In Document CoP14 Doc. 54, the Secretariat reports on the outcome of the projects undertaken by IUCN and TRAFFIC related to the conservation of and trade in African and Asian rhinoceroses. The Secretariat proposes to incorporate the reporting role of the IUCN/SSC African and Asian Rhino Specialist Groups and TRAFFIC into Resolution Conf. 9.14 (Rev. CoP13). The Secretariat also proposes two draft decisions related to the continued illegal trade in rhinoceros horns and one draft decision related to site-based monitoring of rhinoceros populations. The Secretariat notes that there are substantial financial implications associated with adopting its recommendations on this issue. The United States applauds the work undertaken by IUCN and TRAFFIC and supports continued work in combating the illegal hunting and trade in rhinoceroses. However, with regard to the financial implications of adopting the recommendations in the document, we believe that any items related to budgeting and financing activities under CITES must be carefully considered by the Parties in light of other priorities. 55. Tibetan antelope (Doc. 55). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. Resolution Conf. 11.8 (Rev. CoP13) instructed the Standing Committee to undertake a regular review of the enforcement measures taken by the Parties to eliminate illicit trade in Tibetan antelope products on the basis of the CITES Secretariat's report, and to report the results at each meeting of the Conference of the Parties. This document submitted by Secretariat summarizes the report. 56. Saiga antelope (Doc. 56). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support, with additions. This document refers to Decisions 13.27 through 13.35 on saiga antelope, which were to be implemented prior to CoP14. These interconnected decisions were directed to the range States of the saiga antelope (Kazakhstan, Mongolia, the Russian Federation, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, and possibly China), other Parties (specifically those that are important consumers of and traders in saiga products, and those that could act as financial donors) and bodies, the Standing Committee, and the CITES Secretariat to address serious concerns over the continuously deteriorating conservation status of the saiga antelope. This document reports on the progress in accomplishing these decisions over the past 3 years, and recommends additional draft decisions to the Parties to ensure the continued conservation of saiga antelope. The saiga antelope was listed in Appendix II in 1995. The most significant threat to the species is illegal hunting, primarily for the Asian traditional medicine trade. In the document, the Secretariat notes that anti-poaching efforts have intensified in some parts of the saiga's range, and should be extended to its entire range. We wish to underscore the significance of this statement, because poaching continues to impact conservation efforts to restore the saiga population, which decreased from one million to 30,000 animals in the 1990s. According to the Secretariat's document, the Russian Federation is the only range country that has not signed the Memorandum of Understanding

(MoU)for the Conservation, Restoration and Sustainable Use of the Saiga Antelope ( *Saiga tatarica tatarica* ). The MoU contains a Saiga Action Plan that calls for measures to restore the habitat and populations of the saiga antelope, and enhance transboundary and international cooperation through, *inter alia* , a regional conservation and management strategy. Therefore, the Secretariat recommends that the Russian Federation sign the MoU as soon as possible. The United States has provided financial support for the conservation and protection of the saiga antelope in the wild and for the range States workshop on this species in May 2002 in Kalmykia. We support the Secretariat's recommendations and plan to suggest the inclusion of saiga antelope on the agenda of the Standing Committee meetings between CoP14 and CoP15. 57. Tortoises and freshwater turtles (Doc. 57). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. The United States has been involved in developing CITES listing proposals and policy advice on the trade in tortoises and turtles for a number of years. While we generally do not have an objection to the amendments suggested by the Secretariat—provided they are endorsed by consensus by the Asian range and trading States—we are concerned that the CITES Parties have not paid sufficient attention to these trade problems after listing a number of Asian turtle species in Appendix II at CoPs 12 and 13. Due to the continuing and evolving trade in these species in Asia, including farming practices that may negatively impact wild populations, the United States believes that additional study and discussion of these problems is needed, and we plan to introduce this point at CoP14. 58. Hawksbill turtle (Doc. 58). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. We agree with the Secretariat that no further action is needed. No funding was found for the convening of a workshop to develop a collaborative regional strategy for the conservation of hawksbill sea turtles, perhaps because it is regulation of international trade and not management that is the main responsibility of CITES. However, the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, at its last meeting passed a resolution calling for a workshop to evaluate the current status of hawksbill sea turtle populations in the Wider Caribbean and Western Atlantic, and to present the best available methods of research and conservation for the species. The United States will announce its support for the IAC workshop and recommend that CITES collaborate with this and other relevant bodies concerning this species such as the Caribbean Environment Program. 59. Sharks 59.1 Report of the Animals Committee (Doc. 59.1). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support with exception. The report contains:

(1)A review of implementation issues related to sharks listed in the CITES Appendices, to provide assistance to Parties in managing the species covered by the Convention;

(2)information on specific cases where trade is having an adverse impact on sharks and the key species of sharks affected in this way; and

(3)a listing and analysis of those species that are specifically threatened by trade. The proposal contains a large number of wide-ranging decisions and recommendations. As indicated by the Secretariat, at CoP14 a working group will review and edit the draft decisions; prioritize and rationalize the proposed measures; minimize overlapping instructions; look into reducing and simplifying the reporting burden; and assess the cost of implementing the draft decisions. The United States will work to ensure that this work is completed. 59.2 Additional conservation measures (Doc. 59.2; Australia). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. This document states that, while the report from the Animals Committee to this meeting of the Conference of the Parties contains a number of useful suggestions for consideration to protect and conserve sharks, additional measures should be considered under the agenda item addressing sharks. These measures include:

(1)That countries with National Plans of Action (NPOA-Sharks) strongly encourage the remaining shark-fishing countries to develop and implement NPOA-Sharks;

(2)that regional fishing management organizations implement regional plans of action; and

(3)that Parties greatly improve their data collection and reporting. The United States is one of the 16 countries that have implemented a NPOA-Sharks and is a lead country for promoting the sustainable use of shark resources. 59.3 Trade measures regarding the porbeagle *Lamna nasus* and the spiny dogfish *Squalus acanthias* (Doc. 59.3; Germany, on behalf of the European Community Member States). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. This document will be considered if proposals for listing porbeagle and spiny dogfish in Appendix II are adopted. The document contains a draft decision that, if adopted, would direct the Animals Committee, in consultation with the FAO and other relevant experts, to examine trade in porbeagles and spiny dogfish and report at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The Secretariat believes Resolution Conf. 12.6 on Conservation and Management of Sharks already directs the Animals Committee to make species-specific recommendations to the Conference of the Parties, if necessary, on improving the conservation status of sharks and the regulation of international trade in these species. FAO has been present at each of the recent meetings of the Animals Committee and has assisted the Committee in discussions on marine fish species, including sharks. 60. Sturgeons and Paddlefish 60.1 Report of the Secretariat (Doc. 60.1). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* No position is necessary; the CoP is asked to note the report. This document was prepared by the Secretariat to report on progress made in developing a trade database for sturgeon specimens subject to annual quotas (Decisions 13.44-13.47) and other activities related to sturgeon conservation. 60.2 Amendment of Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP13) 60.2.1 Proposal of the Standing Committee's Working Group on Sturgeons (Doc. 60.2.1; Islamic Republic of Iran). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support some provisions; oppose others. Two documents (CoP14 Doc. 60.2.1 and CoP14 Doc. 60.2.2) contain proposed amendments to the resolution on conservation and trade of sturgeons and paddlefish (Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP13)) and should be considered together. Document CoP14 Doc. 60.2.1 was submitted by the Islamic Republic of Iran, on behalf of the Standing Committee's working group on sturgeons, and Document CoP14 Doc. 60.2.2 was submitted by the Russian Federation. We fully support some of the changes proposed, including a reduction of the personal effects exemption for caviar from 250g to 125g, but we have serious concerns about others, including the proposed extension of the timeframe established at CoP13 for export of caviar from shared stocks. The United States has participated in past working groups on this issue, including the group established at SC54. Document CoP14 Doc. 60.2.1 includes text that was not agreed to by the working group and will require further discussion at the CoP. We expect that a working group will be established at CoP14, and we plan to continue to participate fully on this important issue. We will develop a final position based on the outcome of discussions at CoP14. 60.2.2 Proposal of the Russian Federation (Doc. 60.2.2). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* See discussion on Document CoP14 Doc. 60.2.1 above. 61. Toothfish: report of CCAMLR (Doc. 61). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. At CoP12, the Parties adopted Resolution Conf. 12.4, Cooperation between CITES and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) regarding trade in toothfish, that encouraged CCAMLR to “maintain a permanent flow of information” to CITES through the Conference of the Parties. Document CoP14 Doc. 61 is CCAMLR's report to the CoP and contains four recommendations for the Conference of the Parties to:

(1)request four particular CITES Parties that are either involved in illegal, unregulated, and unreported

(IUU)fishing for toothfish or engaged in toothfish trade without having fully implemented CCAMLR conservation measures to report their position regarding implementing Resolution Conf. 12.4 for consideration at the next CCAMLR annual meeting;

(2)notify CITES Parties whose fishing vessels are engaged in IUU fishing for toothfish that their actions seriously undermine the objectives of CCAMLR; and

(3)reinforce the provision of Resolution Conf. 12.4 that recommends that CITES Parties that capture or trade in toothfish adhere to CCAMLR if they have not already done so and, in any case, cooperate voluntarily with its conservation measures, particularly the catch documentation scheme (CDS). The United States recognizes the threat that IUU fishing poses to toothfish populations and fully supports adoption of CCAMLR conservation measures by all countries involved in the toothfish trade. We renew our full endorsement and strong support of the fundamental principles and language adopted in Resolution Conf. 12.4 in 2002. 62. Sea cucumbers (Doc. 62). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. This document fulfills the decision of the last CoP, that the Animals Committee should prepare, for consideration at the 14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties, a discussion paper on the biological and trade status of sea cucumbers to provide scientific guidance on the actions needed to secure their conservation status. The United States has actively participated in this process and will continue to do so. 63. Trade in traditional medicines (Doc. 63; Australia). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. In its document, Australia recommends a number of revisions to Resolution Conf. 10.19 (Rev. CoP12) (Traditional medicines), primarily aimed at encouraging Parties to pursue the development and use of alternative ingredients in traditional medicines as a preferred alternative to breeding Appendix-I species in captivity for commercial purposes. The United States shares Australia's concerns regarding the potential for creating or increasing demand for wild Appendix-I species by using captive-bred specimens in traditional medicines. 64. Bigleaf mahogany: Report of the Working Group (Doc. 64). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. In Document CoP14 Doc. 64, prepared by the Chairman of the Plants Committee with the assistance of the Chairman of the Bigleaf Mahogany Working Group (BMWG), the Plants Committee recommends adoption of a number of new draft decisions related to the continuation of the BMWG under the Plants Committee and the interpretation of the annotations for tree species listed in the Appendices. Additionally, the Plants Committee recommends a draft decision directed to the Plants Committee that it review at its 17th meeting (anticipated to be held in April 2008) range State reports on implementation of the CITES listing for bigleaf mahogany and consider whether there is a need to include the species in the Review of Significant Trade. The United States supports the continuation of the BMWG under the Plants Committee, but believes that, if by the 17th meeting of the Plants Committee (PC17), sufficient progress has not been made in improving the regulation of trade, the species should be included in the Review of Significant Trade as a matter of urgency. 65. Report of the Central Africa Bushmeat Working Group (Doc. 65). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. Document CoP14 Doc. 65 presents the Coordinator's report of the Central Africa Bushmeat Working Group in fulfillment of Decision 13.102 on progress in implementing national action plans relating to the trade in bushmeat and other initiatives regarding this issue. The United States has supported the work of the Working Group since its inception and applauds the progress the group has made in supporting the development of national strategies and action plans to combat international commercial bushmeat trade. Amendment of the Appendices 66. Periodic review of the Appendices (Doc. 66). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. The Review of the Appendices is an activity conducted by the Animals and Plants Committees to ensure that the CITES Appendices continue to accurately reflect the biological and trade status of species included in the Appendices. This document recounts efforts by the Animals and Plants Committees, with the involvement of the Standing Committee, to establish an objective and efficient process for selecting species for review. Although the two technical committees, through a working group, developed a “rapid assessment” technique for selecting species for review, this procedure was subsequently determined to not be practicable for selecting a workable list of species for review. The Animals and Plants Committees have suggested that further work is needed to develop a process for selecting species for review, and are proposing that the work done thus far should be used as a starting point for further refining and finalizing these efforts. 68. Proposals to Amend Appendices I and II (Doc. 68) *Prop. 1.* Transfer of *Nycticebus* spp. from Appendix II to Appendix I. Proposed by Cambodia. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. Slow lorises ( *Nycticebus* spp.) are prosimians, an ancient group of primates. The genus is widely distributed in at least 14 South and Southeast Asian countries. Large-scale deforestation has reduced the habitat for *Nycticebus* species, and thus it can be inferred that the genus has undergone a reduction in overall population numbers. In September 2006, the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group revised its classification of *Nycticebus* species based on the IUCN Red List criteria and recommended that all species now be considered Vulnerable or Endangered. Recent scientific studies have also revealed that the genus *Nycticebus* contains more species than previously thought, and consequently, the individual species may consist of smaller populations. All species of *Nycticebus* have a low reproductive rate, making them particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Therefore, it seems that the biological criteria are met for listing in Appendix I according to Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP13). The proposal also demonstrates that international trade in species of *Nycticebus* has been, and still is taking place, primarily for medicinal purposes and for use as pets. Although official figures for legal trade are relatively low, much of the trade is illegal, as evidenced by the number of seizures taking place, indicating that the real trade volume is likely to be much higher. *Prop. 3.* Transfer the Ugandan population of leopard ( *Panthera pardus* ) from Appendix I to Appendix II with an annotation that trade is to be allowed for the exclusive purpose of sport hunting for trophies and skins for personal use, to be exported as personal effects; and with an annual export quota of 50 leopards for the whole country. Proposed by Uganda. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Oppose transfer to Appendix II; oppose the proposed export quota of 50 leopards per year. The proposal cites both Resolution Conf. 10.14 (Rev. CoP13) and Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP13) for the approval of an annual export quota of 50 leopards. The proposal is not written in accordance with the format for proposals to amend the Appendices as per Annex 6 to Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP13). As a result, it does not demonstrate that the population in Uganda no longer meets the biological criteria for inclusion in Appendix I or which precautionary measure will be in place. The CITES Secretariat has suggested that Uganda request consideration of this proposal under agenda item 37 (Appendix-I species subject to export quotas) rather than item 68 (Proposals to amend the Appendices). Uganda asserts that the proposed export quota of 50 leopards per year is a precautionary figure that will account for both animal control and sport hunting. The United States, as reflected in the document we submitted for CoP12 on establishing scientifically based quotas and in accordance with Resolution Conf. 9.21 (Rev. CoP13), which calls for establishment of a scientific basis for proposed quotas, is keen to ensure that annual export quotas are established on strong biological data. Although a quota of 50 is considered by Uganda as precautionary, the proposal does not provide any supporting biological information for this figure. Therefore, it cannot be determined whether the population can be sustained under the proposed quota figure. *Prop. 4.* Maintenance of the African elephant ( *Loxodonta africana* ) populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe in Appendix II in terms of Article II, paragraph 2(b), with the replacement of all existing annotations with annotations on trade, export quotas, and proceeds regarding raw ivory. Proposed by Botswana and Namibia. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. The proposal would maintain the populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe in Appendix II with changes to the annotations. The annotations would be replaced to allow the establishment of annual export quotas for trade in raw ivory. The ivory would be sold to trading partners that have been certified by the Secretariat, in consultation with the Standing Committee, and the income from the trade in raw ivory would be used exclusively for elephant conservation and community development programs. The United States will formulate its position based on the results of the African elephant range states dialogue meeting and reports expected at SC55 and CoP14. *Prop. 5.* Amendment of the annotation of the African elephant ( *Loxodonta africana* ) populations of Botswana. Proposed by Botswana. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. This proposal would amend the annotation for Botswana's elephant population from the live animal trade condition “for *in situ* conservation programs” only to “for commercial purposes.” “Trade in leather goods” would be changed from “non-commercial” to “commercial” purposes (as is the case for Namibia and South Africa). Trade in registered raw ivory could only come from registered government-owned stocks originating in Botswana and subject to the conditions of Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP12) concerning domestic manufacturing and trade. A maximum of 40 metric tons of ivory could be traded and exported in a single shipment under strict supervision of the Secretariat. The income of the trade would be used exclusively for elephant conservation and community conservation and development programs within or adjacent to the elephant range. The proposed annotation would allow an immediate “one-off” sale and annual sales of up to 8 metric tons of registered stocks of raw ivory for commercial purposes. The United States will formulate its position based on the results of the African elephant range states dialogue meeting and reports expected at SC55 and CoP14. *Prop. 6.* Amendment of the annotation of the African elephant ( *Loxodonta africana* ) populations of Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa. Proposed by Kenya and Mali. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. This proposal would amend the annotations of the populations of Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa to prohibit trade in raw or worked ivory for 20 years, except for hunting trophies for non-commercial purposes, the one-off sale agreed upon at CoP12, and Namibian ekipas (ivory trinkets) for non-commercial purposes. It also revokes Zimbabwe's annotation to sell ivory carvings for non-commercial purposes. The United States will formulate its position based on the results of the African Elephant Range State Dialogue meeting and reports expected at SC55 and CoP14. *Prop. 8.* Amendment of the annotation of the vicuña ( *Vicugna vicugna* ) population of Bolivia for the exclusive purpose of allowing international trade in wool sheared from live vicuñas, and in cloth and items made thereof, including luxury handicrafts and knitted articles. Proposed by Bolivia. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. In February 2003, Bolivia listed its vicuña population in Appendix II for wool and products derived from sheared live animals of the populations of the Conservation Units of Mauri-Desaguadero, Ulla Ulla, and Lípez-Chichas; and wool products made from sheared live animals of the rest of the population of Bolivia. This proposal would amend the annotation to include the entire Bolivian vicun a population for wool and products. The rest of the annotation remains unchanged. Although the wild population is increasing, we would like an explanation for the decrease in the population of Lípez-Chichas of over 2,000 specimens between 2002 and 2004. *Prop. 9.* Inclusion of Barbary red deer ( *Cervus elaphus barbarus* ) in Appendix I. Proposed by Algeria. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Oppose. The Barbary red deer is considered a subspecies of red deer ( *Cervus elaphus* ) and is confined to Tunisia, Algeria, and a reintroduced population in Morocco. However, recent genetic analysis has indicated that these populations in North Africa are virtually indistinguishable from *C. elaphus corsicanus* in Sardinia, Italy, and the reintroduced population in Corsica, France. One assessment considers all these populations to belong to a separate species, *Cervus corsicanus.* The Barbary red deer has been included in Appendix III at the request of Tunisia since 1976. The subspecies was assessed as “Lower risk/near threatened” by IUCN in 1996. The wild population is reported to have decreased historically, and appears to have a restricted area of distribution. However, it is unclear if the biological criteria are met due to the uncertainty of its taxonomy. According to the proposal, there is no national utilization, no legal or illegal trade, and no actual or potential trade impacts. Therefore, the trade criteria for an Appendix-I listing are not met. Threats are reported to include poaching and forest fires; listing in Appendix I is not likely to benefit the conservation of this species. *Prop. 10.* Inclusion of Cuvier's gazelle ( *Gazella cuvieri* ) in Appendix I. Proposed by Algeria. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Oppose. The Cuvier's gazelle is distributed in Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia in small scattered populations. The species has been included in Appendix III at the request of Tunisia since 1976. The species was assessed by IUCN as “Endangered” in 1996, on the basis that the population numbered below 2,500 mature individuals and was declining. In 2005-2006, the Algerian population was estimated at 500 individuals, and populations were reported to be stable. According to the proposal, there is no national utilization, no legal or illegal trade, and no actual or potential trade impacts. Therefore, the trade criteria for an Appendix-I listing are not met. Threats are reported to include poaching and forest fires; listing in Appendix I is not likely to benefit the conservation of this species. *Prop. 11.* Inclusion of Dorcas gazelle ( *Gazella dorcas* ) in Appendix I. Proposed by Algeria. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Oppose. The Dorcas gazelle has a patchy distribution in at least 19 countries in the arid and sub-arid zones of the Sahelo-Saharan region and in the Near East. The species has been included in Appendix III of CITES at the request of Tunisia since 1976. According to the proposal, the species' population in the wild has declined significantly, perhaps by 50% within the past half-century, due to hunting with motorized vehicles and, to a lesser extent, degradation and disappearance of habitat. The species was assessed as “Vulnerable” by IUCN in 2000, and is included in Appendix I of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). The species does not appear to meet the biological criteria for inclusion in Appendix I, because there is no indication that the species' range is restricted in extent or that the overall population is small. The proposal does not provide any information on trade, and although the CITES trade database shows very low levels of international trade, it is mainly in live specimens, and to a lesser extent body parts and trophies. Therefore, the trade criteria for an Appendix-I listing are not met. Threats are reported to include poaching and overgrazing by cattle. Listing in Appendix I is not likely to benefit the conservation of this species. *Prop. 12.* Inclusion of slender-horned gazelle ( *Gazella leptoceros* ) in Appendix I. Proposed by Algeria. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. The slender-horned gazelle is distributed across eight or nine countries in northern Africa. The species has been included in Appendix III of CITES at the request of Tunisia since 1976. The species was assessed as “Endangered” by IUCN in 1996 and appears to meet the biological criteria for an Appendix-I listing. According to the proposal, threats to the species include motorized hunting and degradation of vegetation. International trade in trophies does occur, but is not well documented. From a precautionary standpoint this species merits inclusion in Appendix I. *Prop. 13.* Transfer of the Brazilian population of black caiman ( *Melanosuchus niger* ) from Appendix I to Appendix II. Proposed by Brazil. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. Brazil submitted this proposal to transfer its population from Appendix I to Appendix II. The population in Brazil comprises approximately 80% of the species' range, is estimated to comprise 16 million individuals, and is increasing. Brazil proposes to harvest 695 specimens per year in the Mamirau? Sustainable Development Reserve. In subsequent years, a harvest quota of 5-7% of the non-hatchling wild population (primarily juvenile males) would be in place throughout Brazil. We have some concerns about the adequacy of safeguards against illegal harvest, uncontrolled exports from Brazil, and possible effects on the species in adjacent range countries. We would also like to hear the opinions of the other range States (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, and Suriname). We note that this species is currently listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, and as such, even if the proposal is adopted, the import of specimens into the United States for commercial purposes would remain prohibited. *Prop. 14.* Transfer Guatemalan beaded lizard ( *Heloderma horridum charlesbogerti* ) from Appendix II to Appendix I. Proposed by Guatemala. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. The Guatemalan beaded lizard is one of four subspecies of beaded lizard, a large venomous species native to Mexico and Guatemala. The Guatemalan beaded lizard is endemic to the Motagua Valley in eastern Guatemala and is considered to be one of the most endangered animals in the world. This subspecies was formally described in 1988, a decade later thought to be extinct in the wild, and then re-discovered in 2002. There are an estimated 170-250 individuals of this subspecies; it is believed to have declined based on the difficulty of locating individuals compared to the 1980s. The major threats to the Guatemalan beaded lizard are habitat destruction, over-collection for local and foreign use, persecution by locals, and effects of hurricanes. Collection and trade in this subspecies are illegal in Guatemala. However, illegal domestic and international trade occur due to the high demand for the subspecies by collectors. Even a small level of trade in this subspecies is significant due to its extremely low population numbers. Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP13) states that split-listing a species should generally be avoided due to the potential enforcement problems it creates, and it states that taxonomic listings below the species level should be avoided unless the taxon in question is highly distinctive and the use of the name would not give rise to enforcement problems. Consultations with experts have revealed that specimens of this subspecies from one year of age to adulthood can be distinguished from other subspecies. Potential identification difficulties of very young animals should not be an issue of concern because only adult specimens have been found in the wild. This subspecies meets the biological and trade criteria for an Appendix-I listing, and prevention of any level of trade in wild specimens of this critically endangered subspecies would contribute significantly to its conservation. *Prop. 15.* Inclusion of porbeagle ( *Lamna nasus* ) in Appendix II with entry into effect of the inclusion to be delayed by 18 months to enable Parties to resolve the related technical and administrative issues. Proposed by Germany, on behalf of the European Community Member States. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. The proponent has cited that the species' life history, vulnerability to overexploitation, inadequate fisheries management, and overfishing as supporting reasons for the proposal. There is not sufficient data in the proposal to support the statement that international trade is one of the driving factors in this species' overfished status or a factor that could prohibit populations from rebounding. Both the United States and Canada are actively managing the species to reduce fishing pressure. It is also not clear whether it is possible (efficient and enforceable) to distinguish porbeagle sharks from other species of sharks in trade. The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)are studying the proposal and consulting with other Parties to develop the U.S. position. *Prop. 16.* Inclusion of spiny dogfish ( *Squalus acanthias* ) in Appendix II with entry into effect of the inclusion to be delayed by 18 months to enable Parties to resolve the related technical and administrative issues. Proposed by Germany, on behalf of the European Community Member States. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. The proponent has cited that the species' life history, vulnerability to overexploitation, inadequate fisheries management, and overfishing as supporting reasons for the proposal. The proposal calls for the listing of the species throughout its range. The Northeast Atlantic stock has suffered a large decline, but a number of other global stocks are currently stable. There are currently both Federal and interstate fishery management plans for spiny dogfish in the United States. The proponent also indicates that population declines in several Northern Hemisphere stocks, combined with high market demand, are driving fishing pressure on other stocks that are now beginning to supply international markets. The proposal contains little information to support this observation. The Service and NMFS are studying the proposal and consulting with other Parties to develop the U.S. position. *Prop. 18.* Inclusion of European eel ( *Anguilla anguilla* ) in Appendix II. Proposed by Germany, on behalf of the European Community Member States. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. The European eel occurs in coastal areas and freshwater ecosystems in Europe, northern Africa, and the Mediterranean parts of Asia. The proponent has cited that the species' complex life history in combination with heavy exploitation in all of its life stages and high fishing mortality, along with habitat loss, pollution, climate change affecting ocean currents, and damming of rivers, as factors that have resulted in sharp population declines. Poaching and illegal trade in European eels is also a concern. However, because the fishery is small in scale and specialized, bycatch of the species is not considered a threat to the species. Although there are various regional management measures in place, there is no regulatory protection mechanism in place to regulate international trade in the European eel. Due to historical and recent declines, as measured from harvest data (e.g., an average 95-99% decline in harvest in 19 rivers in 12 countries), the species appears to meet the criteria in Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP13) for inclusion in Appendix II. However, the similarity of appearance between this species and other eels in the genus *Anguilla,* including the American eel ( *A. rostrata* ), which is also in international trade, presents implementation and enforcement difficulties for such a listing. *Prop. 20.* Inclusion of Brazilian populations of spiny lobster ( *Panulirus argus and P. laevicauda* ) in Appendix II. Proposed by Brazil. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Oppose. The proponent states that the status of these species in Brazilian waters is severely overfished and that overfishing is still occurring mainly due to take of undersized animals. The United States feels strongly that, as the world's largest importer of Brazil's spiny lobsters, we should make every effort to support Brazil for its efforts to conserve and manage spiny lobster in their waters. However, this proposal is not supportable because it would result in a split-listing of the species that would not be enforceable. Enforcement authorities in importing countries would not be able to determine whether spiny lobsters entering their countries were coming from Brazil, and thus required to be accompanied by CITES export permits, or whether they had originated elsewhere. Inclusion of these species in Appendix III throughout their ranges would provide greater conservation benefit and would track the species throughout the Wider Caribbean. The Service and NMFS are consulting bilaterally with the Government of Brazil and multilaterally with other governments in the region to consider additional tools for the conservation of spiny lobster populations. *Prop. 24.* Deletion of leaf-bearing cacti in the genera *Pereskia* and *Quiabentia* from Appendix II. Proposed by Argentina. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. This proposal would remove all species of these leaf-bearing cacti from Appendix II. For some of these species, whose status in the wild is unclear, we are concerned about the impact that unregulated trade may have on these species. *Prop. 25.* Deletion of leaf-bearing cacti in the genus *Pereskiopsis* from Appendix II. Proposed by Mexico. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. This proposal would remove *Pereskiopsis* spp. from Appendix II. We have evaluated this proposal and discussed it directly with the Mexican CITES authorities, and have determined that the removal of this genus from Appendix II should not result in the unsustainable use of these species for trade or enforcement difficulties for regulating trade in other species due to similarity of appearance. *Prop. 26.* Merging and amendment of annotations #1, #4 and #8 for cacti ( *Cactaceae* spp. (#4)) and orchids ( *Orchidaceae* spp. (#8)) in Appendix II, and all taxa annotated with annotation #1. Proposed by Switzerland. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Oppose. This proposal was produced outside the process that was established by the Plants Committee, at the direction of the Parties, to streamline the annotations for CITES-listed medicinal plants. The proposed language broadens the exemptions as well as the taxa exempted, while providing little information on the impact of unregulated trade on the species. In particular, we note that inclusion of provisions to exempt leaves did not receive support from the Plants Committee when discussed at its 15th meeting (PC15), and the proposed provision to exempt herbarium specimens has been previously rejected by the Parties as not being consistent with the terms of the Convention. *Prop. 27.* Amendment of the annotations to *Adonis vernalis, Guaiacum* species, *Hydrastis canadensis, Nardostachys grandiflora, Panax ginseng, Panax quinquefolius, Picrorhiza kurrooa, Podophyllum hexandrum, Pterocarpus santalinus, Rauvolfia serpentina, Taxus chinensis, T. fuana, T. cuspidata, T. sumatrana* , and *T. wallichiana,* Orchidaceae species in Appendix II, and all Appendix-II and -III taxa annotated with annotation #1. Proposed by Switzerland as the Depositary Government, at the request of the Plants Committee. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. This document was produced by consensus of the Medicinal Plant Annotations Working Group (MPAWG) in consultation with the Plants Committee, under the direction of the Conference of the Parties, to assess the effectiveness of and streamline the annotations for CITES-listed medicinal plants (CoP13: Decisions 13.50-13.52). The proposal clarifies terms and tracks currently exempted material believed to be in trade, without expanding upon the exemptions for species. *Prop. 29.* Amendment of the annotation to *Euphorbia* species. Proposed by Switzerland. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Oppose. As currently written, the annotation is difficult to understand and may provide the opportunity to exclude wild-collected specimens from CITES controls. *Prop. 30.* Inclusion of pernambuco ( *Caesalpinia echinata* ) in Appendix II, including all parts and derivatives. Proposed by Brazil. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support on the condition that the proposal will be amended at the CoP to exempt a limited quantity of manufactured musical bows for personal use (e.g., by professional musicians), or something similar. Pernambuco is the primary wood used to make fine bows for stringed musical instruments, for which there is no other comparable wood substitute. Pernambuco is a slow-growing tropical tree restricted to the Atlantic Coastal Forest of Brazil. Since 1992, the species has been listed as threatened in Brazil, and is categorized as endangered by the IUCN. Although Brazil has strict national controls in place that regulate the use of this species, the species and its Atlantic Forest habitat remain poorly protected, and enforcement of environmental laws is constrained by the availability of financial and human resources. Conservationists, and bow makers and musicians worldwide are concerned about the conservation and sustainable use of existing stocks of pernambuco. Several entities (e.g., the International Pernambuco Conservation Initiative) are actively working in Brazil to promote conservation and reforestation of pernambuco. The listing of pernambuco in Appendix II would support the efforts undertaken by the Brazilian Government to ensure that trade is both legal and sustainable by requiring specimens in trade to have CITES permits. However, given the number of existing bows worldwide, a listing of the species that includes all parts and derivatives may be overly burdensome on traveling musicians without providing substantial conservation benefit. We will work with Brazil and other Parties on this proposal to promote the conservation of this species while avoiding unnecessary constraints on products already in trade. *Prop. 31.* Inclusion of rosewood or cocobola ( *Dalbergia retusa* ) in Appendix II, and *D. granadillo* for look-alike reasons. Proposed by Germany, on behalf of the European Community Member States. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. *Dalbergia retusa* is a slow-growing tree of tropical dry forests from Mexico to Panama; *D. granadillo* occurs in El Salvador and Mexico. *Dalbergia retusa* has been extensively harvested, and some areas are reported to be commercially exhausted. The United States imports rosewood, which is used primarily for the production of musical instruments. We are evaluating this proposal to determine if it meets the requirements for inclusion in Appendix II. The positions of range countries on this proposal are critical to the development of our position, and therefore, we are currently consulting with them on this proposal to determine how we can best work cooperatively for the conservation and sustainable use of this species. *Prop. 32.* Inclusion of Honduras rosewood ( *Dalbergia stevensonii* ) in Appendix II. Proposed by Germany, on behalf of the European Community Member States. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. Honduran rosewood is restricted to swamp forests of southern Belize, northern Guatemala, and southeastern Mexico. The United States imports rosewood, which is used primarily for the production of musical instruments. We are evaluating this proposal to determine if it meets the requirements for inclusion in Appendix II. The positions of range countries on this proposal are critical to the development of our position, and therefore, we are currently consulting with them on this proposal to determine how we can best work cooperatively for the conservation and sustainable use of this species. *Prop. 33.* Inclusion of the genus *Cedrela* in Appendix II. Proposed by Germany, on behalf of the European Community Member States. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Undecided. The proposal would include Spanish cedar ( *C. odorata* ), and all other species in the genus *Cedrela* (an estimated six species) for look-alike reasons, in Appendix II. Spanish cedar is a wide-ranging species of lowland forests in the Caribbean Islands, Central America, Mexico, and South America. In 2001, Colombia and Peru included their populations of Spanish cedar in Appendix III, with annotation #5, which designates logs, sawn wood and veneer sheets. Since this listing, exports of Spanish cedar from Peru to the United States have increased. We are consulting with the range countries to clarify the support for, and the anticipated effects of, this proposal. We will work with range countries and other Parties on this proposal to promote sustainable forest management and conservation of this species. *Prop. 34.* Amendment of the annotation to exempt certain artificially propagated hybrids of Orchidaceae (interspecific and intergeneric hybrids of *Cymbidium, Dendrobium, Miltonia, Odontoglossum, Oncidium, Phalaenopsis* and *Vanda* ) included in Appendix II. Proposed by Switzerland. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Oppose. This proposal would merge existing taxon-specific exemptions on the Orchidaceae family, but more importantly would broaden exemptions for artificially propagated hybrids to include the genera *Miltonia, Odontoglossum,* and *Oncidium* . There are concerns that the exemption of New World genera would create enforcement problems for range countries, a sentiment that was previously raised at CoP12 and CoP13. *Prop. 35.* Amendment of the annotation to exempt certain artificially propagated hybrids of Orchidaceae (interspecific and intergeneric hybrids of *Cymbidium, Dendrobium, Phalaenopsis,* and *Vanda* ) included in Appendix II. Proposed by Switzerland as the Depositary Government, at the request of the Plants Committee. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support. This proposal would replace confusing language in the existing taxon-specific orchid hybrid exemptions (referred to as footnote 8) with language proposed and agreed upon by consensus of the Plants Committee. *Prop. 37.* Deletion of the current annotation for *Taxus chinensis, T. fuana,* and *T. sumatrana,* and adoption of a new annotation for *T. cuspidata* in Appendix II. Proposed by Switzerland, as Depositary Government, at the request of the Standing Committee. *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Support Part A; oppose Part B of the proposal. The adoption of Part A of this proposal would delete the annotation to exempt labeled, potted artificially propagated plants of *T. chinensis, T. fuana,* and *T. sumatrana* from CITES regulations. Adoption of Part B would add a new annotation to the listing of *T. cuspidata* to exempt labeled, potted artificially propagated plants of hybrids and cultivars of the species from CITES regulations. This proposal seeks to rectify the adoption of an annotation at CoP13 for these taxa, which was subsequently determined to contravene the provisions of the Convention. However, it is the opinion of the United States that this proposal is similarly flawed in that it allows an exemption for whole plants or artificially propagated hybrids and cultivars of *T. cuspidata,* but does not exempt readily recognizable parts and derivatives. Conclusion of the Meeting 69. Determination of the time and venue of the next regular meeting of the Conference of the Parties (no document). *Tentative U.S. negotiating position:* Not applicable. The Secretariat does not normally circulate a document on the time and venue of the next CoP. We anticipate receiving information on this at CoP14, at which time the United States will develop a negotiating position. The United States favors holding CoP15 in a country where all Parties and observers will be admitted without political difficulties, and where facilities are available to ensure the safe and efficient conduct of the meeting. 70. Closing Remarks (No document) Future Actions During our regular public briefings at CoP14, we will discuss any changes in our negotiating positions. After CoP14, we will publish a notice to invite public input on whether the United States should take a reservation on any of the amendments to the CITES Appendices. Whereas CITES provides a period of 90 days from the close of a CoP for any Party to enter a reservation with respect to an amendment to Appendix I or II, the United States has never entered a reservation on any CITES listing. As discussed in the **Federal Register** notice of November 17, 1987 (52 FR 43924), entering a reservation would do very little to relieve importers in the United States from the need for foreign export permits because the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371 * et seq.* ) make it a Federal offense to import into the United States any animals taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of foreign conservation laws. If the foreign nation has enacted CITES, and has not taken a reservation with regard to any species, part, or derivative, the United States would continue to require CITES documents as a condition of import. A reservation by the United States also would provide exporters in this country with little relief from the need for U.S. export documents. Receiving countries that are party to CITES will require CITES-equivalent documentation from the United States even if it enters a reservation, because the Parties have agreed to allow trade with non-Parties (including reserving countries) only if they issue documents containing all of the information required on CITES permits and certificates, and only if the same findings have been made prior to issuance of the documents. **Author:** This notice was prepared by Clifton A. Horton, Division of Management Authority; under the authority of the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Dated: May 24, 2007. Kenneth Stansell, Acting Director. [FR Doc. 07-2714 Filed 5-29-07; 11:34 am]

Connectionstraces to 22

Traces to 22 documents

U.S. Code