Proposed Rules. Proposed rule
13,110 words·~60 min read·
/register/2007/06/27/07-3152·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 07-2393; MB Docket No. 07-1; RM-11356] Radio Broadcasting Services; Hemet, CA AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rulemaking filed by Southern California Public Radio, requesting the reservation of vacant Channel 273A at Hemet, California for noncommercial educational use. The reference coordinates are 33-44-44 NL and 116-59-18 WL.
The document also requests specific comment on whether a rulemaking proponent may use actual terrain pursuant to Section 73.313 of the Commission's Rules to calculate first and second NCE service benefits in connection with NCE allotment reservation requests. DATES: Comments must be filed on or before July 30, 2007, and reply comments on or before August 14, 2007. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner as follows:
Todd M. Stansbury, Esq., Counsel for Southern California Public Radio, Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, 1776 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau,
(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 07-1, adopted June 6, 2007, and released June 8, 2007. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160, or *http://www.BCPIWEB.COM.* This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all *ex parte* contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible *ex parte* contacts. For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under California, is amended by removing Channel 273A and adding Channel *273A at Hemet. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E7-12151 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 177 [Docket No. FMCSA-02-11650 (HM-232A)] RIN 2137-AD70 Security Requirements for Motor Carriers Transporting Hazardous Materials AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT. ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM); withdrawal. SUMMARY: This withdrawal advises the public that the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA)of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS)has assumed the lead role from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) for rulemaking addressing the security of motor carrier shipments of hazardous materials under this docket. Accordingly, PHMSA is withdrawing the ANPRM issued under this docket and closing its rulemaking proceeding. This action is consistent with and supportive of the respective transportation security roles and responsibilities of the Department of Transportation and DHS as delineated in a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU)signed September 28, 2004, and of TSA and PHMSA as outlined in an Annex to that MOU signed August 7, 2006. PHMSA will continue to consider alternatives for enhancing the safety of explosives stored during transportation under another rulemaking docket. PHMSA will consult and coordinate with TSA on hazardous materials transportation security issues in accordance with the PHMSA-TSA Annex. DATES: The ANPRM published at 67 FR 46622, July 16, 2002, is withdrawn as of June 27, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Gorsky or Ben Supko, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, telephone
(202)366-8553. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. Joint PHMSA-FMCSA ANPRM On July 16, 2002 (67 FR 46622), the Research and Special Programs Administration (predecessor to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) jointly published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking comments on the feasibility, costs, and benefits of requiring motor carriers that transport hazardous materials to employ certain enhanced security measures. Specific measures discussed in the ANPRM included escorts, vehicle tracking and monitoring systems, emergency warning systems, remote ignition shut-offs, direct short-range communications, notification to state and local authorities, and safe havens for the temporary storage of explosives during transportation. We received over 80 sets of comments in response to the ANPRM. Commenters encouraged DOT to apply enhanced security measures only to those materials presenting a significant security risk and expressed various views on the merits of particular security measures, as summarized in the following section. As a result of PHMSA's expanded authority to regulate hazardous materials transportation security, granted to PHMSA under section 1711 of the Homeland Security Act, FMCSA issued a notice on March 19, 2003 (68 FR 13250) that transferred any future action on Docket HM-232A to PHMSA. B. Summary of Comments on Issues Discussed in ANPRM *Escorts.* Most commenters oppose armed escorts, whether on the vehicle itself or accompanying the vehicle. Many commenters suggest armed escorts could actually increase the vulnerability of a shipment by drawing attention to the vehicle and because of the increased number of stops a support vehicle would be required to make. Most commenters also express concern that the use of escorts would be cost prohibitive and could result in carriers refusing shipments for which escorts would be required. Commenters also expressed concern about logistical problems and higher insurance premiums (related to liability issues associated with armed escorts). Finally, commenters suggest “mixing” firearms and hazardous materials in transportation could increase safety problems because firearms are a potential source of ignition for explosives and certain other types of hazardous materials. *Pre-notification.* Most commenters oppose pre-notification of state and/or local governments of planned shipments of hazardous materials. Commenters suggest a pre-notification requirement would overload emergency responders with information and likely detract from their ability to respond promptly and efficiently to an incident or accident. Commenters note it is unlikely emergency response organizations have the personnel or resources necessary to manage the volume of information that would be received. Commenters also express concern that a pre-notification requirement could actually compromise security by making shipment information more widely available than would otherwise be the case. Shippers and carriers would be required to provide load-specific information (e.g., product name and hazard, routing, timing), which would then be disseminated to a variety of individuals and organizations. The opportunity for disclosure, whether deliberate or inadvertent, would be high. Commenters note volunteer emergency response organizations conduct virtually no security background checks. Finally, commenters outline a number of operational concerns, including handling road detours and route changes, related to increasing transportation times and adverse affects on supply chains for a host of industries that rely on “just-in-time” deliveries to manage inventories. *Safe Havens.* A “safe haven” is an area specifically approved in writing by Federal, state, or local government authorities for the parking of unattended vehicles containing Division 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 explosive materials (49 CFR 397.5(d)(3)). The competent local authority having jurisdiction over the area generally makes the decision as to what constitutes a safe haven. There are no Federal standards for safe havens. Commenters support the continued use of safe havens, but recommend DOT develop Federal standards to provide details on the construction, maintenance, availability, and use of safe havens. Without clearly defined standards to follow, commenters state any future reliance on safe havens may actually make the hazardous materials stored there more susceptible to safety and security threats than if they were stored at other locations. Due to the complexity of the safe haven issue and commenter response, PHMSA and FMCSA decided to split the safe havens issue from the other enhanced security measures proposed in the ANPRM by placing it in a separate docket (HM-238). On November 16, 2005, PHMSA published an ANPRM (70 FR 69493) to solicit additional comments on the safety and security issues associated with the storage of explosives during transportation and the need for additional regulatory requirements. The ANPRM includes summaries of current government and industry standards applicable to such storage. We are currently evaluating the comments received in response to this ANRPM to determine whether additional rulemaking is warranted. *Vehicle tracking and monitoring systems, emergency warning systems, remote shut-offs, and direct short range communications.* In December 2004, FMCSA completed a two-year national field operational test of existing technologies that could offer solutions to enhance the security of motor carrier shipments of hazardous materials. The test evaluated the costs, benefits, and operational processes required for wireless communications systems, including GPS tracking and digital telephones; in-vehicle technologies, such as on-board computers, panic buttons, and electronic cargo seals; personal identification systems, including biometrics and a user name/password system; and vehicle tracking, including geofencing and trailer tracking systems. The tested technologies performed well under operational conditions and showed promise for significantly reducing security vulnerabilities. II. DOT/PHMSA and DHS/TSA Transportation Security Responsibilities The Federal hazardous materials transportation law (Federal hazmat law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., as amended by § 1711 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296 and Title VII of the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)) authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Transportation to “prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including security, of hazardous material in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.” The Secretary has delegated this authority to PHMSA. The Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) promulgated by PHMSA under the mandate in section 5103(b), govern safety aspects, including security, of the transportation of hazardous materials. Under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), Public Law 107-71, 115 Stat. 597 (November 19, 2001), and delegated authority from the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS), the Assistant Secretary of DHS for TSA has broad responsibility and authority for “security in all modes of transportation” (49 U.S.C. 114(d)).” ATSA authorizes TSA to take immediate action to protect against threats to transportation security. TSA's authority over the security of transportation stems from several provisions of 49 U.S.C. 114. In executing its responsibilities and duties, TSA is specifically empowered to develop policies, strategies and plans for dealing with threats to transportation (49 U.S.C. 114(f)(3)). As part of its security mission, TSA is responsible for assessing intelligence and other information in order to identify individuals who pose a threat to transportation security and to coordinate countermeasures with other Federal agencies to address such threats (49 U.S.C. 114(f)(1)-(5), (h)(1)-(4)). TSA is also mandated to enforce security-related regulations and requirements (49 U.S.C. 114(f)(7)); ensure the adequacy of security measures for the transportation of cargo (49 U.S.C. 114(f)(10)); oversee the implementation and ensure the adequacy of security measures at transportation facilities (49 U.S.C. 114(f)(11)); and carry out other appropriate duties relating to transportation security (49 U.S.C. 114(f)(15)). TSA serves as the primary liaison for transportation security to the intelligence and law enforcement communities (49 U.S.C. 114(f)(1) and (5)). In sum, TSA's authority with respect to transportation security is comprehensive and supported with specific powers related to the development and enforcement of regulations, security directives, security plans, and other requirements. Accordingly, under this authority, TSA may identify a security threat to any mode of transportation, develop a measure for dealing with that threat, and enforce compliance with that measure. As is evident from the above discussion, DHS and DOT share responsibility for hazardous materials transportation security. The two departments consult and coordinate on security-related hazardous materials transportation requirements to ensure they are consistent with the overall security policy goals and objectives established by DHS and that the regulated industry is not confronted with inconsistent security guidance or requirements promulgated by multiple agencies. On September 28, 2004, DOT and DHS signed a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU)on Roles and Responsibilities. The purpose of the MOU is to facilitate the development and deployment of transportation security measures that promote safety, security, and efficiency in the movement of people and goods. The MOU recognizes that DHS has primary responsibility for security in all modes of transportation. In this regard, DHS will establish national security performance goals, and, to the extent practicable, develop appropriate transportation security measures to achieve an integrated national transportation security system. On August 7, 2006, PHMSA and TSA signed an annex to the September 28, 2004 DOT-DHS MOU. The Annex acknowledges TSA's lead role in transportation security and that each agency brings core competencies, legal authority, resources, and expertise to their shared mission. The Annex reflects the agencies' commitment to a system risk-based approach and to the development of practical solutions through work teams focused on key program elements, including research and development and the review and development of security standards. In entering into the Annex, PHMSA and TSA pledged to build on and not duplicate the various security initiatives and efforts already underway. III. TSA Hazardous Materials Truck Security Pilot In August 2005, TSA initiated the “TSA Hazardous Materials Truck Security Pilot.” This congressionally mandated pilot program is designed to test the functionality and capabilities of a centralized truck tracking system. The pilot utilizes specific protocols capable of interfacing with existing truck tracking systems, government intelligence centers, and first responders. The goal is to provide TSA with a tested and established truck tracking center that will allow TSA to “continually” track truck locations and specific hazardous materials load types in all 50 states. The tracking system will also allow for automatic or manual notification of exception based events. The TSA Hazardous Materials Truck Security Pilot including the prototype Truck Tracking Center is currently scheduled to operate through Fiscal Year 2007. IV. Withdrawal of PHMSA-FMCSA ANRPM Based on comments to the ANPRM and the results of the FMCSA Field Operational Test, two of the security measures addressed in the ANPRM—use of vehicle tracking and communications systems and anti-theft technologies—appear promising as means of enhancing the security of motor carrier transportation of certain classes and quantities of hazardous materials. In accordance with the DHS-DOT MOU and the PHMSA-TSA Annex, however, PHMSA, FMCSA, and TSA have determined action to address motor carrier security tracking should not be taken prior to the completion of TSA's pilot, and, in any event, be carried out under TSA's legal authority, rather than primarily as an amendment to the HMR. By contrast, the proposals to require use of escorts or a pre-notification system do not appear worthy of further consideration. As mentioned above, PHMSA will continue to address safe havens and other issues related to the storage of explosives during transportation in Docket HM-238. In the meantime, PHMSA will consult and coordinate with TSA on hazardous materials transportation security issues in accordance with the PHMSA-TSA Annex. Accordingly, PHMSA is withdrawing the July 16, 2002 ANPRM and terminating this rulemaking proceeding. Issued in Washington, DC, on June 1, 2007, under authority delegated in 49 CFR Part 1. Theodore L. Willke, Acting Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety. [FR Doc. E7-12404 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 070611120-7120-01; I.D. 032607A] RIN 0648-AU77 Fisheries Off West Coast States; Highly Migratory Species Fisheries AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed rule to implement daily bag limits for sport-caught albacore tuna ( *Thunnus alalunga* ) and bluefin tuna ( *Thunnus orientalis* ) in the Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ)off California under the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP). This proposed rule would be implemented as a conservation measure as part of the 2007-2009 biennial management cycle as established in the HMS FMP Framework provisions for changes to routine management measures. DATES: Comments must be received by July 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this notice, identified by I.D. 032607A, by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *0648-AU77.SWR@noaa.gov* . Include the I.D. number in the subject line of the message. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Rodney R. McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213. • Fax:
(562)980-4047. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Heberer, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, 760-431-9440, ext. 303. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 7, 2004, NMFS published a final rule to implement the HMS FMP (69 FR 18444) that included annual specification guidelines at 50 CFR 660.709. These guidelines establish a process for the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) to take final action at its regularly-scheduled November meeting on any necessary harvest guideline, quota, or other management measure and recommend any such action to NMFS. At their November 12-17, 2006, meeting, the Council adopted a recommendation to establish daily bag limits for sport caught albacore and bluefin tuna harvested in the EEZ off of California as a routine management measure for the 2007-2009 biennial management cycle. NMFS is initiating rulemaking for this action pursuant to procedures established at 50 CFR 660.709(a)(4) of the implementing regulations for the HMS FMP. This proposed rule would establish a daily bag limit of 10 albacore tuna harvested in the U.S. EEZ south of Point Conception (34° 27′ N. latitude) to the U.S.-Mexico border and a daily bag limit of 25 albacore tuna harvested in the U.S. EEZ north of Point Conception to the California-Oregon border. This proposed rule would also establish a daily bag limit of 10 bluefin tuna in the U.S. EEZ off the entire California coast. The two bag limits for albacore tuna are intended to accommodate differences in fishing opportunity in the two regions south and north of Point Conception. The 25 fish albacore tuna bag limit north of Point Conception is consistent with the current albacore tuna bag limit established by the State of Oregon for recreational fisheries in its waters and recognizes the more frequent weather-related loss of fishing opportunity in these waters compared to waters south of Pt. Conception. California State regulations allow, by special permit, the retention of up to three daily bag limits for a trip occurring over multiple, consecutive days. California State regulations also allow for two or more persons angling for finfish aboard a vessel in ocean waters off California to continue fishing until boat limits are reached. NMFS and the Council would consider these additional state restrictions to be consistent with Federal regulations implementing the HMS FMP, including this proposed rule if implemented. If approved, this regulation will stay in effect until such time as the Council and/or NMFS proposes further modifications as part of the HMS FMP biennial management cycle process. The State of California has informed NMFS that it intends to implement companion regulations to impose daily albacore and bluefin bag limits applicable to recreational angling and possession of fish in state waters (0-3 nm). Classification NMFS has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the HMS FMP and preliminarily determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Approximately 165 HMS recreational charter vessels based in California were permitted under the HMS FMP to operate in the HMS recreational fishery off the U.S. West Coast in 2006. The California HMS recreational charter vessels are considered small business entities. The HMS recreational charter fleet based in Oregon does not fish off the coast of California and would therefore not be impacted by this proposed rule. A review of historic recreational fisheries data in ocean waters adjacent to California by recreational anglers, in all marine areas, and all boat-based fishing modes from 1997 through 2005 shows that approximately 98 percent of sampled catches that contained albacore landed less than 10 fish per day. For the 2 percent of trips that would be impacted by this proposed rule, the estimated economic impact equates to a potential expenditure loss of 0.08 percent to 1.0 percent. The data for bluefin tuna catches shows that 100 percent of the 1997 through 2005 sampled catches that landed bluefin contained less than six fish per day therefore potential expenditure loss under this proposed rule would be zero. In addition, the proposed imposition of a daily bag limit for these species would not constrain continued catch-and-release angling should the bag limits be reached further mitigating the potential economic impacts this proposed rule would have on recreational fishermen and small business entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660 Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 21, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 660—FISHERIES OFF THE WEST COAST STATES 1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. A new paragraph
(qq)is added to § 660.705 to read as follows: § 660.705 Prohibitions.
(qq)Take and retain, possess on board, or land, fish in excess of any bag limit specified in § 660.721. 3. Subpart K is amended by adding a new § 660.721 to read as follows: § 660.721 Recreational fishing bag limits.
(a)*General.* This section applies to recreational fishing for HMS management unit species in the U.S. EEZ off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington and in the adjacent high seas areas. In addition to individual fishermen, the operator of a vessel that fishes in the EEZ is responsible for ensuring that the bag limits of this section are not exceeded. The bag limits of this section apply on the basis of each 24-hour period at sea, regardless of the number of trips per day. The provisions of this section do not authorize any person to take more than one daily bag limit of fishing during one calendar day. Federal recreational HMS regulations are not intended to supersede any more restrictive state recreational HMS regulations relating to federally-managed HMS. The bag limits include fish taken in both state and Federal waters.
(1)*Albacore Tuna Daily Bag Limit.* A recreational fisherman may take or retain no more than:
(i)Ten albacore tuna per day in the U.S. EEZ south of a line running due west true from 34° 27′ N. latitude (at Point Conception, Santa Barbara County) to the U.S.-Mexico border.
(ii)Twenty-five albacore tuna per day in waters north of a line running due west true from 34° 27′ N. latitude (at Point Conception, Santa Barbara County) to the California-Oregon border.
(2)*Bluefin Tuna Daily Bag Limit.* A recreational fisherman may take or retain no more than 10 bluefin tuna per day in the U.S. EEZ off the coast of California.
(3)*Possession Limits.* If the State of California requires a multi-day possession permit for albacore or bluefin tuna harvested by a recreational fishing vessel and landed in California, such restrictions would be deemed consistent with Federal law.
(4)*Boat Limits.* Off the coast of California, boat limits apply, whereby each fisherman aboard a vessel may continue to use recreational angling gear until the combined daily limits of HMS for all licensed and juvenile anglers aboard has been attained (additional state restrictions on boat limits may apply). Unless otherwise prohibited, when two or more persons are angling for HMS species aboard a vessel in the EEZ, fishing may continue until boat limits are reached. [FR Doc. E7-12430 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 123 Wednesday, June 27, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 21, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Forest Service *Title:* Volunteer Application for Natural Resource Agencies. *OMB Control Number:* 0596-0080. *Summary of Collection:* The Volunteer Act of 1972, (Pub. L. 92-300) as amended, authorizes Federal land management agencies to use volunteers and volunteer organizations to plan, develop, maintain and manage, where appropriate, trails and campground facilities, improve wildlife habitat, and perform other useful and important conservation services throughout the Nation. Agencies will collect information using the OF 301—Volunteer Application and other forms. *Need and Use of the Information:* Agencies will collect the names, addresses, and certain information about individuals who are interested in public service as volunteers. The information is used by the agencies for the purpose of contacting applicants and interviewing and screening them for volunteer positions and to manage the program. If the information is not collected, participating natural resource agencies will be unable to recruit and/or screen volunteer applicants or administer/run volunteer programs that are crucial to assisting these agencies in fulfilling their missions. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households. *Number of Respondents:* 400,000. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Other (one time). *Total Burden Hours:* 500,000. Forest Service *Title:* Predecisional Objection Process for Hazardous Fuel Reduction Projects Authorized by the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. *OMB Control Number:* 0596-0172. *Summary of Collection:* On December 3, 2003, President Bush signed into law the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to reduce the threat of destructive wildfires while upholding environmental standards and encouraging early public input during review and planning processes. One of the provisions of the Act, in Section 105 requires that not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate interim final regulations to establish a predecisional administrative review process. This process services as the sole means by which a person can seek administrative review regarding an authorized hazardous fuel reduction project on Forest Service
(FS)land. *Need and Use of the Information:* Participants in the predecisional administrative review process must provide information the FS needs to respond to their concern. This written information needs to include the objector's name, address, phone number; the name of the project; name and title of the Responsible Official, the project location; and sufficient narrative description of those parts of the project that are objected to; specific issues related to the proposed decision, and suggested remedies which would resolve the objection. The collected information will be used by the Reviewing Officer in responding to those who participate in the objection process prior to a decision by the Responsible Official. FS could not meet the intent of Congress without collecting this information. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households; State, Local or Tribal Government; Not-for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 121. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 968. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-12385 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0027] ArborGen, LLC; Availability of an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for a Controlled Release of Genetically Engineered Eucalyptus Hybrids AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared an environmental assessment for a proposed controlled field release of genetically engineered clones of *Eucalyptus* hybrids. The purpose of this release is to continue research on two constructs that confer cold tolerance from a previously approved notification and test the efficacy of a third, claimed as confidential business information. After assessing the application, reviewing pertinent scientific information, and considering comments provided by the public, we have concluded that this field release will not present a plant pest risk, nor will it have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Based on its finding of no significant impact, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared for this field release. DATES: *Effective Date:* June 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may read the environmental assessment (EA), finding of no significant impact (FONSI), and any comments we received on the EA in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. The EA, FONSI and decision notice, and responses to comments are available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/06_325111r_ea.pdf* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Levis Handley, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236;
(301)734-5721. To obtain copies of the EA, FONSI, and response to comments, contact Ms. Cynthia Eck at
(301)734-0667; e-mail: *cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.” A permit must be obtained or a notification acknowledged before a regulated article may be introduced. The regulations set forth the permit application requirements and the notification procedures for the importation, interstate movement, or release in the environment of a regulated article. On November 21, 2006, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) received a permit application (APHIS No. 06-325-111r) from ArborGen, LLC, in Summerville, SC, for a controlled field release of genetically engineered *Eucalyptus* hybrids. Under this permit, trees planted under a previously approved notification (05-256-03n) would be allowed to flower. Permit application 06-325-111r describes *Eucalyptus* trees engineered with three constructs. Two of these constructs are intended to confer cold tolerance and the third genetic construct is claimed as confidential business information (CBI). In addition, the trees have been engineered with a selectable marker gene, also claimed as CBI. These DNA sequences were introduced into *Eucalyptus* trees using disarmed *Agrobacterium tumefaciens.* The subject *Eucalyptus* trees are considered regulated articles under the regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because they were created using donor sequences from plant pests. On April 20, 2007, APHIS published a notice 1 in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 19876-19877, Docket No. APHIS 2007-0027) announcing the availability of an environmental assessment
(EA)for a controlled release of genetically engineered *Eucalyptus* hybrids. During the 30-day comment period, which ended May 21, 2007, APHIS received 270 comments. There were 153 comments supporting APHIS granting permit 06-325-111r, the majority of which were nearly identical form letters. Respondents supporting the approval of the permit were foresters, paper and packaging companies, or from related industries, academia, agricultural biotech companies, and individuals. There were 67 respondents who submitted 102 comments opposed to APHIS granting the permit. One opposing comment came in the form of a petition bearing 5,495 signatories. Respondents opposing APHIS granting this permit were primarily from 13 public interest groups; other respondents included academia and individuals. APHIS has addressed the issues raised during the comment period and has provided responses to these comments as an attachment to the finding of no significant impact (FONSI). 1 To view the notice and the comments we received go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* click on the “Advanced Search” tab, and select “Docket Search.” In the Docket ID field, enter APHIS-2007-0027, then click “Submit.” Clicking on the Docket ID link in the search results page will produce a list of all documents in the docket. Pursuant to the regulations promulgated under the Plant Protection Act, APHIS has determined that this field release will not pose a risk of introducing or disseminating a plant pest. Additionally, based upon analysis described in the EA, APHIS has determined that the action proposed in Alternative C of the EA, issue the permit with supplemental permit conditions, will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. You may read the FONSI and decision notice on the Internet or in the APHIS reading room (see ADDRESSES above). Copies may also be obtained from the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts and plant pest risks associated with the proposed release of these *Eucalyptus* trees, an EA and FONSI have been prepared. The EA and FONSI were prepared in accordance with
(1)The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ),
(2)regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508),
(3)USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and
(4)APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of June 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-12532 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0020] Resident Canada Goose Management; Record of Decision AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice advises the public of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's Record of Decision for the Resident Canada Goose Management Final Environmental Impact Statement. ADDRESSES: Copies of the Record of Decision and the Final Environmental Impact Statement on which the Record of Decision is based are available for public inspection at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. The Record of Decision may be viewed on the Wildlife Services Web site at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/ws/ws_nepa_environmental_documents.shtml* . The final environmental impact statement may also be viewed on the Internet at *http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/cangeese/finaleis.htm.* Copies of the Record of Decision and the Final Environmental Impact Statement may be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David S. Reinhold, National Environmental Manager, Operational Support Staff, WS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 87, Riverdale, MD 20737-1235;
(301)734-7921. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice advises the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has prepared a Record of Decision based on the Resident Canada Goose Final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). APHIS was a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS. The USFWS published the notice of availability for the final EIS in the **Federal Register** on November 18, 2005 (70 FR 69985) and published its Record of Decision and Final Rule on August 10, 2006 (71 FR 45964). APHIS has independently reviewed the EIS and has concluded its comments and suggestions have been satisfied. APHIS has now prepared a Record of Decision on the adopted EIS and is making it available to the public. This record of decision has been prepared in accordance with:
(1)The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ),
(2)regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508),
(3)USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1), and
(4)APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of June 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-12447 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation Warehouse Operators Approved Under Commodity Credit Corporation Storage Agreements—CCC Policy on Making Payments and Interest on Delayed Payments AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC)pays warehouse operators approved under the Uniform Grain and Rice Storage Agreement, Peanut Storage Agreement, Cotton Storage Agreement and the Sugar Storage Agreement storage, handling, and other associated costs for commodities forfeited to CCC. Payments made by CCC are subject to the Prompt Payment Act of 1982, as amended; the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996; and the Federal Acquisition Regulations. To be fully compliant with these regulations, effective June 30, 2007, warehouse operators will be required to certify CCC payment invoices before the release of payment funds by CCC. DATES: *Effective Date:* June 30, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Froehlich, Chief, Program Development Branch, Warehouse and Inventory Division, Farm Service Agency, USDA, STOP 0553, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0553. Telephone:
(202)720-2121. E-mail: *Howard.Froehlich@wdc.usda.gov.* Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Target Center at
(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CCC acquires title to agricultural commodities in the administration of its programs under various circumstances. For instance, under Title I of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, CCC makes marketing assistance loans to producers that can lead to forfeiture of the commodities to CCC. To provide for the storage of various commodities it acquires, CCC enters into storage agreements with private warehouse operators. Section 5 of the CCC Charter Act (7 U.S.C. 714c) requires that in purchasing, selling, warehousing, transporting, or handling agricultural commodities, CCC is to use, to the maximum extent practicable, the usual and customary channels, facilities, and arrangements of trade and commerce. In contracting for warehouse services, CCC must be compliant with the Prompt Payment Act of 1982, as amended; the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996; and the Federal Acquisition Regulations. To be fully compliant with these regulations, effective June 30, 2007, warehouse operators will be required to certify CCC payment invoices before the release of payment funds by CCC. CCC periodically prepares and issues invoices and payments for accrued storage and handling charges for warehouse-stored CCC-owned commodities recorded into CCC's inventory or forfeited to CCC through warehouse operators operating under the terms and conditions of a CCC Storage Agreement. This Notice announces a change in the method used by warehouse operators for invoice certification and in the timing of payments made by CCC. All invoices must be reviewed and certified by the warehouse operator before payments can be made. Endorsement of the certification of the invoice represents the warehouse operator's verification that the charges represented by the invoice and disbursement are due and owing. Criminal and civil penalties may be assessed for false certification. Periodic invoices will continue to be prepared by CCC; however, payments will now be made only after review, correction, and certification by the warehouse operator. Currently, quarterly invoices are prepared representing storage and handling charges for warehouse-stored CCC-owned grain, cotton, and peanut stocks already recorded into CCC's inventory or forfeited to CCC during the quarterly period. When issuing quarterly periodic invoices, CCC will provide warehouse operators access to the quarterly periodic invoice through a secure Web site for review and electronic certification of the invoice(s). Warehouse operators will receive an e-mail notification when invoices are available for review and grain. Grain and peanut warehouse operators can go to the ED3 website: *http://pcsd.usda.gov:3076/finance/* to review and certify the invoices for accuracy. Cotton warehouse operators can go to the Cotton Online Processing System
(COPS)website: *http://www.fsa.usda.gov/cotton.* If the warehouse operator believes the amount owed by CCC in the invoice is incorrect, the warehouse operator may note the discrepancies in the fields provided on the invoice. Monthly invoices, including grain and peanut loan forfeiture and loading order invoices and sugar loan forfeiture and storage invoices, are prepared as hard copy documents and are mailed to warehouse operators for certification. If the warehouse operator believes the amount owed by CCC in the invoice is incorrect, the warehouse operator may note the discrepancies on the invoice. Signed invoices must be returned to CCC before payment may be made. The Prompt Payment Act of 1982 provides that when payment is not made within 30 calendar days following the receipt of certified invoice from the warehouse operator, interest will be paid, per the terms of the Prompt Payment Act, from the 31st calendar day following receipt of the invoice through the date payment is made. CCC will continue to make payments via Automated Clearing House
(ACH)Electronic Fund Transfers (EFT). Signed at Washington, DC, June 14, 2007. Teresa C. Lasseter, Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation. [FR Doc. E7-12442 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* Natural Resource Damage Assessment Restoration Project Information Sheet. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0497. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 55. *Number of Respondents:* 33. *Average Hours per Response:* 20 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The Natural Resource Damage Assessment
(NRDA)Restoration Project Information Sheet is designed to facilitate the collection of information on existing, planned, or proposed restoration projects. This information will be used by the Natural Resource Trustees to develop potential restoration alternatives for natural resource injuries and service losses requiring restoration during the restoration planning phase of the NRDA process. *Affected Public:* State, Local or Tribal Government. *Frequency:* Annually and on occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number
(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: June 21, 2007 Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-12380 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. *Bureau:* International Trade Administration (ITA). *Title:* Information for Self-Certification under FAQ 6 of the United States-European Union Safe Harbor Privacy Framework. *Agency Form Number:* None. *OMB Number:* 0625-0239. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 350. *Number of Respondents:* 500. *Average Hours Per Response:* 20-40 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* In response to the European Union Directive on Data Protection that restricts transfers of personal information from Europe to countries whose privacy practices are not deemed “adequate,” the U.S. Department of Commerce has developed a “Safe Harbor” framework that will allow U.S. organizations to satisfy the European Directive's requirements and ensure that personal data flows to the United States are not interrupted. In this process, the Department of Commerce repeatedly consults with U.S. organizations affected by the European Directive and interested non-government organizations. The Safe Harbor framework bridges the differences between the European Union
(EU)and U.S. approaches to privacy protection. The complete set of Safe Harbor documents and additional guidance materials may be found at *http://export.gov/safeharbor.* The Department of Commerce created a list for U.S. organizations to sign up to the Safe Harbor and provides guidance on the mechanics of signing up to this list. As of January 31, 2007, 1,100 U.S. organizations have been placed on the Safe Harbor List, located at *http://export.gov/safeharbor.* Organizations that have signed up to this list are deemed “adequate” under the Directive and do not have to provide further documentation to European officials. This list will be used by EU organizations to determine whether further information and contracts will be needed for a U.S. organization to receive personally identifiable information. Personally identifiable information is defined as any that can be identified to a specific person, for example an employee's name and extension would be considered personally identifiable information. All 27 member countries are bound by the European Commission's finding of “adequacy.” The Safe Harbor also eliminates the need for prior approval to begin data transfers, or makes approval from the appropriate EU member countries automatic. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* Annually. *Respondent's Obligations:* Voluntary. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork, Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov.* Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of the publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer at *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* or fax
(202)395-7285 in the **Federal Register** . Dated: June 21, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-12383 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Survey of Income and Program Participation
(SIPP)Wave 1 of the 2008 Panel ACTION: Proposed information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before August 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *DHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Patrick J. Benton, Census Bureau, Room HQ-6H045, Washington, DC 20233-8400,
(301)763-4618. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Census Bureau conducts the SIPP which is a household-based survey designed as a continuous series of national panels. New panels are introduced every few years with each panel usually having a duration of one to four years. Respondents are interviewed at 4-month intervals or “waves” over the life of the panel. The survey is molded around a central “core” of labor force and income questions that remain fixed throughout the life of the panel. The core is supplemented with questions designed to address specific needs, such as obtaining information on household members participation in government programs as well as prior labor force patterns of household members. These supplemental questions are included with the core and are referred to as “topical modules.” The SIPP represents a source of information for a wide variety of topics and allows information for separate topics to be integrated to form a single, unified database so that the interaction between tax, transfer, and other government and private policies can be examined. Government domestic-policy formulators depend heavily upon the SIPP information concerning the distribution of income received directly as money or indirectly as in-kind benefits and the effect of tax and transfer programs on this distribution. They also improved and expanded data on the income and general economic and financial situation of the U.S. population. The SIPP has provided this data on a continuing basis since 1983 permitting levels of economic well-being and changes in these levels to be measured over time. Depending on the outcome of current Census budget negotiations, the 2008 panel is currently scheduled for 3 years and will include 9 waves of interviewing beginning February 2008. Approximately 32,650 to 65,300 households will be selected for the 2008 panel, of which, 22,500 to 45,000 households are expected to be interviewed. It is estimated that each household will contain 2.1 people, yielding 47,250 to 94,500 person-level interviews in Wave 1 and subsequent waves (totaling 47,250 to 94,500 burden hours). Two waves of interviewing will occur in the 2008 SIPP Panel during FY 2008. The topical modules for the 2008 Panel Wave 1 collect information about: • Recipiency History. • Employment History. Wave 1 interviews will be conducted from February 2008 through May 2008. A 10-minute reinterview of 1,550 to 3,100 people is conducted at each wave to ensure accuracy of responses. Reinterviews would require an additional 518 to 1,035 burden hours in FY 2008. II. Method of Collection The SIPP is designed as a continuing series of national panels of interviewed households that are introduced every few years with each panel having durations of 1 to 4 years. All household members 15 years old or over are interviewed using regular proxy-respondent rules. During the 2008 panel, respondents are interviewed a total of 9 times (9 waves) at 4-month intervals making the SIPP a longitudinal survey. Sample people (all household members present at the time of the first interview) who move within the country and reasonably close to a SIPP primary sampling unit will be followed and interviewed at their new address. Individuals 15 years old or over who enter the household after Wave 1 will be interviewed; however, if these individuals move, they are not followed unless they happen to move along with a Wave 1 sample individual. III. Data *OMB Number:* None. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 47,250-94,500 people per wave. *Estimated Time per Response:* 30 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 47,768-95,535. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $0. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *Legal Authority:* Title 13, United States Code, Section 182. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for the Office of Management and Budget approval of this information collection. They also will become a matter of public record. Dated: June 21, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-12381 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). *Agency:* U.S. Census Bureau. *Title:* 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal. *Form Number(s):* DX-1, DX-1(UL), DX-1(E/S), DX-1(C), DX-10, DX-10(S), DX-10(C), DX-15, DX-20, DX-20(S), DX-21. *Agency Approval Number:* 0607-0919. *Type of Request:* Reinstatement, with change, of an expired collection. *Burden Hours:* 101,501. *Number of Respondents:* 624,502. *Average Hours Per Response:* 10 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The U.S. Census Bureau requests authorization from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to collect data from the public as part of the 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal. The 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal is the final opportunity for the Census Bureau to preview the operational design of the 2010 Census. Census 2000 was an operational and data quality success. However, that success was achieved at great operational risk and great expense. In response to the lessons learned from Census 2000, and in striving to better meet our Nation's ever-expanding needs for social, demographic, and geographic information, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Census Bureau have developed a multi-year effort to completely modernize and re-engineer the 2010 Census of Population and Housing. This effort required an iterative series of tests in 2003, 2004, 2005 and in 2006, that provided an opportunity to evaluate new or improved question wording and questionnaire design, methodologies, and use of technology. The 2003 Census Test was conducted, and designed to evaluate alternative self-response options and alternative presentation of the race and Hispanic origin question; the 2004 Census Test, which studied new methods to improve coverage, including procedures for reducing duplication, and tested respondent reaction to revised race and Hispanic origin questions, examples, and instructions; the 2005 National Census Test, designed to evaluate variations of questionnaire content and methodology; and the 2006 Census Test, which relied on the results of the 2004 Census Test to expand on the number of new and refined methods. The 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal is the final step in the decennial cycle of research and development leading up to the implementation of the 2010 Census. The 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal will integrate the various operations and procedures planned for the 2010 Census under as close to census-like conditions as possible. The results of this undertaking will be applied to the final plans for the 2010 Census operations where feasible. The 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal will be conducted in two sites, one urban, and the other one, a mix of urban and suburban. San Joaquin County, California is the urban site. South Central North Carolina has been selected as the urban/suburban mix test site. This area consists of Fayetteville and nine counties surrounding Fayetteville (Chatham, Cumberland, Harnett, Hoke, Lee, Montgomery, Moore, Richmond and Scotland). The combination of a large urban site and a small city-suburban-rural site provides a comprehensive environment for demonstrating the planned 2010 Census methodology. These two sites, comprising of approximately 480,000 housing units, reflect characteristics that provide a good operational proof of concept of the planned 2010 Census operations, procedures, methods, and systems. Each site will have a Regional Office, which will guide and support the work of the temporary Local Census Offices in their jurisdiction. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Frequency:* One time. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *Legal Authority:* Title 13 U.S.C., Sections 141 and 193. *OMB Desk Officer:* Brian Harris-Kojetin,
(202)395-7314. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dhynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB Desk Officer either by fax (202-395-7245) or e-mail *bharrisk@omb.eop.gov* ). Dated: June 21, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-12382 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-421-807] Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands; Final Results of the Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order and Revocation of the Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On February 16, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of preliminary results of the full sunset review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Since the publication of the preliminary results, the order has been revoked. Consequently, in the absence of an order currently in force, the Department cannot make a finding that revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 27, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Bezirganian or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW. Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: 202-482-1131 and 202-482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department published the antidumping dumping duty order in the **Federal Register** on November 29, 2001. See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Netherlands, 66 FR 59565 (November 29, 2001). On February 16, 2007, the Department published a notice of preliminary results of the full sunset review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands; Preliminary Results of the Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order* , 72 FR 7604 (February 16, 2007) (“Preliminary Results”). We provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. The Department received a case brief from Corus Staal BV (“Corus Staal”) on April 16, 2007, and rebuttal briefs from United States Steel Corporation, Mittal Steel USA Inc., and Nucor Corporation on April 27, 2007. A hearing was not held because none was requested. Scope of the Order For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of the order. Specifically included within the scope of this order are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy
(HSLA)steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such silicon and aluminum. Steel products to be included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products in which: i) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; ii) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and iii) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of this order: • Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g., ASTM specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506). • Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron and Steel Institute
(AISI)grades of series 2300 and higher. • Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTSUS. • Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS. • Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent. • ASTM specifications A710 and A736. • USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500). • All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507). • Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTSUS. The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon steel flat products covered by this order, including: vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.01.80. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this sunset review are referenced in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands; Final Results,” to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated June 20, 2007 (“Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can find this memorandum on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly via the Internet at www.ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review Section 751(d)(2) of the Act requires the Department in a sunset review to “revoke...an antidumping duty order or finding,...unless...{it} makes a determination that dumping...would be likely to continue or recur....” Thus, the finding of likelihood is contingent upon an analysis of what would happen if an order is revoked. This presumes the existence of an antidumping duty order currently in force, which is manifestly not the case here. Consequently, in the absence of an order currently in force, the Department cannot make a finding that it is likely that dumping will continue or recur if the order is revoked. Consistent with 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), this revocation will be effective November 29, 2006, the fifth anniversary of the date of publication of the order. We will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of our final results. We do not intend, however, to report a rate to the ITC as the Department did not determine that revocation of the order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate without regard to dumping duties entries of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after November 29, 2006 (the effective date of this revocation), and to discontinue collection of cash deposits of antidumping duties for entries of subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after November 29, 2006. This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary material disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This sunset review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 20, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix - Issues in Decision Memorandum 1. Whether “other factors” require that the Department consider two recent World Trade Organization (“WTO”) determinations with respect to zeroing 2. Whether the Department's conclusion in the April 9, 2007, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Section 129 Determinations” (“Final Section 129 Determination”) to revoke the order undermines the validity of *Preliminary Results* 3. Whether the Department's implementation in “Final Section 129 Determination” of WTO rulings pertaining to zeroing undermines the validity of Preliminary Results 4. Whether the recalculated weighted-average margin of zero percent for Corus Staal in “Final Section 129 Determination” undermines the “likely margin to prevail” if the order were revoked that was referenced in *Preliminary Results* 5. Whether the Department may rely on the presumptions embodied in *Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin* , 63 FR 18871, 18872 (April 16, 1998) (“Sunset Review Policy Bulletin”) 6. Whether the Department's decision in “Final Section 129 Determination” to revoke the order means that Corus Staal will not dump in the future 7. Whether *Sunset Review Policy Bulletin* presupposes a validly issued order and would not apply in the absence of a validly issued order 8. Whether the Department may rely on margins calculated in administrative reviews based on zeroing 9. Whether domestic producers' withdrawals of administrative review requests prevented meaningful analysis of import and margin trends. 10. The impact of the Section 201 tariffs on steel product imports. 11. The significance of declining margins and steady (or rising) imports [FR Doc. E7-12435 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Patent Term Extension ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before August 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: Susan.Fawcett@uspto.gov* . Include “0651-0020 comment” in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:* 571-272-0112, marked to the attention of Susan Fawcett. • *Mail:* Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to Robert A. Clarke, Deputy Director, Office of Patent Legal Administration, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-7735; or by e-mail at *Robert.Clarke@uspto.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act at 35 U.S.C. 156 permits the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to restore the patent term lost due to certain types of regulatory review by the Federal Food and Drug Administration or the Department of Agriculture. Only patents for drug products, medical devices, food additives, and color additives are eligible for extension. The maximum length that a patent may be extended in order to restore the lost portion of the patent term is five years. The USPTO may in some cases extend the term of an original patent due to certain delays in the prosecution of the patent application, including delays caused by interference proceedings, secrecy orders, or appellate review by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences or a Federal court in which the patent is issued pursuant to a decision reversing an adverse determination of patentability. The patent term provisions of 35 U.S.C. 154(b), as amended by Title IV, Subtitle D of the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, require the USPTO to notify the applicant of the patent term adjustment in the notice of allowance and give the applicant an opportunity to request reconsideration of the USPTO's patent term adjustment determination. The USPTO may also reduce the amount of patent term adjustment granted if delays were caused by an applicant's failure to make a reasonable effort to respond within three months of the mailing date of a communication from the USPTO. Applicants may petition for reinstatement of a reduction in patent term adjustment with a showing that, in spite of all due care, the applicant was unable to respond to a communication from the USPTO within the three month period. The USPTO administers 35 U.S.C. 154 and 156 through 37 CFR 1.701-1.791. These rules permit the public to submit applications to the USPTO to extend the term of a patent past its original expiration date, to request interim extensions and review of final eligibility decisions, and to withdraw an application requesting a patent term extension after it is submitted. Under 35 U.S.C. 156(d), an application for patent term extension must identify the approved product, the patent to be extended, the claims included in the patent for the approved product, and a method of use or manufacturing for the approved product. In addition, the application for patent term extension must provide a brief description of the activities undertaken by the applicant during the regulatory review period with respect to the approved product and the significant dates of these activities. The term of a patent which claims a product, a method of using a product, or a method of manufacturing a product shall be extended if the term of the patent has not expired before an application is submitted. The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act requires that an application for patent term extension be filed with the USPTO within 60 days of the product receiving regulatory approval from the Federal Food and Drug Administration or the Department of Agriculture. Under 35 U.S.C. 156(e), an interim extension may be granted if the term of an eligible patent for which an application for patent term extension has been submitted would expire before a certificate of extension is issued. The information in this collection is used by the USPTO to consider whether an applicant is eligible for a patent term extension or reconsideration of a patent term adjustment and, if so, to determine the length of the patent term extension or adjustment. There are no forms associated with this collection. II. Method of Collection By mail, facsimile, or hand delivery to the USPTO. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0651-0020. *Form Number(s):* None. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Businesses or other for-profits; not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 26,859 responses per year. *Estimated Time per Response:* The USPTO estimates that it will take the public from one to 25 hours, depending on the complexity of the situation, to gather the necessary information, prepare the appropriate documents, and submit the applications, requests, and petitions included in this collection. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours:* 30,905 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden:* $9,395,120. The USPTO expects that the information in this collection will be prepared by attorneys. Using the professional rate of $304 per hour for associate attorneys in private firms, the USPTO estimates that the respondent cost burden for submitting the information in this collection will be $9,395,120 per year. Item Estimated time for response (in hours) Estimated annual responses Estimated annual burden hours Application to Extend Patent Term under 35 U.S.C. 156 25 50 1,250 Request for Interim Extension under 35 U.S.C. 156(e)(2) 1 1 1 Petition to Review Final Eligibility Decision under 37 CFR 1.750 25 1 25 Initial Application for Interim Extension under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) 20 1 20 Subsequent Application for Interim Extension under 37 CFR 1.790 1 1 1 Response to Requirement to Elect 1 2 2 Response to Request to Identify Holder of Patent Term 2 1 2 Declaration to Withdraw an Application to Extend Patent Term 2 1 2 Petition for Reconsideration of Patent Term Adjustment Determination 1 24,000 24,000 Petition for Reinstatement of Reduced Patent Term Adjustment 2 2,800 5,600 Petition to Accord a Filing Date to an Application under 37 CFR 1.740 for Extension of a Patent Term 2 1 2 Total 26,859 30,905 *Estimated Total Annual Non-hour Respondent Cost Burden:* $5,988,052. There are no capital start-up, maintenance, or recordkeeping costs associated with this information collection. However, this collection does have annual (non-hour) costs in the form of filing fees and postage costs. This collection has filing fees associated with the requirements for patent term extension and patent term adjustment. The USPTO estimates that the total filing costs associated with this collection will be $5,977,040 per year. Item Estimated annual responses Fee amount Estimated annual filing costs Application to Extend Patent Term under 35 U.S.C. 156 50 $1,120 $56,000 Request for Interim Extension under 35 U.S.C. 156(e)(2) 1 0 0 Petition to Review Final Eligibility Decision under 37 CFR 1.750 1 0 0 Initial Application for Interim Extension under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) 1 420 420 Subsequent Application for Interim Extension under 37 CFR 1.790 1 220 220 Response to Requirement to Elect 2 0 0 Response to Request to Identify Holder of Patent Term 1 0 0 Declaration to Withdraw an Application to Extend Patent Term 1 0 0 Petition for Reconsideration of Patent Term Adjustment Determination 24,000 200 4,800,000 Petition for Reinstatement of Reduced Patent Term Adjustment 2,800 400 1,120,000 Petition to Accord a Filing Date to an Application under 37 CFR 1.740 for Extension of a Patent Term 1 400 400 Total 26,859 5,977,040.00 Customers may incur postage costs when submitting the information in this collection to the USPTO by mail. The USPTO estimates that the average first-class postage cost for a mailed submission will be 41 cents and that up to 26,859 submissions will be mailed to the USPTO per year. The total estimated postage cost for this collection is $11,012 per year. The total non-hour respondent cost burden for this collection in the form of filing fees and postage costs is estimated to be $5,988,052 per year. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: June 20, 2007. Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division. [FR Doc. E7-12410 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers Chief of Engineers Environmental Advisory Board AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers DoD. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following committee meeting: *Name of Committee:* Chief of Engineers Environmental Advisory Board (EAB). *Topic:* The EAB will discuss national considerations related to ecosystem restoration through integrated water resources management. *Date of Meeting:* July 18, 2007. *Place:* Hotel Palomar, 2121 P Street, NW., Washington, DC. *Time:* 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. Thirty minutes will be set aside for public comment. Members of the public who wish to speak must register prior to the start of the meeting. Registration will begin at 8:30. Statements are limited to 3 minutes. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rennie Sherman, Executive Secretary, *rennie.h.sherman@usace.army.mil*
(202)761-7771. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EAB advises the Chief of Engineers by providing expert and independent advice on environmental issues facing the Corps of Engineers. The public meeting will include presentations by the EAB as well as by Corps staff. The meeting is open to the public, and public comment is tentatively scheduled for 30 minutes beginning at 11:15. Written statements may be submitted prior to the meeting or up to 30 days after the meeting to Ms. Sherman at *rennie.h.sherman@usace.army.mil.* Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. 07-3152 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 16
Traces to 16 documents
U.S. Code
- Federal agency responsibilities§ 3506
- Federal Communications Commission§ 154
- Purpose§ 5101
- Transportation Security Administration§ 114
- Findings, purposes and policy§ 1801
- Congressional declaration of purpose§ 4321
- SHORT TITLE.§ 9701
- Extension of patent term§ 156
- Contents and term of patent; provisional rights§ 154
statutes-at-large
register
CFR
- Revocation of orders; termination of suspended investigations.§ 351.222
- Access to business proprietary information.§ 351.305
- Determination of eligibility for extension of patent term.§ 1.750
- Interim extension of patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5).§ 1.790
- Formal requirements for application for extension of patent term; correction of informalities.§ 1.740
22 references not yet in our index
- 47 CFR 73
- Pub. L. 104-13
- Pub. L. 107-198
- 47 CFR 1.1204(b)
- 47 CFR 1.415
- 49 CFR 177
- 49 CFR 397.5(d)(3)
- Pub. L. 107-296
- Pub. L. 107-71
- 49 CFR 1
- 50 CFR 660
- 50 CFR 660.709
- 50 CFR 660.709(a)(4)
- Pub. L. 92-300
- 7 CFR 340
- 7 CFR 1
- 7 CFR 372
- 7 USC 7701-7772
- 7 CFR 2.22
- 7 USC 714c
- 37 CFR 1.701-1
- Pub. L. 92-463
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Proposed rule
Cite47 CFR 73
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-13
Pub. L.Pub. L. 107-198
Cites 38 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources